Sitting of 9 March 1866

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Mines, Mr. William Orme Foster and Mr. Bromley added; London (City) Traffic Regulation; East India Communications nominated (appointed, Feb. 27.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—Resolutions [March 8] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Thames Navigation * Railway Clauses *; Waterworks. *
First Reading—Merchant Shipping Act (1864) Amendment * [58]; Thames Navigation * [59]; Railways Clauses * [60]; Waterworks * [61].
Committee—Mutiny.
Report—Mutiny.
Third Reading—Murine Mutiny; Pensions * [81]

ILLNESS OF MR. SPEAKER.
The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, and read the following Letter, which he had this day received:—
Speaker's House, March 9, 1866.
Sir,— I beg you will express to the House my great regret that I must ask leave to absent myself from the service of the House to-day. I trust that the pain from which I have been suffering will be much relieved by rest till Monday, and that I shall resume my duties on that day.—I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant,
J. EVELYN DENISON, Speaker,
To Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart.
Clerk of the House of Commons.
Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker; and after prayers, counted the House, and Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July 1855.

PRIVATE BILLS—STANDING ORDERS.
Standing Order No. 52 read.
MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, he rose to move certain Amendments of Standing Orders and certain new Standing Orders of which he had given notice. His Motion related to the destruction of the dwellings of the labouring classes consequent on the construction of railways and public works. His object was to provide a remedy for the great evil of overcrowding in the metropolis and other large cities consequent on the destruction of the houses of the poorer classes through the compulsory powers

1793
given by certain Acts of Parliament. He would not dwell on the evils of overcrowding and the urgency of the case, because these were facts which were universally admitted. There were now two Bills before the House acknowledging the evil and at tempting to provide a remedy, their object being to enable local authorities to build up as many houses as might be destroyed by the companies. But though good as far as they went, it was quite necessary to supplement them by a compulsory enactment, providing that those companies which did the mischief and destroyed the houses of the poor without giving them compensation should be compelled, as a part of their scheme, to restore the dwellings and to calculate the cost of the restoration as part of the cost of their line, just as they would calculate the cost of making a cut ting or a tunnel, or building a viaduct. He felt bound to say that he had been met in this matter in a very creditable spirit by the companies chiefly affected. He had seen representatives of the chief companies in the metropolis, and they stated that they were ready to accept the obligation, and that it was only putting the saddle on the right horse to make those who were responsible for the overcrowding provide a remedy by erecting fresh dwellings for those whom they displaced. They quite admitted the principle, and were ready to adopt it. The only question was how it could best be carried out. He admitted it would be impossible to impose on the railway companies these compulsory obligations this Session, but they might be very easily carried out in subsequent Sessions. To enable the House to see to what the evil was growing he would quote some information which a friend of his who had access to all the statistics had furnished. The number of persons who by the admission of the companies would be dispossessed in the present year was 17,815. These were actually admitted, and when they added a percentage which were never included in such Returns, he might safely say, and be within the mark, that 20,000 persons would be evicted. He had no idea when he first undertook the question of the difficulties with which it was surrounded; but having consulted persons competent to judge in these matters, he had prepared the Amendments and Standing Orders which were on the paper, and if the House should think fit to adopt them they would, he believed, provide the remedy which they were seeking, and
1794
which all believed to be necessary. He first proposed to move an addition to Standing Order 52 as follows:—
"And shall specify by a denoting mark against each name which, if any, of the persons named in such book of reference as owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers, belong to the labouring classes; and all weekly tenants and lodgers shall be deemed to belong to the labouring classes."
Of course, a difficulty arose in defining who "the labouring classes" were, but it was one more in appearance than reality, and of which it might be said solvitur ambulando. Hon. Gentlemen sitting upstairs would not find it very hard to settle the persons to whom the rule should apply. He should, however, at the suggestion of the railway companies, ask to add the following words:—
"And whose rent shall not exceed 10s. weekly."
Then came a few words, which were merely formal, to be added to Clause 62—namely—
"Including the building of dwellings for members of the labouring classes, as hereinafter provided."
Of course, it would be necessary that the lists to be provided should be tested in some way, and therefore he proposed to add to Standing Order 133 the following:—
"It shall be competent to a Committee to admit any inhabitant of a parish in which lands and houses are situate which are sought by any Bill to be taken, to be heard on the question whether the book of reference deposited in relation to the Bill specifies correctly which of the persons named in such book of reference as owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers belong to the labouring classes."
He proposed to leave out clauses which related to Bills now before Committees, and which were likely to pass this Session. He did that upon the suggestion of the railway companies, who said they could not possibly meet his views in detail in the Bills before the House this year, but even with respect to these Bills they were willing to accept a general clause, providing that they should be hound by any legislation which might be hereafter passed on the subject. Therefore the difficulty as to this year was, in fact, removed. Then came the general provisions for the future as to the carrying out these Resolutions, and they were marked on the paper from A to F, The first provided that—
"The company, person, or corporation to whom the power is given shall not exercise the power hereby given to them of taking lands or houses of which any persons belonging to the labouring classes are owners, lessees, or occupiers, until the

1795
company, person, or corporation shall have built one or more dwellings sufficient for the accommodation of such persons, and have obtained the certificate of two justices, or a metropolitan police magistrate, that such dwellings have been provided to his satisfaction, and in accordance with the provisions hereinafter contained."
The object of that was to provide that new buildings should be erected before the old ones were taken down, and thus to prevent the breaking up of neighbourhoods, by which small shopkeepers were often utterly ruined. The next clause merely defined what sort of dwellings should be built—that there should be proper sewerage, lighting, and ventilation, and a certain space of cubic feet for each person. Clause C provided that—
"The proposed site and the said plans of the dwellings so to be built shall in every case be submitted for the approval of Her Majesty's Chief Commissioner of Works, who shall have power to fix the site and to enforce the conditions laid down in the last clause, but not otherwise to alter the proposed plans."
It was desirable that there should be some public officer, whether the Chief Commissioner of Works or another was immaterial, who should have charge in this matter, but it was not necessary that he should have further powers than the clause proposed to give. He proposed by Clause D to give the companies compulsory powers to take land for the purpose. At present they had only power to take land for the purposes of their line; but if they were to be obliged to restore houses they must be enabled to take land with that object. Clause E provided—
"If the company, person, or corporation shall offer to any owner, lessee, or occupier of any lands or houses to be taken under the provisions hereof, one or more room or rooms in the dwellings to be provided as aforesaid at a specified rent, and for a specified time, the bonâ fides of such offer shall be inquired into by the tribunal, persons, or person who, under the provisions of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' shall fix the compensation to be paid to such person, and the said offer shall be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of such compensation."
The reason of the clause was this. It was quite possible that many persons evicted might not be disposed to occupy the new houses, and might clamour for compensation instead, and this clause was to protect the companies against unjust demands. By the next clause he proposed to bring all persons who might be dispossessed under the protection of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. The clause provided that—
1796
"All persons occupying lands and houses to be taken under the provisions hereof, being members of the labouring classes, shall be entitled to compensation under the provisions of 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' although the company, person, or corporation may, after having purchased the interests of the owners or lessees thereof, have given notice to such persons to quit, and the term fixed by such notice may have expired."
That was no new principle, it was only returning to an old usage of the House, for before the passing of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act the House was much more careful of the wants and comforts of the poor than it had been since. He trusted the House would see its way to pass the present Resolutions and amend the Standing Orders, or would, at any rate, take the matter into its most serious consideration. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had stated that a remedy already existed in the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, but on examining them he (Mr. T. Hughes) found that they merely provided for a few week's notice to quit, which, of course, was of no use in dealing with the evil complained of. The railway companies had met him in a fair and candid spirit, and if, as it had been stated, he used strong language on a former occasion he was sorry for it. He begged to move the addition to Standing Order 52.
Amendment proposed,
To add, at the end thereof, the words "and shall specify by a denoting mark against each name which, if any, of the persons named in such book of reference as owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers, belong to the labouring classes; and all weekly tenants and lodgers shall be deemed to belong to the labouring classes."—(Mr. Thomas Hughes.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
COLONEL WILSON-PATTENsaid, it was unnecessary for the hon. Member to offer any observations as to the merits of the object which he had in view. It bad been an object with that House, but more especially with the other House of Parliament, for many years past to obtain some stricter regulations with respect to dealings with the houses of the labouring classes. There was a Standing Order of the other House much more stringent than any which the House of Commons possessed to enable the Legislature to make any enactments which it might think fit for the accommodation of the labouring classes. He would express his regret that within a short time

1797
an endeavour had been made to impress upon the public mind that the interests of the working classes were less attended to by Parliament than those of other classes of the community. Now, he had some experience as Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, and he believed that a grosser libel had never been uttered in that House. It had been the object of both Houses to prevent any unnecessary interference with the comforts of the labouring classes, and if they had not been successful it was because of the difficulty with which Parliament had to contend. He felt the greatest embarrassment in meeting the proposals of the hon. Member, They involved so many changes and gave rise to so many considerations that it was impossible to deal with them in detail. It might be sufficient to say that in his opinion they could not possibly apply to the legislation of that House, and if he might give an instance to show how unsuited they were he would quote the Resolution marked C, which provided that
"The proposed site and the said plans of the dwellings so to be built should in every case be submitted for the approval of Her Majesty's Chief Commissioner of Works, who should have power to fix the site and to enforce the conditions laid down in the last clause, but not otherwise to alter the proposed plan."
The adoption of the proposal of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. T. Hughes) would give the Commissioners of Works a power which the Legislature had never before delegated to any persons. The Commissioners of Works could order the proprietors of a piece of land to hand it over to a railway company, and the result of such a course would be that the metropolitan landlords would be up in arms against such an infraction of their rights. That was not the only difficulty which would be caused by the Bill, and he asked his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Hughes) to withdraw the Resolutions which he has proposed for the present. It was customary for the House every year to appoint a Committee to inquire into the Standing Orders, and to make such alterations as it might think fit. When the Committee should be appointed the proposed additions could be brought before them. If that course did not meet the hon. Gentleman's views he would suggest to him the propriety of moving the clauses in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had promised to bring in, and thus make the regulations which he (Mr. T. Hughes) wished to establish
1798
a part of the law of the land. But if the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth should be adopted, it would introduce an entirely new system of legislation.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, it appeared to him that it would by-and-by become a question whether they ought not to put a stop to the construction of railways altogether, rather than encourage them on the one hand and beat them down on the other by such treatment as was now proposed. He opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth. If the proposal was adopted it would greatly interfere' with the operations of railway companies in London, while it would confer no corresponding benefit on the labouring classes. There was before the House two Bills for improving the dwelling accommodation of the working classes, but he was afraid that those measures would not provide one half or one quarter as many new dwellings as private Bills before Parliament would destroy.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel W. Patten) had referred to a Bill of which he (Mr. Milner Gibson) had given notice, and he thought the clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth might be inserted therein. Al-though that Bill contained clauses very fit to be inserted in a metropolitan railway Bill, he (Mr. Milner Gibson) should be very sorry to give any countenance to the principles on which the clauses now proposed must rest. It seemed to him that they might proceed in this direction till they made improvement almost impossible, and the execution of valuable public works so difficult that they could not be undertaken. No class in this country had been so much benefited by the great works executed of late years in London as had the labouring classes. He believed their wages had been raised and abundant employment found for them by those works. If it could be shown that injury was done to a certain class by any particular works executed in London he should say compensate them, let no man suffer injury in order that certain works might be executed. But if railway companies were to have fastened on them the obligation of being builders of model lodging-houses, he had great doubts whether that enactment would be for the benefit of the working classes. If these were to be erected in the town, the result would be to create a greater evil than was sought to be removed. Somebody must remove from the site of the new model lodging-houses. Was there to be a site found for the dis-

