Sitting of 26 February 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED —For Richmond, v. Hon. John Charles Dundas, deceased.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—For London, Right hon. George Joachim Goschen.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Civil Service Estimates.
Resolutions [Feb. 23] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Petit Juries (Ireland).*
First Reading—Petit Juries (Ireland)* [41].
Second Reading—Cattle Diseases (Ireland) [37].
Committee—National Debt Reduction (re-comm.)* [4]; Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks (re-comm.)* [5]; Pensions* [8]; Jamaica Government [17].
Report—National Debt Reduction (re-comm.)* [4]; Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks (re-comm.)* [5]; Pensions* [8]; Jamaica Government [17].
Considered as amended—National Debt Reduction (re-comm.)* [4]; Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks (re-comm.)* [5].*

THAMES EMBANKMENT (NORTH APPROACHES) BILL—(by Order.)
(Mr. Tite, Mr. Taverner J. Miller, Mr. Doulton.)
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. TITEsaid, he had put a notice upon the paper of his intention to move that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed to the 16th of March, and he proposed that postponement with a view to seeing whether it was possible, within the limits of deviation, to change the approaches to the Embankment from Charing Cross so as to avoid Northumberland House. That postponement was opposed at the instance

1087
of the Duke of Northumberland; and the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Beresford Hope) had given notice of an Amendment, the object of which was to throw the Bill out. The Bill for embanking the Thames was brought in in 1862, not by the Metropolitan Board, but by the Government, as the result of a Commission which sat two or three years before. At first it was suggested that the Bill should be carried out by a Commission; but, as the Metropolitan Board of Works were necessarily largely interested by reason of the project for carrying the main sewer along the Embankment, it was resolved in the House itself that the whole matter should be placed in the hands of the Board. The plans were much discussed and varied in that House, and the Board of Works were authorized to carry them out, but the Board itself was not represented on the Commission, nor even referred to. However the Bill passed, and recently the approaches to the Embankment came under the consideration of the Board, and it was found that there was nothing practical about those that were proposed. An Act of Parliament was passed last Session, also authorizing the Metropolitan Underground Railway to go along this part of the Embankment; and the railway engineers were quite unable to do anything until the side approaches and the levels connected therewith were settled. The Metropolitan Board had undertaken to make the communications from Charing Cross; there were eight or nine streets involved, and therefore they were extremely anxious that the Bill should pass this Session, because, if it did not, the approaches could not be settled, and another Session must arrive ere the great works of the Metropolitan Railway could be undertaken. For these reasons, they were anxious that so much of the Bill should pass at once as did not interfere injuriously with the rights of the Duke of Northumberland; for, if the levels could not be settled, two years would be lost before the works of the Underground Railway could be commenced. This was not a private speculation; it was a matter in which the whole metropolis was interested. The Board had a great work to do, and there were great responsibilities connected with it. One thing wanted was a short approach to the Embankment from Charing Cross. In proposing to take Northumberland House, which stood on the shortest line (it not being more than 400 yards from the extreme
1088
point of Northumberland House to the Embankment) the Board intended no discourtesy to the Duke of Northumberland. Indeed, it had been rumoured that the Duke or his family had no desire to preserve the house. So much was that the case, as they understood, that there had been even a proposition to place the terminus of the railway at Northumberland House instead of in the position at present fixed, and he had himself been, two or three years back, invited to join a company to buy the house and build offices on the site. Of course he knew now that the popular impression was a mistake. The late Duke died a year ago, and another nobleman having succeeded to the dukedom, the matter had assumed another shape, and it was now said that the attempt to take Northumberland House was a breach of contract. The Board had consulted the First Commissioner of Works, who was Chairman of then Committees of 1862, who did not understand that the contract involved the obligations alleged. Of course, if there was any honourable understanding they the Board were bound to adopt it, though they had nothing to do with making it. If it was agreed, as was suggested, that the house should not be touched—if there was a strong feeling in favour of its preservation on architectural or archaeological grounds, the Board were quite prepared to agree to a clause which had been submitted to the agents of the Duke, that no part of the House or gardens should be touched without the consent of the Duke first given in writing, or they would further strike out of the Bill everything relating to Northumberland House, and they would endeavour to lay down another street to avoid it. He therefore proposed, with that object, that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed to the 16th of March, to allow time for the necessary consideration of the subject. They had no intention of touching the Savoy Chapel, which had been recently restored. The Embankment was a work of great public utility; looking to the crowded state of the streets it was important that it should be carried out in its integrity; and if the Bill were thrown out a great public injustice would be committed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Friday the 16th day of March next."—(Mr. Tite.)
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he was

1089
glad his hon. Friend (Mr. Tite) appreciated the architectural and archeaological interest of Northumberland House, and that he now proposed to strike out of the Bill everything that made it different from the Bill of 1862—a Bill which had provided the needful approach to the Embankment. It was, in fact, as it came before them, only the Bill of 1862, plus this great act of Fenianism. How did it happen, if it was so well known the Duke intended to sell, and that the lion of the Percies was to wag its tail over a railway station, that the first intimation the Duke had of the existence of such a knowledge should have been the appearance one day in October at his door of a clerk from the Metropolitan Board of Works, with a pen behind his ear, for the purpose of making some preliminary surveys? Whence, too, arose this wonderful eagerness to demolish Northumberland House? There were people who might say that the cause was to be sought in the fact that at Northumberland House were to be found four acres and a half of freehold with no leasehold interests to be bought up. In fact, thin reason was openly avowed in Messrs. Vulliamy and Bazalgette's report to the Board of Works, in which stress was also laid in the view of the river which would be obtained from the Opera Colonnade, as if anything would be thereby made visible except a squint glimpse of the hideous Charing Cross Bridge. The insertion, as at first proposed, of a clause to the effect that Northumberland House should not be touched without the consent of the Duke would he to throw upon his Grace the odium of saying "No;" and, if he did so, to expose him to the comments of the press as on obstructor of public improvements. If that were all that was yielded, the third reading of the Bill would be opposed. North umberland House must be struck out of this Bill at once peremptorily, and for over, or a little more would be heard of it. Another aspect of the question was suggested by what had transpired, Northumberland House and the Savoy Chapel were to stand. This was to knock to pieces both ends of the Bill. What was to be done with the middle? On that most magnificent foreshore, recovered from the Thames, one of the finest sites ever opened up in the metropolis, an architect employed by the Metropolitan Board of Works was to erect a hideous crescent—a row of houses without one square room—and thereby to ruin the whole effect of the natural course
1090
which the stream took at that point, not to talk of the destruction of the Adelphi Terrace, This re-building, also, was not to be a matter for fair discussion; it was not to be open to competition among able architects; it was not a project in which the people were to have something to say; but it was to be done arbitrarily by the Board of Works, employing their own officials about a matter which was the common interest of the whole capital. For his own part, if the House was satisfied with the course proposed, without equivocation and without shuffling, he would accept it. But if the general feeling was that the Bill in all its features was so open to objection, and was so entirely riddled to pieces as to deserve to be rejected, if the House would not on any terms have this terrace thrust upon them, he would not refuse to go into the lobby for a division. He begged leave to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Friday the 16th day of March next," in order to add the words "this day six months,—(Mr. Beresford Mope,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. LOCKEsaid, he did not understand the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke, or what it was he wanted more than he had already got. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath, who moved the second reading of the Bill, having abandoned every principle and object which the Metropolitan Board of Works had in view, the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke was most ungenerous. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to be perfectly well satisfied. As he understood it, the Metropolitan Board of Works had proposed the construction of a handsome street from Trafalgar Square to the Embankment. There was one house, that of the Duke of Northumberland, in the way of accomplishing that object, and therefore the Board must abandon their scheme Very little notice was taken when the Metropolitan Board of Works, or any of the great railway companies, proposed to tear down the houses of thousands of the labouring classes and throw the inhabitants on the wide world. But the sympathy of the hon. Member for Stoke and other hon. Members was roused when it was proposed to interfere with the

1091
house of one man. It was true that for the first time this Session the question had been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Thomas Hughes), and he (Mr. Locke) seconded him. They had proposed that a Bill should be rejected which interfered with the houses of a vast number of persons in the metropolis who would be thrown out on the wide world; but neither from the one side of the House nor the other was the question ever raised before. He repeated it—the question had never been raised before, and it was now mooted because the Duke of Northumberland's house had been interfered with. It was all very well for the hon. Member to deal with aesthetics, and to say, "Here is the Savoy Chapel, and here is the house of the Duke of Northumberland going to be pulled down." But what was this Northumberland House? It had a lion on the top with a stiff tail, and that was all. And then it was, "There are five acres of land." But who ever enjoyed them but one man. Below this land, and on the banks of the Thames, the Duke of Northumberland had, according to his own statement, built up a number of miserable hovels, such as Francis' cement works, whereby he had disfigured the banks of the river, in order that he might look over them, and have an uninterrupted view of the Thames. Such was the statement which the Duke had put forward, and he (Mr. Locke) defied any hon. Member to contradict it. He was astonished to find that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath, who represented the Metropolitan Board of Works in that House, should have come forward with such a miserable proposition, for, by so doing, he had disgraced that body and neglected the interests of the public. He ought to have gone to a division, and have let hon. Members say whether or not they were prepared to succumb to a great Duke, when they had disregarded the interest of large bodies of the inhabitants of the metropolis. The hon. Member for Bath must, if he intended to pursue his present course, give up the representation of the Metropolitan Board of Works to some other hon. Member, or else the Board must be put an end to. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath and the Board had not been true to the metropolis in this matter. They (the House) ought to have had the question boldly raised before them, and left to the House to determine.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ELCHOsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southwark had suggested that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath was not a fitting representative of the Metropolitan Board of Works in that House. [Mr. LOCKE: On this occasion.] Well, if any other Gentleman be substituted he hoped it would not be the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, for a more extraordinary doctrine with regard to the rights of property he had never heard laid down than had been laid down by that hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that if one individual happened to be the proprietor of a house and five acres of land in the centre of a great city, that on that account Parliament should be called upon to take it from him. Now he (Lord Elcho) protested against any public board or private party roughly overriding the rights of property, if his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke had gone to a division he should have supported him, not because this was the property of a Duke, not because of any want of courtesy shown to him, but on the ground of want of faith on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works. A bargain had been entered into by one body, a subsequent body succeeded to the responsibility, and then tried to override the arrangement which had been made in 1862. It might be all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southwark to state there was no sympathy in that House for the labouring classes in reference to the destruction of their residences for railway purposes, and that the hon. Member for Lambeth had been the first to call attention to it; but he (Lord Elcho) begged to remind hon. Members that the first voice raised on behalf of the labouring classes against the selfish interests of railway companies was by Lord Derby. The Metropolitan Board of Works had endeavoured to repudiate a former undertaking, and it occurred to him that some Minister ought to be held responsible for the due performance of any promise or arrangement honestly and honourably arrived at. But he had another objection to the Bill, and that was on account of the 20th clause, which provided that notice was to be given of taking the houses of the labouring classes precisely in the same way as notice was given by railway companies. He was happy to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets had given notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee to con-

1093
sider the local management of the metropolis, and he hoped the Committee, if appointed, would make some inquiry into the autocratic jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. COWPERsaid, he should not like it to go forth to the country that the Metropolitan Board of Works had deliberately proposed a breach of faith as had been stated. This House ought to be exceedingly stern with reference to any allegations of breach of engagements between parties promoting Private Bills, and if the Metropolitan Board had proposed such a violation of good faith their Bill ought to have been thrown out. The allegation of a breach of faith which had been made against the Metropolitan Board rested on their alleged violation of the provision of the 53rd clause of the Act of 1862. Now, neither the 53rd nor any other clause contained any provision with reference to Northumberland House. The object of the Bill—for which he was responsible—was to reclaim land on the banks of the Thames in front of Northumberland House. There were certain wharves before Northumberland House which the Metropolitan Board could either buy or else could make compensation for any injury that might be done to them. The Duke of Northumberland expressed a wish that these wharves should not be bought, and a clause was then introduced into the Act forbidding the purchase of the wharves without the authority of the Duke of Northumberland. By another clause in the Act it was determined that no houses were to be erected on the plot of ground before the house. There was no direct reference to Northumberland House. It was not inserted in the schedule, neither was there, nor could there be, any understanding that at some future time Northumberland House should not be taken if it was required. That was the view taken by himself and the Metropolitan Board of Works. Not only was Northumberland House not mentioned in the clause, but it was not mentioned in the Bill. He thought it right, on behalf of a public body, to say that, in proposing this scheme, the Metropolitan Board of Works might fairly suppose they were not departing from any agreement previously entered into with the Duke of Northumber land. While he thought it his duty to make this explanation to the House, he should express his full concurrence in the resolution come to by the Metropolitan Board, and announced to the House by the
1094
hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite). He was glad that Northumberland House was not to be destroyed, and his pleasure did not arise from the fact that its owner was a rich man, for Bills came before them every day by which hundreds of persons of small property were deprived of the houses in which they lived and on which their earnings depended. He felt more for such great calamities to poor persons than for the inconvenience to a rich man who would be compelled to spend his money in the erection of another splendid house somewhere else. But he was not unmindful of the fact that Northumberland House was a great feature in London scenery, and that many interesting associations were connected with it. On these grounds he was glad that the members of the Metropolitan Board had changed their minds and that Northumberland House was to be spared. He felt sure that the Metropolitan Board could easily obtain the site of a fine street from Charing Cross to the Thames Embankment without at all interfering with Northumberland House.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, there certainly was a moral understanding that if the Duke conceded certain things Northumberland House should not be interfered with. If there was not a representative of the Board of Works on the Committee the late Sir Joseph Paxton was a member. And although the hon. Member for Bath refused to be a member, he was one of the most important witnesses called on behalf of that body. They also retained eminent counsel to look after their interests, and therefore it was idle to say there was no understanding about this matter. He wished to know why the original plan of a street from the Horse Guards was not to be carried out. The original plan was to take Lord Carriugton's house.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad to find there was a newly-awakened sympathy in the First Commissioner of Works for the poor, because the House could not get the least concession last Session for the labouring classes when it was proposed to make accommodation for the Law Courts by the sweeping away of the places of residence of thousands of working men, The words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cowper) ought to be a lesson to all persons who had to deal with public bodies to use simple terms in their agreements and not special pleading language. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no clause in the Act of

1095
1862 by which it was covenanted that no person should ever make a street through the place where Northumberland House now stood. No person said that the Act contained such a clause. But the very foundation of the 53rd clause was protection to Northumberland House. A certain body made an agreement in 1862, and in 1866 the same body sought to do the very same thing which they had agreed not to do. His own opinion was that the Board of Works wished to get the land about Northumberland House to make a building speculation.
MR. T. MILLERsaid, he could not blame the course that had been pursued in this matter by the Metropolitan Board of Works and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath. The Metropolitan Board of Works had nothing whatever to do with the arrangement with the Duke of Northumberland, which it was now said was sought to be broken. It was more important that they should keep their pledge than that the public should get a new street. If it had been the feeling of the noble Duke to allow this to be made it would have been one of the finest in Europe. But they felt bound in honour to respect every arrangement entered into, whether with a rich or a poor man, and when this proposal was introduced into the Bill it was under the impression that it met with the Duke's approval.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Friday the 16th day of March next.

CATTLE PLAGUE.—QUESTIONS.
VISCOUNT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have received any authentic additional information on the subject of the late attempt stated to have been made to land sheep surreptitiously on the north coast of Ireland by boats from a ship bound from a Scotch to an English port?
SIR GEORGE GREY: A report reached the Irish Government that an attempt had been made to land sheep on the north coast of Ireland, but no specific information of time or place was given. It is supposed that some sheep were landed upon an unfrequented part of the coast from a ship bound from Scotland to England. Instructions, however, have been given to
1096
prevent any such violation of the Orders in Council.
MR. DYCE NICOLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether any steps had been taken to obtain, through the local authorities in districts infected with the cattle disease, accurate weekly information as to the number of cattle "attacked, killed, died, and recovered;" and also as to the success of preventive and curative treatment in those districts, and whether there was any change in the character of the disease since its first appearance? He wished also to ask, whether the Government had received any information as to a new mode of cure introduced by Mr. Alexander and followed up by Mr. Low, under which the percentage of recoveries had been 90 per cent?
MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that a Veterinary Department had been created in the month of August to deal with the emergency of the cattle plague, and it had since been in constant communication with 800 inspectors, who had sent in reports of various degrees of accuracy. The Secretary of the Department had been directed to prepare a special report for the information of the Royal Commissioners, and he believed it was nearly ready. It would contain a Return from August to the 31st of December last of the animals which had been attacked, which had died or been killed, which had recovered, and the cases which still remained. The Returns of the Secretary would also be verified up to the 31st December. It would also contain maps illustrating the monthly progress of the disease in every petty sessional division, and tabulated reports on the various methods of treatment pursued between August and December. No positive evidence had been received that the disease had changed its character; but there had been a gradual increase in the percentage of cures, from 5 to about 13½ per cent in the last week. He had received no specific information as to the treatment of cattle in Kineardineshire, but he would undertake that the weekly Returns should be as full as was consistent with the due discharge of the duties of a Department which had to deal with such an enormous mass of cases.

RATING OF ELECTRIC TELEGRAPHS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SURTEESasked the President of

  1097
  the Poor Law Board to state on what principle he considered Electric Telegraph Companies ought to be assessed for the purpose of the Poor Rate?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that this was a matter that had been settled for some years past by courts of law. The principle laid down was that everything above the surface and below the surface was to be considered as "land." Upon this principle the pipes used by water companies under the surface are rateable, and the wire3 which conduct the electric fluid, whether through the air or under water or in the soil, constitute an occupation of the land, and as such form a subject to be rated. With regard to the means of estimating the precise value of the wires, that is left to the judgment of the assessment committees of unions through which they pass, subject to the provisions of the Assessment Act.

THE MERCHANT NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY TRACYrose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the great decrease in the number of Apprentices and Boys borne by our merchant ships, and the increased employment of Foreign Seamen; whether their attention has been called to the great prevalence of scurvy in the Merchant Navy; and whether, under these circumstances, any measures will be taken to extend to the crews of Merchant Ships the benefits derived from that system of inspection of provisions and accommodation now in force in respect to emigrants, convicts, and other passengers?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: The attention of the Government has not been called to any great decrease in the number of apprentices borne by our merchant ships. The number of apprentices annually enrolled has varied but little during the last six years, being between 5,000 and 6,000 a year, There is an increase in the number of foreign seamen employed, but whether the proportion of foreign seamen to the whole number of men serving in the mercantile marine is greater than during the- last few years I cannot say without a careful examination of the Returns. Representations have been made with regard to the existence of scurvy among the crews of some merchant vessels. In one instance, where there has evidently been great neg-
  1098
  lect in not having provided proper anti-scorbutics in accordance with the law, a prosecution has been directed. It is not contemplated to apply the same system of inspection of provisions and accommodation in merchant ships generally as is adopted in the case of ships carrying emigrants, convicts, and other passengers.

REFORM BILL STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statistics with reference to the existing constituencies are complete, and when they will be laid upon the table?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: They are not yet quite complete, but I hope they will be ready at a very early period. No time will be lost in laying them on the table.

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

THE PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  MR. WHITE,in rising to move the Resolutions of which he had given notice, said, he did so in accordance with an intimation he had made in the last Parliament. In one of those fascinating surveys of our financial prospects in which he annually indulged, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 27th of April last, took occasion to remark on the approaching general election and the contingent responsibilities of the new Parliament, and in the course of some humble criticisms of his own upon the right hon. Gentleman's observations, he had then ventured to hope that when the new Parliament was returned that House would feel itself bound to insist, as strongly as possible, upon the adoption of a judicious system of retrenchment in every branch of the public service consistently with its efficiency, and would refuse its confidence to any Government that required as the normal expenditure of the country a larger sum than £60,000,000 annually. It was the duty of Members of that House jealously and vigilantly to watch over the public expenditure, and to check those pernicious and powerful influences which were

  1099
  brought to bear upon the Finance Minister, leading to the grievous growth of the Estimates of late years. It was, moreover, a moment particularly opportune for dealing with that question when a re-constructed Ministry met a new Parliament, and it was to be expected that the new Members of the House would add to the usefulness of its councils. The echo of those plaudits which greeted the chosen of the people when declaring their determination to insist on the most rigid economy had hardly yet died away; and it now remained for those Gentlemen by their votes and speeches in that House to justify the expectations which their language had created in the minds of confiding constituencies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself laid it down that, in addition to their annual reviews of the income and expenditure, it was well when special junctures arrived with circumstances of a marked character for Parliament to be, so to speak, obliged to initiate a deeper and more comprehensive examination, and consider more at large what should be the proper scale of the taxation and likewise of the expenditure of this great country. The present time was one of those special junctures to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. With the exception of poor Ireland, the public mind was in a tranquil and re-assured state; owing to the noble army of Volunteers—thanks to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) and his gallant coadjutors—those absurd terrors and popular delusions about a French invasion, which used to be sedulously encouraged in some quarters, had been thoroughly stamped out. The losses caused by the prevalence of the cattle plague also combined with other circumstances to call for a reduction of the public expenditure within more sober and reasonable limits. It would not be fair in a general way to criticize the speeches made by candidates to their constituents, because experience showed that matters political could never be seen in their true light except through a Parliamentary medium. But it might be permissible to quote the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—no novice, certainly, in political life—in addressing the electors of South Lancashire. The averment of his first Resolution—namely, that the national expenditure had been excessive, might be proved from the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, who was then, as now, responsible for the public finances. Speak-
  1100
  ing at Liverpool on the 18th of July last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "Let us see how matters stand; and before I enter into it I will just say that I am not satisfied, as far as I am individually concerned."
  That was exactly his own feeling—he was not satisfied—
  "I am not satisfied, as far as I am individually-concerned, that the expenditure of the country has yet been reduced to the lowest point consistent with honour and security."
  After adducing such evidence as this it was needless to say one word more. He would, nevertheless, quote a portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech containing a hint to the constituencies of the country, which ran thus—
  "Therefore, I will say this, and say it without the smallest doubt, that if the electoral body of this country desire that reduction shall be effected in that expenditure, they have only to send to Parliament men who sympathize with that view, and the result they wish will infallibly be attained."
  Now, although he had but a small amount of confidence in the present, yet he thought it a great improvement on the last Government. Since he had seen the Estimates for the present year, however, it had greatly fallen in his esteem. The sum demanded for the army, the navy, and the civil service was almost the same as that required last year, notwithstanding what had been stated as to "old things passing away and all things becoming new." Unless there was an improvement in these matters, the present Ministry ought to give way and allow other men, capable of conducting the government of the country in a better manner and at a smaller cost, to take their places. Whenever he heard the high-sounding phrases about retrenchment and national prudence, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so ready to indulge, he was inclined to remind him of the lines of Pope—
  "A very heathen in the carnal part,
  Yet still a sad good Christian at her heart."
  There was not a Member of the House who had more denounced prodigality than the right hon. Gentleman. In 1860 the Chancellor of the Exchequer became quite enthusiastic in his denunciations of extravagance, and hon. Members would recollect a memorable sentence, in which he employed the words "vacillation," "uncertainty," "costliness," "extravagance," "meanness," and all the conflicting vices that could be enumerated, as united in the same system of mal-administration. In his climax he told the House that nothing

  1101
  short of a "revolutionary reform would ever be sufficient to rectify it." These were the avowals of the right hon. Gentleman in 1860, and yet the discreditable condition of affairs of that period still existed. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I then alluded to public works.] He had understood the language of the right hon. Gentleman to have a general application. Had any person partially informed on public matters listened to the address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1860, he could never have believed that such a torrent of invective had come from a man who, by the tenure of his office, was upholding that very system which he so scathingly denounced. In the same spirit of tantalizing and perplexing candour, the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the pernicious habits prevalent in the last Parliament; but it would be better to quote his own words. Speaking of the expiring Parliament, he said—
  "It has raised a larger revenue than I believe ever at any period of peace, or even of war, after taking into account the changes in the value of money, was raised by taxation within an equal space of time; and the expenditure has been upon a scale that has never before been reached in time of peace."
  That was a voluntary declaration of the right hon. Gentleman. He must confess that the Minister of Finance had simply to bring in Estimates, get them through the House, and then, towards the end of the Session, give one of his economical homilies, and, forsooth, it went abroad that he was the advocate of the greatest economy, and the enemy of all prodigality. There should be an end of such a state of things; if the people must pay the money, let them pay it, but let them be spared such homilies as those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had been going over the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, a batch of which he held in his hand; and he believed he could very easily compile from them a "Financial Reformer's Manual" or "Economical Guide." Those speeches were full of sublime aphorisms, denunciations of prodigality, and warmhearted yearnings for social progress, which would be all very well if he could forget those stupendous, startling numerals which formed the bitterest commentary on the teachings of the right hon. Gentleman's text. During the last six years of his incumbency he had drawn from the earnings of the people and from the profits of capital £422,173,783—the unprecedented average annual sum of £70,360,000—in
  1102
  fact, a war expenditure in the time of peace—an expenditure, indeed, much larger than that required during the Crimean War. New, what, he would ask, was the relative value of £70,360,000 per annum in our social system? It would give 29 s. a week—that was to say, double the amount of the alleged sum on which the Dorsetshire labourer of Lord Shaftesbury luxuriated—for one year to every male agricultural labourer in England and Wales. Seventy millions per annum, in short, meant a sum large enough to supply the yearly cost of the sustenance, clothing, housing, and education, such as it was, of one quarter of the whole population of these realms; or, put in another shape, it was three times more than the whole profits and emoluments derived at the present moment from our cotton trade—the vastest industry in the world, and all its subsidiary branches. He trusted he might add that the Government would make the statistics which they were engaged in collecting on the subject of Reform as exhaustive as possible, and inform the country what proportion of those £70,000,000 of annual taxation was borne by the unrepresented classes, for if he was not misinformed fully one-half of the entire amount was placed upon their shoulders by our present inequitable fiscal system. He wished, in the next place, to point out the prodigious increase which the national expenditure had undergone of late years. He found that during the five years from 1842 to 1846, inclusive, the annual expenditure was £52,250,000; during the five years from 1847 to 1851, £51,750,000; the five years 1852 to 1856, which embraced the period of the Crimean War, £66,700,000; while for the last eight years our average expenditure amounted to £69,200,000 per annum. In short, during the last few years, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer being in office, we had been spending £1,000,000 a month more than our ordinary or average expenditure prior to the war with Russia. For the five years before that war the average annual charge for the army was £9,350,000; while for the last five years it amounted to £16,100,000; the average charge for the navy having been for the last five years £11,800,000 as contrasted with the sum of £6,520,000 previous to the war. Nor was that all, for the Civil Service Estimates, with a sort of ambitious rivalry, had increased within the last twenty-five years from £2,000,000 to £8,000,000.