1799
placed persons, and, if not, why not? Were those who were thus removed not entitled to be heard before a Committee of that House if they were dispossessed of the dwelling-houses they occupied? If it was said that these lodging-houses were not to be erected in the town but in the suburbs, he answered, "Leave the supply of these houses to the ordinary operations of enter-prize and trade." He believed there was no business in which people were more likely to over-speculate than the building of houses. He had heard it continually stated, that in the neighbourhood of this great metropolis builders were constantly overbuilding, and no employment of money was so profitable to its owner as to cover land with houses, for which there were so many customers among the labouring classes. He regarded the clause as involving consequences which they would do well to pause before they sanctioned; it raised the question of tenancy. In most of the cases in which houses would be removed, for whose occupiers the clauses proposed to find sites, the persons living in the houses were weekly tenants. At present landlords could eject weekly tenants at a week's notice, and unless a change was made in the law the landlords could in like manner eject them from their holdings in the new buildings. This would be the case unless the House was prepared to give those tenants a kind of fixity of tenure. The houses were to be built which they might not occupy, and which, if they did, there was no security that they would continue to occupy. If the lessee or landlord, who had the power of getting rid of the labouring man, knew that he would get much more for his property by delivering it up unoccupied to the railway company, because an empty house would entail no obligation on the company, the only difference would be that they would evict those tenants, and hand over the property free from incumbrance to the railway company. Were they going by these clauses to give an inducement of this kind to the, proprietors of lodgings occupied by weekly tenants? If a house was to be built for a man dispossessed, how long must a person have been an occupant in order to have a claim on the company? And how long was he to occupy it? He certainly could not give his assent to the proposal, or any countenance to the principles it involved.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would adopt the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend
1800
(Colonel Wilson Patten), and not ask the House to come to a decision at present. The question was a most important one. The right hon. Gentleman had laid it down in the roost distinct terms, that whatever the amount of hardship or difficulty might be of sweeping away the houses of these poor men the House of Commons was not to take any steps whatever.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I said distinctly that every person who could show that he had sustained any injury by the execution of railway works was entitled to be compensated.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that was true. But the right hon. Gentleman took care to designate pretty clearly who he considered to be capable of receiving an injury. He said, "What is a weekly tenant?" He could be got rid of by the landlord in a week, and he had no legal status to bring him into the magnificent category which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was to entitle him to compensation. He was not one of those who thought that this difficult subject could be met very easily. He was quite sure, however, that the proposition of the hon. Member for Lambeth would increase the difficulties a thous and fold. Still, he would be very l0th to say that there were not minds in the House which would be brought to bear on the subject, so as, if not to remove the difficulties altogether, at all events to alleviate them to a considerable degree and remove many of the inconveniencies and hardships to which these people must be more or less subjected. He hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would consent to have the matter referred to a Committee; and although he knew the question was beset with difficulties, he hoped that a Bill would be framed providing residences for the labouring people whose houses were swept away by railway companies. Let them not go into that matter with a foregone conclusion that they could do no good, and must leave these persons to sink or swim as the case might be, when, from the experience of the last few years, it was very plain that they had very little chance of swimming, and that many of them had suffered the greatest possible inconvenience.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought it was of no use telling a man that he was entitled to compensation for an injury done to him if he had no chance of receiving it. These poor persons had not received any compensation hitherto, and were not likely to do so in future if the House

1801
went on in the present groove with respect to that subject. He sincerely sympathized with the objects of the hon. Member for Lambeth, although he thought they could not be attained by the Resolutions exactly as they stood. The Resolutions specified particularly the labouring classes. To that he objected, for before the law all men were equal. He did not like the word "class." The position of the labouring classes in the matter was one of great hardship, but the case of the small shopkeepers, who were just above the labouring classes, and who depended for their living entirely upon the connection they had formed in particular neighbourhoods invaded by railways, was much more hopeless. From the way in which they were displaced they were often irretrievably ruined. The hon. Member for Lambeth would, no doubt, receive in the fairest spirit any suggestions for better carrying out his objects; but the House ought not to be led away by the doctrine that every question of that kind should be left to the Committees to which the Bills were referred. The House itself ought to watch the second reading of Private Bills that were likely to entail great injury on numerous persons, and should not throw the responsibility on the Committees, who generally thought themselves relieved from all responsibility as to matters of principle by the House having given the Bills a second reading. Ninety-nine cases out of 100 were referred to Committee; in many of them the subject was of such paramount importance that the Committee would prefer the House taking upon them the heavy responsibility of giving judgment upon it. Unless such points were to be entertained and dealt with by the House, it would almost be better to give up the form of reading these Bills a second time altogether.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he quite sympathized with the feelings which had prompted the hon. Member for Lambeth in bringing forward the question, but thought the Standing Orders which he had proposed were liable to very grave objection, and, whether so intended or not, would create something like a new law of property. Under those Standing Orders, if a new railway company obtained power from Parliament to pull down a particular street, for the buildings Be demolished it must not only give compensation to their owners, but must provide new houses for the inhabitants of that street. But the nest street, which might belong to a private owner who
1802
thought he could put his land to a better use, could be pulled down by him if he saw fit without requiring the sanction of Parliament, and the tenants would get no compensation. Where was the difference, as far as the labouring man was concerned, between being ejected by a private owner and being ejected by some company which purchased the property? The necessary and logical consequence of the hon. Member's propositions would be that they should prevent the owner himself from pulling down his own property without giving the tenants compensation. That was a new form of tenant-right, and one which the House should hesitate before it sanctioned. No doubt serious injury was often inflicted on the labouring classes by the pulling down of houses on a large scale. Still, the difficulty which those
classes experienced in obtaining convenient dwellings did not arise except in the most infinitesimal degree from the operation of the railway companies, but far more from other causes which Parliamentary legislation did not occasion and which it could not prevent. It arose from the immense increase of business in London, from the enormous cost of land, and from the fact that the owners of many houses and streets formerly occupied by labouring men found it more profitable to turn them into shops, warehouses, offices, and the like. If, therefore, they dealt simply with those cases in which the sanction of Parliament had to be obtained before schemes could be carried out, they would only deal with a small part of the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth that the problem how working men were to be lodged in London had become one of national importance; and if any inquiry were to take place into that whole subject, such an inquiry would probably do great public good. But the proposed Standing Orders involved a dangerous principle, and dealt with the question in a one-sided and very imperfect manner. It was to be hoped, therefore, that by pressing the Motion to a division the House would not be placed in the position of seeming to reject a proposal the intention of which they must approve, simply because they did not believe it to be the right or the best mode of accomplishing their common object.
MR. POWELLsaid, he hoped that, in endeavouring to prevent the overcrowding of the people in certain parts of the metropolis, the House would take care by its action not to make matters worse. The

1803
adoption of too severe a system of interference with the progress of railway enter prize might increase the evils which it was intended to diminish. So far from its being necessary for men to be very near their work, it would be most desirable that the working classes should be lodged in suburban villages, rather than in the crowded alleys of the metropolis. The people should be removed from these overcrowded localities to the suburbs of London. What the labouring man wanted was to have proper facilities for getting from his home to his place of work.
MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, the course of that debate had proved to him quite clearly that many seeming difficulties would present themselves in the matter to hon. Members which did not exist in reality. The noble Lord opposite, for instance, (Lord Stanley) had taken an objection on principle which was capable of being answered. The noble Lord said that these Standing Orders would create a new form of tenant-right, and he illustrated that by the case of the landlord of a whole street next to a street bought up by a railway company, remarking that that private landlord might pull down all his houses and deal with his land as he pleased, evicting the tenants without any compensation. That was quite true; but such a landlord did not come before Parliament asking for any compulsory powers. All that he maintained was that when a company made an application to the House for powers to pull down the dwellings of the people, it was their duty, before acceding to such application, to see that other provision was made for their reception. It was surprising that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should refuse to give any countenance to the principle of the proposed Standing Orders; but, happily, his countenance was not required, because countenance that was much more valuable had already been obtained. Consent had been given to the principle embodied in these Resolutions by half-a-dozen of the great railway companies in that metropolis. If, then, the railway companies were ready to take this burden upon themselves, and thus remove the difficulty which every one experienced in dealing with this question, surely the House would not come forward and say that this should not be done. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the labouring classes had been most benefited by the construction of railways. The labouring
1804
classes fifty years hence might, but in the meantime if the right hon. Gentleman would take the trouble of going into various parts of the metropolis in which railways had been constructed he would find that they had been much injured. It had been stated that the building trade was very active, and that a very large number of houses were being erected, but they were not of a class inhabited by labourers, who were being turned out of their homes by thousands every year. However, on the understanding that certain leading railway companies would come forward and do their best to remove the evils of which he complained, remembering that "while the grass grows the steed starves," he was quite willing to act upon the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) for the appointment of a Committee, and, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

WESTMINSTER SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, before any scheme for the contemplated arrangement between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster shall be submitted for the approbation of the Queen in Council, Her Majesty's Government will take care that provision shall be made for the additional payment by the Chapter to Westminster School, as recommended by the Public Schools Commission, and for the assignment of separate estates for the maintenance of the school? He also wished to know, whether, if the Government find that such a provision cannot be made by Order in Council, they are prepared to bring in a Bill during the present Session to carry that arrangement into effect?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that the arrangements for the commutation were still under consideration, and that no scheme had as yet been prepared. The Commissioners had no objection to the plan proposed by the School Commission, that out of the revenues of the Dean and Chapter funds should be provided for the additional endowment of the school. Legislation would be requisite, and a Bill would shortly be introduced in that or the other House of Parliament on the subject.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know whether there will be any objection

1805
to lay the scheme on the table when it is completed?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied there would be no objection, and in fact he believed that all such schemes were laid before Parliament.

ARMY—EMPLOYMENT OF NATIVE TROOPS IN CHINA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in conformity with the reiterated recommendations of the Army Medical Department and Military authorities, the Government have yet determined upon the employment of native troops in China?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that arrangements were now being made with the view of sending some native troops, consisting probably of rifle regiments, to Hong Kong in order to release the troops at present stationed there. A great part of the duties of the troops there were of a police character, and he should shortly have an opportunity of stating what arrangements would be made; but inasmuch as the troops were employed in duties which could be more properly performed by local police or by a native force, steps would be taken to relieve our troops from the performance of such duties.

THE CATTLE DISEASE.—QUESTION.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a drover, who on his return from Cardiff to Cork had three fresh calf-skins tied up in a bundle, which he sought to conceal; and whether instructions will be given to the police in the various Irish ports to institute such scrutiny as would prevent the risk of the cattle disease being introduced into Ireland by similar means?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)replied that he would direct an inquiry to be made with the view of ascertaining the facts, and also whether any instructions had been given to the police to watch such cases, in order to prevent the introduction of the cattle disease into Ireland.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to know whether any general instruction has been issued to the Constabulary respecting these matters?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, he was not
1806
aware whether any general instructions had been given.

ARMY—ARTILLERY—RIFLED GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay before the House a Return showing the number of heavy rifled guns of not less than 7-inch calibre, and up to 13·2-inch calibre, that have been tried, specifying the mode of rifling employed, the number of rounds fired, the charges of powder, weight and nature of the projectile used, and stating the injuries resulting to each gun; and whether the Secretary of State for War will also lay before Parliament the Correspondence between the War Department and the leading gunmakers in reference to the War Office Circular, of January 1st, 1866, asking the reasons which had deterred them from taking any part in the proposed competition for military breech-loading small arms?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he had no objection to give the Returns mentioned in the first part of the Question. With reference to the second part of the Question, the noble Lord was aware that the correspondence had only recently taken place, and, as it was now under the consideration of a Select Committee, he must decline to produce it pending the inquiry.

CUSTOMS SALARIES.—QUESTION.
MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that the clerks of the Inspector General of Imports and Exports have applied to the Board of Customs for liberty to forward a Petition to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, praying for a re-consideration of a Petition presented in May last, with a view to giving them a more substantial benefit than was afforded by the recent Treasury Minute upon Customs Salaries; and whether such permission has been refused?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that in answering the Question of the hon. Member he should make an appeal to him and to the House as to the wisdom of asking questions of this kind. The Treasury was engaged in a very difficult operation. In consequence of petitions from different classes of Customs officers last year, they had inquired very minutely into the whole classification and pay of the service, and they had been

1807
discussing a scheme, part of which they had adopted, which would affect directly, he believed, the salaries of 1,000 officers, and indirectly the salaries of several thousands more. Every change in the salaries of the officers of a Department affected not only themselves, but others whose salaries might not be altered. The letter to which the hon. Gentleman alluded had been only issued at one o'clock on Tuesday last, and that letter was made the subject of a Question put on the Notice Paper at four o'clock the same day by an hon. Member. If the subordinate officers of Customs could feel that they could obtain Parliamentary intervention in a few hours at any stage of these proceedings it would be difficult for the Treasury to give that dispassionate attention to questions of this kind which it was their wish to give. It was true that the clerks in the department of the Inspector General of Imports and Exports asked that the scheme for improving their salaries might be re-considered, because they thought they did not get as much advantage as others. It was true that the Commissioners of Customs replied to them, that considering the improvements recently made they were not disposed to forward their petition; but it was true also that the clerks were aide to forward the petition directly to the Treasury, and he was not aware that they had not done so. The whole question was one of great difficulty, and he could assure the hon. Member that the Treasury had given their best attention to it.
MR. TORRENS: I put no Notice on the Paper at four o'clock on Tuesday.
MR. CHILDERS: I said an hon. Member had done so. That Member saw good reason to withdraw it, and the hon. Member then took it up.

GUILFORD BATTERY, DOVER.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any objection to lay before the House a Copy of the official Correspondence that has taken place with reference to the encroachments of the sea near the Guilford Battery at Dover; and if there is any objection to state what steps the Government have taken, or propose to take, in relation thereto?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he had no objection to produce the correspondence, but that he could not
  1808
  state what steps the Government proposed to take in reference to the matter in question until an answer had been received to the latest communication to the corporation of Dover.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY BARRONsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, When he will lay on the table of the House the Amendments which he announced it to be his intention to propose in Committee on the Parliamentary Oaths Amendment Bill.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, it is my intention to place the terms of the oath which I mean to propose in a complete form on the table of the House at the commencement of public business on Wednesday next.

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. GRAVES,
SIR GEORGE GREYstated, that it would be quite impossible to discuss the Amendments introduced in the House of Lords into the Cattle Plague Bill that evening, nor could he, under all the circumstances of the case, fix a time for the discussion.

OBSOLETE STATUTES.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. HADFIELD,
THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas understood to say that he believed he should be able to lay a Bill for the expurgation of Obsolete Statutes on the table soon after Easter.

THE DEVONPORT ELECTION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had on a former evening expressed it to be his opinion that the circumstances which he had brought before the House in connection with the Devonport Election ought to be investigated by a Select Committee. It was then suggested on the part of the Government—and in the propriety of that suggestion he quite concurred—that it was advisable before taking that step to wait for the arrival of the information which they expected to receive from Devonport on the subject. The Question he now wished to put was, Whether that information has been received, and when it will be in the hands of Members?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: It was laid on the table of the House yesterday.

THE CASUAL POOR, CLERKENWELL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether any instructions have been issued to the Guardians of the Poor of Clerkenwell to correct the evils that has been proved to exist in the casual wards of that parish; and if the Poor Law Board have power to enforce such instructions, if issued?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSreplied that, in answer to the Question of which he had just received notice from the hon. Member, he had to state that the district to which he had referred was not completely within the jurisdiction of the Poor Law Board, and derived its authority from a Private Act. The Board has, however, always claimed the right of inspecting its workhouses, and had for some years past had reason to complain of the provision which was there made for the inmates, and, indeed, owing to the frequent remonstrances which the metropolitan inspector had made, in consequence of the visit he had lately paid both by day and by night, the guardians had at length determined and were about to obtain premises better calculated to give effect to the requirements of the law. He was, however, assured that this parish had been in former times, and for many years, unwilling to attend to the instructions of the Poor Law Board, and had considered itself entitled to defy its authority.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEsaid, he wished to know, whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce a Bill founded on the recommendations of the Committee upstairs, which would meet such a case as that to which he referred—of a Union which considered itself out of the jurisdiction of the Poor Law Board?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would not undertake to bring in a Bill extending the powers of the Poor Law Board without further inquiry.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAW.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. T. CHAMBERS,
THE ATTORNEY GENERALstated, that he hoped to be able to bring in a Bill for the consolidation and amendment of the Bankruptcy Law immediately after Easter.

MUTINY BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State
1810
for War, How it is that the Mutiny Bill, which stands for Committee that evening, is not printed and in the hands of Members?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he believed the Bill was now printed, and that the hon. Member might obtain a copy of it if he pleased.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that that was not placing the Bill in the hands of Members sufficiently early to enable them to give notice of any Amendment which they might wish to propose in Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Bill contained only one or two verbal alterations, and he considered that sufficient notice had been given.

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

SMOKE FURNACES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I trust, Sir, this may be considered a question of sufficient importance to justify me in bringing it under the notice of the House. I shall endeavour to detail, as concisely as I can, some of the evils arising from smoke furnaces in the towns and country districts of England, with the view of inducing the Government, if possible, to legislate on the question during the present Session. The question is one which affects the sanitary condition, the health, the comfort, and the happiness of almost every class in the community, but more especially of the operative classes in the great centres of industry in Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midland Counties. The evils of which I complain, and which might be entirely abated, rise from the smoke of coal, a mineral our resources in which it is impossible to overestimate. But the greater the value of this article the more careful, I contend, ought we to be to observe due economy in the use of it. It is probably the most precious article in this country—perhaps more valuable than the precious metals of the mines of Mexico, because it is applicable to all the purposes of human labour. Considering the number of hands employed in this branch of industry, the capital invested, the tonnage of the vessels employed in

  1811
  carrying the coal, and the value of the article when extracted from the soil, I believe there is no Gentleman who will not agree with me that the subject I am bringing before the House is one of the deepest importance, and that if coal be so valuable a material we ought in the same degree to be most careful in its economic use. But the fact is that, instead of this most valuable mineral being economized, the most reckless waste of it prevails in the Midland Counties—and in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Durham. I have been informed by an eminent analytical chemist at Manchester, that 40 per cent less heat is produced than might be obtained by proper combustion, and that gentleman believes that 10 per cent and, perhaps, in some cases, 20 per cent of the coal passed up through the tall chimneys, and was absolutely lost as far as regards the purpose for which it was used, that of heating the furnaces. That was a most important statement. A person of great eminence, Mr. M'Culloch, said, about twenty years ago, that if the coal trade of England continued at the same rate as in 1845, there was a sufficient supply of coal in the coalfields and seams of this country to last for 2,000 years. But what is the case now? The consumption, including waste, in the United Kingdom amounts to three times the quantity expended in 1845. So that already Mr. M'Culloch's estimate has diminished by two-thirds; and if it goes on in the same way for the next twenty years, we might find ourselves in a position that there would not be enough coal left in our seams to supply us for 200 or 300 years, or perhaps a less period. In the year 1845 the consumption in Great Britain for domestic and all manufacturing purposes was 31,800,000 tons, and there were exported in the same year, 1,800,000 tons. In 1865, however, the amount of coal raised in Great Britain was 96,000,000, tons, of which there were consumed for domestic and all purposes of manufacture 87,000,000 tons, 9,000,000 tons being exported. In twenty years the home consumption increased from 31,000,000 to 87,000,000 tons, and the exports increased from 1,800,000 to 9,000,000 tons. This clearly shows the immense importance of this question. There are laid on the table of the House every year most instructive Returns as to the consumption of coal and cinders. I find that in 1850 there were exported from the several ports of the United Kingdom 3,350,000 tons of coal and cinders, the de-
  1812
  clared value of which was £1,282,000. In 1864 the quantity exported was 8,800,000 tons, and the declared value £4,160,000. I recollect being struck by an observation made by the hon. Member for Glasgow in his able speech on seconding the Address at the opening of Parliament. The hon. Member, in referring to the general condition of trade and the rapid rate at which the manufacturers of the country were progressing, warned the manufacturers that what Mr. M'Culloch had stated in 1845 was no longer correct—that they were not to forget that the supply of coal in England was not inexhaustible, and that they should, by the closest economy in its use, do all in their power to prevent what would be a great national calamity—namely, an increased difficulty in obtaining coal, and a consequent increase of its price. Those observations are sufficient to induce the House to consider whether something may not be done on this subject, and I would ask the Home Secretary to give a pledge that, in the course of the present Session, he will undertake to legislate on it. I know he is occupied with many questions, perhaps no Member of the House more so; but I believe that, if he should be able to lay on the table a Bill with regard to this subject, it might before the close of the Session become law. I would ask, whether there is not in the Home Office an analysis of patents for smoke-burning made by Mr. Holland some years ago by order of the Home Office?—for, if so, I think it would be desirable to have that paper produced; and I also suggest to my right hon. Friend not to attempt to propose a Committee or Commission of Inquiry, for we have had enough of them. Let us deal with the question in this House, and I believe that if my right hon. Friend were to consult some gentleman in London or Manchester who had given attention to the matter, he might be able in a week to frame a Bill which would be satisfactory and efficient. If he would only consult Dr. Joule, who has written on heat, Dr. Angus Smith, Mr. Hunt, of the Museum of Practical Geology, Professor Tyndall, Professor Thomson, of Glasgow University, Dr. Roscoe, of Manchester, Dr. Franklin and Professors of the Royal Institution, he would in a short time inform himself of the importance of this question, and would be able to say what smoke really is. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen do not know what smoke is, though they feel it, and live in the pestilential atmosphere which surrounds them,

  1813
  and which is ruining the health of the labouring classes. That offensive vapour, so ruinous to the health of the working classes, results from the carbon which, with oxygen, forms the ingredients of coal. Unless perfect combustion take place when the furnace is lighted, smoke rises, and, without an adequate supply of air, the evil which so much distresses the country cannot be overcome. I have a letter from a well-known gentleman in Manchester, addressed to a Member of this House, which forcibly shows what can be done in this matter. The letter is dated March 1, 1866, and the writer states—
  "In regard to the practicability of smoke prevention there is no longer any question; and, further, it has been proved by the most careful experiments that its prevention increases the economic value of the fuel. Two conditions only are requisite—1, admission of atmospheric air above the fuel to mix with the gases evolved in order to supply sufficient oxygen for their perfect combustion, and a high temperature in the furnace; and as neither of these conditions can be obtained where there is deficient draught, this deficiency may be said to be the chief cause of smoke. In Glasgow and Dundee measures have been taken of late years to abate the smoke nuisance, and several prosecutions have ensued, but although some good has undoubtedly been done, the results cannot be said to have been altogether successful."
  It is not the manufacturers who oppose legislation on the point—they say, "Give us some law that we can carry out, but the local authorities we cannot deal with." I have been informed by the hon. Member for North Durham that an agitation is getting up in his division of the county—for it is not the manufacturers who oppose measures of prevention—to put an end, if possible, to a state of things which causes a gross destruction of property. Some ignorant people speak of the cost of the necessary apparatus for smoke prevention, but there could not be a greater fallacy; for the saving of fuel will be so considerable that in a short time it will cost nothing, but, on the contrary, insure a saving. With reference to legislation on this important subject in past years, it will be found in the Journals of this House, that actually as far back as the reign of Edward I., in the year 1316, the question was agitated in Parliament, that on account of the intolerable nuisance of smoke the use of coal must be prohibited altogether, as injurious to the public health. I do not want to go so far as that. In later times the first person who agitated this question in Parliament was Lord Redesdale, in the other House; but the first person who passed a
  1814
  Bill on the subject was Lord Palmerston, when he was Home Secretary. His Bill was called the Metropolis Smoke Nuisance Abatement Bill, and it is really interesting to refer to the remarks that fell from that lamented statesman in bringing forward that measure. No opposition was offered to it. The metropolitan Members supported it. There was only one hon. Member who thought it too late to proceed with it. The hon. Member who has just entered the House (Sir Morton Peto) has assured me in the most cordial manner that he will support such a measure as I have described. Lord Palmerston said—and I should wish the House to be impressed with the words that fell from that lamented statesman—
  "It was no argument to urge, because the nuisance had been borne so long, that therefore it could be borne a little longer. Manufacturers might say they could not consume their own smoke, but if Parliament would only say,' You must do so,' the smoke would be consumed, and the public would be relieved from this nuisance."—[See 3 Hansard, cxxix. 1496.]
  An hon. Member before me (Mr. Dunlop) informs me that a Bill for Scotland passed some years ago, which was in operation only a few weeks, during which the whole smoke in Scotland had well nigh disappeared; but some flaw was discovered in the Bill, and immediately the smoke nuisance re-commenced, and was continued because the Bill was valueless. Lord Palmerston went on to say—
  "If ever there was a case in which he would not say the interests, but the prejudices of the few were opposed to the interests of the many, this was such a case. Here were a few, perhaps one hundred Gentlemen, connected with these different furnaces in London, who wished to make 2,000,000 of their fellow inhabitants swallow the smoke, and who thereby helped to deface all our architectural monuments, and to impose the greatest inconvenience and injury upon the lower class. Here were the prejudices and ignorance—the affected ignorance—of a small combination of men set up against the material interest, the physical enjoyment, the health, the comfort of upwards of 2,000,000 of their fellow men. He would not believe that Parliament would back these smoke-producing monopolists."—[3 Hansard, c xxix. 1496.]
  I want to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary speak and act in that bold and vigorous manner. The Bill passed the third reading unanimously. In the other House it was intrusted to Lord Lansdowne, who was equally bold and firm in the matter. The first and second reading having been passed without discussion in Committee,