  1103
  He knew while making these statements that he would be reminded of the annual remission of taxation; but the truth was that there was no such remission, but only a shifting of the burden, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer still contrived to get his £70,000,000 out of the pockets of the people. He did not wish to make use of harsh language, but the financial policy which had been pursued was neither more nor less than the stale device of a second-rate tradesman, who charged 20 per cent more than he ought, and magnanimously allowed a discount of 5 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was merely giving back to the people a small portion of their own money, under the pretence of remissions. This was the way in which John Bull was treated, and then the people were expected to throw up their hats and be everlastingly grateful to the Minister for such illusive proceedings. It was once understood that when taxes were reduced so much more money was left in the pockets of the people; but the policy of the present school of finance was so dexterously to adjust the burden as only to render it less irksome than before. In making those observations he did not mean to say anything hostile to the hon. Gentleman, for he took a greater interest in him than in any other Member whom he saw seated on the Treasury Bench; but he nevertheless thought it was not difficult to show that the industry of the country relatively contributed much mote than it did a quarter of a century ago to the general revenue. The ten articles—tea, sugar, coffee, currants, raisins, timber, wine, spirits, tobacco, and corn—which yielded in 1840 to the revenue £20,240,000, contributed in 1864 £22,291,000. But then great amazement was expressed if when the duty was reduced on some article of domestic consumption the Treasury gained as large an amount as from a higher rate, while the fact seemed to be ignored that our former ignorant and obstructive legislation had most cruelly abridged the domestic comforts of the people. The prodigality of grants to the Crown made by the last Parliament had been justly condemned by the Finance Minister, to whom, however, greater blame attached for introducing excessive Estimates, supporting them by his eloquence, and seeking to relieve himself from responsibility by throwing it on Parliament. Speaking at Manchester in July last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  1104
  "We are passing into the dangerous state of things in which the House of Commons, instead of being the jealous, vigilant, effectual controller of those proposals for expenditure which it is the duty of the executive Government to make, tends itself to become the promoter and the stimulator of public expenditure, forcing it upon the executive Government in every form of Question, of Motion, of suggestion … and ever actively tending to make invasions upon the public purse. … Most earnestly do I hope that in the new Parliament we shall witness a different state of things, and that the representatives of the people will, especially among the Opposition, resume their legitimate office of limiting and confining, not of promoting and enlarging public expenditure."
  He (Mr. White) hoped the Opposition would not need the stimulus referred to; and, if they wished to obtain the repeal of the malt duty, they had better co-operate with the Liberal Members below the gangway. But he would ask what influence had the new Parliament exercised on the Estimates now submitted to the House? They exhibited no real reduction, and yet Parliament had not stimulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring them up to their present magnitude. Under these circumstances, he did not see how Parliament incurred all the responsibility and the Chancellor of the Exchequer none. He should like to have the right hon. Gentleman's new reading of our Constitution. He always thought that the initiative with regard to expenditure belonged to the Executive; but these enunciations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer placed them in a dilemma. Surely he would not wish to revert to the time of the Stuarts, when Parliament refused supplies to the Crown? Since that time whatever had been required for the service of the Crown had been granted by the Commons when asked for; and the unimportant and inconsiderable exceptions to this rule proved its uniformity, and therefore he felt bound to protest against this railing at Parliament on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it were admitted that our expenditure was excessive, the practical question was—to what extent and by what means could it he reduced? In 1860 he moved the reduction of the strength of the army by a number that would have saved a million, and he took into the lobby with him a small minority; but he had never been reproached by any one who voted with him, and on the hustings they found that his Motions and Divisions told in their favour. Although the Motion was rejected with scorn, next year the Government pro-

  1105
  posed a reduction more than equivalent to that which his proposition involved. In 1862 he urged strongly the necessity of a reduction in our public expenditure, and said that we ought then to be approaching to the limit of £60,000,000, which he then and now deemed quite adequate to maintain our normal establishments in full efficiency. He was confirmed in that opinion by his late friend Mr. Cobden (whose death was felt as a personal bereavement by the earnest Liberals of both hemispheres), and who in his last public address at Rochdale on the 24th of October, 1864, said—
  "Lord Stanley, the other day, declared he could see his way to an annual expenditure of £60,000,000 per annum, and I suppose that when Mr. Gladstone sees distinguished Members making such a statement he will hasten on to that amount for fear he should be taken up by the other side."
  Next came the question, what chance had they of enforcing their opinions of economy on their prodigal Chancellor of the Exchequer? He almost despaired of accomplishing that object unless the House would consent to adopt a Finance Committee, which should be appointed every Session, and fairly chosen from hon. Members on both sides, and to which the Estimates should be referred for preliminary examination. They were all aware that there was no great undertaking, no public establishment, no municipality, which had not its Finance Committee, to whom questions similar to the Estimates of that House were referred, and by whom they were reported upon. The same process was adopted in analogous cases by Parliament itself; but, oddly enough, not in the most important of all; for with regard to the national finances there was no previous inquiry of that kind. The machinery which at present existed might have done very well in the time of the Stuarts, when hon. Members used to come down in the middle of the day and discuss the Estimates, or in the days of William III., when the revenue of England did not amount to £5,000,000; but it was not sufficient for the complicated questions which were now involved in them, In 1862 he took the opportunity of going through the Estimates, and he found, as he mentioned in the subsequent discussion, that they contained 17,833 items, and that they were explained or referred to in 804 folio pages. The House could well understand how hon. Members would shrink aghast and appalled from the contempla-
  1106
  tion of such a mass of figures as was submitted to them by the present plan. He recollected that his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), whose mastery of details and command of figures were justly admired for the short time that he was connected with the Admiralty, declared that
  "He regarded the process by which the Estimates were said to be discussed in Committee of Supply with a feeling akin to hopelessness and despair."
  He was quite aware of the stale objection that a Committee of Finance would act as a sort of buffer between the House of Commons and the Executive, whose responsibility would thereby be diminished. But the experience of foreign representative assemblies did not bear out that argument, and even if it did the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the whole responsibility was with Parliament; and, therefore, they could not be worse off than they were now. Another part of the question was this. What they must do under present circumstances when the Estimates were placed before them. He was disposed to take the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, given when he was not in office, and that would be an illustration of the benefit which would accrue from referring matters to a Committee. In 1857 the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "In 1848 the Army and Navy Estimates were £17,000,000."[They were now £25,000,000.] "But they had then reached' a point beyond the patient endurance of Parliament; and the House gave such undoubted indication of its determination not to entertain those Estimates that the Government withdrew them, re-considered them, and referred them in a revised shape to a Committee, the result of all which operations was that they were reduced by an extent not far short of £3,000,000."—[3 Hansard, cxliv. 2158.]
  Well, let the House adopt a practice thus recommended. He should wish some hon. Member to move that the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates be referred to a Committee, and then they would see whether they could not be reproduced in a greatly diminished shape. The Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman moved on the 10th of March, 1857, was as follows:—
  "That, in order to secure to the country that relief which it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of this House, to revise and further reduce the Expenditure of the State."
  Now, there was a Resolution ready cut and dry which he begged to hand over to some new Member who might immortalize

  1107
  himself, and who should have his hearty support. His own experience in Committees of Supply fully bore out the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld); but if they had got that permanent Finance Committee which he had ventured to recommend, was it to be supposed that we could have had such an enormous growth of expenditure as we had had of late years, or that such gigantic Government manufacturing establishments could have sprung up and been continued in defiance of every sound principle of political economy and State thrift, as laid down by Mr. Burke, Sir H. Parnell, the late Marquess of Lansdowne, and, though last not least, Mr. Cobden? If the House had had such a Committee, the admirable recommendations of the Royal Commission on Dockyards, and of Mr. Mills' Committee upon Military and Naval Expenditure in the Colonies, and others of the same kind, could not have been now ignored. But what practical effect bad they now on the public expenditure? It was utterly futile to attempt to fight the battle of economy in Committee of Supply. That was the opinion of the late Mr. Cobden, of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and his own, and the reason was this—that a large proportion of hon. Members on both sides were of opinion that the Executive were alone competent to judge what the necessities of the public service required. Another reason was this—when an hon. Member succeeded in convincing the Committee of the expediency of reducing the Estimates—and he had often seen that done—the division bell rang, and an influx of what in the last generation was called placemen, or expectants of place, but what were now called Government Members, took place, and swamped the deliberate judgment of the Committee. Important questions were thus decided by the votes of Members who had not heard one word of the discussion. So strongly was the evil of this system felt, that in 1861 the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) moved that in any division in Committee of Supply, as soon as the voices were called, the doors should be closed. He (Mr. White) had the honour of seconding that Resolution, which the House did not think fit to adopt. He would now state a few facts to show how useless it was to oppose any items in Committee of Supply. During the last ten years the entire sum voted by the Com-
  1108
  mittee of Supply was £358,392,422. The items rejected by the Committee of Supply during the same years were as follows:—In 1857 there was a demand for a sum of £10,500 to build a church for the British residents and visitors in Paris. This item was very properly rejected in Committee of Supply. In 1858 some hon. Members who took an interest in the Fine Arts objected to the amount of the salary of the travelling agent of the National Gallery, and succeeded in obtaining its reduction from £400 to £100. Probably emboldened by this success, the Committee made another effort to cut down the expenses—they rejected an item of £1,000, the salary of the Registrar of Sasines. Now, many gentlemen did not up to that period know who the Registrar of Sasines was, but on making inquiries they found that he was an officer whose principal duty consisted in drawing a salary of £l,500 a year. On the death of the holder of the office, the Government, it appeared, at first intended to abolish it, but they afterwards changed their minds, and having reduced the salary to £1,000 a year, they conferred the office on some Whig dependent in Edinburgh. When the Committee refused to sanction the sum of £1,000, the Government took the unusual course of having the Resolution re-committed, and the result was that the original decision of the Committee was rescinded and the grant passed. In 1859, 1860, and 1861 no item was rejected in Committee of Supply. In 1862, £5,000 for Highland roads and bridges was rejected, and the Government did not bring it on again, probably because the commission under which the sum was claimed would have expired in 1865. In 1863, 1864, and 1865 no Vote was rejected or reduced. In the face of notorious facts—namely, such infinitesimal deductions from a grand total of £358,392,422, he asked what adequate advantage was to be gained by opposing the passing of specific Votes in Committee of Supply? If any hon. Gentleman wished to imitate the late Mr. Williams and oppose any items he considered excessive in Committee of Supply, he (Mr. White) would be always happy to follow him into the lobby, but he should at the same time say that he did not believe that any definite or practical advantage would result from such a course. In the Session of 1864, he (Mr. White) moved for a Select Committee on the incidence of taxation, and then cited one fact which he would recall to the attention of the

  1109
  House, as it went to prove how grievously the weight of the present taxation was felt by the labouring classes. In 1863 a calculation was made of the amount paid in taxes by 6,150 families in Manchester, Rochdale, and Bacup, The result of that calculation was that it appeared that a man who earned 30 s. a week, and who had a wife and three children, paid—indirectly, of course—3s. 4d. a week in taxation. [Viscount CRANBOURNE: How much for beer?] He was free to confess, in answer to the noble Lord's question, that he had no doubt the working classes did spend a considerable sum of money on beer. Since 1863 the duties on tea and sugar had been reduced, still it could now be demonstrated that an artizan earning 30 s. a week, with a wife and three children, was taxed incidentally and indirectly, under the operation of our fiscal system, to an amount quite equal to an income tax of 2s. 6d. in the pound. This showed the inequitable incidence of our present fiscal system; and was it, then, surprising that the incubus of pauperism was so great, and that an active controversy had been going on between a philanthropic peer and a dignified ecclesiastic upon the question whether the agricultural population in the West of England were as well fed, as well housed, and as well cared for as the horses of the upper and middle classes? The average rate of contribution to the Poor Law in England and Wales in the year 1864 was 4d. per head more than in 846, when the average price of wheat was 10 s. 1d. per quarter higher. How much the perverted optimism of modern society, and the current fashionable prosperity-talk, may have debauched and demoralized the public mind, and to what extent Imperial prodigality has provoked an imitative spirit of extravagance in local expenditure and private outlay, he would not then stop to inquire, but only point to the significant fact, that a total sum of not less than £100,000,000 per annum was now raised for Imperial taxation, local charges, and religious teaching. He thought that the House of Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, ought to now address itself to this momentous question of national thrift. The hon. Member concluded by moving, in the terms of his Amendment—
  "That the expenditure of the Government has of late years been excessive. That it was and is now taken in great measure out of the earnings of the People, and forms in no small degree a deduction from a scanty store which is necessary
  1110
  to secure to them a sufficiency, not of the comforts of life, but oven of the prime necessaries of food, of clothing, of shelter, and of fuel.' That this House, while mindful of its obligation to maintain the security of the Country at Home and the protection of its interests Abroad, is deeply impressed with the urgent necessity of economy in every department of the State, and is of opinion that no Administration is deserving of the confidence of this House and the Country which shall not relieve the present burden of taxation on the unrepresented and other classes by making an early and large reduction of the Government expenditure,"
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the expenditure of the Government has of late years been excessive. That it was and is now taken in great measure out of the earnings of the People, and forms in no small degree a deduction from a scanty store which is necessary to secure to them a sufficiency, not of the comforts of life, but even of the prime necessaries of food, of clothing, of shelter, and of fuel,'"—(Mr. White,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BAXTERsaid, it was impossible to call attention too frequently and prominently to the question of national expenditure. Of late years it had been frequently said, and it had also been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that that House had abdicated its functions of checking the expenditure of the Government, and had itself, on the contrary, initiated great schemes involving the expenditure of enormous sums, which the Ministers did not seem to think necessary. He hoped the new House would not follow the pernicious example of its predecessors, but would carefully examine every item of the Estimates. He entirely concurred in the remark of the hon. Member for Brighton that it was impossible to sit in that House night after night, and go over the thousand and one Votes submitted to them, to do any substantial good. They would very rarely succeed in getting any item knocked off, and if they did, it would be something quite immaterial. The matter should be looked at as a whole, and the issue raised on the gross sum required by Government. He agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton that the present expenditure of the country was excessive. How stood the case? He believed he was not wrong in stating that the British people and statesmen on both sides of the House had made up their minds not to meddle in

  1111
  the miserable dynastic squabbles of the Continent, or questions of successions and boundaries. They had concluded a treaty of commerce with France, which was drawing the two nations together more closely and rendering war less and less possible. They had adopted the same course with respect to Austria, and he supposed that no one now believed that Russia was likely again to disturb the peace of Europe, at least not in this generation. Besides this, recent debates had proved that it was beyond the power of vituperative politicians on this or the other side of the Atlantic to produce any serious misunderstanding between Great Britain and the United States. With things in this state, what were we doing? We were all the time adding to our dockyards, and fortifying them, and indulging in huge expenses in fortifications abroad, expending twenty-five millions for armaments when fifteen were found to be ample before the year 1851. This was a most unsatisfactory state of things—especially when we remembered that we now had in England upwards of 100,000 Volunteers, who were as efficient for defensive purposes as any regiments in the service. He was sorry to say the Government showed a want of moral courage in dealing with any substantial reduction of the expenditure. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious for a reduction of the expenditure, but he required to be backed by the House. When his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton had adduced the fact of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved a Resolution to the effect that Government should take back their Estimates some years ago—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: That is a mistake.] He might be mistaken. But it was in his opinion a more constitutional course to require the Government to take back their Estimates than to discuss the details in Committee. The Ministers were somewhat afraid of the Services themselves, but those Services, instead of being ashamed of getting so much, were, like the horse-leech, perpetually crying, "Give, give!" He was afraid a body of the country Gentlemen opposite took a sort of pleasure in anticipating danger from the other side of the Channel, which was wholly chimerical. For his own part, he saw no reason for so large an armament as the country maintained at home and abroad, and he held it to be most unwise to stretch the resources of the nation in time of peace, when our policy was one of concord
  1112
  with all nations. Perhaps the fault lay not so much with the Parliament and the Government as with the people themselves. But it was the duty of the Ministry to lead public opinion, and he was disappointed when he saw that they did not propose any really substantial reduction of the expenditure. As one who was well acquainted with the working classes, he knew they were greatly discontented with these enormous armaments. Hon. Gentlemen opposite clamoured for the repeal of the malt tax. He was himself as much opposed to that tax as any one; but how, in the name of common sense, could they hope to get rid of the malt tax while they kept up the present enormous warlike expenditure? He could not for the life of him understand, when he read the speeches of hon. Members opposite against the malt tax, how they could make those speeches and never say one word against the enormous military expenditure of the country. It was worse than idle, and only inspired false hopes, to talk about the repeal of the malt tax, or any other great impost, so long as the great warlike expenditure of this country was kept up. He made these remarks because he thought Government was not taking a right course in keeping up the military expenditure at a figure so large that it could only be justified by war being imminent.
  MR. MARSHsaid, that having himself on a former occasion brought forward the subject of the Civil Service Estimates, he hoped he should be permitted to make a few remarks. The hon. Member for Brighton said the amount raised from the people by taxation was £70,000,000; but it was considerably more, because the consumers were charged with profits on the amount of the tax. For instance, if there was a duty of 3s. a pound on tobacco, the consumer paid not only the duty, but the shopkeeper's profit on the duty. He regarded the malt tax as peculiarly objectionable, since the effect was to raise the price of beer by two profits—the profit on the original cost of the malt, and the profit on the amount of the tax levied on it. It would be much better to raise it in its last stage just as it was made into beer, and thus not hamper the manufacture of malt. He certainly thought there was great room for economy, looking at the present state of the public establishments. As to the expenditure for the navy, he feared there must always be some extravagance and waste in the dockyards. It was to be

  1113
  hoped that the hon. Member for Portsmouth would not try to make that extravagance greater by bringing on a Motion to pay the dockyard men more. With regard to the army, no one would grudge anything that could add to its efficiency, or promote the health and comfort of the soldier. To do so would be very false economy. He had, however, some statistics taken from one of the Statistical Society's books, with respect to the English and French armies, which were worthy of some attention. True, they related to a comparison made some five years ago, but the proportions had not materially varied since then. It was generally supposed that the colonies made the cost of the British army greater than that of France, but that was not so, as France had nearly as many, if not quite as many, men in her colonies as we had. In 1860–1 the British army consisted of 146,044 men and 8,262 horses, and the estimated expenditure upon it was £14,606,000; whereas in the same year the French army included 400,000 men and 85,705 horses, and the amount of the budget was £20,129,000, making the proportionate cost of the British army to be more than double that paid by France. Probably some explanation could be afforded as to that state of things, and doubtless when the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War returned to the House he would probably furnish that explanation with his usual ability and clearness. Turning to the Civil Service Estimates, it was astonishing how they kept on increasing every year. That ought not to be the case, seeing that many items formerly included in those Estimates—such as pensions to refugees and many sums for the colonies—were not paid now. Simplicity of accounts was one of the first maxims of sound finance, but at present there was such confusion in these Estimates that it was most difficult to find out what anything cost. The charge for the Military School was put down in the Civil Service Estimates, whereas, of course, it should appear in those for the army. Again, coming to the expenses of that House, they found the charge for fuel put down in one place, and that for warming in another. Another principle of good finance was to have a correct debtor and creditor account, with the receipts on the one side and the disbursements on the other. Formerly the net revenue was paid into the Exchequer, and the expenses of collection were
  1114
  deducted; but now the practice was to pay the whole gross produce of the taxes into the Exchequer, and to leave the expenses of collection to be voted. That rule, however, did not seem to be always strictly followed; for the whole expense of Kingston Harbour was not given, but only the amount minus the shipping dues received there, and there were a great many instances of this sort of thing. That was a clumsy mode of doing business. He was not quite sure as to the stamps, but he believed the expense of collecting these duties was deducted before they were paid into the Exchequer, whereas he maintained that the gross sum ought to be paid in and the salaries of officers afterwards paid out, as in the case of the Customs. He was glad that Government should have adopted the rule of resisting proposals to place increased charges on the Consolidated Fund, since there was a continual tendency in these charges to increase. One man should never have the spending of another man's money. That principle was violated in the item for prosecutions, Some years ago one-half of the charge for prosecutions was put on the Consolidated Fund, and the consequence was that the expense had increased from £40,000 a year to something like £200,000 a year; and an hon. Member had a Bill before the House which, if it were allowed to pass, would make the expense still greater. Then there were other charges which ought to be local. There was a Vote this year of £7,525 for Westminster Bridge; £1,200 for county roads in Wales; £7,000 for the Chapter House at Westminster; and other things of that kind which were local charges, and ought to be raised by local rates. Why should not Westminster and Surrey pay for their bridges as other counties did? He agreed with the hon. Member that it was Parliament that was in fault. He was astonished at the yearly increase of the Civil Service expenditure, and at the introduction into that Estimate of charges for military schools and for the Mermaid powder-ship which ought to be put down in the Army and Navy Estimates. He further complained of the enormous sum paid for stationery. Then there was the Divorce Court, where there were always two people to blame and generally three, and there were the County Courts, which ought to pay their own expenses. The Courts of Law should be self-supporting. The expenditure for

  1115
  our criminals, which was enormous, would be much reduced if we made our prisons less comfortable. The education grants were often bestowed too freely where they were least required, and most sparingly where the need was greatest. There were Votes in the Civil Service Estimates for abolished offices, which might be saved by transferring the recipients of certain pensions to other employments. Hon. Gentlemen were much to blame for forcing an increased expenditure upon the Government. It was not competent for an individual Member to move a new Vote in Supply, but hon. Gentlemen frequently brought forward Motions which forced the Government afterwards to move such Votes. That appeared to be as unconstitutional a proceeding as if those hon. Members moved the Votes in Supply themselves. If hon. Gentlemen would only refrain from taking that course, and would also endeavour in Committee of Supply to curtail expenditure, the Estimates might be considerably reduced.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was incumbent on some one on the Opposition side of the House to Bay a few words, lest it should be supposed that Members sitting there allowed judgment to go by default on the accusation, thrown out by one or two hon. Gentlemen, that they encouraged all the extravagant expenditure complained of, and that all the economy came from the Benches opposite. It was natural that some one on that (the Opposition) side should rise and protest against such a doctrine. He did not say that there had never been an occasion on which hon. Members on that side had pressed upon Government an expenditure that was undesirable and unnecessary, or that hon. Gentlemen on the other side had not done anything to promote economy. That section of the House to which the hon. Member for Brighton adhered was no doubt deemed to be the most economically disposed section. He, nevertheless, could point out several Members on his own side who had uniformly taken part in discussions in Supply, and who had frequently—and sometimes not unsuccessfully—urged on the Government measures for the reduction of the expenditure. He could say that on that side there was a real hearty disposition—as far as was consistent with what they believed to be important for the service of the country—to curtail expenditure. But who was to blame for this extravagant
  1116
  expenditure? In some discussions there the subject was treated as a football, which was being continually kicked from one side to the other. The Government threw the blame on the House, and the House threw the blame back upon the Government. This might be very well as a means of producing animated discussions; but if Members wanted to come to practical conclusions they must look at the matter in a somewhat different spirit. Expenditure might be excessive in two distinct ways. In the first place, it might be excessive because it was more than was required for the purposes for which it was professed to be incurred, such purposes being in themselves proper and necessary; in the second place, it might be excessive because they undertook it for unnecessary or improper objects. In the one case it was waste, and in the other it was extravagance. The House ought very carefully to distinguish between the two cases. Very different principles ought to guide them in dealing with what he might call waste, and what, for want of a better word, he would designate extravagance. Waste must always be unjustifiable. If the country had spent more money than ought to have been spent upon the attainment of objects which were professedly desirable or necessary, if the Government were wasting any of that money, whether spending seventy millions, or sixty, or fifty, or only ten millions, they were equally to be blamed for that waste. Without reference to the amount they were drawing by taxation from the people, it was at all times the bounden duty both of the Government and of the House to resist anything in the nature of waste. Now, it sometimes happened that Motions bearing the appearance of Motions for an increase of expenditure were really Motions for the prevention of waste. An hon. Member conversant with the details of a particular service, perhaps discovered that the Government were not procuring the advantages which they ought to obtain by their expenditure, and very naturally brought the subject forward, and pointed out how by certain means the object might be attained with a very slight increase in the expenditure. If Government met such a Motion by saying that it meant an addition to expenditure they did not reason fairly. The Government ought to be strong enough to resist propositions connected with the expenditure, that were not justified by the circumstances, but it was the duty of Members to discuss questions of this

  1117
  kind, more especially if they could point out how the public expenditure might be made more available. It was very difficult, of course, to say what was and what was not necessary; that was a matter to which the Government ought to pay the greatest attention, and upon which the House ought to feel itself bound to assist the Government. So much for waste; as regards what he had called extravagance, a very nice and careful discrimination was needed. There could be no doubt that, whereas it was absolutely necessary for the House to incur just so much expenditure as was necessary for carrying on the Government, and for the national defences, it was not absolutely necessary for them to expend money on education, or for the improvement of the condition of the people, and on many other objects of that kind; but, on the other hand, that money was well spent, and it was worth while, for such judicious expenditure to tax the people, provided they did not tax them beyond their ability, or beyond the value of the services rendered them in return. Here he agreed with the hon. Member for Brighton, that the question how much they should take out of the pockets of the people and how much was returned presented itself. It was the duty of those who represented the country to bring forward and discuss questions of that kind. If Members, knowing the feelings and wishes of their constituents, urged that certain advantages desired by them should be given to them, those Members ought not to be taunted for so doing. The Government ought to consider the question as a whole, and the House as a body ought to have the conscience to support the Government in deciding upon propositions of this nature. He agreed with the proposition of the hon. Member for Brighton, quoted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a large part of the expenditure was supported by taxation drawn from the earnings of the people. They were so wealthy as a nation, and so liberal in large expenditure, that the wealthy classes did not sufficiently recollect that what was nothing to a great capitalist might be very serious indeed to men of limited means and to the body of the people, who, nevertheless, if the House wished to maintain a proper system of taxation, must be taxed in the same proportion as other members of society. Therefore, as taxation fell very heavily upon the poor, it was the bounden duty of the House to consider most mi-
  1118
  nutely all proposals for expenditure; and when the Government did its duty in resisting the proposals which might be deemed to be beneficial, but which the nation could not afford, the House ought, as a rule, to stand by the Government. This was a matter which engaged the attention of all the Members of the House, but he would put it to the hon. Member for Brighton whether he saw any advantage in going to a division upon such a question, or in placing upon record Resolutions of that nature, He, himself, did not see that such a course would advance matters very far. The discussion of the subject might have done good. Before entering upon the question of the Estimates, and the consideration of Votes of large sums of money, it might be salutary for such discussions to take place. He, however, was rather afraid that if the House were to pass such a Resolution as that in the first instance, and then follow it by doing nothing, it would he justly liable to the accusation the hon. Member for Brighton brought, not without some plausibility, against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of denouncing expenditure and satisfying themselves by condemning in, words what they did nothing to stop by their deeds.
  MR. LAING: Sir, regret that the hon. Member for Brighton should have so worded his Resolution as to make it impossible for me to go into the same lobby with him. Nothing is to be gained by vague and exaggerated statements, or by mixing up political with financial questions. Such statements tend to throw discredit upon those who advocate real economy, and to confound in the public mind two totally different characters—-the practical reformer and the professional agitator. An attempt is here made to import subjects of political agitation into questions which, properly speaking, lie in the domain of economy. The Resolution, as it stands, contains the gravest charges which it is possible to bring against the Government of the country, and against the political system by which that Government is supported. It states that the expenditure of the country has not only been excessive and extravagant, but that the political system which encourages this extravagant expenditure throws the burden of it so unfairly upon the unrepresented classes as not only to deprive them in a great measure of the comforts, but even to stint them of the barest necessities of life. Were that statement true, it would be the best apology for Fenianism,

  1119
  and the strongest possible argument for universal suffrage. A system under which such a state of things existed ought not to be tolerated for a single day. I have to complain that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman puts those who advocate real economy to the unfair alternative of seeming to vote against economy or coinciding with the statements contained in the Resolution. [Mr. WHITE: They were the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own words.] Yes; but the meaning of words depends almost entirely upon the context. Words used in a speech may have borne an entirely different meaning from what would attach to them when singled out and appended to a Resolution bringing grave charges against the Government of the country. To understand the facts correctly it is necessary to see how far expenditure has been excessive or extravagant, making allowance for those causes which have swelled the outlay not alone in this, but in foreign countries. I will not go further back than the period immediately preceding the outbreak of the Crimean War. Our expenditure has, no doubt, increased considerably within the ten years from 1851 to 1861; but it should be recollected that in the former years the charges for the collection of the revenue were taken out of that revenue before it was paid into the Exchequer. Those charges amounted, in round numbers, to £4,500,000. Deducting, therefore, those charges from the revenue of the year ending March, 1852, just before the Crimean War, we obtain in round numbers the sum of £51,000,000 as the gross expenditure. We find that our expenditure for the year ending March, 1861, amounted to £61,000,000, showing an increase of £10,000,000, of which £9,000,000 belonged to the Army and Navy Estimates. But in estimating the reasons for this increase we ought to consider the causes in operation, and to inquire whether they were such as to make that increased expenditure inevitable. What, then, were the causes of that large increase? The Russian War dispelled the feeling of security which Europe had enjoyed for forty years, and introduced a new era of alarm and political tension, from which we are only now again beginning happily to escape. Who could have anticipated that in the short interval elapsing since the Great Exhibition of 1851, opened with such bright promise of inaugurating a new era of peaceful progress, the Russian, Italian, and
  1120
  American wars, three of the greatest that the world ever saw, besides the Indian Mutiny, should all have taken place? In the selfsame period, through the course of scientific improvement, the entire reconstruction of our armaments, both by sea and land, became necessary. We could not help that reconstruction any more than we could help the substitution of guns for bows and arrows, or cannons for catapults. Guns, forts, arsenals, dockyards, ships—every single item of our land and naval armaments had to be reconstructed at an immense cost. It was like the substitution of the spinning jenny for the old spinning wheel; but, unfortunately, we had no Arkwright at the Admiralty. We had to grope our way to very partial results through very expensive experiments. To the causes of increased expenditure I have already enumerated must be added the gold discoveries in California and Australia, which gave a great impulse to commerce everywhere, and a consequent rise in the amount of wages. The raw material of our army and navy being provided through voluntary enlistment, and not by conscription, as in foreign services, had to be procured at a higher cost. In addition to this, the attention of the public was roused to many defects in the naval and military administration. Feelings most humane and proper in themselves, but which were somewhat expensive in their consequences, led to a great many sanitary and other improvements in the condition of the soldier and sailor. No one, I believe, at this time would wish to see us retrace our steps with regard to pay or allowances granted. Nevertheless, they must be taken into account when inquiring into the reasons for increased expenditure. But in order still further to test the nature of this increased expenditure, let us look to other countries. Prance was engaged equally with us in the Crimean War, and she has since maintained for a few months a great war in Italy, but war has never menaced her own frontier, and she has never engaged in one which was not of her own seeking. Yet how does she stand by comparison with England? While our total expenditure increased by £10,000,000, or at the rate of 20 per cent, France, during the same period, increased her expenditure £30,000,000, or at the rate of 50 per cent. [An hon. MEMBER: But what about the railways?] The money advanced by Government for the railways was given at an earlier date, and was not included in

  1121
  the period covered by the figures which I have just quoted. In England the National Debt, measured by the annual charge upon the people, has positively decreased, while France has increased her debt by no less than £150,000,000 sterling. It may be said that the case of France is exceptional, Well, take two smaller neutral States that have not engaged in any war, and have been governed with prudence and economy—Belgium and Holland. Comparing their total expenditure for the same period, it will be found that the Budget of Belgium has risen from £4,800,000 to £5,760,000, or at the rate of 20 per cent increase. The Budget of Holland, in the same time, has risen from 70,000,000 of florins to 86,000,000 of florins, or at the rate of 23 per cent increase. So that the percentage of the increase of English expenditure during that period has been actually less than the average increase of neutral States which have not been involved in any hostilities. Although, therefore, I think it unfair to say that the increase has been extravagant and excessive, yet still no doubt it has been very large; and the question arises, how far the Government can fairly be held responsible for any portion of it? The Government I believe to be partly responsible for this expenditure. Injudicious interference with Foreign Affairs, particularly the Polish and Danish questions, and the unfortunate propensity of our Foreign Office to lecture and scold where it does not mean to fight, tended to prolong that state of political tension in Europe which is the cause of increased armaments. At the same time, having made that admission, I am bound to say that in the main this country is not responsible for the larger part of that expenditure. After the close of the Russian war this country was disposed to have reverted bond fide to a peace establishment if other countries would have done the same. On that point I can speak feelingly, having given my humble co-operation to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in urging upon Lord Palmerston's Government larger reductions of the Estimates than Lord Palmerston at the time thought desirable. To a great extent we succeeded in that pressure, and the Army and Navy Estimates were in the year 1858 brought down to £22,500,000, or about £6,000,000 above the figure at which they stood previous to the war. But did other nations follow this example? On the contrary, France proceeded with the reconstruction of her navy, and kept both navy
  1122
  and army in a state of the most complete and formidable efficiency, ready for war at a moment's notice. I do not mean to imply that the Emperor of the French acted with any hostile design towards this country. It would be unreasonable to expect that the able and energetic ruler of a great and military nation like the French, himself no mean authority on the scientific branches of the profession, should have abstained from adopting modern improvements and from putting his army and navy upon the most efficient footing, solely because it happened to be inconvenient to a neighbouring country to follow his example. As far as we were concerned, however, the effect was the same as if those measures had been taken with an unfriendly motive. In a short time we found ourselves in a position of such relative inferiority as necessarily excited a periodical panic in the minds of people in this country, and gave rise on our part to feelings of irritability and suspicion tending to a very great extent to endanger that cordial alliance between England and France which formed the keystone of European civilization, and the best security for a lasting peace. The result shows, I think, that reduction is not always economy, for in two years from that time the Army and Navy Estimates had again gone up to £31,000,000. I frankly admit that I believe Lord Palmerston was right in the view which he took upon that occasion, and that if I and those who concurred with me had not been so precipitate in urging a large diminution of expenditure in 1858, our Estimates would not in 1860 have been so enormously increased. All danger, however, has been happily averted by the reconstruction of J our navy to a sufficient point of efficiency, but above all by that noble and patriotic Volunteer movement by means of which our establishments were placed upon a footing essential to the maintenance of peace in Europe. Europe, too, itself, has at length been brought face to face with the financial embarrassments occasioned by a condition of armed peace, and begins to retrace its steps and to reduce its expenditure. The Emperor of the French especially, who sets the fashion in those matters, and whose influence is so great that it would always dictate the policy of other nations with regard to the keeping up of warlike establishments, is, in my opinion, so thoroughly alive to the great current of opinion in his own and other countries, that he has made up his mind to

  1123
  act upon his own maxim that his "empire is peace." I trust, therefore, the time has arrived when those extravagant armaments may be reduced which weigh on the energies not so much of England as on those of the other States of Europe. With respect to the question of real economy in the Estimates, it depends very much on three points, in reference to each of which this House was in a position to effect a great deal. The first great subject is that of our foreign policy, to which I have just referred. If the House of Commons will, as I hope it will, enforce the principle of non-intervention it will soon be discovered that that is the real and cardinal foundation of economy. In mentioning non-intervention I would not be understood as speaking in an abstract and inflexible sense, but simply as laying down the broad rule that we should trust to our own strength and forbearance for our security rather than to perplexing and entangling alliances. That we should not interfere unnecessarily in the internal affairs of other nations. Above all that we should never resort to war, except in the last emergency, to defend our interest and honour. Next to our foreign policy comes the important question of the policy pursued by us in relation to our colonies. A great portion of our expenditure under the head of the Army and Navy Estimates has been occasioned by the forces which we have deemed it expedient to keep up in New Zealand and the Cape of Good Hope. It has been the humane policy of this country to station large armies in those colonies, to carry on a systematic warfare in order to prevent the colonists from dealing with the native inhabitants after their own fashion. I think, however, that policy has completely collapsed, that it has, indeed, been reduced to a complete reductio ad, absurdum in New Zealand, where 10,000 British troops have been stationed with scarcely any other result than to prove how directly I those in authority there may paralyze the undoubted gallantry of our officers and soldiers. Such a state of things brings discredit on our administration. Beyond the questions of our foreign and colonial policy, the enforcement of economy depends on the administrative ability and experience of those in office—in the finding of efficient men, placing them in situations of defined responsibility, and exacting from them a rigorous account of the work done. The point is one, however, which it is useless to discuss at any length, because it involves a question of
  1124
  persons, and not of principle. The hon. Member for Brighton will find, if it should ever be his lot, as it has been mine, to grapple with actual Estimates, that they turn entirely on matters of detail, each of which must be judged upon its own merits, before any reduction can fairly be effected. They are composed of a thousand items, each of which involves questions difficult of solution. Upon this view of the case I should be sorry to pronounce any positive opinion in the present instance, because I have had no opportunity of examining the facts. I ay, perhaps, at the same time, assume that some of our great public Departments, especially the Admiralty, are not placed upon such a footing as to guarantee the greatest possible economy. I have always found in public and private establishments that the best guarantee for such economy is to be found in the fact that there is a clear chain of responsibility running from a single person through a series of individuals from the top to the bottom. What is required in the case of the navy, for instance, is one responsible Member sitting in this House to whom should be delegated the whole authority, and upon whose shoulders the whole responsibility would properly rest. In any effort to bring about such a result, I should be most happy to co-operate with the friends of economy. I cannot concur with the hon. Member for Brighton in charging the Government with having thrown the burden of taxation so unfairly on the unrepresented classes as to deprive them of the comforts and to stint them in the necessaries of life. Such a charge I regard almost as a libel on the free trade legislation of the last twenty years, and as unjust to the memory of that greatest of modern statesmen, Sir Robert Peel, by whom that legislation was inaugurated. When the hon. Member spoke of the food of the humbler classes, I would ask him whether he has never heard of such an event as the repeal of the Corn Laws? Is it not true that, with the exception of a duty of one shilling a quarter on foreign wheat, the provisions of the working man of every description—bread, meat, salt, butter, cheese, eggs—are absolutely and totally untaxed? Can the same be said of any other country? If the hon. Gentleman goes across the Channel to Paris, and many other places in France, he will find that burdens which are here defrayed by means of direct taxation are there met by an octroi or tax on those very articles of food of the labouring classes. Take, too, the ar-

  1125
  ticle of clothing. Is there any country in the world but this in which every article of clothing, from the raw material to the manufactured article, is as free from taxation to the working classes as the very air they breathe? Where is the country in which the cost of these articles is not enhanced by taxation either for revenue or protection? At this moment in the United States the working man is obliged to pay a tax for his own clothing as well as for his wife's gown and bonnet. He is there burdened with taxation at the rate of 50 per cent for articles for which in England he is not subjected to the charge of a single farthing. As to shelter, by which I suppose my hon. Friend means house accommodation, I would ask whether he has never heard of the duties on bricks, on timber, on glass, which have now all disappeared, with the exception of a small remaining duty on timber, which also will, I hope, shortly be abolished. Then comes the article of fuel. Was there not formerly a tax upon seaborne coals, upon oil, and other articles of artificial light and heat? Are not all these articles now admitted perfectly free from taxation? I should also like to know, I is it not quite as prime a necessity that commerce should be free as that provisions should be cheap? and has not that object also been effectually accomplished by the abolition of all the duties on the raw material of manufacture, so that all those obstacles are removed which tended to cramp and limit the expansion of commerce throughout the kingdom? That expansion had been enormous. The export trade of this country has arisen, within a period of ten years, from £250,000,000 to £500,000,000 sterling, during which time the increase in the population has not been above 10 per cent. But to come to the taxes on comforts, is it not the fact that in this case, too, there has been a considerable reduction? In addition to the reductions which I have enumerated, has not Parliament repealed entirely the duties on soap and on paper? Has not the rate of postage been brought down to a penny? Have not the duties on tea, sugar, coffee, cocoa, currants, wine, hops, in addition to those on many minor articles, been either abolished or greatly diminished? Have not, in short, the duties on all articles of general consumption been either repealed or reduced, with the exception of those on spirits, beer, and tobacco? The test of figures might have been easily applied to the subject. Taking the
  1126
  three articles, tea, sugar, and tobacco, I find that during the ten years ending in 1865 the consumption of tea increased from about 50,000,000lb. to over 100,000,000lb.; the consumption of sugar increased from 6,000,000 cwt. to upwards of nine and a half millions, more than 50 per cent; and the consumption of tobacco increased upwards of 40 per cent. All this occurred during a period when, if the rate of increase had been measured by population, the consumption should only have increased 15 per cent. So that it is as demonstrable as figures can make it that after fifteen years of alleged misgovernment the "oppressed people" are actually in a position to consume nearly twice as much per head of those comforts of life I have named as they were formerly. Many other facts could be stated to show how greatly the condition of the working classes has improved during the period I have referred to. For instance, the number of children attending schools visited by Government inspectors has increased from 460,000 to upwards of 1,000.000, and the deposits in savings hanks have increased in amount from £34,000,000 to £44,000,000. But it has been said that although the position of the people has improved, and although the taxes have been more productive, yet they are unfairly levied. The upper and middle classes have been charged with having misused the political power vested in them by relieving themselves of a fair share of the burden of taxation, and thrusting this burden upon the shoulders of the working classes. But what are the facts? Where has the money come from which made financially possible the consideration of the well-being of the working classes and the freeing of industry by numerous revisions of taxation? Why, those very upper and middle classes, in whom political power has been vested, voluntarily submitted to a large share of taxation, in order to give the working classes the benefit of the reductions I have enumerated. The income tax was imposed, the succession duty was increased; and taxes were imposed in the nature of stamps upon transfers of property. An analysis of the Budgets of the last few years shows that £22,000,000, or 30 per cent of the whole amount of the Budget, is the amount of direct taxation paid on account of State purposes alone. But if local taxation be included—and it should be included, for it is a necessary part of the national expenditure—it will be found that upwards

  1127
  of £30,000,000, or about 40 per cent of the whole expenditure of the country, is levied by direct taxation. Then what of the remainder? £26,000,000 is raised by the taxation of various stimulants, such as spirits, tobacco, malt, and wines. It may, perhaps, be a question whether wine and beer should be classed with those comforts the consumption of which it is desirable to cultivate by moderate taxation, or whether they should be placed with those nervous stimulants upon which it is desirable to raise the largest-revenue possible without inducing smuggling. There can, however, be no doubt about spirits and tobacco, and upon these alone £19,000,000 has been raised out of the £26,000,000. But upon such legitimate comforts of the people as sugar, tea, coffee, currants, raisins, and other minor articles, the duties have been so far reduced that not more than £12,000,000 has been raised by them altogether. The facts I have mentioned are so important, and speak so powerfully for themselves, that I will recapitulate them. Leaving out of the calculation, for the sake of simplicity, such miscellaneous items as the Post Office, the Crown lands, and the charges on account of India, both on one side of the account and the other, the expenditure of the country may be broadly set down at £70,000,000, of which £10,000,000 has been raised for local and £60,000,000 for State purposes. Of that £70,000,000, I find that £30,000,000 has been raised by direct taxation, £26,000,000 by duties upon nervous stimulants, and £12,000,000 only by taxes upon those articles of consumption which form the comforts, not of the working classes only, but of all classes of the community. I ask confidently of any one who understands such questions whether that is not on the whole a fair and equitable system of taxation, and whether it can be said with truth that the working classes are unduly burdened with taxation. I would especially appeal on this head to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), whom I am sorry to find absent. Indeed, I regret that the hon. Gentleman so seldom confers upon the House the benefit of his assistance when financial and economical questions are being discussed. I have another reason for believing in the soundness of the English system of taxation. The House of Representatives in America, having to raise a revenue about as large as England, with which to meet the late war expenditure,
  1128
  had to consider what was the best system to adopt. They delegated the subject to a committee, which has, after reviewing the various fiscal systems throughout Europe, reported that England affords the best precedent to follow as the means for raising seventy millions of taxation with the greatest ease and fairness to the people. I have been led to make the remarks I have, because it is possible attempts will be made to revive political agitation by holding out for the consideration of the working classes vague statements which I believe to be absolutely untrue. In no country have the interests of the working class ever been more faithfully and honestly and more successfully considered than by the reformed Parliaments of England since 1832. Shall I be told that the working man is unrepresented when that great Minister to whom I have referred—Sir Robert Peel—made the sacrifice he did of his high official position in order that he might cheapen the poor man's loaf, and put him in a position to get a fair day's wage for a fair day's work? Will it be said that the same interest has not been well represented in the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he so long sat as the representative, not of a working man's constituency, but of the dons and graduates of the University of Oxford? I contend that the working man is fairly dealt with by Parliament, and I trust that political agitators will not endeavour to make capital and curry favour with the working classes by raising the cry of "oppressive taxation." We have the question of Reform looming somewhat dimly through the mist of the Treasury Bench, and when it comes before us let it be treated fairly upon its own merits, but do not try to make political capital out of financial questions. On social and political grounds I shall be ready to give it my fullest consideration when I see it before me, if I ever do. But on financial and economical grounds, whatever the working man might gain by having a vote, whether the proposed measure of Reform shall pass or be rejected, he will find that it will make no difference in the disposition on the part of the House and the Government to enforce every practicable economy, and make his wages as high and his taxes as low as the unalterable principles of political economy will admit.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished for a few moments to call the attention of the House to some of the very extraordinary

  1129
  statements which had been made in the course of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. That right hon. Gentleman wished them to believe that the present system of taxation was most equitable as regarded the poorer classes of society; that they paid a comparatively small ratio of taxation; that the English system was a model for other countries to follow, and that, in fact, other countries were about to follow it. He (Mr. M'Laren) would beg leave to say that, having very recently looked into this question, he had been quite appalled by the magnitude of the taxation raised from the working classes, as compared with the amount which was paid by those above them. The question was, how much did the working classes pay, and how much did the other classes contribute? It was not the duty of this House to lay down a code of morality, and say what things were good for the working classes and what were not. But it was an important subject to inquire how much the working classes did consume of taxed articles; to know how much they really did pay; and what would be the state of the national exchequer if they consumed and paid less. The taxes which the working classes largely participated in were these—spirits, which, including the Excise and Customs duties, amounted to over £13,250,000; and tobacco, which came to over £6,000,000. The duty on malt was over £6,000,000; that on tea over £5,000,000 (tea, including coffee, chicory, and cocoa, and those other beverages which usually went with it). The duty on sugar was over £5,000,000; but besides taxing the articles themselves, they indirectly taxed them over again by requiring parties to pay for licenses to make and sell them. These license duties on the articles which he had enumerated, for the sale or manufacture of them, amounted to no less than £1,750,000. Then there was the duty on corn, amounting last year to over £500,000—while some years before it was a considerably larger sum. He had quoted these figures in round numbers from memory, but he knew that they were correct. If any hon. Gentleman would take the finance accounts for last year and add up the items of the articles which he had enumerated, he would find that the sum amounted to £38,500,000, Well, if £38,500,000 were raised by taxing these six articles, how much remained raised by other taxed articles, and all the other sources of taxation paid by the higher
  1130
  classes? There was only £30,500,000 raised from all other sources, while £38,500,000 was raised upon six articles alone. Who went to the gin palaces, the whisky shops, and the beer houses, and paid that £20,000,000 on spirits and malt? Why, the working classes, Taking them family by family, the poor paid more than the rich for these two articles. Then as to tobacco, no one would say that the working classes did not pay as much per head as the other classes. As to tea and sugar, he admitted that these were more favourable for the richer classes, but they amounted only to £10,000,000 out of the £38,500,000. Taking the whole of this £38,500,000, therefore, and allowing for the surplus of the tea and sugar duties paid by those in superior circumstances, he maintained that it would be a fair calculation to assume that every family in the kingdom, rich and poor, paid an equal amount of these taxes. In the Highlands of Scotland, and many of the rural districts of England and Ireland, there must be many who could not afford any of these taxed articles. They might deduct 500,000 families on that score. There were only 6,000,000 families in the kingdom, making a population of 30,000,000. If 5,500,000 of these families had £38,500,000 of taxes pretty equally divided amongst them it came to this—that every family, rich and poor, paid £7 in taxes on these six articles. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to think that this was an equitable arrangement as regarded the poor. He (Mr. M'Laren) thought it a most inequitable system that a man who earned perhaps £50 or £60 a year should be called upon to pay £7 a year to the tax-gatherer—and it would not be far wrong to assume that besides paying this £38,500,000, they paid at least £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 more in the shape of profit to the middlemen and retailers of these articles; and this should be considered as part of the burden which they had to bear. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that there were no other taxes of which the working classes paid any part. What became, then, of the Post Office revenue, the duty on railway passengers, on stage coaches, cabs, and small conveyances, stamps on railway shares, the stamps on the title deeds of the cottages built and owned by the working classes, and the duty on every legacy exceeding £20? All these sums must be added to the taxation of the working classes, and if a fair analysis were made of the whole by hon. Gentlemen