  1815
  Lord Lansdowne referred to it as affecting the comfort of every class of society, and said such was the gradual encroachment of the enemy, that for years past they had been living not under the canopy of Heaven but under one of their own creation. It was an evil that called for the distinct interference of the Legislature. His Lordship continued that the experiments of the last seven years had abundantly proved that with perfect safety, without imposing any burdens upon individuals beyond some amount of attention and trouble, they might require the extinction and consumption of all smoke generated by manufacturing establishments. There was no housekeeper who was not able to vouch for the increased difficulty in maintaining the commonest cleanliness in consequence of the nuisance which the Bill would abate. The smoke so affected the clothing of the working classes that it was computed every mechanic paid at least five times the amount of the original cost of his shirt for the number of washings rendered necessary: and in parts of Whitechapel, where the provisions of a local Act enforced the consumption of smoke, the persons who had been compelled to consume their own smoke had found themselves benefited in point of economy by the change. Lord Redesdale congratulated the country upon this Bill, and expressed his obligations to the Government. A Bill in 1853 was passed for improvement of Newcastle-on-Tyne, where more glass was made than in any other place in England at that time, and no exemption was required in that instance. In the Metropolis Bill of 1853, however, there were two omissions—gas works and potteries were not affected by the provisions of the Act. It was found quite practicable to include them, however; and in 1856 the Smoke Nuisances Abatement Metropolitan Amendment Act was passed, including those two descriptions of manufactories. The effect has been most satisfactory in the metropolis. I have numerous letters from manufacturers in London, stating that, although they were opposed at first to the introduction of the measure, yet they now saw the value of it, and the economy of the alteration. One gentleman, a partner in a large firm in Westminster, said there was no difficulty in constructing furnaces which should consume their own smoke, and that since the Act had been in operation a decided improvement had taken place in the verdure of trees and the growth of plants in Loudon. Only last
  1816
  year a Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament, respecting alkali works. Lord Derby made a most effective speech on the occasion, and the measure became law. Inspectors of alkali works were appointed throughout the country. I have lately seen the inspector of the alkali works in Manchester, who informed me that this had been the result of that Act—whereas 40 per cent of muriatic acid escaped before into the atmosphere of Manchester and the vicinity, at present little more than 1 per cent escaped into the atmosphere, although the Act permitted 5 per cent. Can anything be more satisfactory than that fact? And it is equally applicable to the detestable nuisance of smoke, which is so prejudicial to the health of everybody. I have two letters upon this subject, which are well worthy of being brought under the attention of the House. The first is from the town clerk of Blackburn, who says—
  "I have not the slightest doubt that so far as our park is concerned the vegetation is much injured by the smoke, although it is situate on high ground and some distance from the factory chimneys. It is much to be regretted that there is not some compulsory law for the consumption of smoke. I attribute the present non-observance of the existing law to the fact that its enforcement rests with the local authorities, who are individually, as a rule, large manufacturers, and, as such, creators of the nuisance."
  The other letter is from a gentleman well known at Accrington. It is dated February 20, 1866. He says—
  "Your letter refers to a subject on which I have had some considerable experience of a very disagreeable nature. To begin with, our township of Oswaldtwistle, and within 500 yards of my house, we have naphtha works, emitting a most offensive smell, and most destructive to vegetation. If they are continued all the trees within their influence will die. Then adjoining we have bone boiling works polluting the atmosphere in the most dreadful manner. Now, what is the general effect of these works upon the neighbourhood? Many a time my house is filled with nauseous effluvium, and my land as building land is ruined, for no one would choose to reside in such a locality. Mr. S. has suffered dreadfully in the health of his family, Mr. B. 's occupation of his house is destroyed, and Mr. G. has experienced the same evils. It may be said, what are the local boards doing? I answer they are doing nothing, although the strongest representations have been made to them. But the fact is, the Acts of Parliament constituting these local boards are not sufficiently definite or stringent. I and my neighbours are joining together and preparing evidence for legal proceedings, but we think it very hard we should be put to a large expense for that which we think ought to be done by the local board. If Sir Robert Feel will take up the mat-

  1817
  ter I have no doubt he will accomplish his purpose and greatly benefit society."
  The town clerk of Blackburn, in his letter, says—
  "It is much to be regretted that there is not some compulsory law for the consumption of smoke."
  I believe that the enforcement of the existing law rests on the local authorities, who, as a rule, are large manufacturers themselves, and, therefore, abettors of the nuisance. But I am informed by many most influential manufacturers that they are quite prepared to second any effort on the part of the Government by a statutory enactment to abate this nuisance. Many towns have attempted to legislate on this subject by Private Bills. In 1862 Salford came for a Bill to effect the improvement that was required; but it failed. Since then Newcastle-on-Tyne, Glasgow, Dundee, and many other places have made similar efforts; but what is required is that the Government should take the matter up and legislate for the whole country, by one uniform statutory enactment for the whole country as it did for the metropolis. Having said so much, I should wish, if I have not already detained the House too long, to allude for a moment to the case of Manchester, where I have just been to inform myself as to the real condition of things there. What is the coal consumption of Manchester? It is prodigious. At this moment the population of London, I believe, is about 3,000,000, and the annual consumption of coal amounts to about 5,300,000 tons; but in Manchester, with a population of certainly not more than 380,000, the coal consumption is estimated at 2,000,000 tons per annum, within a radius of three miles from the Exchange. There are many manufacturers in Manchester consuming more than 300 tons of coal a week. Now, just conceive what a saving would be effected if a proper system of combustion was introduced, and they were compelled to consume their own smoke. It is scientifically ascertained that 40 per cent less heat is produced now than would be by proper combustion. I visited Stockport. I could hardly see it for smoke. Salford has been suffering from the smoke nuisance to a degree it is hardly possible to describe. And so with regard to Burnley, Bury, and Rochdale, without exception the three dirtiest towns of Lancashire. They have no public parks, and the operatives who are labouring all day long in their industrious hives have no means of relaxation or opportunity
  1818
  of breathing a pure atmosphere. What is the sanitary condition of Manchester? The average annual mortality in England is twenty-two per 1,000, and in some rural villages it falls to seventeen per 1,000; but in the large coal burning towns of Manchester and Salford it rises to thirty-three and thirty-four per 1,000. This vast increase in the death rate is entirely owing to the smoke and the noxious exhalations from the burning coal. I saw the other day a letter in The Times from a gentleman at Birmingham, stating that smoke could not injuriously affect the health of the people, because the cholera had not severely attacked that town when it last visited this country. The writer forgot that Birmingham is built upon sandstone, and was, therefore, not so liable to be attacked by that disease. As a proof that smoke does not keep away the cholera I may instance the case of Bilston, which, although the most smoky town in England, suffered greatly from this terrible scourge on its last visitation. I hold in my hand a Report that was published in the Quarterly Returns of the Registrar General of Health, which gives a most interesting account of the sanitary state of Manchester, The Report is drawn up by Mr. John Leigh, Registrar of the Deansgate sub-district of Manchester, and it contains much that deserves attention now that there is a possibility of the cholera again visiting this country. It is the duty of Government to take time by the forelock in order to preserve us as far as possible from the attacks of this pestilence. Mr. Leigh says in his Report—
  "I very carefully traced nearly every case of cholera during the last two invasions of this disease in Manchester, and invariably I found there had been direct communication with infected persons or an infected atmosphere. I entertain no more doubt of the infectious nature of cholera than that of smallpox or scarlatina. Its course can be accounted for in no other way. Under the threatening prospect of a fresh invasion it is best to look the disease fairly in the face, and not, under the fear of being considered alarmists, to ignore its nature and neglect the means of breaking the force of the attack. It is doubtful, too, whether in our time typhus does not absolutely originate in the ill conditions of our crowded towns. Be this as it may, nothing is more certain than that the ordinary unfavourable conditions of large towns, with their festering graveyards, decomposing offal, noisome exhalations of tallow-chandleries, and other manufactories of animal matters, stenches of sewers and drains, and stagnant atmosphere of courts and alleys, are the predisposing causes of diseases, especially infectious diseases. If they do not actually produce disease, they so reduce the tone and strength of the population, so vitiate

  1819
  their blood and exalt their susceptibility of deleterious influences that a constant tendency exists to take on diseased action, whether in the form of typhus, scarlatina, smallpox, or cholera. A state of chronic disorganization is always attracting the flying bands of the enemy. It is not a question of food and wages; the day-labourer in the country who earns his 10 *. or 12 *. a week, and tastes animal food but once in that week, is ruddy, strong, and healthy, compared with the highly-paid and well-fed artizan, who works in a crowd of fellow-workmen, and sleeps in the narrow street or confined court where his house stands, and whose cadaverous looks tell the tale of his surroundings."
  How true that is any one must feel who has been in that town. He expressly states that their ill-looks are not to be traced to bad water, for he says—
  "No town in England is better and more abundantly supplied with good and pure water than Manchester."
  He says the town is well scavengered, and the streets are kept constantly clean—
  "What is it, then, "he asks," that makes Manchester so unhealthy a town?"
  He replies to his question thus—
  "Close to my town house, on the west side, is a large graveyard, in which interments are even yet made daily. On one side of the street, separated by a small interval, is a large tallow-melting work recently established; on the other side of the street an ancient and time-honoured tallow-chandlery, with its vested right of poisoning the neighbours. Add to the noxious products which load the atmosphere from these sources the black outpourings from innumerable chimneys, and a tolerable conception of the sanitary state of the neighbourhood will be obtained. The un-healthiness of Manchester is due to its vitiated atmosphere."
  Again, he says that no plant will live in the town unless it be washed two or three times a week. He proceeds—
  "Let any one examine the lungs after death of a person who has been long resident in Manchester, and in the bronchial glands he will find a fluid substance, inhaled soot, as black and thick as ink."
  I do think I have made out a case that should induce Government to take up the subject. I ask, why should not the smoke he burnt? It is idle to attempt to establish public parks—such as that recently opened by a philanthropic gentleman at Halifax—in such districts. They are useless to counteract the pernicious effect of the smoke-saturated atmosphere on the working man. Besides, you cannot get trees to grow or plants to flourish. I am informed that the trees at the park at Salford are dying. I have received a letter from the curator of the Salford Park, stating that the trees are all being destroyed be-
  1820
  cause Parliament will not legislate upon the subject. That gentleman says—
  "In respect to your inquiry as to the injury which this park suffers from the smoke of Manchester and Salford I may say that, in the opinion of members of the Park Committee, who have served from the opening in 1846, and my own opinion from watching its effects from 1851, the smoke is gradually destroying the many fine trees, elms, horsechestnuts, oaks, ash, and ornamental shrubs. Tear by year the damage gains in amount, and even the grass gets poorer, and requires to be renewed by sodding brought from a distance, for the seed will not grow in such a smoked and impure atmosphere."
  I think these are observations that require the attention of Government, coming as they do from different parts of the country. This morning I received a letter from a gentleman residing at a village near Birmingham, stating that the trees in that neighbourhood are dying in consequence of the smoky atmosphere. Any one who is fond of the country must feel pained at the sickly look of the little window gardens of the poor man in the large coal consuming towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire. It is evident that they can have little share in an enjoyment of which persons in a higher station think so much. Lord Bacon says—
  "I account that gardening is the purest of human pleasures, and the greatest refreshment to the spirit of man."
  It is that refreshment to the spirit of the working man which is intended to be supplied by public parks and gardens in the neighbourhood of large towns; but that intention without some legislation on the subject can never be attained. I am sorry that I have been compelled to detain the House so long in drawing attention to this subject, but my excuse must be the great desire I have to check the growing evils I have alluded to. There may be topics of a more exciting character in connection with the rights and privileges of the working classes to exercise a greater power than they now do in the government of the State; but in my humble judgment we can discuss no more benevolent, no more philanthropic, no nobler question than how to abate the noxious vapours which vitiate and poison the atmosphere of our great towns. The evil is of our own creation, and we can prevent it if we please. Let the Government, then, legislate on the subject. I have just seen the poverty, the wretchedness, and the squalor, generated by this state of things in towns in Lancashire, and I feel sure that every

  1821
  hon. Member will agree with me that there is good cause for legislation. The value of human life and the comfort, convenience, and happiness of all classes ought reasonably to have more weight than the prejudices of those who create the nuisance. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-ment—than whom I am sure no man holding high office is more disposed to give a fair and careful consideration to all questions appertaining to public interest—to give us an assurance that Government will legislate upon this question during the present Session of Parliament, as by so doing he will confer a benefit, nay a blessing, upon the people of this country. A measure of the kind I wish to see introduced would in a great degree affect the health, the comfort, and the happiness of millions of working men whose daily toil in a vitiated atmosphere is the main support of our manufacturing interests. I do not move any Amendment.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid, he had given some attention to this subject, and thought it was very desirable that in all large manufactories the smoke should be consumed. It would be a great boon to the working classes if they were permitted to see a little daylight. An eminent example of what could be done in the way of controlling this smoke nuisance could be seen by any hon. Member who might choose to note the different manufacturing establishments between Battersea and Blackwall from the deck of one of the river steamers. It was not, however, in places like the metropolis that nuisances of this kind prevailed to any extent. They were chiefly found in districts where coal was cheap, and where there was a great unwillingness to incur the expense of the apparatus necessary to get rid of the nuisance. There were men who were always opposed to change, and who persisted in walking in the old beaten track, refusing to concur in any alteration as being nothing short of innovation, and whose opposition would be enhanced if the change were necessitated by anything which could be regarded in the light of compulsion; whilst others were willing to adopt that which offered a prospect of saving and improvement. When, however, it could be shown that by their adherence to the present system these people Were causing injury to the health and to the property of their neighbours the Legislature might, he thought, be very fairly called upon to interfere. It could not be doubted that an atmosphere charged
  1822
  with smoke was prejudicial both to health and property. In some districts it was found impossible to open a window, for the purpose of ventilation, without having the room and its contents covered with "blacks." The volumes of smoke that issued from many large establishments were left at the mercy of the wind and the atmosphere, and frequently caused great discomfort and annoyance to those who lived within several miles. In gardens particularly, situated at a distance of three miles from these offenders, it was impossible to touch a leaf or a flower without having the fingers soiled by these sooty deposits. He should be about the last person to place any impediment in the way of carrying on manufactures, as with the manufacturers his interests and sympathies were bound up; but when it could be shown that this nuisance could not only be avoided, but absolutely abolished, and that, too, advantageously to the offenders, he thought it would require little further argument to induce the House to legislate upon the subject. The nuisance, and the evils arising from it, were acknowledged; what, then, was the remedy, and what the expense? He was prepared to state, and to prove his assertion that by Jukes' apparatus (which was in use in many places in the metropolis) the smoke could be completely and profitably consumed. He would take the case of steam-engines, and where that apparatus was in use steam was generated with the most perfect regularity, and there was a saving of from 20 to 30 per cent in the cost of fuel, and of from 40 to 50 per cent in labour. No more smoke was evolved than from an ordinary kitchen chimney. Coke ovens, worked on the usual plan, were an intolerable nuisance; but by a simple arrangement, by which the flue was passed along the back of the ovens and afterwards taken to a chimney, the smoke was entirely got rid of. He knew a case in which this had been done, and if that were so there was no reason why all coke-burners should not be compelled to adopt a similar plan. In the matter of blast furnaces and ironworks he feared that at present there would be difficulty; but if the Legislature determined that it should be done, he had full confidence in the science and ingenuity of his countrymen to believe that a satisfactory method would be discovered. He was of opinion, derived from the information he obtained as Chairman of the Steam Coal Association in the north of England, that the coal beds were disappearing with wonderful rapidity.

  1823
  Anything, therefore, which tended to economize fuel was of the utmost importance as regarded this great source of our national wealth.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that the firm to which he belonged had tried many experiments without success, when the subject was before Parliament on a former occasion, with a view to benefit the neighbourhood of Spitalfields, where their brewery was situated. They then adopted Jukes' patent, which proved almost entirely successful. There was a good deal of smoke generated the first thing in the morning, and some then no doubt escaped; but during the rest of the day there was no more smoke than from a house chimney. The apparatus was expensive at first, but during the first year the firm saved £2,000 in the cost of fuel, as they were able to consume, instead of large coal, the very smallest. The great advantages derived from getting rid of the smoke were now beginning to be apparent, and the silk weavers could open their windows and enjoy the fresh air, which it was impossible for them to do before this process was adopted at the brewery. Where before a plant or flower was never seen, plants and flowers were in full bloom. So satisfactory had been the result of an effort towards the consumption of smoke in his own case that he trusted the Government would take some measures for making the thing more general.
  MR. ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, he must compliment the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) on the ability of his speech, but could not agree with one part of it. The right hon. Baronet in saying that the health of Manchester was affected by the smoke rather overstated the case. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I quoted the Returns of mortality.] That was true; but although the Returns of mortality were high it did not follow that that was owing to the smoke. It was quite possible to explain the high rate of mortality on other grounds; as, for instance, the closeness of the streets, the crowding together of the population, and all the cognate evils which affected the health of a great town; but he had doubts whether an overhanging canopy of smoke did not purify the air. He lived seven miles from Manchester, in a smoky, but not a crowded neighbourhood, and he did not observe that the health of the working man was affected. Besides, the suburbs of Manchester were healthful. With this exception, he agreed fully with the speech of the right hon. Baronet. Smoke had
  1824
  been done away with in all steamers on the Thames and the Mersey, and it was an established fact, as far as factories were concerned, that by the consumption of smoke there was a considerable saving of fuel. With regard to collieries there were practical difficulties which rendered it doubtful, in his opinion, whether the consumption of smoke would ever be entirely possible. They had endeavoured in Lancashire; to employsmoke-con8uming apparatus, and although those attempts had been attended with great success, unless attention was paid to the matter by the stokers, smoke would, at certain times, escape and blacken the atmosphere. He trusted that some efficient means might be devised for that purpose; but the whole subject was one of such vast importance that he trusted the Home Secretary would take it at once into his most serious consideration, and that they would soon have, instead of numerous local Acts, some Act with respect to it which would extend over the whole country.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would not have troubled the House with any remarks upon the subject under discussion had it not been for the fact that Lord Palmerston had asked him, when the subject was before dealt with, to make a series of experiments with a view to ascertain whether the evil complained of could be met in a practical manner. The late Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) introduced this subject Session after Session, but it was not until Lord Palmerston took up the subject that anything was done with it. When the late Premier was assured that the consumption of smoke would result in a great saving to the manufacturer, it was one among the great services that he had conferred upon his country that he took action in the matter. The result had shown that many instances could be cited similar to that mentioned by the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. Hanbury), who had mentioned the fact that his firm had saved upwards of £2,000 a year by the adoption of a process which had always before been looked on as objectionable. He saw no reason for believing that the same result would not attend the general adoption of the London plan throughout the country. If an example was wanted, he would point to Leicester, which had as many manufactories in and around it as any town in the kingdom, yet in the very centre of Leicester flowers would be found blooming as fresh as in a country village.

  1825
  This had been done by the manufacturers, who had voluntarily made themselves subject to a law of their own. The right hon. Baronet had not overstated the case. It must be remembered, however, that manufactories often gave off vapours far more deleterious to the public health than the smoke itself, and unless some means were taken of stopping all exhalations the mischief would not be put an end to. He remembered that soon after the last Smoke Act was passed several hon. Gentlemen found, as they walked on the terrace skirting the river, that they were greeted with the odours of certain bone-boiling establishments, and other objectionable works of Lambeth; they were accordingly not long j in extending the operation of the Smoke Act to works of that description. He trusted the Act which had done so much good to the metropolis would be extended by the Government to the country; he was sure the result would be equally satisfactory. There could be no doubt that both health and economy would be promoted by the universal application of the principle. He thought the House had reason to feel obliged to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth for having directed their attention to that question; and he hoped the Government would most vigorously prosecute the work which had been so beneficially begun by their late lamented chief.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I am sure, Sir, I only give utterance to the general sentiment of the House when I say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) has done good service in bringing this matter before us. The time of the House cannot be employed to more advantage than in endeavouring to devise some practical means by which we may contribute to the health and enjoyment of the great body of the people. But, Sir, I would observe that, agreeing as I do in much that my right hon. Friend has said, he seems scarcely to have informed himself as to how far the laws at present in existence give the power to do what he desires—namely, to enforce the consumption of smoke in furnaces and manufactories. It is not generally known that the evil complained of would be very much I decreased if the means at present in our hands were made full use of; and, although it may be desirable that some such Act as that suggested by my right hon. Friend to apply to the whole country should be passed, it is far more desirable that we
  1826
  should endeavour to insure that the law when passed should be strictly carried out. As regards London, I may mention that the Act under which the smoke from furnaces and fireplaces connected with steam-engines and manufactories is now consumed was passed with some doubt and hesitation. Exceptions were made to certain manufactories, in order to avoid compelling their owners to incur expense unnecessarily; but it was not long before it was found that the change would be an economical rather than an expensive change, after the first outlay had been made for the purpose of providing the machinery necessary to secure the proper consumption of the smoke. The exceptions were, therefore, abolished, and the proprietors of those manufactories before excepted found themselves gainers instead of losers by coming under the operation of the Act. It is desirable that the owners and managers of works should know that their outlay in the first instance, though, perhaps, considerable in amount, will be repaid in the long run, by which their interests are consistent with consideration for the public health and comfort. My right hon. Friend has alluded to the probable exhaustion of the coal-fields. Great doubt exists in the minds of scientific men upon that subject, and I will not now enter into it further than to say that, as we cannot look upon our coal-fields as inexhaustible, we should use our fuel with care, and take every precaution against waste, in order that the supply may last as long as possible. But what, Sir, is the state of the law at present? A clause was inserted in the Towns Improvement Act of 1847, requiring that every fireplace or furnace used in working engines by steam, or in any manufactory, should be so constructed as to consume the smoke arising from it; and the penalties attached to the Act are ordered to be enforced if these regulations are broken. This was a general Act, and it was required that its provisions should be incorporated in a special Act, in order to apply it to any large towns or districts. This has been done to a very large extent; and I may remark that the provisions of the general Act are as strict as the law relating to the metropolis. Then there is the Local Government Act which many hundreds of towns have adopted. This also provides for the nuisance. So that the evil complained of exists to its present extent only because the local authorities do not, from some reason or

  1827
  other, enforce the provisions of the law. I am afraid that local self-government is permitting itself to be placed upon its trial. Our proceedings here to-night almost amount to preferring an indictment against the local authorities throughout the country, because, having the law in their hands, they refrain from enforcing it. I wish my right hon. Friend would induce some of his correspondents, such as the gentleman who wrote from Blackburn and other populous places, to take proceedings to enforce the laws they have before they come to the Government for more stringent enactments. From the experience we have had in London, I should be very glad if the same system could be applicable to the whole country. What is the difference between the practice in London and in the country in reference to these Acts? The metropolis is subject to the action of the police, who act under the Chief Commissioner of Police, and he in his turn is subject to the direction of the Secretary of State, who authorizes prosecutions when cases of infringement of the law have been reported to him. Prosecutions are not frequent now because the nuisance has been greatly abated, owing, I believe, to the action of the police, and to the judicious manner in which the law has been enforced by the magistrates, who have refrained from dealing harshly, in the first instance, with persons charged with a breach of the law, and have allowed time for the adoption of proper means for complying with the Act. Why do not the local authorities of other places require their police to perform the same duties? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me that in cases where the police have neglected their duty in the way I have described, the local authorities might be deprived of the contributions made by the Treasury to the Local Police Fund. I believe, Sir, we should have no difficulty in passing a general law. It is desirable that it should be done, but I would again remind the House that we must endeavour at the same time to insure that the law will be enforced. That is the practical difficulty. We all know how jealous local authorities are of the interference of Government, and how objectionable it is to send an army of inspectors through the country to enforce any law. We must hope that the local bodies, and those whom they represent, will feel it to be their interest to have such a law; and that their own interest or higher considerations will
  1828
  induce them to enforce it. I have directed an inquiry to be made in many of our principal towns as to the operation of the law and the means taken to enforce it, and the result will, I hope, throw some light upon the matter and assist us in finding a remedy for the evil we have to deal with. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol (Sir Morton Peto) told us that effectual measures had been taken in Leicester for the consumption of smoke in manufactories. The same statement would apply to Liverpool and some other towns; while there are many others in which that good example has not been followed. I have only to add that I will be very happy to contribute to the utmost of my power to secure the important object to which my right hon. Friend has directed our attention.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he would suggest the desirability of setting informers to work. He was of opinion that if informers were pitted against the smoke, the one nuisance would soon destroy the other. What was wanted was the infliction and enforcement of heavy penalties.

ARTILLERY—THE REPEATING RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that he had arranged with the noble Lord the Secretary at War, who had explained to him the cause of his absence, to proceed with his Question as to whether any and what experiments had been made with the repeating rifles in use in the United States army; and as to the use of similar weapons in the army of Her Majesty? By calling the attention of the House to a subject of such moment, admitting, as he felt assured the House would, that the British soldier ought to be armed with the best weapon of modern invention, the Question divided itself into two—namely, the alteration of the Enfield, the present arm of our service, into a breech-loader, and the provision of even a better weapon for at least a portion of our troops. He did not at all object, but the contrary, to the conversion of the Enfield, but he looked upon it as a temporary measure, and as not satisfactorily answering the demand for a weapon fully equal to that wholly or even partially in use by any nation with whom we might come into collision. The noble Lord had spoken of the alteration of the Enfield proposed by Mr. Snider, and he believed that ingenious inventor had succeeded in doing

  1829
  as much as it was possible to accomplish with this particular weapon. If what he had heard was correct, the Snider breechloader Enfield cost to alter from 12 s. to 15 s., which was certainly a low price, and even that price, it was stated, could be reduced if a very large quantity of rifles were ordered to be fitted with this very simple breech-loading arrangement. He was told, also, that 240 rounds had been fired, and that the targets proved very effective results, the mean absolute deviation being only 7·86 inches, as against a mean deviation of nineteen inches in the case of the muzzle-loaders, or unaltered Enfield. As regarded rapidity of fire, twenty rounds were fired in a mean time of one minute and ten seconds, the smallest time being only one minute and three seconds. And as respected fouling, he believed that one of these rifles had been used for five weeks, in which time 1,000 rounds had been fired, without having to be cleaned at all. But remarkable as this was, it did not answer the ease he wished to make. That case was that a more efficient arm still existed and ought to be adopted, and that the experience gained in actual warfare by the armies of the United States deserved, and ought to receive, the most serious consideration of the War Department. The noble Lord had stated that all countries were equally anxious to adopt a breech-loader, but that hitherto they were all as far behind, if not more so, than Great Britain. He joined issue with the noble Lord upon that statement, and he asserted confidently that the United States army possessed better weapons than we did. In the United States veteran Generals contended that not only must there be breech-loaders, but that, especially for cavalry, a repeater, or rifle not merely loading at the breech, but also carrying its own ammunition, or magazine, was required, and the United States army, more or less, possessed it, and had the war gone on no doubt the whole army would have been served with it. He contended, therefore, that in altering the Enfield we had only got some way upon the right road. In America there were many kinds of repeating breechloaders. He would mention two, not desiring to say that they wore either the best or that they could not be improved if submitted to the known ingenuity of our own able mechanics. They were the "Spencer" rifle and the "Henry." The "Spencer" was loaded through the stock,
  1830
  seven cartridges being inserted in a steel tube containing a spring, and thus seven shots could be fired and then the piece be retubed in less time than it took to load the ordinary muzzle-loader musket. The "Henry" had a cartridge tube alongside the barrel, and with this arm fifteen shots, and with the long piece twenty-one shots, could be fired without reloading, and when this number had been fired the piece was re-loaded by again filling up the tube with cartridges. He had stated the work of the "Snider" rifle, and now he would mention the performance of the "Spencer." That rifle, in the hands of a steady soldier, would fire its seven shots in twelve seconds, or at the rate of thirty-five shots per minute. In platoon firing, or firing by word of command, it would discharge once in three seconds, or at the rate of twenty shots per minute. If this rapidity were multiplied by the numbers of even a small force opposed to a larger body armed with muzzle-loaders, it would be seen that nothing could live before such a fire. It was alleged by the opponents of the rifle that all magazine guns were liable to explode. He was assured, however, by officers of distinction with whom he had conversed in America, that this was very seldom the case, and that there was practically no danger of the blowing up of the store or magazine of cartridges. Then the range and power of the gun were excellent. It would throw a ball 2,000 yards with accuracy, and at a range of 150 feet would send a ball through thirteen inches of solid timber. In fact, rapidity, range, power, endurance, and safety, seemed to attach to this as to other similar weapons used during the late war. [The hon. Member then read to the House letters speaking in the highest terms of the efficiency in actual battle of the "Spencer" rifle, from General Howard, General Hawley, and especially from General Joseph Hooker; and in favour of the "Henry" rifle from Major I Baker and Colonel Kingsbury, Chief of Ordnance, U.S.] To sum up, all the evidence he had collected went to show that these weapons made one man as effective as from four to six armed with a common muzzle-loader, and far more effective than the soldier armed with the mere breechloader. In fact, he had been told that dismounted cavalry, pushed up to an enemy in large force, had often literally swept away the front opposed to them. Now he did not know that any one contended that every arm of the service