  1131
  who had not considered the question they would be appalled by the magnitude of the taxation which fell upon the working classes, and would he delighted to assist in framing a more equitable system of taxation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton has, I think, been the means of giving rise to a discussion of great interest, and I trust I may assume that it is not his intention to divide the House. Although my hon. Friend has done me the honour to embody a portion of a speech of mine in his Motion, I think he will himself feel that the language in which his Motion is couched is too warmly coloured to make it suitable to convey the deliberate judgment of this House. We oftentimes speak of the system of expenditure in this country, and of early and large reductions, in a manner which if we were to employ such language to convey the deliberate views of this House would give rise to serious misapprehensions, and excite expectations which could only meet with early and, perhaps, angry disappointment. I should like, however, to make two or three remarks, because my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton has, I think, misapprehended, doubtless through my fault, the meaning which I intended to attach to any remarks of mine upon the respective responsibilities of the Government and the Parliament in relation to public expenditure. If I have ever said anything which has led my hon. Friend to suppose, as he evidently does suppose, that I think when an Estimate is proposed by a Ministry to Parliament, and is debated by Parliament, the principal responsibility of that Estimate rests with Parliament, and not with the Ministry who proposed it, I can only express my regret at having been accessory to the spreading of a most mischievous opinion. A Government is responsible for all the expenditure it proposes. Parliament, no doubt, is responsible as towards the people in its own measure and degree; but the principal responsibility rests entirely with the advisers of the Crown. If there is a fundamental difference of view between the advisers of the Crown and the House of Commons in relation to expenditure, the only course open to those advisers is to tender their resignations, for the difference is irremediable. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) has also shared in this misapprehension; because, in the course of his intelligent speech, which
  1132
  was couched in an excellent spirit, he said there was a certain bandying of this responsibility to and fro between the Administration and the House of Commons. But, as far as proposals by the Government are concerned, there can be no such bandying by them. The Government accepts the responsibility which belongs to it, and cannot throw off any portion of it on the Parliament. I would, however, refer to an entirely different subject—not to proposals made by the Government, but to Motions which emanate from private Members, a practice which has so much grown that I can assure my hon. Friend if returns could be made of all the Motions, questions, and divisions having the avowed object of promoting an increased expenditure, the number would, economically considered, form a serious fact; and a still more serious consideration if regarded constitutionally. It is not merely that to a certain extent Members of Parliament may take out of the hands of the Government the initiative which, as my hon. Friend said, properly belongs to the Government, but it is this—the House of Commons cannot possibly unite the two functions. If the House of Commons by its votes, or in the persons of large numbers of its Members, tolerates and encourages the practice of each man recommending his favourite topic of expenditure, recommending generally some increase of expenditure especially advantageous to his own constituency, it cannot unite the double function of initiating and checking the expenditure: it becomes totally unable to check the Government, and by a reflex effect is prevented from exercising that control over all expenditure which is one of its chief duties. I can well understand my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), when he says that he is disappointed at the figures in the Estimates laid upon the table. At the same time my hon. Friend will, I am sure, perceive that of late years a sensible and a satisfactory reduction has been made in the amount of charge and the amount of force in the figures connected with the army. There is a fallacy in the comparison between the figures of the present and recent years, as for the last few years more than a million of money has appeared on both sides of charge and receipt, arising out of the expenditure connected with the East India Company, which did not previously enter into the accounts. In the Army Estimates for this year there is a sensible reduction of 4,000 or 5,000 men,

  1133
  and a reduction in the amount of charge, which is not to be despised. But the question of the army charge is, as has been said by my hon. Friend behind mo, eminently a question connected with others that are collateral if not intrinsic, particularly with that of the colonial policy of this country. I believe I am not over-stating the case when I say, taking every circumstance, such as the transport of the regiments, into consideration, that New Zealand finds employment for from one- twelfth to one-tenth of our force. The result is essentially and immediately owing to the system which it has pleased this country to adopt with regard to our colonies. Do not let the hon. Member suppose that a mere sudden determination on the part of the Government or a single decision in this House can in a moment alter that which is the result of long traditions, of habits, of practice, and of policy existing throughout several generations. In the same way with regard to the Navy Estimates, which are certainly equal to those of last year, if the hon. Member will investigate the Votes he will find a reduction of £350,000 connected with the service, but the whole of that saving is neutralized and counterbalanced by an increase in the Vote for works. And to what source is that increase due? Why, to the recommendations of a Committee of this House—not that I mean to say that these recommendations have not met with the approval of the Government. Then as to another point upon which I differ from the hon. Member. He asks, in a tone of exultation, where the battle of retrenchment is to be fought, and says, "Certainly not in Committee of Supply." In answer to that question I quote the words of the hon. Member behind me, who said, with truth, that the whole question of public expenditure is a question of detail. The hon. Member said that on former occasions I have denounced the public extravagance; but I say no credit is due to such denunciations unless they are carried patiently and laboriously into every minute detail of public expenditure. For my own part, I am afraid I have sometimes gone to the verge of giving great offence, urged not by a lack of zeal but by over zeal in resistance to particular Motions for increased expenditure. I do not mean to deny that when some grave question is brought before the House great good may not sometimes be done by a discussion on the general principles of expenditure. But it is in detail you must
  1134
  look for economy; and to one occasion within the last few years this observation particularly applies. How was it that Mr. Hume created for himself the position he occupied in this House? It was by his great zeal, by his patient, untiring, most arduous and most ill-appreciated services. It was by devoting himself night after night, month after month, and Session after Session, to diligent and careful inquiry. It was by giving the very pith and labour of his life to the work of making himself master of the particulars of public expenditure, so as to meet every man in office with a perfect knowledge of every detail connected with his Department, that he won for himself the high position he deservedly occupied in the estimation of the House. I know no instance in this or in any other country that can supply us with an example so remarkable as that furnished by the patience, the honesty, the courage, and, I will add, the intelligence with which Mr. Hume investigated the details connected with every public Department, and which enabled him to produce those effects upon the expenditure of the country that are recorded in his history. Yet I feel satisfied that, had Mr. Hume been alive, he would not have taken the side of the hon. Member in this discussion. This House will never be thoroughly equipped with regard to its stewardship of the public expenditure unless there are in it a race of self-sacrificing men who, standing in the position of independent Members, will do us the immeasurable service of devoting their time, energy, and labour to the wearying, irksome, and self-denying work of making themselves thoroughly acquainted with a vast mass of details, by following from point to point every item of public expenditure, and bringing to bear upon it the force of independent judgment and the light of public opinion. Having touched briefly upon these points, I think that, this evening being one usually devoted to public business, and which the House always allots to the statement on the Navy Estimates, to which it listens with the greatest interest, I should be acting unwisely in further occupying your time. I trust, therefore, that you will in future most jealously watch every proposal of the Government, and the hon. Gentleman will never find us indisposed to the freest, the most open, and the most searching discussion upon the subject of the discharge of public duties. I hope, however, that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to

  1135
  divide the House upon the matter, and will withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CONFLICTING METROPOLITAN JURISDICTIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Sir, I wish to call the attention of the House, before going into Committee of Supply, to a subject which I consider almost of national importance. It certainly affects all of us very nearly. Some of us have to endure evils—which might easily be remedied—for six months in the year. The rest have to undergo them from one year's end to the other. I suppose this is a subject which no metropolitan Member can take up without either offending his constituents or sacrificing his conscience. I propose to ask a question instead of moving for a Committee, because of some words which fell from the Home Secretary last year on the Motion for a Commission to consider this very point. He said he did not understand what advantage would result from the appointment of a Commission, because the facts were already known. If it was not necessary that a Commission should then be appointed, still less is it necessary that a Committee should now inquire into the matter; and, therefore, I shall content myself with asking whether the right hon. Baronet intends to introduce any legislation on the subject. Before putting the question, however, I will say a few words to point out the evil. This is, I suppose, the largest and most opulent city in the world; yet there is, not a small borough in the kingdom which might not favourably compare with it in results. On the other side of the water Paris is infinitely more beautiful, more clean, and more convenient than London; yet it is not nearly so wealthy. In Paris the municipality actually find their improvements are a source of revenue. Here we have no improvement, yet our rates are always heavy. What is the want? What is the deficiency? First, we want those to rule, who have a sense of responsibility, and of shame—not those who are so low that public opinion and the public prints never reach them. Secondly, we want those to rule who could devote their time to it—not those who hasten carelessly over the business, in order that they may be able to run away to their money-making pursuits. These two objects
  1136
  can be attained only by a Board whose character is high and whose authority is established. Above all, we suffer from want of unity. There are in London numerous boards and jurisdictions which divide the metropolis between them, not according to one system, but according to nineteen different systems. These various jurisdictions hustle and jostle each other, and prevented any good from ever being done. I was myself surprised when I found the number of jurisdictions into which Loudon was divided. First, there is the corporation of the City; then the corporation of the city of Westminster; there are 39 Boards of Guardians, subdivided into relief districts; there are 88 parish vestries and vestries of district parishes. Then there is another division into eight Parliamentary cities and boroughs. There are 37 registration districts for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths; and 135 sub-districts. But these are not conterminous, they have different limits. Then there are the Conservators of the River Thames, and there is the Metropolitan Board. That again is divided into 39 constituencies, and each is subdivided afterwards into wards. Then the inland revenue divides London into surveyors' districts for the purpose of the Excise, and these again are divided into collectors' districts; but the inland revenue itself also divides London into totally different districts for the purpose of the income tax. The Metropolitan Building Act divides London into 56 different districts; the County Courts Act into 13 districts; the. Metropolitan Police into 19; the Post Office into 10; the Lords Lieutenant into 4 districts, with 4 different sets of magistrates. For the Militia it is subdivided into 15 districts. It is divided into 17 districts for gas supply, and into 8 for water supply. These different districts are not conterminous, and are formed on 19 different systems. And what is the effect of having so many different systems? First, take the financial effect in one district. The city of Westminster comprises 9 parishes and 5 boards of local management. They have a staff of clerks and officials sufficient for the whole metropolis. They have 21 clerks and vestry clerks; 6 surveyors, 4 solicitors, 9 officers of health, 6 inspectors of nuisances, and 9 staffs for their 9 workhouses. Now, what is the sum which Westminster collects every year? £194,031. Marylebone parish collects a like sum—namely, £194,036; a difference of £5 only between them;

  1137
  but what a difference there is in the expense as regards salaries and poundage! In Westminster, out of £194,000, they pay £17,462, while Marylebone, for having the same work done a great deal better, only pays £7,711. So much for the financial effect of dividing London into so many different districts; now let us look to the effects which every one must see with his eyes. I do not merely allude to the state of the streets, where no one can walk without getting into basins of mud; while those who drive in vehicles are made aware of holes in the streets by the severe jolts they receive. Nor do I allude merely to the roads, which are neglected till dangerous, and then macadamized until impassable. I allude to evils of greater magnitude. Conceive a new street laid down firmly and handed over to the parish vestry. No sooner is it paved, and the traffic of it begun, than down comes a water company who desires to lay down their pipes; the whole street is torn up, and the traffic stopped for a month. At length their operations are concluded; the pavement is relaid and the traffic resumed. This lasts not a week when a gas company takes up the pavement again to lay down their pipes, and for another month the public and the shopkeepers on both sides of the way suffer the greatest inconvenience. Again it is paved, and the traffic resumed. But after this severe ordeal the street, of course, is seriously impaired, and then the vestry steps in to repair it; so that the traffic is again stopped for the third time, and great expense is incurred. This is no hypothetical case. It is more than borne out by actual facts. I will mention one. The Metropolitan Board had determined to construct a model street—Southwark Street, in St. Saviour's. They had not sufficient powers, and determined to come to Parliament for the purpose. They did so. They proposed to construct a subway in which the pipes of the different water and gas companies might be laid. The Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company appeared before the Parliamentary Committee and fought the Metropolitan Board. The street, however, was made with a fine subway six feet high, and everyone expected that it would be safe from being broken up, and that the gas and water companies would be glad to make use of the subway. However, the street was not long completed before a water company gave notice to the vestry of their intention to
  1138
  break it up; and on being told that a subway was provided for receiving the pipes, they replied, "Oh, while working in the Committee-room we acquired a Parliamentary love of consistency, and, therefore, we cannot make use of the subway which we opposed in Parliament." The company then exerted their rights, and the street, which had been well made with concrete and granite, was, by the aid of powerful levers, broken up and destroyed. This was a difficult operation; for the street also was obdurate in its consistency. The fact is that these water and gas companies ought to be put under some controlling power. They are nothing but monopolies, which it was thought that we years ago had abolished. They each obtain a district, and within that district they supply inferior gas or impure water and charge a high price for it, and tyrannize over us at their pleasure. They are huge monopolies which we have set up to reign over us. If the gas or water they supply be bad, and you apply to the company, they laugh you to scorn, because they know that you can get it nowhere else. I will now refer to another point. St. James' Street, Piccadilly, happens to be partly in one parish and partly in another. Now, when the boundary line goes down the middle of a street the result is not so bad; but sometimes the boundary line goes obliquely across, and then great inconvenience is experienced from the want of concurrent action on the part of the two vestries. In some such cases, also, the boundary line goes unevenly or in a waving line. The consequence under these circumstances is, that when either parish chooses to pave their portion, the traffic of the street is stopped, and then perhaps a few months later the other vestry determine to pave, and the traffic is again stopped, and thus the inconvenience is prolonged. There was a case where a vestry did not choose to finish a new street in Islington, and the consequence was that in a short time there were ruts in it eighteen inches deep. Thus a conflict of authorities occasions a permanent mischief. But other evils of a more ephemeral character often arise. Last January the snow fell so fast one Wednesday night, that in the morning it lay in the streets more than a foot in depth. Next day it was churned by the traffic into a dark unwholesome slush. In going to the Board of Trade on that occasion I had to pass through great puddles, which took me above my ankles. And yet if a man had been employed he

  1139
  could easily have kept the gutters and water-ways open, and the water would have run away. Every omnibus from the west that day discharged its passengers at Regent Circus, and let them plod their weary way to the City. Of cabs there were very few; they drove tandem, and went at a foot's pace. In the night this sludgey ooze froze over; so that in the morning there was a variation of smooth ice, and lumps of frozen snow, like icebergs, very difficult to surmount. The changes between snow and icebergs had an interrupted sway for three days; to the great inconvenience of all cockneys. Yet, by the Metropolitan Local Management Act of 1855 "every vestry shall cause the footpaths to be swept and cleansed;" but that is a duty the vestries never perform; it is therefore requisite that there should be some general board of supervision for the whole metropolis in order to preserve the streets from being in a disgraceful condition, dangerous to passengers on foot, and in carriages, and riders on horseback. In Paris a general board manages all these things, and the consequence is that Paris is always attended to in a proper and efficient manner. Many accidents take place in London from frost, though nothing can be easier than to collect the ashes from the ash-pits in the houses on each side, scatter them over the road, and thus render it safe. I will not enlarge on the architecture of the streets. There is a dull and dirty uniformity, occasionally relieved by a few incongruous elements of individual eccentricity. Neither will I say much with respect to the increased traffic of the streets; because every one is aware that he is liable to be delayed by a huge dray athwart the street, and that when so situated he has no means of beguiling the tedium but by listening to the different forms of imprecation of the drivers. These are, however, matters to which the Government should direct their attention. In 1864 no less than 232 persons were killed by carts, drays, and cabs; so that walking in London is more dangerous than travelling by the Brighton Railway. All this arises from the fact of there being no general ruling authority. It is a Babylonian anarchy which some persons worship as the basis of their liberty, and for which others entertain a maudlin sentiment under the name of local government. The cleansing of our streets by the vestries is most imperfectly performed. Some courts, streets, and lanes in London are mere fever dens, and the Nuisance Re-
  1140
  moval Acts are entirely ignored. In 1861 there were only 391 cases of typhus in the fever hospitals; in 1862 the number was 2,697, and of the attacked 1,334 died; in 1863 there were 2,112 cases; in 1864 there were 3,610 cases, and in 1865 the number was 3,400. Dr. Horace Jeafferson calculates that there were yearly 16,600 such cases, and that the disease proved fatal in 2,300 cases. This state of things is caused to a great extent by there being no proper authority to put in force the Nuisances Removal Act. And why is this? Because the owners of typhus dens are vestrymen. In St. Pancras this year the medical officer prepared a very able report, in which he pointed out the nests of typhus which existed, and showed how the fever might be checked and cholera warded off. In the midst of reading this report, up jumped a vestryman and moved, as an amendment, that the report be not received. The doctor was called impertinent for bringing such a matter under the notice of the vestry, and in short he got nothing but objurgatory shrieks and vulgar vituperation for his pains. The truth is that the owners of these nests of typhus sat at the vestry board, and they would not join the medical officer in improving these districts. Now this is not self-government; but a want of government—an anarchy and scandal. Where self-government exists, that is, where the people really govern themselves, by all means foster and cherish it. But where the intelligent shrink from the trouble, the industrious hurry off to their money-making pursuits, then this vaunted self-government sinks so low that it falls upon the shoulders of those who feel a little importance in pretending to discharge its functions. The educated avoid it; and we are martyred for a sentiment, and inconvenienced for a social principle of Anglo-Saxon times. My notion is that evils should be removed wherever they are found (whether they are pollutions of rivers or stinks in streets), even at the cost of fine theories. I may be asked what I would propose. I would say, let the Metropolitan Board, or some one board, have an extended jurisdiction over the whole of the metropolis. It would then be an honour to belong to it. The minor boards need not be extinguished, but should be maintained in subjection to the general board to execute mere local duties. All the skilled officers, as they are always badly chosen by mere numbers, should be nominated by the Government. I should

  1141
  also like to see a Minister in the House who should be directly responsible for the good government of the metropolis, and for the supervision of all the municipalities and rivers in England. This, in fact, would he the plan adapted to the metropolis, which I proposed last year for every water-shed in England, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government proposes to legislate on this subject?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, it is quite true, as the noble Lord has stated, that when a Motion was made on this subject last Session I objected to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the facts, because, as I said, they were notorious, and every one knew the great inconvenience resulting from the multitude of local authorities in London. I did not state that it would be inexpedient to inquire into the best modes of remedying the existing defects. But I stated that my own impression was that it would be desirable to give a more extended jurisdiction to the Metropolitan Board of Works, to enable them to superintend the paving, cleansing, and lighting of streets, not by superseding the existing local bodies, but by exercising a superintendence over them, and seeing that they perform efficiently all those duties which the law casts upon them, and which are now most imperfectly discharged. During the recess I have been in communication with the Metropolitan Board of Works, which appointed a committee to consider this question. The result of the deliberations of that committee has been that they were not prepared to recommend the consolidation of all existing boards and vestries; but that they are favourable to some extension of the appellate or superintending jurisdiction of the Board which already exists in some cases, such as those as to streets where one side was in one and the other in another jurisdiction. With regard to such streets they have already power to interfere and compel unity of action. That power has been exercised, I think, in St. James' Street, to prevent public inconvenience. With regard to streets being torn up by gas companies, I do not think that arises from any defect in London as distinguished from any other place. Any large city or borough may be subjected to the same inconvenience, because the companies obtain from Parliament powers which they exercise in defiance of local authority, I suppose that the same thing may be done in Manchester or Liverpool, although each place is governed
  1142
  by a town council with jurisdiction extending over the whole place. Whatever the local authority may be, if Parliament give power to a company to break up pavements and lay pipes, the local authority must submit to the exercise of powers granted by Parliament. It is very desirable that the attention of Committees of this House should be directed to the matter, so as to prevent them giving powers which may override those of local authorities. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) has given notice that to-morrow he will move for a Select Committee to inquire into the local government and local taxation of the metropolis; and I hope the House will be disposed to agree to that Motion. I think this matter may be usefully inquired into by that Committee. It is not easy to devise a scheme to put an end to the various jurisdictions of London; but I trust the result of the appointment of a Committee will be that a feasible plan will be proposed for obviating the evils resulting from a multiplicity of jurisdictions.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) did not intend to go into the Estimates at that late hour of the evening (twenty minutes past nine o'clock). It was not probable the noble Lord would obtain a vote that night.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, in rising to move the consideration of the Navy Estimates for 1866–7, I should have no right, under ordinary circumstances, to claim the indulgence of the Committee, because the performance of the duty for the eighth time ought, ordinarily, to present no great difficulty. To-night, however, I approach the subject under some oppression. First of all, I miss, on both sides of the House, many familiar faces of those who used to take part in these discussions, and thereby render very great service to the navy—Mr. Lindsay, Mr. George Bentinck, Sir Frederick Smith, and many others. I cannot but regret their absence on the present occasion. Another cause of greater oppression and

1143
difficulty is, that in past Sessions, when I have had the honour, on the part of the Government, to conduct these debates, I have always had the assistance of the great statesman who is gone from among us. Few in this House and few in the navy appreciated the extent of his knowledge of every detail connected with the navy, and the extraordinary interest he took in everything which had reference to the welfare of the seaman. Under all these circumstances, I am sure the Committee will give me every indulgence. The Estimates for the year 1866–7 are very much changed in many respects, and I am afraid the change will involve hon. Members in some difficulty when they attempt to make a comparison of the Estimates with those for the present year. In accordance with the recommendation of a Committee of this House, the Estimates for 1866–7 are altered as respects the Votes having reference to the dockyards in several particulars. Hitherto the salaries of officers and superintendents have been in one Vote, and the wages of artificers and others in another Vote. The Committee wisely, I think, recommended that the whole expenditure of each dockyard and each victualling yard, and of all other naval establishments should be shown distinctly under the Vote for each. The Committee will, therefore, find that the figures of the Votes are very much changed. For the convenience of hon. Members who may wish to make comparisons, I have added in the appendix the Vote in the old form. The Committee I have alluded to also advised that many items in the Estimates which were under certain Votes should be transferred to other Votes, as being the more appropriate places for them. An instance of the difficulty of comparison which this' change will involve is afforded by the Transport Vote, which shows an increase for 1866–7 of £82,208, whereas there is really a decrease of £47,104. I will explain that when I come to it; but my object now is to inform the Committee that, with the best intention to do everything that can be done to make these matters clear, I am afraid there will be some difficulty owing to these changes. Still further, to facilitate the understanding of the Estimates, I have added at the end a table of contents; and I have also inserted two Returns which I have previously placed before the House as single papers. One is a list of ships afloat and building, and the other is a programme of shipbuilding works. I thought it was more convenient that these should be attached to the
1144
Navy Estimates than that they should be published separately. The Navy Estimates for 1866–7 amount, in the gross, to £10,388,153. They are the same as the Estimates for the present year, for I will not venture to call a sum of £4,000 a reduction. If anyone, however, were to suppose that the ordinary naval expenditure of the coming year would be equal to that of the present year, he would do a great injustice to the Department, because, in truth, there is a considerable reduction, as I shall show, upon the ordinary expenditure. I will state at once to the Committee how this matter stands. They will remember that for several years past there has been a great and a proper demand that the dockyards should be placed in an efficient state as regards basin accommodation, the provision of additional facilities for the building of armourships, and various other purposes connected with the matériel of the navy. This House resolved last year that we should put our dockyards in a proper state, and that that should be done, not by mere annual Votes alone, but by a Act of Parliament to empower the Government to enter into contracts for the completion of these great works. The result of that is that, in accordance with the terms of the Dockyard Extensions Act, the Vote for the Dockyards will be increased during the coming year by a sum of £350,000 over the Vote for the present year, and I have to inform the Committee that, so far from my being able to hold out a hope of any reductions in the Vote for New Works, there is a certainty, as I think, during the next three years of a considerable increase. The Votes this year for New Works under the Act of Parliament, amounts to upwards of £800,000, and must during the next three years amount to upwards of £1,000,000. With regard to the other Votes you will find that there is throughout the Estimates a fair reduction in consequence of a certain diminution in the number of men and in the Votes for Stores, the only increase of any importance being in the Vote for the Dockyards. And now, Sir, with regard to the Vote for the personnel of the navy. We take this year, as I will presently show, a somewhat smaller force of men, and consequently our Vote for the personnel of the navy will be less during the year 1866–7 than it was during the present year. And here, again, I want to call the particular attention of the Committee to what our prospects are in future years. Now, it is all very well