  1831
  should possess exactly the same weapon. The same types were, of course, necessary; but not one single weapon for every purpose. Therefore, what he had said did not condemn the improvement at a small cost of the existing rifle; but, at the same time, it went, he trusted, to show that such an improvement provided for only one part of the want of the army. Every one remembered the struggle, both in and out of that House, by which the percussion cap at length replaced the old flint lock, and the rifle was at last substituted for "Brown Bess." Discussion and inquiry had now proceeded too long as to breech-loading. The War Office had not even yet made up its mind either as to what was, abstractedly, best, or what could at once be practically applied as a decided improvement. For himself, he would greatly prefer to see the War Office adopt the invention of Mr. Snider, and thereby largely and cheaply increase the effective power of our arms, than stand still and do nothing. But even that would leave it imperatively needful to obtain also a repeating rifle at least equal to that of America. It would indeed be discreditable to that House and to the country if a war should come upon us and find us unprepared with the most obvious improvements in arms adopted by other countries. He trusted that the subject would be seriously taken in hand. He did not at all blame the able and laborious officers engaged upon the "small arms" and "breech-loading" Commissions for the delay. If blame existed, it must attach to the noble Lord and the prominent members of the War Department, who could order what they pleased, and whose practical recommendations were rarely refused by that House.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, that having studied pretty closely all the evidence given before Committees of the House of Commons on this subject, he had observed that the merits claimed for the breech-loader were grounded principally on the advantages derived from its rapidity of expulsion. But another great advantage which it possessed arose from the rapidity with which you could qualify a man to take his place in the ranks if the breech-loader were the arm used. Drilling generally went on in time of peace, and perhaps this was the reason we were not apt to think of the time devoted to it; but a panic was felt when, during the Crimean War, it was found necessary to issue an order that recruits should be placed in the ranks after a drill
  1832
  of sis weeks. He had had some experience of firelock drill; and was prepared to say that if our troops were armed with the breech-loader instead of the muzzle-loader the period of trial might be shortened by ten days or a fortnight, and the most irksome, wearisome, and painful period of a recruit's instruction be thus curtailed.

DOGS IN SCOTLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ELLICEsaid, he rose to call the attention of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to circumstances connected with the collection of the Tax upon dogs, and to ask, whether any alteration was contemplated with regard to that Tax? His part of Scotland was favourably situated for the establishment of a cordon to prevent the movement of diseased cattle. Stringent measures had been adopted to prevent the spread of infection, and cattle were prevented from passing over the Caledonian Canal from the south to the north of Scotland. But there was a class of animals with which they had no means of dealing—namely, the ownerless dogs which roamed through the country day and night. Those dogs completely eluded the cordon, and the guards placed on the bridges of the canal. The danger of the spread of infection had thus become so imminent that the gentlemen of the district considered how it could be met and what measures could be adopted to lessen it. They commenced by inquiring whether the alleged owners of those dogs acted up to their legal obligations by paying the dog tax. They told the local revenue authorities that the county was ready to give them the assistance of the police, and the assistance of the Excise officers would have been available also. But the local revenue authorities refused to interfere. Having failed with the local authorities, he and the gentlemen who acted with him made an application to the Board of Inland Revenue; and he was permitted to read to the House the Minute he had received from the Board. It was as follows:—
  "It is the business of the surveyor of taxes for the district to bring into charge the owner of every dog liable to the tax; but before making an assessment the surveyor must ascertain the owner or person harbouring the dog, and, furthermore, he must satisfy himself that the dog is not exempted from duty. The exemption extends to all dogs kept for the care of sheep or cattle, or in driving or removing the same, without limit as to number. Thus the dogs of tenants (without limit

  1833
  as to rent), shepherds, drovers, and butchers are exempted from duty. No surveyor or other officer can satisfactorily, or on all occasions, determine what dogs are exempted and what are not. If the surveyor is to take the statement of the owner of a dog, or that of his neighbours, he will conclude that the dog is exempted. If, on the other hand, he shall disregard the statement of the owner and his neighbours, and assess the owner, the local commissioners will relieve and the Judges will confirm; and, in the meantime, considerable expense may have been incurred by the Crown, as well as by the appellant, in a matter in which the Crown is ultimately defeated,"
  Acting on that view of the case, instructions seem to have been given by the authorities that no effort should be made to collect the tax. Practically it was a nullity, except in the case of those who paid it voluntarily. He believed that comparatively very few in the north of Scotland paid the dog tax, though hundreds—in deed, he might say thousands—of dogs were roaming about the country. Every cottier was in the habit of keeping one or more dogs, though many of those cottiers found it difficult to find sufficient food for themselves and their families. The consequence was these dogs roamed about to find food which their owners were unable to give them, and found it at the expense of the farmers. The loss of sheep in the West Highlands had risen to the alarming extent of not less than 10 per cent per annum. He did not say that the whole of that loss was attributable to dogs; but there could be no doubt that thousands of dogs had no other way of feeding themselves than on the flocks of the farmers. In Ireland a tax of 2s., by an Act making it imperative on any person keeping a dog to declare himself the owner of it, had been willingly submitted to in order to abate the dog nuisance; and for England also a Bill had been passed to meet it. Beyond the depredations upon their stocks, farmers, and others interested in our stock farms, were now in great alarm lest the rinder pest should be spread by the uncontrolled wanderings of these unowned dogs. The farmers would gladly pay a moderate and fairly assessed tax. A tax of 12 *. seemed an immoderate charge; but, from conversations he had had with farmers he believed that a tax of 4s. or 5s. would be willingly paid. He thought that though the immediate effect of imposing a moderate tax, the payment of which was to be rigidly enforced, would be to diminish by one-half the number of useless dogs, the revenue would still be the gainer by such a change. He hoped, therefore, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House an assurance that he would take the subject into his attentive consideration. If his right
  1834
  hon. Friend was not prepared to impose a moderate tax and enforce it, he ought to abolish the tax of 12 s.; for it was not fair that a minority should pay that impost while the majority of those who were liable to it escaped its payment altogether.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, he was a proprietor and sheep farmer in the neighbourhood of the hon. Gentleman, and entirely concurred in every word which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry his hon. and gallant Friend had been prevented by the rules of the House from giving his views fully on the subject, but what those views were could be gathered from his having so emphatically stated that he concurred in all that had fallen from his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject. It would have given him much pleasure to hear the opinions of other hon. Members on this question. He would never be inclined to evade any responsibility in dealing with a subject which was properly of a financial character, and where there were means of obtaining a thorough investigation. But the Treasury found itself embarrassed in dealing with certain subjects, especially where considerations of revenue were mixed up with considerations of police. It was very difficult to make proposals of a fiscal character when those proposals were liable to be suspected and to be taken for what they were not, and it was equally difficult to make proposals relative to police when it might be supposed that considerations connected with the public peace and comfort were merely put forward for the purpose of getting money. It would be impossible for him to move in this matter without the assistance of the House. He must be made aware of what the sentiments were in different parts of the country upon the question before making any proposal. This subject had been one of the standing difficulties of the Revenue Department ever since he had any connection with it. When he first became Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1852, the matter was in almost inextricable confusion from a distinction which then prevailed in the rate of duties, some dogs being taxed at 8s. or

  1835
  10 s.—he forgot which—and others at 14 s., the distinction between the rate depending on the question of breed, and there being no means whatever of determining this most difficult matter, this question of breed was added to the other difficulties the surveyors had to contend with. The promiscuous crosses among dogs were greater, perhaps, than among any other description of created beings. Then came the uniform tax of 12 *., a rather high rate. His hon. Friend said they ought either to proceed on a strict system or abolish the tax. The tax, no doubt, was very unequally enforced; a great many liable to it did not pay; but speaking generally, the efforts of the Revenue officers to enforce it were very successful, the best proof of which was that it was paid upon 300,000 dogs—or, in other words, on the supposition that people paid for two dogs each, which could hardly be the case, 150,000 persons paid the tax. Now, though we had an army of 150,000 Volunteers for another purpose, he very much doubted whether an army of 150,000 volunteers could be easily found to pay the dog tax. He admitted the tax was too high to be enforced, but lowering it would not remove all the difficulty. It was necessary, if there should be a remodelling of the tax, that the exemptions should be removed. It was quite obvious that any proposal to part with a tax which brought in £170,000 a year could not be adopted without much consideration; and he doubted whether the House, taking into account the many claims which it had to meet, would think it desirable to make the keeping of dogs cease to be a source of revenue to the country. He had, however, always found this difficulty. Mankind might almost be divided into two classes—the dog-lovers and the dog-haters. There was no medium. Every man either kept a dog or hated it. There were a great many who hated dogs, such hatred being founded on different principles. Dogs were a nuisance to that great part of the community who did not keep them. Some persons liked them for their social qualities, some for their sporting qualities, and others liked them because they took care of their houses; but to a great portion of the community they were a considerable nuisance. What a nuisance dogs were about the streets of London, and how many accidents were they the cause of ! He knew very well from whole floods of correspondence relating to the dog tax that there were many who felt very jealous of keeping up the exemptions.
  1836
  Then take the sheep farmers. The destruction of sheep by dogs was very considerable, and the annoyance of dogs to parties who were not their owners very great. Now, it would in his opinion be quite possible to lower this tax very considerably—to 5s. or 4s.—without entailing any material loss of revenue. It was not a subject on which, if they could avoid it, they ought to give away much money. But if any change were made the tax must cease to be an assessed tax, for assessed taxes were very cumbrous and troublesome of collection. The first thing was to get a man liable to the charge, then he had to make returns, then a demand was made upon him to pay, and sometimes it was necessary to go through various troublesome processes before the money could be recovered. The most beneficial change, then, that could be made would be to convert it from an assessed tax into a licence duty. Every man who kept a dog should be bound to take out a licence and pay so much for it, and all that could be done in a moment. The abolition of exemption would be another portion of the scheme, and the strict enforcement of the tax upon every one who kept a dog, whatever his condition in life, should be upheld. It would be quite necessary that the aid of the police, who possessed peculiar means of knowledge, should he given to the Revenue officers. At the same time there were other, points of view from which the question might be regarded, especially by those portions of the community who were much attached to the keeping of dogs, and who, therefore, did not suffer from them as others did. To call in the aid of the police in the matter was what he should not like to ask the House to do, unless the people generally considered it would be a fair and reasonable demand. He was not at present in possession of full knowledge to enable him to frame a proposal on the part of Her Majesty's Government, though he did not think it would be at all difficult to do so. It would be necessary that the matter should undergo some independent investigation, not open to the objection that it had pecuniary objects, and he would be glad to see it examined into by a Committee of the House. Such a Committee would give an opportunity for ventilating the question, and for the production of all parts of the case in an impartial and effective manner. If the result of the inquiry was that a plan such as had been more or less sketched should be thought practi-

  1837
  cable, he should have great satisfaction in proposing it on the part of the Government. And now one word, in the absence of his noble Friend the Secretary for War (the Marquess of Hartington), on the subject upon which his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport had spoken. The remarks of the
  hon. Member (Mr. Watkin) on the Spencer and Henry repeating rifles had been listened to with great interest by Her Majesty's Government. The accounts which the hon. Member had given of rifles so much approved in the American war, were of a character to draw attention; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was safe in promising, on behalf of the Department of whom his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) was head, that they would give their careful attention to all information which could be collected in regard to arms which seemed so exceedingly formidable.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to know the opinions of Members upon the subject introduced by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's (Mr. Ellice), he had for himself to state his entire concurrence with all that the hon. Member had said. At the same time, he felt very great doubt whether the subject was one of sufficient importance for the appointment of a Select Committee, and was inclined to think that those interested in the subject would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman would himself propose such changes in the law as he had indicated in his speech. All that was necessary was to reduce the duty from 12 s. to 4s. or 5s., to abolish the exemptions, and to transfer the charge from an assessed tax to a license duty.

FISHERIES (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland a Question of which he had given notice, but before putting the Question he wished to make a few remarks. The most opposite beliefs on the subject of trawl fishing existed in Ireland, and this was not to be wondered at, seeing that Mr. Commissioner Barry expressed an opinion on the subject differing from that contained in the Report of the Sea Fisheries Commission. With the great facilities the Commission had of obtaining the most reliable information, one could have little hesitation in relying on their Report, even although it was opposed to the opinion of Mr. Commissioner Barry. The
1838
condition of the Irish Fisheries was at present anything but prosperous. It appeared that in 1830, through the stimulus of bounties and loans, the number of vessels of all classes engaged in the Irish Fisheries was 13,119, and the number of men and boys employed 64,771. In 1836, when the fisheries were in a state of depression, caused through withdrawal of bounties, the number of boats employed was 10,761, and the number of men and boys 54,119. The fisheries soon recovered from this depressed condition, and in 1845 gave employment to 19,883 vessels and 93,073 men and boys. After the famine in 1848 there were only 15,932 vessels, with 70,011 hands, and in 1865 the number had still further decreased, there then being engaged in the Irish fisheries only 9,300 vessels and 40,946 hands. The Commissioners, in their Report, stated in the following words the reasons which had caused this great falling off in the Irish fisheries:—
"The great decline in the number of fishermen we believe to be wholly due to the effects of the famine of 1848, and the subsequent emigration. It might have been anticipated" that during the famine the fishermen at least would be secure from its ill effects, and would not only have plenty of food themselves, but would be the means of averting starvation from others. But such was not the case; it was found that the people would not live wholly on fish, nor would they out of the small means remaining to them buy fish in preference to meal or potatoes; the fishermen, therefore, suffered not only from the loss of their own crops of potatoes, but from want of "market for their fish. They shared to the full extent in the sufferings of the famine, and as most of them became physically incapable of going to sea, it was frequently found that men were starving while fish were in abundance on the coast. In many parts of Ireland the fishing population has not yet recovered from the depression and ruin caused by the famine; and the subsequent emigration, by taking off the youngest and ablest of the fishermen, and leaving behind the old, the feeble, and the incompetent, has still further operated, not only in reducing the numbers, but in lowering the average condition of those who remain behind."
If some of the restrictions which were at present imposed in trawling were removed, he believed that the Irish fisheries would rapidly regain their prosperity. This question was one of Imperial interest. At a period when meat was every day increasing in price, the Government ought to let no opportunity pass of encouraging the fisheries. In 1845, when there was the greatest number both of boats and persons employed, a general impression prevailed that if the fisheries of Ireland were properly developed they would be capable of giving employment to three times the number of fisher

1839
men, and that would be equal to ten times the number now employed. In that way, one-tenth instead of one-fiftieth of the population would be engaged in fishing, and there would be a large increase in the supply of food to the English as well as the Irish markets. The necessary stimulus could be given without the smallest cost to the Exchequer. They had only to remove Borne of the present restrictions, and small companies and individual capitalists would be ready to engage in these enterprizes. At certain seasons it was quite impossible, from the tempestuous nature of the coasts, that boats could proceed to the deep sea fishing-grounds; but if some of the restrictions on trawling were removed, companies would provide a double set of boats, one class for deep-sea fishing, and the other for in-shore fishing, so that when the weather would not permit the men to go out to the deep sea they could employ themselves in bay and coast fishing. Since the Report of the Royal Commissioners had been published several companies had been formed, and were only waiting to hear that the Report would be carried into effect to begin operations. One important branch of the Irish fisheries—the oyster fishery—had greatly declined. Nowhere was there so good an opportunity to prosecute the oyster fisheries as in Ireland, and nowhere was so little done. It was his intention at a later period of the Session, if he had the opportunity, to bring the subject of the Irish fisheries before the House; but he trusted that the necessity for his doing so would be obviated by the Government taking the matter into its own hands. It was to be hoped that during the Easter recess the Attorney General for Ireland would take into his consideration the propriety of introducing a measure for giving effect in that country to the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners. He begged to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to adopt measures, during the present Session, to give effect in Ireland to the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1863"to inquire into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom, with regard to the removal of restrictions on fishing, and encouraging the culture of Oysters?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON)said, that the Report to which the hon. Member had referred was laid on the table of the House only very recently. The Report was not confined to Ireland, but applied to every part
1840
of the United Kingdom. The question was a very large one, and as the recommendations of the Commissioners were of a very important and, as far as his knowledge went, very novel character, they required very serious deliberation. It was hardly to be expected, therefore, that the Irish Government should be prepared to take any measures for giving effect to them. With respect to what the hon. Member had said as to the state of the Irish fisheries, he was not aware of any legal restrictions which prevented Irish capitalists from engaging in the pursuit of fishing. There were facilities for establishing oyster beds in Ireland which did not even yet exist in England. As to there not being so large a proportion of the Irish people employed in fishing as the hon. Member thought there ought to be, that was scarcely a matter which the Government could alter. Many boats went from England to fish on the coast of Ireland; and if the Irish fishermen had boats of the same tonnage and capacity, and furnished with the same implements as were furnished to the English crews, there could be no reason why they should not carry on that branch of industry near their own shores. Much faith was not to be placed in any attempts on the part of the State to stimulate and foster the fisheries of the country by bounties or similar means. They had been already tried without having the desired effect. The matter must be left to the growth of private enterprize; and all that the Government could do was to take care that no legal obstacles, or undue restrictions, should check the development of those pursuits.

ENGINEERS OF THE ROYAL NAVY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR EDWARD DERINGsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the position of the Engineers of the Royal Navy. Their pay was quite incommensurate with the duties they were called on to discharge. It was hardly possible to overrate the value of their services, because it was upon the ability with which they discharged their duties that the efficiency of that steam fleet which had been so much discussed the last few nights depended. A chief engineer ranked with a lieutenant in the navy, and an inspector of machinery afloat ranked with a post captain. The engineers properly claimed that they

  1841
  should be placed in a position not inferior to those who held corresponding rank in the service. There were several points to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. First, as to the positions of widows. By the existing regulations the widows of engineers and assistant engineers had no pension whatever, unless it happened that their husbands were killed in action or in the immediate performance of some active duty. This was a great hardship, because only 20 per cent of them ever obtained the rank of chief engineer, which only gave a title to a pension. The great majority of the engineers and assistant engineers were in this position. They might serve Her Majesty fifteen years or more, exposed, perhaps, to the perils of a dangerous climate, or what might be even worse, the atmosphere of the engine room in regions where the atmosphere was at 130 degrees or 140 degrees, and if their constitutions gave way no provision at all was made. By the evidence taken in 1863 it appeared that there was a greater mortality among officers of this class than among the other officers of the service whose duties required them to be upon deck. There was another point respecting which they had cause of complaint. The widows of assistant-surgeons, who had corresponding rank, and of warrant officers, who were of inferior rank, had pensions if their husbands died, but the widows of naval engineers were not similarly provided for. The next point affected the position of chief engineer. When an officer attained the rank of chief engineer, or rather before he received the highest rate of emolument attaching to it, he must show twenty-five years of service. He did not complain of the regulation; it might be a proper one; but he complained that a man after having served Her Majesty perhaps for twelve or fourteen years, when he obtained the rank of chief engineer, instead of being allowed to count those fourteen years, by the regulation of the service was allowed to count only four years. The special hardship was, that a man entered, perhaps, at the age of twenty-one, and, after serving twelve or fourteen years, perhaps became chief engineer at the age of thirty-five, but not being able to count the fourteen years he had served, but only four, he was obliged to serve another twenty-one years before he got to the top of the tree; so that by the time he got to the head of his profession he had reached the age fixed by law for his retire-
  1842
  ment. He begged to press upon the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) whether it would not be just to make the period of retirement fifty instead of sixty years of age? It was shown most conclusively by the evidence taken in 1863 that an engineer was as old a man at fifty as most men belonging to other classes of the profession at sixty. He would advert to the case of assistant-surgeons. The noble Lord called attention the other night in moving the Naval Estimates to the state of the medical profession, and mentioned the difficulty of getting medical men for the navy, and said it was necessary to offer some inducement to obtain a sufficient supply. But how stood the case of the assistant-surgeon, who had the same rank as the engineer? After the assistant-surgeon had served ten years he was made surgeon, and he was not restricted to counting only four years, but was entitled to count the whole of the ten years that he had served Her Majesty. The next point was one which could hardly affect the Estimates in any perceptible degree, yet would relieve a great deal of individual hardship. An increase of pay took place every five years. A man, therefore, of nineteen-and-a-half years' service retiring on half-pay was paid upon fifteen years only instead of upon his full period of service. This might seem a trifling matter, but it seriously affected half-pay officers. The difference between the allowance upon fifteen years' service and that upon twenty years was no less than £45 a year. If there were a proportionate increase for every year of service, or if the period were reduced to three years, little difference would be made in the Estimates, but a great boon would be conferred on those personally interested. The last point which he would press upon the noble Lord was the position of inspectors of machinery afloat. There was, perhaps, no class of officers upon whom greater responsibility rested, for upon their care and vigilance not only the efficiency, but also the very safety of the ship depended, and yet when on full pay they had a mere trifle more than the chief engineers, who were freed from responsibility—at least, while the inspectors were on board, and on half-pay they received just the same amount as chief engineers. This was, perhaps, the only instance in the army or the navy of officers getting increased rank without any substantial increase in pay. The proof that the grievances were real was the position which officers of this

  1843
  class occupied in the merchant navy. In the merchant navy there were 900 registered engineers, and of these only two had joined the Royal Naval Reserve. He would add that within the last year or two many engineers in the Royal Navy of five and six years' standing had left the service and entered the merchant navy; so that the Royal Navy was a nursery for officers who, when they became efficient, left it. In the case of an emergency there might be great difficulty in getting a sufficient number of engineers for the Royal Navy, and should this happen it would not be a pleasant reflection for the noble Lord, that it was in consequence of harsh and rigid regulations that a most valuable class of men had been driven from the service. A minor grievance was, that while sub-lieutenants, second masters, and assistant-surgeons were included in the official Navy List, the naval engineers were omitted, which was an invidious distinction, but it might be an oversight which could be easily remedied. The claims made by the engineers were just, and their concession would promote the efficiency of the service.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that if the Government had power to give a general increase of pay to the navy so valuable a body of men as the engineers should not be excluded from the advantage. But the truth was that admitting the moderation of the hon. Baronet's tone, and sharing his appreciation of the services of the engineers, nothing was so difficult to meet in that House as claims advanced on behalf of a single class of officers without reference to other classes of officers of equal merit and importance, when the position of each must be governed by a general standard applicable to all. When an hon. Member sought to improve the position of a particular class of officers he usually ignored other classes, but the Government was bound to take a wider view, and to consider other classes; and in considering the case of the engineers they could not overlook surgeons, masters, and other classes in the navy. Many of the demands made by the engineers in their Memorial to the Admiralty of the 1st of January were not founded upon a fair comparison of their pay, work, and position, with that of other officers of their rank in the service. As to a man not reaching the top of his profession until he was advanced in years, that was the rule in most employments; but a well-conducted man might become a chief engineer at the age of thirty-three. An engineer receives
  1844
  half a guinea a day under five years' service; in five years 11 s. 6d. a day, and so on up to the higher grades—a rate of payment and of advance proportionate to those of corresponding ranks in the service. The hon. Baronet asked why was there not an increase of pay every year; but if the pay of engineers was to rise annually, so must that of other classes of officers; and the system in the navy was to regulate increase in pay by periods of years. The hon. Baronet had omitted to state that engineers had extra allowances when they were in charge of engines, and on a line-of-battle ship the allowance was as high as 3s. a day extra pay. Engineers were only like other classes in not being allowed to count the whole of their time as juniors for increased half-pay. Officers in the navy did not count their service for half-pay until they had attained a position in which they were considered to be thoroughly acquainted with their duties. In the junior classes of the service they were supposed to be learning their business. [Sir EDWARD DERING: Assistant-surgeons.] They were an exception, because their education was long and expensive, and they were professionally competent when they entered the service. There was no difficulty in getting engineers, although the pay was better in the merchant service; but there was difficulty in getting surgeons, because of their prospects in private practice, and it was therefore their duty to propose an increase in the pay of the surgeons. Such considerations ought not always to regulate the action of Government, because there might be individual cases of inadequate payment. Regarding the Memorial from the engineers, which came before the Admiralty only on the 1st of January, it was not wise or politic for a department of the navy to appeal to Parliament for a redress of grievances, when they had gone to the heads of their department to ask for an improvement of their position. He must say that he did not think that these things could be properly dealt with in that House. There were, no doubt, some points of their case which were peculiar, such, for instance, as the nature of their business confining them to a narrow space in a very high temperature; but when their position was compared with that of other officers in the navy, he did not think there was any case for consideration. One thing in their favour was, that whilst officers of almost every class in our service were for a considerable portion of their time upon half-