1145
to talk of reducing the naval expenditure, but the fact is, that I cannot hold out any hopes of a reduction in that which principally governs the expenditure of the navy—the number of seamen of the fleet. We have carried on during the last two years a gradual reduction of our seamen to what has come to be a very considerable diminution, but if we are to make the naval force which we have afloat adequate to the demands upon it, that reduction cannot go on. I have a paper here which, if hon. Gentlemen wish mo to quote from, will show that, so far from there being a prospect of a further diminution of our fleet, we are pressed from all quarters of the globe for additional assistance. We are pressed from China. We are told that the seas there are infested with pirates, and large demands are made upon us for additional forces. In Japan, they tell us that, in order to carry out the treaties which have been made with the Tycoon, we must be prepared to have a large force in the inland sea. In the River Plate, Chili, Peru, the presence of ships is asked for, and let it be remembered that most of all these demands come at the desire of our merchants. In short, such are the calls upon the Admiralty, that I confess I should be deceiving the Committee if I were to hold out a prospect of any further reduction in the number of men. Now, that being the case, let us take a glance over the future expenditure of the navy. Setting aside altogether Public Works, which have no reference to the number of men, and which, when they are completed will, no doubt, cause a great reduction in the expenditure under that Vote; setting aside also all the other Votes—the Non-effective Votes and the Vote for the Transport of Troops, which have nothing to do with the navy—I think it will be seen from a very important paper which I should like to quote to the Committee, and which will be found of very great value, that the expenditure for future years does not appear to afford much hope of reduction unless our forces at sea are to be diminished. Now, the expenditure for the personnel of the navy from the year 1855–6 down to the coming year, including everything which is due to that expenditure—that is to say, the pay, the victualling, the medical stores, and various other things—has been set down on one side. On the other side I have put together the Votes for the matériel of the navy, which includes dockyards, stores, and, in short, every cost of the ships in which we put the men.
1146
If you have so many men you must have so many ships, and if you have so many ships in commission, you must have so many more in reserve, and others to replace them when they are worn out. The Committee will see, therefore, that there is a direct relation between these two classes of Votes, and that they really depend very much on one another. Well, the expenditure on men since the year 1855–6 up to the next year—including these Estimates now before the Committee—the expenditure on the personnel is in round numbers £48,000,000, and upon the matériel of the navy the figure is nearly £47,000,000. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Sincewhen?] From 1855–6—that is, eleven years—I give you the proportion of the cost of the personnel to the matériel. It is as forty-eight to forty-seven, or very nearly equal. I will now proceed to show the House what is proposed to be taken for the year 1866–7. We ask you for the coming year for the personnel £4,173,550, for the matériel we only ask £2,586,653, that is, we are asking for our matériel a very much smaller proportion than the average on the eleven years. In 1865–6 we took, in round numbers, £4,500,000 for our personnel, and for our matériel £3,000,000. I have given this Return, which I think extremely valuable, and which I would honestly recommend to the attention of the hon. Gentleman, because I think it a fair guide to the probable expenditure of future years. I will tell you why we have asked so small a sum for matériel during the present and coming year. We have made great exertions during the last five years in constructing armourplated ships. The fleet may now be said to be in a very fair condition as regards the wants of the country, and it is that which has enabled us gradually to lower these Votes for the matériel. It is also because we had a good stock of timber, which we laid in by our providence, instead of our improvidence, as was supposed by some hon. Gentlemen at the time. It was that valuable stock of timber which has enabled us at present to keep the Votes for the matériel so low; but I desire to express my deliberate opinion that, unless the force of ships in commission is reduced, this sum will in future years be inadequate to the maintenance of our matériel, indeed the Return I have quoted from distinctly points to this result. Votes 1 and 2 are for the pay and victualling of the fleet, and

1147
upon them there is an apparent reduction of £172,808 shown at page 5. The real reduction is only £80,000, and the history of this is that we have transferred from Vote No. 1, which is the Vote for the pay of the seamen of the fleet, the whole expenditure upon our Government transports, and transferred it to Vote 17. Hence, although the reduction in the Vote is shown on the Estimates to be £172,000, the real reduction is, as I have said, only £80,000. I now pass to the reductions we propose in the personnel. We take 185 officers less, 17 fewer subordinate officers, 12 fewer warrant officers, 486 fewer petty officers and seamen, 50 fewer Coastguards afloat, 600 fewer Marines, and 200 fewer civilians, being a reduction, in all, of 1,550. That is qualified by an increase of 200 added to the Coastguard on shore, and I think it will be satisfactory to those who take interest in these Coastguardmen, to hear that we have now come to an arrangement with the Treasury by which, as far as Government is concerned, the Coastguard forces shall be established at a fixed number, and not, as heretofore, be liable to a yearly fluctuation. We propose now permanently to increase the force by 200 men, and to finally fix the number at that which it will be after making this addition. The result of all this is that we have a reduction of 1,350 in the number of officers, seamen, and marines; so that we shall have during the coming year a total force of 68,400 men, against 69,750 men in the present year. I now come to the ships in commission. If hon. Gentlemen will turn to page 140 they will find there a list of all our ships in commission. The total number of our sea-going ships is 148, of which 12 are armourplated, or at least that was the number at the commencement of December, since which time we have commissioned another armour-plated ship and paid off a line-of-battle ship. This is exclusive of the Coastguard district vessels. That disposes of Vote No. 1; and, passing over intermediate Votes, I now come to Vote No. 4, which relates to the Naval Reserve. That force, which was established within the last few years, goes on, I am happy to say, increasing. We are now much more careful in selecting the men, and we take none but first-rate seamen. That force now amounts, in round numbers, to about 17,000 drilled men and 200 officers, while the Royal Naval Volunteers amount to about 5,100 men. In the Vote for Dock-
1148
yards you will find there is an apparent increase of £64,766, but that increase has to be qualified; and the real increase in that Vote as compared with that of the present year is about £35,000. The addition made to it arises in the first place from the fact that we have transferred to it from other Votes the whole of the expense for the superintendence of the dockyards, while we have also been obliged to enter a number of new men for breaking up ships and to substitute at Portsmouth a large number of labourers for convicts. I now pass to Vote 10—the great shipbuilding Vote; and in bringing it under the notice of the Committee I shall try, as I have always done upon these occasions, to avoid matters of mere controversy. I will not here enter into the question of broadsides or turret or box ships, or into any other topic of the kind, but I will confine my observations to a general estimate of the condition of our fleet; and I hope that the Committee will deal this evening with the subject in the same comprehensive spirit, and will reserve the discussion of details for a more fitting opportunity. In the first section of Vote 10, which amounts to £1,003,501, there is an apparent reduction of £131,071, but the real reduction is only £81,071, the discrepancy being due to a transference of the Vote for coals for the Government troop ships. When we come to the second section of Vote 10, which is the Comptroller's Vote, or the Vote for contracts for building ships, we find there is an apparent reduction of £246,700, and that is a real reduction, and one of the solid reductions in the Estimates for the coming year. There is an increase in the Vote for steam engines to the amount of £40,000; but there is a great decrease in the contracts for building ships—a decrease to the amount of not less than £239,000—and here occurs a very interesting subject to which I must shortly advert. That question is the desirability of continuing the present system under which a considerable number of vessels are built for the navy by contractors. That question is so important, and so likely to give rise to discussion, that I would ask hon. Members not to discuss it to-night. I think it is a question to which a separate night may well be devoted. There can be no doubt that there are disadvantages connected with the present system. When a contract is entered into with a private firm, of course the Government must abide by the terms of its contract, and the firm are

1149
only bound to do what they originally covenanted. When we give a contract for a vessel which is to be completed at the end of a given time, say of two years, there is no doubt an advantage in such an arrangement, provided we can specify beforehand what is the precise character of the work to be performed. But there is no year in which the state of naval science is not greatly improved as compared with the year preceding. Owing to the rapid advances of naval science, owing to the discoveries which are made almost every day, it is most important that there should be an opportunity for modifying the original design as the building of a vessel proceeds; but we cannot go to a contractor and tell him to change his plates and make other alterations, without incurring a great additional expense; while, if we build our ships in the dockyards, we have the advantage of having the works under our own control, and of effecting in them any changes we may think proper. As long as our ships are built by contract, the Government must abide by its original contract, and cannot expect the contractors to make the alterations in the work necessitated by the constant changes in naval architecture. I do not hope that my opinion will meet with the unanimous assent of the House, but I wished to state what I believed to be disadvantages connected with the present system. With reference to the present condition of our ironclad fleet, it will be found in full detail in page 146; but for the information of the public, I will now mention that on the 1st of April we shall have afloat thirty armour-plated ships of various classes, and we shall have one only on hand which will not be afloat by that time; so that we shall then have a total of thirty-one armour-plated vessels built or being built. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Are they all sea-going ships?] No, I do not say they are all sea-going ships. There are several that we do not consider sea-going ships, and I shall be able to show hereafter what we think a sea-going ship ought to be. We are going to construct a sea-going cruising turret-ship, to be called the Monarch. I do not see the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) in his place. [An hon. MEMBER: He is very ill.] But our views of the proper size of a sea-going ship and his somewhat differ. After going very carefully into this question, and studying the thickness of the plates, the thickness of the backing, what the height should be out
1150
of the water, the speed, and the offensive and defensive power of this ship, we have come to the conclusion that the least tonnage we can give to a two-turreted ship, carrying four guns, is 5,099 tons. [Mr. CORKY: What sized guns?] The turrets are prepared to carry a 22-ton gun, but the ship is a little in advance of the gun, for it is not yet settled whether those guns will be introduced into the service. The Committee are aware that there exists a gun of 22-tons that has been tried at Shoeburyness, and our artillerists think that they can construct guns of that calibre. Whether they will succeed or not I do not know, but we must provide for guns of that weight, and if they fail, we can easily carry guns of a smaller calibre. The thickness of the armour-plating will be seven inches, and there will be two inner skins of three-quarters of an inch each, so that she will have 8 inches of iron round her battery and water-line, with a backing of 12 inches. She will be of 1,100-horse power, and have an estimated speed of fourteen knots an hour. She will carry four guns in her turrets, and two 100-pounders—one in the bow and one in the stern—behind armour-plated shields. The other ship which is going to be commenced—the frames are already prepared—is the Hercules, a sister to the Bellerophon. I described this vessel very minutely when the Estimates were before the Committee last year, and I will not further advert to her here. That will make thirty-three armour-plated ships that will he built or in course of construction during the year. The other operations we propose will be found under the head of the "Programme of Works," in page 147. We propose to build two enlarged vessels of the Amazon class, not armour-plated, but carrying four heavy guns and having an estimated speed of thirteen knots, and one or two smaller vessels. That will be in addition to two Amazons already built, and four that are building, besides one small vessel building with a double screw. The result is that we propose to construct during the coming year, 1866–7, 15,907 tons, or, in round numbers, 16,000 tons of shipping, This is our intention; but shipbuilding is dependent upon accidents, and we are not always able to carry out our full programme. Last year we lost the Bombay and other ships, and the result of the various casualties was that instead of carrying out our programme and executing 15,000 tons of shipping we only executed

1151
12,500 tons, owing to the fact that the repairs had been greater than we antica-pated. I am sure the Committee will be perfectly aware that although our programme varies in this way, it is wise that these things should be stated to the Committee, even if we do not come quite up to the mark. I have just given our estimate of the constructive power of the Admiralty during the coming year. I will now give the Committee an idea of its destructive power. We are often called upon to get rid of the rows of old ships and hulks that encumber our harbours. Since July, 1859, we have sold, taken to pieces, lost, lent, or given away 320 vessels. No complaint can be made, therefore, of our not destroying them as fast as we can, and there still remain a great number to be dealt with. Sir, I have already said a few words on the subject of Vote 11 of our new works. With regard to Woolwich and Sheerness, in accordance with the feeling of the Committee on Dockyards and the public, we think it unadvisable that there should be any great expenditure upon those yards, because many people look in the end to their being swallowed up and merged in the great establishments. We propose to spend very little on Woolwich, Sheerness, or Deptford. At Chatham very good progress has been made with the extension works. The whole of the sea has been shut out, and we are now ready to deal with the contractors. I shall be obliged to ask for the extension, for three months, of the Admiralty powers in the Dockyard Extension Act, to enable us to defer the contracts until we get the specifications ready; but the director of works reports that there will he no delay, because the interval will enable us to collect the machinery, plant, and matériel that is necessary. A small item in these Votes will be brought before the Committee, but it involves a new principle. We want to connect the railways with all the dockyards. There were two ways of doing this; either we must make the branches ourselves, or make some terms with the railway directors with a view to the construction of the branches by them. With the sanction of the Treasury we have agreed to allow the railway companies to make the branches, and we paying them a certain interest upon the capital employed. [An hon. MEMBER: At what rate?] I cannot exactly state. It is not quite settled, but that is the principle on which we intend to go. For the works of Portsmouth we ask
1152
£192,000. We are already commencing the new basins; all the legal questions are settled; and we hope, as the item shows, to make considerable progress during the coming year. There is an item in the works at Portsmouth to which I will now advert. Although we have two great armour-plated ships building in that dockyard, still it is a fact that if any disaster of a serious character happened to our armour-plated fleet we have not got the means of very extensive repairs at Portsmouth. Yet Portsmouth is evidently the dockyard at which any extensive repairs would have to be executed. We therefore ask for £18,000 to provide for the repair of armour-ships, including machinery, building, &c. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester found fault with me for adopting steam-spinning at our dockyards, and complained that it tended to take away the valuable occupation of hand-spinning. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will find fault with me still more this year, for we intend to extend our steam-spinning. We propose to introduce steam-spinning machinery at Devon-port, with the intention of abolishing the ropery at Portsmouth, and contenting ourselves with the two steam-spinning establishments at Chatham and Devonport. Sir, the next important item is for the dock at Haulbowline, Cork, and I am happy to inform hon. Gentlemen that that work is progressing. There are a large number of convicts employed upon it, and we trust that in the course of the year 1866–7 the sea will be excluded, and we shall be able to commence the dock with its basin. These are all the great and important works at our home establishments as regards the dockyards. With respect to marine barracks, we have nearly completed a fine set of barracks at Eastney and Chatham. And here I may observe that an important question is arising at the present day in connection with the marines. Great facilities are given to marines who are married to live with their wives and familes. Considerable sums are paid as lodging money to those men who are allowed to reside outside the barracks. Well, Sir, whether some measure may not hereafter be adopted, founded upon the Bill of my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, or by some other means, to provide cottages and lodgings for our married soldiers, I am not prepared to say. It is a question which ought not to be lost sight of, because it is a very costly system to give our married marines lodging money, and the purlieus

1153
of the barracks are not fit places for them to live in. I believe that sooner or later something will have to be done to provide a certain portion of our married marines, and, indeed, our married sailors who happen to be in port, with quarters, I turn next to Malta, and here I am glad to say that all the disputes with the Maltese authorities have vanished, and that those authorities are giving us cordial assistance. So well, indeed, have they and the contractors also behaved that we may expect by the end of next June—a year before the time fixed—to have that fine artificial harbour completed for the merchant service, and the French Creek will be given up to us. The dock in the French Creek is progressing satisfactorily; about one-third of the excavations has been done; the nature of the rook promises well; and I am informed by the directors of the works that unless some difficulties that cannot be foreseen arise that dock will be finished in two years. The only further work connected with this Vote relates to the proposed dock at Bermuda, We propose to construct a great iron floating dock, and there have been various plans before us for the execution of this work. One of these is quite of a novel and ingenious character. I do not venture to describe it, but I intend to lay a model of it in the Library, that hon. Members may see it for themselves. The plan, although it is one of a hydraulic first-class dock, dispenses almost altogether with any steam machinery; and, what is still more remarkable, the inventor proposes to build it here and to go out in it. The only other Vote I need notice is No. 17, for transports. Here there is an apparent increase of £82,208 in comparison with the Vote of last year; but in reality the amount is lower by £47,104 than that of last year, because there has been a transfer from other Votes of £129,312 for wages, victuals, coals, &c, which are now brought under the head of "transport." I have necessarily passed over the Estimates very lightly, for it would make a very long story were I to advert to all the items; but I think I have not neglected to place before the Committee all the important points. I have now only to make a few general observations on the condition of the fleet, which I have always found to be a matter of interest to the House, and to which on the present occasion it affords me special pleasure to refer. I regret to say that during the last few years the flow of pro-
1154
motion among the combatant officers in the navy has not been satisfactory. I am bound to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) credit for always having desired to carry the retirements of officers further, with a view to create a better flow of promotion from the junior to the higher grades of the service. I, for one, should always have been very glad to do the same thing, but his scheme would have been a very expensive operation; while the scheme which in a few days I hope to lay on the table, and which will, so to speak, be a self-acting measure, will, I believe, produce that fair and proper current of promotion in the navy which is necessary, without very great cost. Although the scheme is almost entirely complete, I do not think it would be right on the present occasion to enter into any of its details; and, therefore, I now only mention the fact that I hope in a very short time to propose to the House a measure which has received great attention, and the object of which is to give a better flow of promotion from the junior to the higher grades of the service. There is another valuable and important class of officers in the navy, though one not included in its combatant sections. I speak of the medical officers, whose professional services being much sought after and far better remunerated in private practice than in the navy, it has become absolutely necessary that better prospects should be held out to attract them to that service. The Duke of Somerset, therefore, called together during the autumn a committee, which was presided over by Sir Alexander Milne, a distinguished admiral, and on which officers of the army and navy were placed, together with two eminent medical men, the one a member of the College of Physicians and the other a member of the College of Surgeons. Both of those bodies have also given us their most cordial assistance with a view to put the medical officers of the navy in such an improved position as that, while no unreasonable demand shall be made on the public, greater inducements than heretofore shall be offered to tempt them to make the navy the field for the exercise of their profession. Sir, a scheme founded on their recommendations will be laid before the House. There are some proposals with regard to Greenwich Hospital pensions to which I need not now advert, as they will have to be brought in as a separate measure. A

1155
few days ago I placed on the table certain statistical Returns having reference to the general condition of the navy. Some of those Returns, unfortunately, are not quite finished, but there is one from which, although the actual Report is not yet out, the Committee will, perhaps, permit me to read a brief extract. It is the Report, made up to the end of the year 1864, on the discipline, crime, and punishments of the navy, and it states—
"The report on crime and punishment in the navy, made up to the end of the year 1864, will show the satisfactory state of the discipline and condition of the fleet. The convictions are fewer than in the year preceding. There have been fewer cases of drunkenness, theft, and gross acts of insubordination; and even the offence of being absent without leave has very much declined, although the amount of leave given has been greater than at any former period. The number of persons discharged with disgrace or as objectionable was only 200 in 1864, against 530 in 1863. In 1864, 577 men and boys were corporally punished against 1,012 in 1862, and 752 in 1863. The proportions are as follows:—In 1862 one in every 54 persons; in 1863 one in 66; and in 1864 one in 84. On the home station, including the Channel Squadron and the Coastguard ships, the proportion, irrespective of boys, is only one to about every 600 men. Imprisonments have declined, so also have the other major punishments, such as disrating, deprivation of good conduct badges, reduction to the second class for conduct, and so forth. If any further proof be required of the improved and improving conduct of the men of the fleet, that proof is afforded in the statistics of courts martial, where we find the remarkable fact recorded that the convictions in those courts have fallen from 140 in 1863, to 97 in 1864. The desertions are decreased from 5 per cent in 1862 to 2¼ percent in 1865."
Everybody, I am sure, will listen to the indications of improvements such as those spoken of in the Report with great pleasure. For the first time, I have been collecting statistics concerning education in the navy, and I am sure Members will be surprised on learning the progress it has made among all classes and all ranks. In the same Return the religious denomination to which the men belong is indicated. There is one thing they lack, although it is supplied to every other class of people in the country, and it is the savings bank. In this direction much may be done. If we can induce men to become frugal, and invest their money in savings banks, which, in my opinion, ought to be introduced on board our ships, they would be more likely to resist the temptation to go ashore, get drunk, and get into trouble. If we can once tempt the fleet to these habits of frugality we shall have done much to improve its morality. Were the men to have
1156
an easy opportunity of investing their savings, I have no doubt much money now squandered would be put by, and the morality of the navy greatly promoted. Military men will correct me if I am wrong when I state that every regiment has its savings bank—an institution which has done much in improving the character of the army. Hitherto we have failed in this respect to do for the navy what has been done for the army; but I do trust that this matter will not be allowed to drop until something satisfactory has been accomplished, for I am perfectly convinced that all we desire can be carried out. The project, I have no doubt, will be attended with expense, because we have not the requisite machinery in our ships. I must say that while my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided such banks in almost every little village in the country, it does seem very hard that sailors in particular are to be debarred from investing their money and receiving a dividend for it on board their own ship. It is true we allow them to send their money home to their friends, but they should be able at any time to place their money in the bank themselves, and themselves receive the dividends. I sincerely hope that the measure I now suggest will be carried out, whoever may occupy the position I now hold. Last year I stated that it was requisite that a corps of artificers of the fleet should be organized. We are now establishing a school-ship. In every other respect, I think, the fleet is thoroughly organized. When we get a proper class of artificers on board our ships we shall be ready to go into action whenever required. When we reflect what these ships are, and the delicacy of the manufacture of much that is on board ship; when we consider that not only the engines but the guns (with respect to which we are introducing new mechanical appliances) come within the province of the artificers, it is necessary that they should be a properly organized body. These, Mr. Dodson, are the general observations I have to make to the Committee in connection with the Navy Estimates, and from which, I think, it will be seen that our fleet is keeping up its position, and is ready for any service that may be required of it. I have only passed lightly over the various branches of the Estimates, and would recommend the Committee to defer any lengthened and detailed observations, particularly any

1157
controversy with respect to the construction of ships, until we arrive at the particular Vote relating to them. I thank the Committee for the attention with which it has listened to me. The noble Lord concluded by moving the first Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That 68,400 Men and Boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1867, including 16,400 Royal Marines."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, my noble Friend commenced his address by referring to the number of years in succession in which he has brought the annual statement touching the navy before the House. He has uniformly made that statement with so much frankness and fairness that it really always became a very unplensant duty to enter into any part of it in which a difference of opinion would arise. I am therefore rejoiced that, at all events in one very important portion of those Estimates, the first, I think, to which my noble Friend referred, I am enabled to state most cordially my concurrence in the course which the Government has adopted. Looking at the magnitude of the sum for which Parliament is asked, the reduction is so trifling that, as my noble Friend stated, the Estimates must be considered the same as they were last year. The saving made is to be found in the Votes for the men and shipbuilding, and the first part of my noble Friend's statement was devoted to the explanation of the circumstance that, while this saving had been effected, the general amount of the Estimates remains the same. This is explained by the fact that there has been a great increase in our dock accommodation. The total expenditure in this respect has been no less than £1,500,000 for Portsmouth, and I think very little less for Chatham. New Members may not be aware that this part of the Estimates is the result of the deliberation of a Committee of the House of Commons appointed the year before last to consider the amount of dock accommodation at Portsmouth. The result of the inquiries of that Committee was that the whole of our system of shipbuilding, having been in a state of transition, rendered it imperatively necessary for the public service that the great increase in the size of our ships should be met by a proportionate increase in dock accommodation for the care of them. This is the true explanation
1158
of this matter; and feeling, as I do, the imperative necessity for providing that additional dock accommodation, I am very glad that the Admiralty has introduced these items into the Estimates, which I, for one, will most cordially support. My only doubt with regard to this item for the increase of our docks is, whether or not the expenditure might not be judiciously incurred in a shorter period of time. The cost of the works at Portsmouth and Chatham is to spread over a period of not less than six or seven years. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: The most essential pans will be completed in four years.] I cannot help thinking that these works might have been carried out more economically if they had been carried out in a shorter space of time; but this is a point of detail with regard to which my noble Friend may perhaps give a satisfactory explanation hereafter. Another item which the noble Lord has not referred to, but which I am glad to see in the Estimates, is £50,000 for the establishment of a dock at Bermuda, as there is no part of Her Majesty's dominions where the establishment of a dock is more necessary. I am aware of the great difficulties in connection with the locality from the nature of the rock on which Bermuda stands; and, therefore, I believe the Government has adopted a very wise and prudent course in deciding to carry out the intimation which my noble Friend gave us last year, to the effect that the Government would endeavour to overcome the practical difficulties of the case by establishing a floating dock. Here, again—though I cannot pretend to judge of a matter of detail of this kind—I am disposed to think that it would have been better, when £250,000 is to be spent in making the dock, if the Government had proceeded somewhat more rapidly, and taken a larger sum this year than £50,000. My noble Friend next made a statement respecting the average expenditure of the navy during a series of years, showing that during that series of years the expenditure for the personnel and matériel of the navy had been nearly the same, and that in the present year the expenditure for shipbuilding was much less, as compared with the expenditure for the men, than it had been in former years. But I think it is more important for this House to take into consideration whether or not the amount to be voted for the building of our ships is wisely and judiciously expended; and, in reference to this, I am obliged to say that the

1159
statement of my noble Friend is not so satisfactory as I had hoped it would be, nor so satisfactory as he led us to expect when he made a similar statement last year. In the first place, I wish to make a few remarks on the question of turret-ships. My noble Friend said he would not on the present occasion enter into any comparison between turret or broad-sided ships, but I cannot help thinking that at this moment, when the general statement of the Department is made, and the House of Commons is invited to incur an enormous expenditure to support and keep up the strength of the navy of the country, the natural and proper course is to enter into a full statement of questions of this sort. My noble Friend himself adopted this course last year, and therefore I was surprised to hear him say that this was not the moment to discuss that point, and that we must wait till we came to that particular Vote. On the contrary, I wanted him to go fully and clearly into this important subject. I think, moreover, that on this most interesting and important question the statement of the noble Lord has not been so satisfactory as I had hoped to hear. I do not want to involve the House in controversial matters more than is necessary; but, after the statement made by my noble Friend, I cannot altogether forego the right I have to say that that statement has not been so satisfactory as I had hoped he would make. Will the Committee allow me to remind them of what fell from the noble Lord last year on the subject of turret-ships? He said—
"The first proposal we have to make is that, if possible, we should endeavour to construct a ship upon the turret principle which shall be a real sea-going vessel."—[3 Hansard, clxxvii. 1158.]
How has that promise been fulfilled? During the past year has the Admiralty taken any steps whatever in building a sea-going turret-ship? I have not heard of the commencement of any such vessel; indeed, my noble Friend now makes exactly the same promise which he made a year ago. I am extremely surprised to hear that this projected ship is to be a vessel of upwards of 5,000 tons; for are we to understand that no sea-going turret-ship can be constructed with less tonnage? I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) is prevented by illness from being in his place this evening, because he would probably have been able to give us particulars respecting a sea-going turret-ship which he built last year. That vessel, which was of 1,100 tons only, made a
1160
long voyage in bad weather, and proved herself possessed of every quality requisite for a sea-going ship. I cannot give particulars, but my hon. Friend would have confirmed what I state, I wish to ask the noble Lord why so much delay has occurred, and how it happens now that we are a second time promised a sea-going turret-ship, that it is to be a vessel of 5,000 tons? Above all, I desire to know who is to design that ship, and who is to be responsible for its construction? I think the conduct of the Admiralty, in regard to this most interesting question, has not been satisfactory. Captain Cowper Coles is the originator of this plan, and the Admiralty long ago acknowledged that that gentleman's invention was one well worth trying as an experiment. Now, I think no one will deny that if an experiment relating to a great national question of this kind is worth making at all it ought to be made fairly and promptly. In my opinion, however, the Admiralty have not tried Captain Cowper Coles' plan either fairly or promptly. They began by cutting down a three-decker, the Royal Sovereign, and converting her into a vessel which, in the event of a war, may, indeed, be found useful for the protection of our own coasts, but which is not, in any respects, the kind of ship which Captain Cowper Coles from the first designed. The Admiralty have evaded the request of Captain Cowper Coles that his experiment might be fairly tried, and, besides that, it is notorious that the present Chief Constructor of the Navy, Mr. Reed, has himself adopted a rival system. I wish to put it to my noble Friend whether, during the course of the year, the Admiralty have not allowed the inventor of this rival system to have all the advantages of official support and protection, while Captain Cowper Coles' proposal for a sea-going turret-ship has never up to this hour been fairly tried, notwithstanding the admission that it was worthy of such a trial? I have, I think, a right to ask, and the House has a right to ask, these questions, when we are told that the Admiralty are going to build a ship unnecessarily and unwisely large, incurring thereby an enormous expense, while it would have been far better to test the qualities of the system as to its sea-going powers by means of a much smaller and less expensive vessel. But, after all, what is this ship to be? Is it to be built under the guidance and ac-cording to the plan of Captain Cowper Coles, or on the plan of Mr. Reed, who, it is known,

1161
favours the rival system? We have a right to expect a frank and open statement as to the course the Admiralty will take on that point. I wish now to call the attention of the Committee and of my noble Friend to another subject which he introduced into his statement last year, and which he has again touched upon, though very lightly, this evening. Last year he said, somewhat to the surprise of the Committee, that at that time when so much attention had been given to armour-plated ships, the Admiralty had decided to build a class of ships which should be not armour-plated, but wooden ships, which my noble Friend described as Alabamas. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: They are the Amazons.] The noble Lord said—
"Our further operations in the dockyards will be the building of four swift ships, not armour-plated, but trusting wholly to their speed and armament—vessels which I may describe by a name familiar to everybody as an improved class of Alabamas. There are three of these vessels now under construction, and we propose to construct four more of them, making seven. They are entirely intended for the protection of our commerce. They will all be built of wood, and very much of the character of the famous Alabama."—[3 Hansard, c lxxvii. 1158.]
The Committee made no objection to this plan of the Admiralty; but I think I am speaking the opinion of every hon. Member who remembers the circumstance when I say that the Committee acceded to the plan only on this understanding—that, as the vessels were not to be armour-plated but wooden, they should be vessels of the greatest speed. Indeed, as they were to be built for the protection of our commerce, they would be of very little use if they were not of great speed. Well, the Amazon was the first of these ships; and I understand—of course I speak under correction—that, in point of speed, she is a complete failure. I am informed that the greatest speed which can be got out of her is 12J knots an hour. Is that such a rate of speed as my noble Friend contemplated? Why, the Agincourt goes at the rate of 15½ knots an hour. In case of war one of those new vessels would not be able to cope with the fast sailing ships which would be then on the seas, though to be of value she should excel them all; and, of course, if they came in contact with an iron-clad they could not stand against her for a moment. How are they valuable if they do not bear out the promise made by my noble Friend last year, that they would be built for swiftness. I am sorry to be
1162
finding fault, but I must say a word as to one of our armour-clad vessels. I allude to the Pallas, which is constructed on such principles that she has no speed. She drives each wave before her, and so makes it impossible that she can get through the water at a high rate. So defective is the construction of her bows that she fails in that important element which is now the first requisite of a man-of-war. I fear that these mishaps may be attributable to the fact that the Government have allowed themselves to lose the shipbuilding talent which they once possessed. I see opposite me my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda), and I am glad that a gentleman so eminent in shipbuilding has now a seat in this House, and will be able to join in these interesting discussions on the navy. If I am correctly informed my hon. Friend is now paying a large and handsome salary to Mr. Oliver Laing, one of the most eminent shipbuilders in Europe, who, through the injudicious course adopted by the Admiralty, has been driven from the public service of the country; and I am very much afraid it is owing to that injudicious course we find these failures in the new ships. Year after year Parliament, with unbounded liberality, is ready to vote any sum which the representative of the Admiralty in this House tells us is necessary for the maintenance of the naval power of this country. Only one condition is made on the part of this House—that the money shall be beneficially expended—that we shall have the best ships which can be procured. This being so it is most unfortunate and vexatious that we should find these striking instances of want of success on the part of the Admiralty in providing the country with ships such as it has a right to expect. I thought I should not find it necessary to trouble the Committee with any further remarks on this stage of the Estimates; but there is one point in the Estimates which I would like my noble Friend to explain. The amount involved is not a very large one, but it is an item which has an important bearing on the future welfare of the navy. I mean the great reduction in the Vote for the Schools of Naval Architecture. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: They are in the Civil Service Estimates.] I hope the Admiralty have not relaxed in their efforts in regard to these schools, and that reduction is caused by a mere transfer of change. [Lord CLARENOE PAGET: That is all.] There is only one other part of the speech

1163
of my noble Friend to which I think it necessary to allude. I mean the concluding portion, in which he intimated the intention of the Admiralty to establish a new system of retirement for officers, and also, as a result of the recommendation of the Committee, to improve the position of the medical officers of the navy. I did not understand him to say whether the Committee sitting on the subject had made their Report; but I shall be glad to find the noble Lord coming down to Parliament and proposing some change in the position of these officers, for it was a matter of great regret to me that one of the first acts of the Admiralty was to reverse the changes which I had made for the benefit of the medical officers of the navy. The result has been that this branch of the naval service is left in a most unsatisfactory position. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that, during the last few years, a difficulty has been experienced in getting students to enter the service; and I am glad that the Admiralty appear to think it necessary to retrace their steps. It is satisfactory, also, to learn that it is their intention to propose a system of retirement that will be self-acting. Whether it is to be founded on the principle of age the noble Lord has not told us, but I hope it will lead to a regular flow of promotion in the navy, and that the service may be freed from the disadvantage—I may say the discredit—which attaches to the periodical stagnation which now takes place on the promotion of officers. I reserve for a future occasion any further observations it may be necessary I should address to the House.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, he could not help thinking that in examining the Estimates a practical result could not be arrived at if hon. Members did not look at those Estimates in connection with the general state of the fleet. In regarding the figures then before them, it must occur to every one that they were asked to agree to Estimates which provided, or purported to provide, an addition to our navy to only a very small extent. It appeared to him, if he understood the figures, that two armour-clad vessels only were intended to be added to the navy, and that the construction of these was to extend over two years, which would give only one iron-clad ship for this financial year. To ascertain whether this was sufficient to satisfy the wants of the public he would review, as briefly as possible, the vessels we now had of that class. It would
1164
be in the recollection of the Committee that in 1859 the necessity of reconstructing the navy was admitted, and that reconstruction commenced. It was intended to substitute for the old wooden unprotected hulls, hulls protected by thick armour-plates. When the reconstruction commenced four vessels were laid down—the Warrior, the Black Prince, the Defence and the Resistance. It had been understood that these were to be armour-protected vessels; but, in truth and in fact, they were anything but protected with armour. Their protection was extremely limited, being confined to a small portion of the middle of the ship. Fore and aft there was no armour, so that two-thirds of the whole vessel were completely unprotected. This being so one of these vessels would be destroyed by a ship completely protected if the latter could bring artillery to bear against her. Following these four vessels came three others, on which the protection was further extended, but which still maintain the same character of being only partially protected. Now, all the time we were progressing with these imperfectly covered vessels our neighbours were engaged in constructing a fleet of ships wholly protected by armour; and so actively had they proceeded that the Admiralty took alarm and came down to this House and obtained permission to construct five vessels in their own dockyards. These were to be wooden ships, armour-coated, so as to restore the balance of our naval force. The result was that four out of five vessels of the Royal Oak class were built in the dockyards, and being covered from head to stern with armour-plates were not liable to the objection which he had made with reference to the previous seven—namely, of being only partially armoured, though it was admitted that these wooden hulls could only be looked upon as a temporary, not a permanent addition to the fleet. To the mistaken policy on which the Admiralty were founding their operations he had always entertained very great objections, which he lost no opportunity in making known to the Admiralty, and as far as he could to all scientific assemblies, believing that every one was bound to do all he possibly could to rectify so serious an error, and he urged upon the Admiralty the advisability, and pointed out the course by adopting which they would he able to give perfect protection. The next and most important change which took place in the building operations conducted by the Admiralty consisted in the abandonment of their

1165
plan of building partially covered vessels and the laying down of three vessels of the Agincourt class, wholly protected from stem to stern. They also took in hand the two turret-ships they now possessed—the Royal Sovereign and the Prince Albert. To him this change was particularly satisfactory, because it adopted that system of entire protection which he conceived to be absolutely necessary; and the Admiralty having arrived at the decision by slow gradations, he had hoped that under no circumstances would they depart from it. In the Agincourt the public saw not only a very fine vessel, but that the entire covering of a vessel with armour was not inconsistent with the highest rate of speed, for the Agincourt was beyond all doubt the fastest vessel in our own or any other navy. But the importance of these results were in his mind inferior to the influence that the working of the Royal Sovereign turret-ship ought to exert in determining the future policy when adding to the navy. This vessel, though altered under considerable disadvantage, had shown a capability as to mounting and working guns and of maintaining herself at sea which he believed the Admiralty had never contemplated, and which in any event must be highly satisfactory to those who had watched her career. He was very sorry that the same opportunity of trial had not yet been afforded in the case of the second turret-ship, which, being constructed on their own design and of iron instead of wood, was intended by the Admiralty to be, and he had no doubt would prove in fact, an improvement upon the Royal Sovereign, That vessel had now been out of the hands of the contractors more than twelve months, and if up to the present moment it had been tried, he fancied it could only have been partially, and that within the last two or three days. Therefore, viewing the subject from this point of view, we had at this period arrived at the important knowledge that wholly protected ships were capable of being constructed to attain great results in speed, while they practically offered the resistance to shot throughout that was the main object to be attained by the re-construction of the navy, and that cupola-ships were not only capable of carrying the full protection of armour, but of carrying and fighting their guns in a superior manner to anything that our previous knowledge had enabled us to do. After the great success which had attended the Admiralty's change of policy in building vessels
1166
wholly instead of partially protected, he was particularly grieved to find that suddenly, at this stage of the proceedings, they ignored all that went before, and, going back to the point from which they started, set to work again to build the vessels of their first love, those partially covered with armour. From that time to the present they had persisted in this disastrous policy, the only two exceptions being wooden vessels, admitted frankly to be merely of a temporary character, and not to be looked on as permanent additions to the fleet. The result of all these details, which he apologized to the House for troubling them with, was that, at the present moment, if unfortunately we were called on to meet the armour-clad navy of any foreign State, we had but ten efficient and well-protected vessels to take their places in the first line of battle. Ten other vessels, which he should denominate of the second amount of resistance, were capable, no doubt, of offensive operations against vessels wholly unarmoured; but acting against vessels protected by armour, they would be placed at such a disadvantage that even if they were not sunk by the fire of their adversaries their two ends would be so beaten to pieces as to render the vessel wholly unmanageable, and an easy prey to an inferior force. The ten remaining vessels, making up the thirty which had been alluded to, were all small craft coming within the same category except the two small turret-ships. The question was worthy of consideration—were ten effective ships a sufficient protection for this country, upon which it was wise, safe, and prudent to rely? His own view of the matter was that if we had twenty, instead of ten, effective ships, we should still be short of the position which this country ought to occupy. We should then only have an equal number to that possessed by one country. His impression had been formed by taking a comparative view of our own strength compared with that of other first-class naval Powers. In France twenty such ships were furnished up to the close of last year. If, therefore, the vessels we possessed were insufficient for the service of the country, what were the best descriptions of vessels with which to improve our position? Clearly, he imagined, they were not the partially-protected vessels. From the evidence which had been obtained, the best description of ships, he thought, would be turret-ships, and of them an addition of six would not be by any means too large a quantity. Those vessels would take two

1167
years to build, and consequently the addition to the navy would only be at the rate of three per annum. Viewed, however, in the light in which the noble Lord had put it, the addition to the navy of these turret-ships would be a more serious matter than he was disposed to believe necessary. He was disposed to believe that the size suggested by the Admiralty as proper for a sea-going turret-ship was vastly too large, and if, as the noble Lord had intimated, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) likewise differed from the view entertained in official quarters, the opinion which be had ventured to express was powerfully confirmed. He had gone very carefully into this matter; and without troubling the House with the details, the conclusion which he had arrived at was that vessels of about 3,500 tons might be constructed to carry the heaviest artillery known, or contemplated at the present moment, in two cupolas, and could be made to attain a speed equal to that attained by any vessel afloat in the navy, and that for a sum of about £280,000, which would include their machinery. He should not ask the Committee to accept his statement without due investigation, but he would ask them to receive with Borne hesitation the statement of the noble Lord to the effect that no less than 5,100 tons would answer. He had no wish, he might add, to interfere with the Admiralty in carrying out the details of the work which might be determined on for the service of the country, but he thought it was within the scope of their duty for this House to decide on the general policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, he thought, do well to agree to the appointment of a Committee to investigate the question whether vessels of such a class as he had indicated were practicable, and could be rendered beneficial to the public service. If a Committee should so report, then the House of Commons ought to be prepared to act upon their recommendation, and instruction might be given to the Admiralty pointing out the general basis of construction on which they were to proceed. The Admiralty would then carry out the details, and the responsibility proper to the Department would rest with it.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that while the Secretary to the Admiralty had informed the Committee that a reduction had been effected in the Naval Service of the country, he had not been able to show that there had been any corresponding diminu-
1168
tion in the Navy Estimates. That state of things he had explained by saying that it had been found necessary to build large docks for the accommodation of those monster iron-clad ships which it had of late years been the fashion to build. The enormous expenditure of the Naval Department for some years back was occasioned by the supposed necessity for building these monsters. The system of constructing such vessels had, as the Committee was aware, been commenced by his right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), under whose auspices the Warrior, which cost little less than half a million, was laid down. Then followed the Black Prince, a similar ship, the Achilles, and what, he would ask, was the reason given for building these large vessels? It was said that the constructors in our dockyards were of opinion that it was impossible to obtain a sufficient amount of speed from iron-clad ships, unless they were built of increased size; but had the Admiralty, he should like to know, ever taken the trouble to ascertain by experiment whether that was or was not the case? The Admiralty, on the contrary, had shown itself most obstinate in the matter. They had refused to make that experiment, and had even declined to try the invention of Captain Coles. What had been the result? That that invention had been carried out by a private firm. The Committee had been informed that Mr. Laird, of Birkenhead, had turned out a perfect sea-going turret-ship called the Vesta, on the principle of Captain Coles, which, although she was only 1,100 tons, was as efficient as the Warrior, and had made 12½ knots an hour. She had been out in the recent severe gales, and had behaved admirably. She was, in fact, in all respects, a thoroughly good sea-going ship, and carried in her turrets 300-pounders or 12-inch guns. Her turrets were covered with 10-inch iron; her sides with 6-inch in the centre, and she was clad with iron from stem to stern. Now, such was the result of Captain Coles' principle tried by a private firm, and he could not help thinking that if it had been taken up by the Admiralty, and had proved successful, millions of money would have been saved to the country. He would, under these circumstances, appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, everyone was prepared to admit, desired to economize the public revenue, to say whether he would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, to

1169
appoint a Committee to inquire into the principle on which our ships had been or ought to be built. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had not, he might add, adverted in the course of his speech to the question of guns, except by saying that there was some project to construct a gun of 20 tons. He would, however, perhaps inform the Committee what guns our ships had at the present moment. The Committee had heard something of 12-ton guns, but he should like to know whether they were rifled or smooth-bores. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Rifled.] Well, then, what was the principle of rifling? Was it that which was called the New Woolwich, which he believed was an adaptation of the French system?
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he congratulated his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty on the lucid and comprehensive manner in which he had submitted the Estimates to the consideration of the Committee. He must at the same time observe that in his opinion we had gone on incurring heavy expenditure in the construction of our iron-clad vessels, without being perfectly convinced of the soundness of the principle on which we had proceeded. It was a question open to serious discussion, whether we had adopted a politic course in building these stupendous vessels, and whether a smaller class of vessels might not be more useful and more readily handled. He would urge upon the Government, looking at the rapid strides of science, and the efforts of other Powers to strengthen their navies, to take timely forethought and save expense, so far as that could be done consistently with the national honour. Hitherto the country had gone on incurring expense without satisfaction to themselves or to the public. The vessel of 4,000 tons burden as proposed by Captain Coles had all the advantages which were claimed for the enormous vessels which they bad been building. He was of opinion that vessels of much smaller burden would be found more efficient for the public service than vessels of so large a size, costing so large a sum, and which, in the event of war becoming crippled, we should not have the means of docking and repairing. It was to be stated to the honour of the country, that it had never been backward in responding to any call which it was found necessary to make, in order to preserve the efficiency of the navy. The country had demanded nothing more in return than a rigid supervision of
1170
the accounts, and a responsible administration in every department connected with the naval service. Had they always remembered that, and acted in accordance with it, their fleet would have been immeasurably superior to what it was. It had been said that they had not ten of the larger class of iron-clad ships fit for service. He would not contradict the assertion, but was inclined to believe there were more. It was of the first importance that we should possess a perfect knowledge of the rate of speed of our ships. He had moved for a Return on the subject, and the Admiralty had readily granted his request. The French were most scrupulous in their efforts to secure for their ships a commensurate rate of sailing. He believed that we had only three ships that were capable of attaining the same rate of speed. He would repeat for the benefit of new Members the incident of Nelson's pursuit of the French to the West Indies. It was a well-known fact that he was obliged to wait upon the high seas upon several occasions, that the British ships in his rear might overtake him, and the consequence was that the French in the end evaded him. This showed how desirable it was that ships should be built of equal speed. The commerce of England was world-wide; it was not to be expected that her political relations would always remain as at present; it was uncertain how long peace would prevail. The class of vessels which he should wish to see built, and to which immediate attention ought to be given, were those of 1,100 tons. Such a fleet would be able to scour the seas, and give protection to our commerce. He felt deeply the honour of his profession, and he should rejoice at seeing it connected with a class of ships capable of maintaining the honour and independence of the country, and of warding off the evils that threatened us.
ADMIRAL ERSKINEsaid, that practical seamen appeared to agree that great speed was not compatible with heavy weight unless there were a great displacement. In confirmation of this he could appeal to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird). Two of his ships, the Wyvern and the Scorpion, were of 1,800 tons burden, with 350 lb. per square foot. Their speed was only 10½ knots an hour. He did not believe with such an arrangement they could possibly get a greater speed. The fact was, that a two-turreted ship, built with 9-inch plates and mounted with guns to match, could not be made to attain any-

1171
thing like the desired speed unless they were made, as the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had expressed it, of 5,000 tons. He would, in conclusion, express his concurrence with the hon. and gallant Member who had insisted upon the necessity of having ships of equal speed.
ADMIRAL SEYMOURsaid, he was surprised at one omission in the noble Lord's speech. He alluded to the report with respect to the Masters—namely, that the Admiralty proposed to do away with that valuable class of the Royal Navy, and had already stopped the entry of Masters' assistants. It was an important and, in his opinion, an ill-advised change, for he could bear testimony to the efficiency of the Masters. He did not desire to remove responsibility from the captains of men-of-war; but he was of opinion that they should have such assistance as the Masters had hitherto afforded them. If the proposed change were carried out the duty formerly discharged by the Master would fall upon the lieutenants, who in their young days were not so educated as to enable them to give the needful assistance to the captain. They had had no opportunities of obtaining a knowledge of pilotage and surveying, being occupied with the duties of the ship, and preparations for their examination in mathematics, gunnery, steam, and the amount of navigation necessary to work what is called a college sheet. The attention of the navigating officer should be constantly directed to practical nautical surveying to charts, currents, bearings, &c. It would take a lieutenant a long time to acquire sufficient knowledge, after he had been made a lieutenant, to perform the duties of the Master; and every one could understand how important those duties would become in time of war. The occurrences in the Baltic during the late war might be cited as instances in proof that the present system worked well. It was said the French did without Masters, but their system of promotion was the exact opposite of the English plan. The junior members of the French navy were promoted by seniority, the older members by selection, and he was assured that during the action of the combined fleets in the Baltic almost all the soundings were taken by the English. The Masters had also the charge of stores, which could only have the general supervision of the captain, and if the superintendence of stores was taken out of the present experienced hands, he was afraid
1172
the expenditure for stores would greatly increase. They were also a valuable body of men from their knowledge of the Channel pilotage, and if our iron fleets were to be relied on as a means of home defence it would be very imprudent to get rid of a body of men who had made it their study, and especially at a time when the effect of our recent legislation had been not to increase our Channel pilots at all commensurate with the increase of our commerce. It was impossible to do with fewer officers on board our ships than we had at present, and if they amalgamated the Masters with other branches of the service they would have to increase the lieutenants by 356, the number of the Masters which would be given up—an addition of upwards of 300 discontented men, because promotion thereby would be much slower than at present, as there would not be a single more ship to command. There would be no injustice done to the Masters by not promoting them to higher ranks, because they entered the service on the understanding that they were not to be promoted except under special circumstances. Besides that the Masters' assistants were allowed considerably more pay at the time they entered the service than the naval cadet, and their tuition was paid out of the public purse, and not as by the midshipmen out of their pay. The Masters' social position on board ship was good, and when on shore it depended, like every other class, very much on the individual character of the man. The change was not required, and the Committee of 1862 reported against it on the ground that the present system was a good one. If this was intended as an experiment the time was ill-chosen, just when our ships are so greatly increased both in size and value, and when the experiment would involve the loss of an existing body of skilled and experienced navigating officers. He hoped the Committee would be cautious before they assented to the proposed change, especially as the majority of our experienced naval officers were averse to it.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, the importance of the question required the serious consideration of Parliament, and as it was then too late to fully discuss the question, he moved that the Chairman should report Progress.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Morton Peto.)
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he hoped the Committee would assent to the Vote for the number of men. The subject of the navy could be resumed on Thursday.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he objected to the Vote being taken, unless it was understood that the Committee might go into the whole question of the navy on a future night. His object was to prevent any hon. Member from being precluded to enter on any subject connected with the navy by the forms of the House.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it was desirable that there should be no misunderstanding about the matter. He concurred with the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol that the Committee should have the right of entering fully into the subject on a future day.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that before the Chairman reported Progress, he might be allowed to take two Supplemental Civil Estimates.
MR. FERRANDasked the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty if the Return he moved for on Friday last would be in the hands of the Committee before Vote No. 3 was taken?
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

(1.) £764,829, Advances for New Zealand War.

(2.) £372,943, Deficiencies on Giants for Civil Services.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

JAMAICA GOVERNMENT BILL— [BILL 17.]

  AS AMENDED CONSIDERED.
  Clause 1.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he was sorry at so late a period of the evening to move an Amendment on this Bill, but to his mind it was of so important a character that, although he knew the necessity for expedition in passing the Bill, he could not refrain from pressing the Amendment of which he had given notice. He expressed his regret at seeming to oppose the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But the right hon. Gentleman was spoiling his own measure by the insertion of words which had the effect of limiting the existence of the new Constitution to three years. He thought that the effect of the Bill would be entirely destroyed if the new Constitution were so limited. He opposed that limitation for four reasons. In the first place, the new Govern-
  1174
  ment which was to supersede the present would labour under every possible disadvantage—in fact, would be sent out with a rope round its neck, depriving it of the respect which was essential to its success; secondly, it would be almost impossible for the first Governor, under the new Constitution, to introduce any of those measures of reform which must be necessary when he knew that he had only a short time to pass them in, and that the actual reforms might only last for three years; thirdly, it was running a very great risk to impose any limitation, as it might be that the time might expire at the most critical and most inconvenient moment for revising the Constitution; lastly, all these disadvantages were incurred without any necessity. If the necessity for a new Jamaica Government was only temporary, let the remedy be temporary also, but if they believed that the necessity was permanent, as was the case, why not let the remedy be permanent also? It might appear to those who looked superficially at the question that the late insurrection was the reason for this change in the Constitution. But the fact was that, while the late insurrection might have been the accident which precipitated the change, the change had really been necessitated by causes which originated thirty years ago. Even when the first Patent created the existing Government in the reign of Charles II., the Legislative Assembly became refractory, stopped the supplies, and rejected Revenue Bills. But for a century and a half it worked on with tolerable success. The period of 1807 was the acme of the commercial prosperity of Jamaica, for at that time the colony employed no less than 200,000 tons of shipping. At that time the emancipation of the negroes took place, by which a constituency was introduced which rendered representative institutions no longer practicable. He could hardly conceive that the most sanguine democrat who would be ready to compose the constituency of the House of Commons chiefly of working men, or of those who could barely read and write, would defend the sudden introduction of that half-civilized, and but recently emancipated antagonistic population into a constituency of old representatives. Not only had representative institutions been thus rendered absolutely impracticable, but the Assembly and Council had been in perpetual mutual hostility, and, as if that were not enough, the Council itself was often in a state of hostility to the Governor. The position of the Governor thus

  1175
  became peculiarly difficult. With one eye on the Assembly and another on the Colonial Secretary at home we find him, from time to time, calling for the suspension of his own Government, and on one occasion upsetting the Government at home. I mean Lord Melbourne's. Every event which had occurred since that time only illustrated more and more the unsuitable-ness of representative institutions to the present condition of the colony. Its history had been a series of crises. Whether they introduced a more liberal commercial policy, or repealed differential duties, whatever the state of the advancing policy of this country in connection with our colonies, the effect was only to introduce greater confusion into Jamaica, and reduce it to that condition in which the late Mr. Charles Buller many years ago said representative institutions were become in Jamaica absolutely impossible. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Card-well) could not suppose that he would ever have to retrace his steps. He wanted no interval for experiment, or tentative period. Representative institutions could never be re-established. Then he could have no doubt as to the form of Government that must be substituted. The Assembly being condemned by the Council and by the whole population of Jamaica, and finally by itself, the only question was whether the Government should become a mixed Council or simply a nominated Council, and from the first discussion it was clear that the opinion of the Governor and the Secretary of State was that the simple nominee Government was the best. He could not conceive the argument put in a narrower compass than the right hon. Gentleman himself had put it in one of his despatches, when he said—
  "Where there is no wide basis for constituent and representative power and responsibility to rest upon, there in no eligible alternative but to vest power and responsibility substantially in the Crown."
  He (Mr. Adderley) considered the argument complete. He could assign no reason for making the Act temporary, which could justify damaging its chance of success. He therefore moved the omission of the words limiting the operation of the Bill to three years.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, that having given notice of a somewhat similar Amendment, he begged to say a few words on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He considered the limitation of the Bill to three years implied a doubt as to the wis-
  1176
  dom and expediency of the measure itself. So long as there was any room to suppose that the Bill would come to an end in three years, and that the former system would be restored, capital would not be invested in the island; and the negro population, which was in a very dissatisfied and disorganized state, would never settle down into any regular habits. There was great danger in limiting the Bill, but he could see none in withdrawing that limitation, and the remedy would then be left in the hands of the Government. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in answer to what he had stated the other evening, said he did not anticipate that at the end of three years they would be able to recur to the former Constitution of Jamaica. If not, why should the Bill be limited? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way on this point. He believed the true interests of Jamaica were involved in his doing so. If no limitation were put to the duration of the Act, he trusted they would see a return in some degree of the prosperity of Jamaica.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he entirely concurred in this Amendment. One of the principal objects of the change in the Constitution was to put an end to the political animosities resulting from frequent elections, which in Jamaica had led to the formation of a white party and a black party, and, in fact, to a conflict of races. Would this be effected by a temporary measure? By no means. The evil would rather be intensified. The moment the island, which had been terrified into unprecedented unanimity, recovered its usual tone a regret would spring up for the loss of patronage and position, and agitation would commence with all its attendant evils, increasing as time drew on, and when the three years had expired, should the Governor be unpopular—and there had been only one or two since emancipation who had not been so—or should the Colonial Office be out of favour, as it almost always was, there would be a clamour for the old institutions; and should there be a weak Government in this country, and we knew that Governments were sometimes weak, it might yield to what might be mistaken for the general wish, and the last state of Jamaica would be worse than the first. Hon. Members must not suppose that Government by a Council meant monopoly of power by the whites. In Trinidad a few years ago one of the most respected members of the Council was a

  1177
  black man—Dr. Phillip—whose death was deeply lamented by himself and every one else connected with that colony. It had been truly said that should Jamaica ever be fit for a return to a popular form of Government, this country was not so enamoured of administering the affairs of her distant dependencies as to refuse it; but do not let them invite premature agitation, which could not but entail disastrous consequences upon this unfortunate colony.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the view which he himself had always entertained was that a permanent measure was necessary for the welfare of Jamaica, and before the disturbances he was engaged in prosecuting inquiries, which he hoped would lead to the appointment of a Committee and consequent legislation. The reason he proposed a temporary measure was because he had not had the opportunity of completing those inquiries, and he thought that the Bill might be passed in its present shape with an engagement from the Government to submit the subject again to consideration; but if it was the feeling of the Committee that it was necessary to have the Bill in a permanent shape he would readily consent to the proposal.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

CATTLE DISEASES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 37.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON) moved the second reading of this Bill. He said, its object was to give the Irish Government similar powers to those exercised by the Privy Council in England, and to authorise a rate to be levied, out of which to give compensation for cattle ordered to be slaughtered according to the same proportion as is prescribed in the English Act.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Attorney General for Ireland.)
  LORD NAASsaid, he wished to express his concurrence in the principle of the measure, but he wished to know whether the Bill would apply to other diseases besides the cattle plague. He thought the machinery with regard to raising money somewhat cumbrous, and that it would be better if the money were advanced by the Treasury, first of all, in the ordinary way, as in the case of lunatic asylums, and that it should be re-imbursed by a charge on the
  1178
  poor rates, spread over a certain number of years. He wished also to know how it was proposed to pay expenses other than those connected with the slaughter of cattle; whether the expenses were to be defrayed from the poor rate, whether it was intended to employ special constables, and whether they were to be paid differently from the ordinary constabulary of the country? The fact of the Government having taken on themselves the responsibility of the necessary measures would give the greatest satisfaction in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, that the 10th section of the Bill showed clearly that the fund was intended to defray, not merely the cost of compensation to owners of cattle compulsorily slaughtered, but also the expenses of carrying the Bill into execution. The Report of December 6 of the Irish Committtee upon the Cattle Plague had been fully acted upon, inspectors had been appointed, and the utmost diligence used. The Bill was intended to be a permanent Bill, giving the Lord Lieutenant in Council the powers of 11 & 12 Vict. He did not think that any particular or large remuneration would be given to the inspectors, though small compensation would be made to veterinary surgeons. It was not intended to remunerate those connected with the constabulary. The Government had been in communication with the Poor Law Commissioners, who had suggested the scheme adopted for raising money as being the most readily put into operation. Under it, directly the Poor Law Commissioners got an order to do so, they could set apart a sum out of the money in their hands, so that there would be a fund instantly available; and the money could be refunded as the rates came in. It might, perhaps, be necessary to make it more clear that the latter sections of the Bill were intended to be applicable only to the rinderpest; and in Committee he would propose the necessary Amendments.
  Bill read the second time.

  PETIT JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to consolidate and Amend the Laws relating to Petit Juries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Cattle Plague (27).
Consideration—Telegraph Act Amendment* [H.L.] (13).

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL—(No. 27.)
(The Lord President.)
CATTLE PLAGUE BILL—(No. 27.)

  FIRST READING.
  Cattle Plague Bill brought up from the Commons.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, this would be a convenient time to make some arrangement with respect to the Cattle Plague Bill, which would be formally brought under the notice of the House that evening. In consequence of the suggestion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), that the Government should take charge of the Bill, he had consulted with the Prime Minister and his other Colleagues, who were of opinion that Her Majesty's Government could not take charge of the Bill in its present shape. He hoped, however, that some independent Member of the House would take charge of it; in which event he should give notice of considerable Amendments which would be proposed on the part of the Government. Notice of these Amendments would be given at the earliest moment, in order that they might be printed and placed in the hands of their Lordships without delay. If any other noble Lord should wish to move Amendments, he hoped early notice would be given of them. If, however, a Motion should be made to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he would support that Motion; because he believed that by adopting that course there

  1061
  would be very little delay, and lie thought it could be dealt within a more satisfactory manner by such a Committee than by a Committee of the whole House.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he much regretted the determination which had been communicated by the noble Earl, because he could not help thinking that a Bill of this importance and character, however it might have originated, ought to be in the hands of the Government. Indeed, originally the whole subject, so far as regarded the movement of cattle by railway and on high roads, was taken up in the Bill introduced by the Government. So many difficulties, however, were raised with regard to part of the question, and so many Amendments were moved in the other House, that it was thought better that one portion of the Bill should be agreed to and sent up to their Lordships without delay, and that the other portions should be taken into consideration in conjunction with the rival Bill which had been introduced by an independent Member of that House. In what shape that Bill had or might come out of that House he could not say. for, though nominally it had been introduced by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), it had undergone at the hands of Her Majesty's Government so much alteration and so many changes, that it was doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman himself could now recognize his own measure. Now, seeing that this Bill formed part of a very important Government arrangement, and was supplementary to, and, indeed, formed part of a Bill which the Government originally introduced, whatever alterations the Government might desire to make in it, he could not help thinking that it should not be left to the chance of being taken up by some independent Member of their Lordships' House, but that it ought to be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. He thought that when it did come before their Lordships it would require a good deal of consideration, and would be difficult to understand, as he was told that Amendments had been introduced to such an extent that the original scope and tendency of the Bill had been entirely altered. He hoped the Government would take into consideration how far they could consent to the principle of the Bill, what Amendments they desired to introduce, and that they would then bring in the Bill with such alterations as might be deemed desirable. He thought that very great delay and confusion would be sure to take place if the
  1062
  Bill were thrown loosely before them, leaving it for all the Members of their Lordships' House to advocate it or make such objections to it as might occur to them. He believed that if the Bill should pass under such circumstances, it would be a very unsatisfactory one. He must repeat that he thought the Government ought to take up the Bill; but rather than that it should be dealt with in the way to which he had just referred, he would prefer to accede to the noble Earl's suggestion, and have it referred to a Select Committee, as he thought less time would be lost in this way.
  EARL GRANVILLEagreed that it would be difficult to say precisely in what shape the Bill would come up to their Lordships; but the Government would prefer that it should not pass rather than it should pass in its present form. The principle of the Bill was to prevent the removal of boasts by highways, railway, canal, or river; but he understood there were no less than fifteen exceptions to that Bill, independently of other exceptions arising from powers given to the Privy Council to issue Orders for the local authorities to curry out; and, moreover, the Bill was not to last more than three weeks. The Government were of opinion that it would be difficult to have the provisions of the Bill sufficiently understood in a short time, so that the appointment of officers and other preliminaries might be completed within three weeks. But, as the noble Earl opposite had remarked, added to the Bill were several clauses which would be supplemental to provisions contained in the Bill passed the other day, and he therefore thought it would be a pity and a loss not to have an opportunity of considering those clauses, whatever might he their opinion of the Bill as a whole. In reference to an observation which had fallen from the noble Earl, he must say that the Bill had been altered in the House of Commons, not only in consequence of objections made by Her Majesty's Government, but also in consequence of differences of opinion between the hon Member who had charge of the Bill and eminent agriculturists on both sides of the House. He hoped that the noble Earl would understand that the course he proposed to take was one entirely consistent with usage. If, however, no independent Peer was willing to take up the Bill, he, as a Member of the Government, was ready to do so; but on this clear understanding, that the Go-

  1063
  vernment would only adopt such parts of it as they approved, and as they thought would be useful by way of supplement to their own Bill.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was glad he had induced the President of the Council to rise a second time, because the noble Earl was now about to take a course in which, under the circumstances of the case, he entirely concurred.
  EARL GRANVILLEthen moved that the Bill be now read the first time.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow.—(The Lord President). (No. 27.)

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS. MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDrose to call the attention of the House to the Causes of the present condition of Ireland, and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention to introduce any Measure into Parliament providing for the support of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, independent of the contributions of the people? and also to move for a Return of the Parochial Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, distinguishing between those who are Parish Priests and those who are Curates. The noble Lord said, that on Saturday week Parliament passed a Bill which placed the liberty of every man in Ireland at the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant. It would not have been fitting on that occasion to make any remark except in approval of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and of the forbearance, firmness, and promptitude of the Lord Lieutenant: but that Bill having become law, he thought it not less befitting that an early opportunity should be taken of expressing the shame and sorrow which must be felt by every Peer of Ireland—shame at the want of sense shown by a number of their countrymen, and their want of appreciation of the first principles of civilization; sorrow that those who were now approaching "the sere and yellow leaf" could never hope to see Ireland prosperous and in the condition she should be as an integral part of this great Empire. Though the Act for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus had passed through their Lordships' House almost sub silentio, it was not so in the other House of Parliament. It was now matter of history that a noble Lord of great promise (Viscount Cranbourne),
  1064
  nearly connected with a Member of their Lordships' House, and the leader of Democracy in the other House, were agreed in this principle—that the evils of Ireland were not due to the population, for the Irish people flourished in every country but their own. They were not due to the small farms; for in Belgium these were to be found. They were not due to Popery, for this was in France and Belgium also. But, to use Lord Cranbourne's words, "the one point peculiar to Ireland was the English Government." Up to Sunday week Ireland was as free as England and freer than any other country than England; while she had a lower franchise and less taxation than this country. It could not be the tithes which kept down the population, because they were paid by the Frotestant landowner to the Protestant Church. What was it, then, that was driving Irishmen out of Ireland, hating the institutions of their country, while Englishmen and Scotchmen went forth not only without carrying with them any such feeling, but, on the contrary, admiration? Why were Irishmen in America banded together as Fenians with the one sole object of injuring the Queen's Government and degrading this country in every way possible? Let them ask, "Who were the Fenians?" About thirty years ago an Under Secretary for Ireland laid down the axiom—"Property has its duties as well as its rights," and within the last thirty years the greatest efforts had been made by the Irish proprietors to improve their properties, and consequently to better the condition of the people. One necessary part of the improvement was the consolidation of farms where the holdings were too small to afford a decent subsistence to a family, or to allow of the improvement of agriculture; and in that process of consolidation it was absolutely necessary to remove a great number of occupants. In addition to this, numbers of the growing up young men were obliged to go out to work, instead of depending for their livelihood on a share of their father's farm. The disturbed state of the country precluded the investment of capital; and the consequence of these combined causes was a large emigration to America. Naturally care was taken that it was not those of the best character who went, but wherever there was a black sheep in the family, or a drunkard, these men went to America, and the consequence was that for twenty or thirty years the whole refuse of Ireland had been poured into North

  1065
  America. There were also the refugees who were obliged to leave Ireland after 1848, and those classes which he had enumerated were the main source of American Fenianism. The Fenians in America levied a sort of black mail on their more industrious countrymen, who, he was sorry to say, were not as unwilling as they ought to be to pay it. Now, who were the Fenians at home? Compared with the population, he believed that the sworn Fenians were not a great many; but he lamented to think that nearly the entire of the lower classes sympathized with them. How was it that the Irish, who were now better fed, better clothed, and better taught than they used to be—unlike the people of Canada or those of any other country—were prepared to welcome armed invaders, who endeavoured to bribe Her Majesty's troops by promising them the land for their reward, and women for their prey? How was this to be accounted for? In the first place, the Irish at home who sympathized in the Fenian movement did not know the real consequences to themselves of a foreign invasion; in the second, they believed firmly that an Irish Republic would receive great assistance from America; and thirdly, they believed that the result would be every man would get the fee-simple of his own farm. Did noble Lords suppose that at the time of the Reform Bill elections were carried in the teeth of Irish landlords solely from the desire to give new Members to Birmingham and Manchester? There was an ingredient in these elections of which noble Lords might have heard a little, or to which, perhaps, they had turned a deaf ear—and that was the hope held out to the Irish population of fixity of tenure. At that time every man in Ireland was induced to think that the land was not the rightful property of the owner, who was a sort of usurper, holding by force and not by justice; and that the land ought to be the property of the tenant. To persons educated in such a belief was it wonderful that they should grasp what appeared to them the realization of hope long delayed, held out to them by the great Republic of America? He was most unwilling to refer to these old stories, for the whole basis of Ireland's prosperity, if ever she was to be prosperous again, must be forgetfulness and forgiveness of the past. In searching, however, for some small excuse for his unfortunate and deluded fellow-countrymen, if they went to the sources of Ireland's
  1066
  misery, and now of her degradation, he must tell their Lordships that it was England that had sown the wind, and now must reap the whirlwind. Take the manner in which the British Government had treated the Irish question. The Irish landed proprietors were altogether loyal. He did not believe there was a single man possessing land in his own right in Ireland who was disloyal, They and the Scotch settlers in the North formed, in fact, the English garrison. One would suppose it the interest of England to extend to the utmost the influence of such a body. But the conduct of the Irish Government had been exactly the reverse. Whatever might be their object, the practice of the Irish Government seemed to have been to diminish the influence of the Irish gentlemen. They bad not the same control over the police that the English gentry exercised; they had no control over the public-houses; if they had, they would have found it much more easy to put down Ribandism. In Dublin Castle the word of a police-officer weighed down the representations of a whole body of gentlemen. It was not yet a year and a half since a gentleman of old family and large estates was dismissed from the commission of the peace because he wrote a letter to the effect that he held his commission to protect the people against the police. That was an unnecessary assertion to make, and it might have been altogether erroneous in principle; but, holding that opinion conscientiously, he did not see that there was anything unconstitutional in expressing it, and certainly there was nothing to call for his summary dismissal. Some years ago two baronies in the neighbourhood where he resided were proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act. Last autumn that proclamation was suddenly withdrawn. He felt bound to say for himself and brother magistrates that if they had been consulted as to that step they would no doubt have concurred in the propriety of withdrawing the proclamation. The county to all appearance was perfectly peaceable, and there had been almost a maiden assizes. But at the time he knew nothing of the extent of the Fenian conspiracy, and he concluded that in October last the Government knew as little, or they would not have withdrawn the proclamation. The consequence was, however, that the county was immediately filled with arms. The fact in connection with the withdrawal of the proclamation to which he wished

  1067
  to direct the attention of the House was that it was withdrawn without a word said to the lord-lieutenant of the county or to any of the magistrates. It was withdrawn simply as a boon to the people from the Government. Had the Government shown the common grace and common courtesy of informing the gentry of what was going on, of enabling them to say at petty sessions, "We have been consulted as to this matter, and we have advised the Government to withdraw the proclamation; do not disgrace the trust the Government put in you," he knew the generous nature of his countrymen too well to doubt that they would have responded in a becoming spirit to the appeal made to them. But no—that would have been too great a condescension on the part of the Irish Government. Not the slightest intimation reached the magistrates of what they were about to do. The next subject he wished to touch on was a somewhat dangerous one—the treatment of the Orangemen. He had never been an Orangeman—he never would be an Orangeman. Would to God they might never hear more in Ireland of the Battle of the Boyne, of the Rebellion of 1798, or of differences of race! That no differences of race really existed was proved by the ludicrous efforts made by the Fenians to Hibernicize their names, putting an O before such old Saxon names as Baldwin, and other absurdities of that kind. Except in remote parts of Ireland, one never heard anything of differences of race. The Government of England, however, had no right to confound the loyal Orangeman with the traitorous Ribandman. They both, it was true, were members of secret societies; but Orangemen had been spoken of as "the most noble, generous, and patriotic body of men that any country ever saw." And by whom did their Lordships suppose that was said? The words were those of Daniel O'Connell. Above all, the Government had no right to allow the emblems of treason and disloyalty to be flaunted through Dublin at the same time that they punished loyal Orangemen for parading what they believed to be emblems of loyalty and religion. There sometimes sat on the crossbenches of that House—honoured by the present race of Irishmen as he had been honoured by their fathers and grandfathers—a man of the highest character, of unbounded charity to Protestants and Roman Catholics, formerly a just and influential magistrate. He meant the Earl of Roden—for
  1068
  as the noble Earl was absent he might name him. Yet Lord Roden had been dismissed from the commission of the peace, because he entertained in his park a body of Orangemen, most probably the sons and grandsons of those who rode with his father in the Rebellion of '98, and did good service there; and because on their way home an affray took place which Lord Roden would have risked his life to prevent, and with which he had no more to do than the noble Earl opposite. In what light were acts such as these regarded in Ireland? They were regarded as cajolery, prompted by fear; and that certainly was not the way to deal with Irishmen. No doubt, these acts were meant for purposes of conciliation, and as a set-off against the old system of the penal laws. But a policy of conciliation, when it led to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, was not worth much. When, therefore, the liberties of Ireland were restored, he hoped that justice, severe though it might be, yet even-handed justice, would be dealt out to that country, and that all classes would be treated as they were treated in England and Scotland. A thing above all others to be avoided was the application of different principles of legislation to Ireland from what were applied to England. Before long they would have to deal, he felt convinced, with the land question. Let them not apply to Ireland any legislation which they dared not apply to England or Scotland. In both countries in the case of estates entailed upon distant relations, and perhaps heavily encumbered, it might not be a bad thing to vest in the tenant the power of making necessary repairs and improvements, always, however, with the consent of the landlord. But it was absolutely necessary to do away with the extravagant expectations which were entertained on the subject of fixity of tenure, and with the present bastard system of tenant-right in the North of Ireland, which was carried to lengths injurious alike to the landlord and the tenant; above all, it was necessary to break through that vicious circle in which the turbulence of portions of the population prevented the outlay of capital, and the want of capital kept masses of the population from ever elevating their position. Sooner or later it would be absolutely necessary on those three grounds to deal with the land question in Ireland. Parliament would also before long be called on to consider two other questions intimately associated with the state of feeling

  1069
  in that country—the Irish Church, and the payment of the Roman Catholic priests. To those of their Lordships—and he trusted they were the great majority—who recognized the Irish Church not as a State creation and endowed by the State, but as a reformed branch of the Church Catholic, legitimately inheriting the greater part of her property through a succession of Bishops from the remotest times, and receiving additions to that property as a Reformed Church, there was no need for him to address any observations in confutation of schemes for alienating the property of that Church from its legitimate uses. But one of those original uses was education. By the constitution of the Church every clergy man was formerly bound to keep a school. Their Lordships, consequently, might redistribute that property, applying a large portion of it, if they thought fit, to purposes of education. In doing this they would set free a considerable part of the sum now expended on National Education which, with other sums to be added, of course they might apply to any other uses. One of the principal of those uses—he might take leave to say—should be the support of the Roman Catholic clergy. The Roman Catholic priests of late years had done good service to the State; and he had already said that to forgive and forget the past ought to be the basis of Ireland's future prosperity. In 1848 the Roman Catholic priests saved the people of Ireland being overridden by democratic and disturbing influences, and from the effects of an absurd, but most unfortunate rebellion. In 1866 the Roman Catholic priests had been doing their best to save the people again. During the intermediate years they had laboured with diligence to repress that phase of Fenianism known as the Riband conspiracy. If something were done to provide payment for the priests out of the parishes an interest would be given them in the land, the poorest class would, to a certain extent, be relieved, and, above all, something would be done to remove an anomaly which had provoked constant remark, and constituted the last trace of ascendancy of the few over the many. Land of the value of £220,000 a year would give 1,064 parish priests glebes worth £200 a year, subject to £25 a year for the Bishops who could have by that arrangement nearly £1,000 a year each. It might be said that the Roman Catholic priests would refuse this. No doubt they had a right to do so; but he did not think they would
  1070
  refuse On the other hand, it might be said that conscientious Protestants would object to such a provision. If he believed that the peculiar dogmas of the Roman Catholic teaching would be advanced by this plan he would not persist in his advice for a moment; but from the days of Constantine downward, the religious advancement of a Church had never been promoted by its connection with the State. The ancient dictum might still be applied to every creed, every sect, the votaries of which are sincere, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." It was not a religious but a political question. By giving support to the Roman Catholic clergy the Government would remove a political anomaly, gain a political advantage, and, above all, perform an act of grace to the Irish people. This was not the first time that these opinions had been pressed upon their Lordships from that side of the House. They were not new. They were the opinions put forward by Mr. Pitt at the time of the promulgation of his plan for an union with Ireland; they were the opinions of Lord Castlereagh, who knew the circumstances of Ireland well. He had sufficient confidence in the liberality of the noble Earl at the head of the Government to look forward with hope for a favourable answer to his question when he asked, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward any measure for the support of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, independently of the support of the people? He also moved for Returns of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, distinguishing between those who were Parish Priests and those who were Curates.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House, Return of the Parochial Clergy of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, distinguishing between those who are Parish Priests and those who are Curates.—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is not my intention to enter into the various questions on which the noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) has dilated. I think it necessary to make some observations with reference to the remarks of the noble Lord in the latter part of his address. The noble Lord has quoted some opinions as those of Pitt and Castlereagh; but I would venture to say they do not accord with what I have always believed the opinions of those statesmen to be. I will not therefore deal with the opinions which the noble Lord imputed

  1071
  to them, and which at any rate the noble Lord has adopted, that some portion of the funds of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland should be applied to the support of the Roman Catholic priesthood—as to which I pronounce no opinion—but I will consider the question whether or not an endowment or grant from the Consolidated Fund should be given to the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORD: Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt the noble Earl for a moment, I never proposed that any part of the funds of the Established Church of Ireland should be taken and applied to the purposes of the Roman Catholic Church. I intended to convey exactly the reverse.
  EARL RUSSELL: What I understood the noble Lord to say was, that a portion of those funds might be given for the purpose of paying the Roman Catholic clergy, and also that the ascendancy of the Church of England ought to be obliterated. But at present I will address myself to the question, upon which so many various opinions have been entertained, whether provision should be made by the State for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland? Now, when Mr. Pitt first entertained the proposition it was his intention—the intention of a wise and great statesman—to combine the privileges granted to Protestants and to Roman Catholics, so that, in conjunction with the Irish Establishment, provision should be made for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, in order that they might receive their annual salaries from the State. At the time when Mr. Pitt entertained that view the Roman Catholics were not allowed to sit in Parliament; they could not attain the offices of the State, and were hardly permitted, except in Ireland, to hold commissions in the army. It is obvious that the proposition, under those circumstances, was very different from that which we have now to consider. What Mr. Pitt intended—and wisely intended—to say to the Roman Catholics was—"Your laymen shall have all the secular privileges which English Protestants enjoy; and will you at the same time accept stipends for your Church, so that it may be united with the State, and thus we shall join in laying the foundation for future harmony in Ireland? I conceive that was a very loyal project, and I believe that if he had been permitted by his Sovereign to frame and mature the measure he proposed, the state of Ireland now would have been very different from what it is. In 1825 two Reso-
  1072
  lutions were introduced into the House of Commons, one providing for the disfranchisement of the 40 s. freeholders, a franchise which had then become an evil and a nuisance in Ireland; and the other proposing that a provision should he made by law for the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. These were the accompaniments of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. [The Earl of DERBY: They were "the wings."] They were, as the noble Earl reminds me, called" the wings." I thought them wise accompaniments to the measure of Roman Catholic Relief, and as I had a vote in the House of Commons at that time, I declared my opinion and voted accordingly. At that time it was proposed that these measures should go together, and I think the Roman Catholic clergy might have been induced by their feelings of patriotism to say, "Although we should have preferred to be independent of any State provisions, yet, sooner than stand in the way of a final settlement of a difficult question, and thus hinder the Government in an attempt to do full justice to the Irish people, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, we will accept this provision of the State, and combine with the English Government in laying the foundation of future internal peace." But, unfortunately, Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister of that day, was opposed to the proposals, and the Resolutions fell to the ground. At the present time, my Lords, we have to consider this question under very different circumstances. The Roman Catholic clergy have seen a measure passed by which those of their faith are now permitted to take seats in Parliament and hold offices under the Crown; and they have seen that measure carried independently of any provision to the Roman Catholic clergy. They can have no such motive, therefore, to induce them to accept such a provision, as a desire to secure greater privileges for Roman Catholic lay subjects. But there are other obstacles in the way of making provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. We have among us some who are of opinion that all religious endowments on the part of the State are wrong; and the proposal to make provision for the Roman Catholic clergy could not be discussed in Parliament without exciting much religious animosity. And what is the disposition of the Roman Catholic clergy at the present time? Their disposition is the same as was described in my hearing by Archbishop Murray long ago, and repeated since in

  1073
  more emphatic terms. They desire to remain entirely free from any connection with the State, because they think that their independence and influence are bound up with their total freedom from any such connection. It is not for me to say whether they are right or wrong in that opinion. I can very well conceive their objections; and certainly the noble Lord must be well acquainted, as all your Lordships are, with the sentence of Mr. Burke in which he holds up the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland as an object of admiration on account of its independence. One thing, I think, is tolerably certain, and that is, that the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy over their flocks would he diminished rather than increased by such a grant, and as there are no persons more attached to their religious principles than are the Roman Catholics, the priesthood naturally desire to retain as much as possible the influence which they exercise upon the lay members of their body. Let us look for a minute, for instance, at what has already happened, and what, indeed, is even now taking place. The noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) says, and says with truth, that both in 1848, and at the present time, during this Fenian agitation, the Roman Catholic clergy have employed their influence in restraining their flocks from joining in the delusions which have been so rife about them, and that their influence has been exerted to promote order and law, and to preserve the tranquillity of the country, while those engaged in these conspiracies have been so anxious to destroy it. But if the Roman Catholic clergy were in receipt of stipends from the State, it is obvious that this aid would be made the subject of reproach by the Fenians and those attached to their cause, and that their efforts for the promotion of peace and order, and their warnings against the dangers of the delusion to which so many have given way, would lose much of their power. Therefore I consider that, both as regards the general indisposition of the Protestants to make a grant for the Roman Catholic clergy, and as regards the disposition of the Roman Catholic clergy themselves, it would be most un-advisable on the part of any Government in the present day to propose such a grant as Mr. Pitt and others proposed for the Roman Catholic clergy. I do not say that some future Government may not find it advisable to propose a measure of this kind; but, at the present time, I think such
  1074
  a course would be most impolitic, and I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that the Government have at present no intention of making any such proposal. I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but my impression is that he urged that some portion, at all events, of the funds of the Protestant clergy should be applied to the education of the people of Ireland, and that his argument was that such a course would to a certain extent lessen the feeling which exists so generally against what is termed the Protestant ascendancy. The constitution of Ireland is certainly peculiar and unfortunate for that country. From the time of the Reformation down to the present day the condition of Ireland has differed from the state of almost every other country. At the time of the Reformation, the landed proprietors of the country, and I believe, in the first instance, the higher orders of the clergy, accepted the doctrines of the Reformation, while the great mass of the people and the clergy, who are the teachers of the people, adhered to their ancient faith. That fact has been the cause of a most unfortunate difference between the Protestant Church Establishment and the Roman Catholic body—namely, that those who are endowed—those to whom are assigned by law the property of the Established Church—are not those to whom the mass of the people look for spiritual guidance and instruction, and those who are the teachers of the people are not those who receive the salaries and endowments of the State. Such a state of things is totally different from that which obtains in the country to which the noble Lord alluded—namely, Canada, where, when you made your capitulation, you allowed the Roman Catholic clergy to retain the property of their church, to continue the teachers of the people; and therefore the property of the Church, the teachers of the people, and the people themselves, are all agreed, and no adverse dispositions prevail. With regard to the principle which the noble Lord has adopted, I certainly am not the first to make an objection to it, because I think if by one single day's sitting such as we had the other day for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, we could apply, after the present time, the funds of the Protestant Church to the purposes of education, in which the whole of the people could participate, we might possibly do much to establish peace in Ireland; but

  1075
  we all know that the introduction of such a measure would be the signal for much animosity and heart-burning. For the Bake, then, of preserving peace, your Lordships will not be astonished that I should decline to introduce such a measure. Now, my Lords, I may say a few words, and they shall be but few, about what the noble Lord has said with reference to Ireland, and the remedial measures which might be passed for the benefit of that country. I think when it is said, in a very off-hand manner, "Why do you not remedy the evils of Ireland?" that we ought to remember the sources from which those evils have arisen, and the length of time which many of them have endured. It is now nearly 300 years since the landed proprietors and the higher clergy of Ireland adopted the principles of the Reformation, while the mass of the people remained Catholic; that it is 200 years since Acts of disqualification and penal laws against the Roman Catholics were passed by the Parliament of this country and by the Parliament of Ireland, thereby dividing the inhabitants of that country, so to speak, into the conquerors and the conquered, and arousing animosities and creating disqualifications which were not appeased and removed until some thirty-five years ago; and when we remember that in 1760 there began that state of land-holding, that multiplication of small cottages, that division between landlord and tenant, which has, unfortunately, continued to the present day—when we, therefore, have to deal with evils, some of them of 300 years, some 200 years, and others of 100 years duration, and all of them going to the very depths of the social condition of Ireland, it is not, I think, right for any man to say, that by measures passed in one Session of Parliament you can remedy the grievances of Ireland, and restore its inhabitants to complete happiness and prosperity. I should say, likewise, that if we look to the series of measures which have been proposed since 1829—a period of thirty-seven years—tending to promote the welfare of Ireland—the measure introduced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) for national education in Ireland, the subsequent measure for the introduction of the Poor Law, and to a measure for which Parliament and Ireland are indebted to my noble and learned Friend who sits behind me (Lord Romilly)—I mean the Incumbered Estates Act—when we consider these and similar measures which have
  1076
  been passed, I think we must confess that Parliament has not been indifferent to the welfare of Ireland; and it is satisfactory to find that instead of adding penal laws to penal laws, and disqualifications to disqualifications, Parliament has been anxious under various Administrations to improve the condition of Ireland. No series of measures can, however, be applied to Ireland suddenly with benefit. The measures proposed for the advantage of that country must be considered year by year, and regard must be paid to the opinions of the representatives of the Irish people, and of your Lordships, who are not only landlords in that country, but feel a great interest in its welfare. I will not, therefore, enter further into any of the subjects upon which the noble Lord has touched. I can only say that it is the aim of the Government to entertain considerately any well-founded complaints made by the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians of Ireland, and that their desire is to remedy any grievances of which they can justly complain. The question of land to which the noble Lord has referred, is one of the most difficult to deal with. I agree with him that that which works so smoothly and easily in England cannot be applied with such satisfactory results to Ireland. I have not myself, I confess, seen any measure proposed at once just to the landlord and to the tenants, and from which practical good was sure to arise. This is a question demanding still further inquiry and consideration; but I cannot help thinking that at least some measure might be passed which will prevent the recurrence of the scenes occasionally witnessed in Ireland—numbers of poor cottagers turned out of their dwellings in the middle of winter. It must, however, be remembered that many of the improvements so often spoken of are no improvements at all, and that they have in reality made the property on which they have been applied less valuable than before. Therefore, in any measure of the kind, there must not only be an application of general principles applicable to all countries and all times, but there must be a peculiar knowledge of the present state of the tenantry in Ireland, and the means by which it may be improved. I will not detain your Lordships longer, except to thank you for the courtesy with which you have listened to me.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that although aware that Ireland could expect but little from Parliament during the

  1077
  present Session, he much regretted the tone adopted by the noble Earl in reference to the specific question put to him by the noble Viscount (Viscount Lifford). After the noble Earl's statement, that he had voted for what was called "the wings" in 1826, it was scarcely to be expected that He would have put so decided a negative upon the advisability and possibility of a State provision being made for the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland. He had long been of opinion that such a provision would be the best measure of legislation and of policy the Imperial Parliament could adopt towards Ireland. He trusted the noble Earl would permit him to find fault with the conclusions he drew from his historical illustrations The noble Earl said that Pitt and Lord Castle reagh were in favour of such a measure, and the noble Earl might have added many other well-known names to the list; and he continued it would have been of great benefit to the Empire had such a measure been adopted at that time. The noble Earl then came down to 1826, when he voted for such a provision; but when he came to the present time, instead of telling them that he hoped a time might come when such a measure could be pro posed to Parliament, he adopted a line of argument that entirely precluded the possibility of such a hope being fulfilled. But the argument of the noble Earl went much further—for it went to the extent if not of a total reprobation, certainly of an opinion adverse to all Established Churches whatever.
  EARL RUSSELL: I did not state that as my opinion, but as the opinion of many persons.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas aware that the noble Earl had given the opinions of others as his reasons for not bringing such a measure forward; the noble Earl, whose courage and whose determination were so well known, and had been so frequently exhibited throughout his long and honourable life, was deterred from bringing forward a measure of this kind because certain people disapproved it; but did not the noble Earl think that at some future time—sixty years, thirty years, twenty-five years—some succeeding Ministers might not be saying, "What a pity-it was that the measure was not adopted by Earl Russell in 1866!" But finding that the measure was not carried by Mr. Pitt, the noble Earl strengthened his argument by reference to the speeches and writings of Mr. Burke, long before. Did
  1078
  any one suppose that the measure could have been carried in Mr. Burke's day? But the noble Earl was not accurate in his history of Mr. Burke and his correspondence. Sir Hercules Langrishe, who was the particular friend and correspondent of Mr. Burke, was favourable to the measure before Mr. Pitt had declared his opinion. He confessed that he did not expect to hear a favourable reply from the noble Earl to the question put by the noble Viscount. The subject was a most difficult one, and he should not have been in any way surprised had the noble Earl refused at that moment to pledge himself and his Government to the measure proposed—still, he had expected that some hope would beheld out that such a provision should be made—contingently, it might be, with its being accepted by the Roman Catholic clergy—a contingency not very likely to occur at the present moment, as that body had in different ways specifically stated that they were not disposed to accept of any provision by the State. He did not know what reason they could have for refusing such a provision, but on principle they did not refuse it, because in 1799 the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church assembled in Dublin stated that in case such a provision could be made consistently with the maintenance of the authority and discipline of their Church, they would gratefully and thankfully accept it. Doubtless that resolution was passed in the hope that on other points the position of Catholics would be made equal to that of Protestants; but if their Lordships referred to the Parliamentary Committees of 1825 and 1826, they would find those prelates, besides other great lay authorities, such as O'Con-nell, the Right Hon. Anthony Blake, and others, were ready to accept a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy in conjunction with Catholic Emancipation. If there was to be an Established Church in Ireland, why should not that be a Roman Catholic Church, with a State provision for the clergy? What use was there in having an Established Church unless it were to enable the poor to worship God according to their religion, and to enable the people to fulfil their religious duties? Why wore our fellow subjects in Ireland, who were supposed to stand upon the same footing as ourselves, not to have an Established Church of their own? The noble Lord said he had no objection to take a portion of the revenues of the Established Church and to apply it to the particular subject of

  1079
  education. But if the noble Lord applied a portion of the revenues of the Established Church to the purposes of education, which it was the duty of the State to support, why should he not equally apply it to any other State purpose, such, for instance, as the payment of the Marines? In applying the revenues of the Established Church to the support of national education, they would in reality be confiscating them for the general purposes of the State. On the other hand, many people believed that nothing would tend so much to reconcile the people of Ireland to the Established Church as granting a State provision to the Irish Roman Catholic clergy. The Irish said they were not upon an equality with the Protestants. The Established Church—which he did not believe would be regarded by the people of Ireland as a grievance were there a State provision for the Roman Catholic clergy—was regarded in the light of, at all events, a sentimental grievance. The Roman Catholic peasant saw the comparatively wealthy Protestant farmer going to a church where the clergyman was paid by the Slate, while his priest had no provision from the State; and the inference he drew was that the two Churches were not treated equally by Parliament. The noble Earl said that many persons thought that the revenue should be taken away from both Churches; but was that the feeling in Parliament? He had certainly hoped to hear from his noble Friend some explanation on other matters, if it were only to show that some attempt would be made to improve the condition of Ireland. He was not going at length into this subject. It was more fit for discussion in a Committee or a Cabinet than for an incidental debate in that House. The noble Viscount had referred to some subjects on which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not at all agree with him, but he certainly did agree with him as to the amount of discontent that prevailed in Ireland. A very broad distinction must be drawn between dissatisfaction or discontent and disaffection or disloyalty. He believed there was very little disaffection or disloyalty in Ireland; with Fenianism the people in that country had no community of sentiment at all. He had met with very many who were discontented, but he had never met with one of any class who would acknowledge that he shared in the slightest degree in the opinions of the Fenians. Why should the people of Ireland be disaffected or disloyal? The people of Ire-
  1080
  land could have no wish to be placed under any other rule than that of their present gracious Sovereign; and so far from having the slightest hostility to the reigning family, their complaint was that they did not see enough of them. They had never failed to receive any members of that family with the greatest enthusiasm and pleasure. Talk of an Irish Republic ! The idea of a Republic was altogether contrary to the feelings and habits of the Roman Catholic Church and to the habits of the Irish people. The Irish people had no sympathy with anything of the sort. But, nevertheless, there was very great discontent at the way in which the Government had been conducted for many years. He entirely agreed with the noble Viscount as to the alienation of the Irish Government from the gentry of the country. He did not speak of the present Lord Lieutenant, for whose ability and good intentions he had the highest respect. But the noble Lord had not been long there, and he found a system established which it was impossible for him in a very short time to break through—a system which occasioned great discontent in Ireland. From the highest Peer in that House, down to the lowest peasant, the people felt they were not governed by the Ministry or the Lord Lieutenant, but by boards in Dublin and by the police, and that their feelings and wishes were not consulted in any manner whatever. This, he repeated, had given rise to a deep feeling of discontent; and why should it not? Why were the magistracy not consulted? He had the good fortune to live in a county and neighbourhood which was extremely quiet, and in any communications he had to make he had nothing to complain of; but from first to last in the measures which had lately been taken there did not appear to be any action of the Government with the magistracy, with the exception of the voluntary representation of the magistracy of the county of Cork, which was the first step taken to repress Fenianism. He thought that a very unwise state of things. They could not satisfactorily carry on the Government of a free people in that way. The noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) alluded to the subject of tenant-right. What was meant by tenant-right? Did it mean confiscation of the rights of property? or did it mean a greater facility for making contracts between landlord and tenant? If there existed any difficulties in the way of making such contracts let them be inquired

  1081
  into; but it was altogether absurd to propose giving a tenant a vested interest in the lands he held belonging to another; and, what was more, there were no people who understood this better than those members of the farming class who had acquired property themselves. Would they be so anxious to acquire property if they thought they were only purchasing a share of it from those who sold it? He entreated their Lordships to look well to the system of government to which he had alluded. Nothing had been originated in the way of improvement for Ireland since that excellent measure introduced by the Master of the Rolls—the Incumbered Estates Act; and when anything was proposed requiring the assistance of the Government, it was only by dint of agitation that they could get their appeals attended to. Great measures of improvement were looked for, and the people were discontented. It was all very well to say that it was their own fault that the people of Ireland were not advancing in the same ratio with the other parts of the Empire whose superiority was owing to the industry and active energy of the British people. But Ireland had not the same resources as England and Scotland possessed; and why should she not be assisted to develop such resources as she had? He might be told that it would be bad political economy; but he did not think it would be bad policy to do so. Let their Lordships consider the state into which the Irish railways had fallen. But why should the Government be asked to assist the Irish railways? The English people had made their railways; but not, perhaps, on the very best system that could be adopted. Did they think the Irish people did not look abroad and see what paternal Governments had done to assist a country to develop its resources? These things should be taken into consideration; but he must repeat this was not a question of disloyalty or disaffection, although the danger was that the discontent which was felt throughout all classes at the inattention which was paid to their affairs might turn to disloyalty and disaffection. There was another serious evil—the state of the judicial establishment in Ireland, and the clogs which existed to legal procedure in Dublin. He had himself obtained from the Government a Commission of Inquiry into this subject; and he thought he saw how, if the different Boards now existing in Dublin were properly looked into, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might save the interest
  1082
  of at least a million of money. It was because Ireland was neglected—because nothing was done to improve the country—because proposals when made with that view were received with a had grace, and generally speaking put off without inquiring into complaints when made, that the people had become discontented, as he must repeat they now were.
  EARL GREYsaid, it appeared to him that the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) who introduced the subject under discussion deserved great attention from the House, though it was true that he did not concur in many of the noble Lord's views, and he certainly had not expected to hear from the noble Lord a direct proposal of the old measure known as appropriation. Such a proposition coming from such a quarter astonished him not a little. Although a strenuous advocate of such a measure thirty years ago in the other House of Parliament, he could not concur in thinking that it was one it would be advisable to adopt at the present moment. The time for such a compromise had gone by; and when the Appropriation Clause was abandoned in the House of Commons by the Administration of which he was a Member, he then distinctly stated that his ground for concurring in its abandonment was because he felt that the time when that measure might be useful had gone by. The compromise, if it had been accepted when first proposed, might have been useful; but it was resisted with success; and he now fairly declared that such a measure he would not at the present time support. But, though he differed from the noble Lord on this and some other points, there was one point on which he cordially concurred with him. The. noble Lord referred to the present state of Ireland and to the fact that Parliament had been compelled to arm the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with arbitrary power over the personal liberty of every man in Ireland. This state of things afforded a conclusive proof that there was something amiss in the condition of Ireland, and the wisdom of Parliament ought to be promptly applied in devising and passing measures for the correction of the causes which led to such evils. He quite admitted to the noble Earl at the head of the Government that the evils of Ireland were of too long standing for their Lordships to expect that any one measure would at once redress them; but what he feared was that those evils were not in the process of being remedied at all—that they were becoming

  1083
  not less but more deep, and that the necessity for a remedy was every day increasing. He was strongly convinced that no one or two measures could effect an immediate cure for the state of Ireland; that there existed evidence that the policy pursued with respect to that country required to be entirely revised and reconsidered; and that the question whether Ireland should be allowed to remain in her present condition, or, if not, then what measures should be adopted, ought to be brought before Parliament to enable it to give an opinion on the subject; and, as he learnt from the speech of the noble Earl that the Government had no considerable measure to propose beyond doing what, he agreed, they were bound to do—namely, suppressing violence by prompt and immediate action—he would himself venture to submit to their Lordships the question whether Ireland ought to be left in her present condition; and with that view he begged to give notice that he would, on the 8th of March, move their Lordships to go into a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of Ireland. If their Lordships agreed to that Committee, he would propose Resolutions for the purpose of enabling their Lordships to express an opinion as to the measures to be adopted.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, it was manifest that the Roman Catholic clergy exercised a considerable influence in Ireland, and he believed that upon them depended very much the maintenance of peace in that country. He was happy to be able to add that their influence had, in the case of Fenianism, been exercised in favour of law and order. But he could not at the same time help remembering the conduct of the Roman Catholic priests more than twenty years ago at the time of the O'Connell agitation. That agitation was decidedly forwarded by the priests, and though the agitation came to an end, the disloyalty Still remained. During the next agitation—that of 1848—the influence of the priests was exercised on the right side, for the policy of the priests had always been to keep the pot boiling. After the attempted rebellion in 1848 a new agitation sprang up in Ireland. This time the agitation was of a very peculiar kind, for it was not caused by any question of domestic policy. It continued during the years of prosperity in Ireland. Between the years 1850 and 1860 a remarkable expression was used by the Roman Catholic agitators. They used to say among themselves, "We
  1084
  hate England with a holy hatred." Now, the cause of that "holy hatred" was altogether irrespective of the affairs of Ireland or England, the people in Ireland being incited against the English Government upon purely Italian grounds. He would not dwell upon the O'Connell demonstration, but would pass on to the only agitation which, prior to Fenianism, had very recently engaged public attention. He alluded to the National Association of Ireland, one of the professed objects of which was the obtaining of tenant-right. Now, all who read the Irish newspapers must be perfectly aware that that association was helped forward and mainly supported by the priests. After the remarks which he had made it might, perhaps, be thought that he was animated by hostile feelings to the priesthood. He begged, however, to assure their Lordships that such was not the case, for he had endeavoured to ascertain, as far as possible, how he should have acted if he had been placed in their position. Now, undoubtedly the position of the priests was a very trying one. Probably no class of men entertained a higher opinion than they did of the claims they had upon the community at large and the Government, and they were consequently dissatisfied when they saw those claims unrecognized and recollected that they were dependent for their bread on the poorest of the parishioners. The discontent of the priests necessarily influenced their teaching, and as long as the priests were dissatisfied their flocks would be dissatisfied also. Then came the question as to the possibility of uniting their interests with those of the State. When payment of the priests was proposed by Pitt there was a certain degree of unwillingness on the part of the priests to receive any stipend. In reference to this subject, he might mention that he had been informed by a gentleman who was employed at that time in negotiating the matter with the Roman Catholic prelates—he meant the Knight of Kerry—that the Primate, or at all events some member of the Irish Episcopate, expressed himself in favour of a State payment to the clergy. The Prelate said, "Only let the Government put down the stipends on the floor of the Treasury, and it is not much moss that will grow on it." At all event, the State would lose nothing by the accumulation of the funds, while a great temptation would be offered to the clergy. For his own part, he believed that the clergy would accept a stipend, especially as it was extremely pro-

  1085
  bable that the population of Ireland would continue to diminish. Even if the priests refused the stipend the result, he believed, would still be satisfactory, for England, at all events, would have done all she could do. There were other benefits which might accrue from paying the priests. For instance, Ireland would gain by further emigration, which at the present time the priests discouraged as much as possible, because every man who left the country took so many shillings out of their pockets. Then, again, it would be unnecessary for the people to conceal all appearance of wealth as they did at present, lest their clergy should seek higher dues; but with the payment of the clergy by the State, the people would no longer have a motive to feign poverty. With regard to anything else connected with the state of Ireland, he must confess himself very sceptical as to the power of the Government to remedy the disease of that country.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) with drawn.

STREET ACCIDENTS (METROPOLIS.)

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHrose to call the attention of the House to the necessity for the Home Office taking some effectual steps to lessen the danger to which foot passengers are exposed in the streets of the metropolis. Between 1858 and 1860 no less than thirty persons were killed and 370 maimed in the City, and 104 killed and 1,457 maimed in the metropolitan police district. From January, 1862, to May, 1863, there were six killed and 193 injured in the City, and 132 killed and 1,304 injured in the metropolitan district. The heavy traffic was driven through our streets at, in very many cases, much too rapid a rate of speed; and at coroners' inquests verdicts of "accidental death" were returned in many cases in which the verdict ought rather to be "murder caused by in difference." It was the duty of the Home Office to look to this matter, which ought not to be left to an individual Peer. The noble Marquess concluded by moving an address for—
  "Return of all Cases which have come to the Cognizance of the Metropolitan Police, whereby, since the 1st of January, 1865 up to the present Time, any Person has been run over and killed by any Carriage within the District and the Superintendence of the said Force; and a like Return as to every Person maimed or otherwise injured by the same Sources; also a Statement
  1086
  whether the Horses drawing any Carriage at the Time of each Accident were being driven or led."—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Also—
  "Return of ail Cases which have come to the Cognizance of the City Police since the 1st of January 1865, up to the present Time, whereby any Person has been run over and killed by any Carriage within the District and the Superintendence of the said Force; and a like Return as to any Person maimed or injured by the same or similar Means; also a Statement whether the Horses drawing any Carriage at the Time of each Accident were being driven or led:
  "Return of Summonses taken out by the Police for furious driving where no Death has happened."—(The Marquess of Westmeath.)
  Ordered to be laid before the House.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.