  1845
  pay, engineers were almost continuously on full pay. He could give no promise whatever to the engineers, but could simply say that their Memorial was under the consideration of the Admiralty.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he congratulated the engineers on obtaining so able an advocate as the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Dering), who had so fairly and comprehensively explained their case to the House. He (Mr. Otway) complained of the difficulty that existed in the way of obtaining justice from the Admiralty. The only response it was possible to obtain when re-presentations were made of grievances or other matters was that they were "under consideration." This matter had, however, been already considered in the House. The Duke of Somerset stated before a Committee that the subject was under consideration then as it was now. But when would the consideration be brought to any result? It was the complaint of every branch of the service that the Admiralty was always considering the case, but no advantage ever came of it. He was bound to press upon the attention of the House the most important matter concerning the widows of a class of officers who were exposed to unusual dangers, and among whom the mortality was very high. The engineers were confined in an atmosphere the temperature of which ranged from 60 to 145 degrees, while enduring other hardships which it was not necessary for him to recapitulate. Yet the widows of these men were not allowed any pension. He hoped the noble Lord would give the House some satisfactory explanation of the matter.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the engineers were not the only class of men whose widows did not receive a pension. Nothing was allowed to the widows of assistant-paymasters, second paymasters, and other officers of a corresponding rank with the engineers.
  MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, that the engineers were as reluctant as the noble Lord could wish to have their claims brought before the House; but the difficulty was, where else were they to go? They came to the House because it was absurd to go to the Admiralty for redress of grievances. He was much disappointed at hearing the noble Lord's speech, which amounted to this, that the thing would hang on until the end of the Session, and would then be indefinitely postponed, thus holding out no hope to these unfortunate people. He must say that he considered
  1846
  that the claim of the widows to pensions was one that deserved the serious consideration of the Admiralty. He did not understand the different classes and ranks, but he considered it was an extraordinary, anomaly that the widows should have no pensions except in the cases of husbands killed in action or dying of wounds received in action. A man who died of fever or dysentery contracted on an unhealthy station, such as the China Sea, equally lost his life in the service of his country. He hoped the noble Lord would urge the Board to look into the question, with the desire not to put it off, but to see what could be done in the matter.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £173,655, Admiralty Office.
MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished to draw attention to a Return for which he had moved, and which he held in his hand, observing that he should like to know what excuse was to be made for the inaccuracy of the information which it contained. In consequence of the opinions expressed in the House and out of it, as to the way in which the Admiralty accounts had been kept, he had been induced to look into the matter. For years great complaint was made as to the incorrectness of these accounts, and no one had found greater fault with them than the noble Lord himself. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), when connected with the Admiralty, had gone on a roving commission, and had made some rather severe remarks on the way in which the accounts were kept. They were told that for the future every farthing of the naval expenditure would be accounted for. With respect to allowances in other departments, the requirements of the Treasury were adhered to, but in the Return referred to be found that no less a sum than £643 was allowed to the Lords of the Admiralty, and to the Secretaries to the Board—the noble Lord opposite and Mr. Romaine—for oil. That allowance he believed to be just and proper, but what he complained of was that no mention was made of its having been converted into a money payment, and that the Lords of the Treasury had not been

1847
consulted with respect to the change. He also found that seventeen allowances were made to clerks in the Admiralty amounting to £1,150, but the Return did not contain the slightest evidence that those allowances had been sanctioned by the Treasury. He should like to hear from the noble Lord how that happened to be the case. In 1861 the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol (Sir Morton Peto) had moved for a Return, which was afterwards laid upon the table, of the resignations and salaries of the clerks in the Admiralty at Whitehall, but it was not dealing fairly with the House of Commons to keep back until this very day a Return of these allowances. He held in his hand a Return showing that all the allowances granted in the Treasury and the Civil Service were sanctioned by the Lords of the Treasury, but from the other Return to which he had alluded it did not appear that a single allowance had received the sanction of the Treasury. He admitted that the amount was small, but still there was thus a total sum of £1,793 which was paid in the Admiralty at Whitehall to officers of that Department, and which could not be traced in the Return just laid upon the table. He would ask the noble Lord to state from what source this money was derived, whether its payment was sanctioned by the Treasury, and whether a Minute had been made of such sanction having been given. If it had not, then he submitted that it was the duty of Parliament to take care that next year the accounts of the Lords of the Admiralty should be as clear for hon. Gentlemen to understand as the accounts of the army and the Civil Service. It would be found on reference to the Estimates that instead of all the expenses of the Admiralty being set down on the same page, the expenses of the messengers, &c, in the Secretary's department were given in a different part of the Estimates. Now, he was of opinion that the whole of the expenses of the Admiralty Board at Whitehall should be placed under one head in the Estimates so that the whole might be seen at a glance. In the remarks he had made he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not for one moment dispute the justice of the allowances to which he had drawn the attention of the Committee. On the contrary, he thought it was a wise thing to grant allowances to faithful public servants for any extra duties which they might perform.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that since he
1848
had had the honour of a seat in that House the Naval Estimates had never been produced in so clear and straightforward a manner as they had been of late years, and for this change the Board of Admiralty were entitled to great credit. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) had, however, noticed some points in regard to which they probably might be made more clear and explicit. The members of the Board of Admiralty occupied a very responsible and laborious position, and in his opinion if their salaries were increased they fully would deserve it. He objected, however, to the allowance of oil, and he hoped for the future it would be commuted into a money payment. As it at present appeared in the Estimates, this allowance subjected these officers to appear in an invidious and somewhat derogatory position, because the sum so apportioned could by no means be expended for the purpose it indicated.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYsaid, it appeared that no less than £7,816 was paid to seventy-eight messengers and porters. He wished to ask the noble Lord what class of men they were chosen from? There was also one lady housekeeper, and he should be glad to know whether that appointment was bestowed as a reward to the widows of deserving officers.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that with regard to the oil he was afraid he had himself been instrumental in cutting down the allowance at the Admiralty in 1860. In old times the allowances had been made for oil before gas was introduced, but when that change took place the houses were lit at the public expense with gas, but the allowance for oil continued till 1860. Soon after Lord Palmerston's Government came into office he, and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), who was then Civil Lord of the Admiralty, ascertained the average expense of the gas for a certain number of years, and assigned a fixed allowance per annum to each of the Lords of the Admiralty and the Secretary. He believed the House would not be disposed to quarrel with that arrangement. With regard to the allowances to clerks it was perfectly true that a certain number of clerks received special allowances for certain exceptional and peculiar business, and that those allowances had not been granted with the sanction of the Treasury. If, however, the hon. Member would look to the dates, he would perceive that the present Government was not responsible for that state of things. For a considerable number of years allowances had been grant-

1849
ed for the performance of certain duties which came under the head of "Contingent Allowances," and which were to be found in the Vote for Contingencies. He agreed that it was advisable that all the particulars should be shown in the Estimates; but if every little allowance to everybody were minutely set forth, the Estimates would be swelled to such an extent that hon. Gentlemen would complain of their bulk. He would inquire, however, whether in future years all fixed allowances might not be inserted in the Estimates, for there was not the least desire for concealment with regard to them. His hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hanbury-Tracy) had asked what class of men the messengers were taken from. It used to be the practice to appoint domestic servants as messengers, but now old sailors and soldiers were almost invariably appointed. The housekeepers both at the Admiralty and Somerset House were formerly widows of meritorious officers, but it was found that though they were most estimable ladies they were very inefficient housekeepers. It was found absolutely necessary, therefore, to appoint a lady who could undertake the duties of the office.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,368,971, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of Her Majesty's Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."
MR. SEELYsaid, he wished to ask some questions with respect to the principles on which the construction of the navy was to be carried out. In what position was Captain Coles to be placed? Was the controversy between him and the Admiralty to continue, or was he to be allowed to construct a vessel according to his own theories? or were Captain Coles and Mr. Reed to be coupled together to the obstruction of each other. This was not merely a money question, but one which affected even the safety of the kingdom. Captain Coles did not hesitate to say that the ship which the Admiralty proposed to build would not carry out his designs, and would not be a fair test of his principle. The country, therefore, ought to know whether Captain Coles could be left unfettered to carry out his own principle, or whether he was to be clogged, as he had been for the last five years, by the Board of Admiralty. It would be very unfair to couple Captain
1850
Coles with a gentleman opposed to the turret principle. He thought that he should be able to show that Mr. Reed was opposed to that principle now, though favourable to it in the early part of his career. It was not right to refer to a previous debate of this Session; but it might be taken for granted that the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) held the opinion that Mr. Reed was not opposed to the turret principle of Captain Coles. But he (Mr. Seely) could show that Mr. Reed was opposed to it. In the evidence which he gave before the Committee on the 23rd March, 1865, Mr. Reed said—
"In my opinion no sea-going turret-ship of moderate dimensions and a high speed can be satisfactorily built, if an attempt be made to approach to an all round fire.
Again, in answer to another question, Mr. Reed said—
"But it is necessary to point out that there are great difficulties in the way, and that this vessel (Captain Coles' one turret-ship) is an embodiment of the strongest objections which have been taken by myself and others to the practicability of constructing satisfactorily sea-going turret-ships."
Was it fair, then, to couple Captain Coles and Mr. Reed together in the work of bringing out a vessel which was to test the practicability and value of the turret principle? He held in his hand a letter addressed to a gentleman by Mr. Watts, who had great experience as a constructor in the navy, and whose opinion was entitled to great weight, and in that letter Mr. Watts stated—
"I have carefully examined your design for a two-turret vessel, and I am of opinion that it fulfils, under moderate dimensions, all the reasonable requirements of vessels of this description. The protection afforded against an enemy's shot is as great, or even greater, than in any vessel yet built. The fire throughout the entire circle is secured, and the height of the upper deck above water is, I am of opinion, sufficient to render the vessel safe and a comfortable sea-boat.
That letter was important, inasmuch as Mr. Watts stated that all round fire could be obtained in a vessel of moderate dimensions. The opinion of Mr.
Watts was confirmed by naval officers of great eminence to the effect that a
turret-ship of much smaller dimensions than the noble Secretary to the Admiralty designed to build could be constructed as a most efficient sea-going vessel. They contended that a smaller vessel had various advantages over a larger one; that it was more handy, and presented less target to the enemy, while they admitted that a larger vessel could, though more heavily plated, obtain the same speed. What he maintained was, that

1851
while the Admiralty built their ship, the Monarch, Captain Coles should be allowed to design a vessel in accordance with his own ideas, and that the vessel should be built in some private yard, untrammelled by the Admiralty. Then there would be an opportunity of comparing these two classes of vessel with one another. The noble Lord had expressed an objection to the vessel planned by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda), on the ground that it had not free-board enough; that the hon. Member only proposed to give a free-board of 11 feet, while the Monarch was to have a free-board of 14 feet. He had endeavoured to get some information on this point, and he thought that the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company provided for the accommodation of their passengers in quite as sufficient a manner and quite as well as the noble Lord need provide for the seamen of the navy. Of. the ships belonging to that company he found that the Pera, with a length of 303 feet, had a height out of water of 11 feet. The Golconda, with a length of 295 feet, had a similar height of 11 feet. The Delhi, the Baroda, the Tanjore, and the Poonah had the same proportions, and the Mooltan, with a length of 335 feet, was the only one of these seven vessels which had a height above water of 12 feet. Therefore, the hon. Member for Tavistock was justified in thinking that a free-board of 11 feet was quite sufficient. [Mr. SAMUDA said, that his ship was to have had a free-board of 9 feet only.] At all events, it seemed clear that less free-board than 14 feet was sufficient. He repeated that by coupling Mr. Reed with Captain Coles the experiment with regard to the turret principle would not be deemed by the country likely to have a fair trial. He confessed that he had not very great confidence in Mr. Reed's capability. During the last Session the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty stated—
"Now, I ask the House to consider what took place last year (1864). We (the Admiralty) heard of an eminent shipbuilder, a gentleman who had distinguished himself in drawing the lines of ships, a very scientific man. He was wholly unconnected with the Government service, but believing him to be a person who was thoroughly competent, we brought him from the private trade into the service of the country. That gentleman was Mr. Reed. Hon. Members will recollect to what an outcry his appointment gave rise to. I am very glad that we made that appointment, because Mr. Reed has performed his duties most satisfactorily."—[3 Hansard, clxxx. 384.]
1852
He wanted to know whether Mr. Reed had ever been a shipbuilder before he was engaged by the Admiralty—"the eminent shipbuilder" as he was described."[Lord C. PAGET: Ship designer.] The words used were the Admiralty "heard of an eminent shipbuilder who had distinguished himself in drawing the lines of ships." The noble Lord should be extremely accurate in such matters. What private trade was Mr. Reed engaged in? What was his experience? It was well known that Mr. Reed was originally in the dockyard; he left the dockyard, and became sub-editor of the Mechanics' Magazine, and then he became the Constructor of the Navy. Beyond all doubt Mr. Reed was a man of general ability; but they were discussing not his general ability, but his ability as a ship designer—not his power as a writer to persuade men that he is clever, but whether he can build ships. Upon that point he confessed he had his doubts. Mr. Reed, as far as he understood, and he hoped the noble Lord would correct him if he was wrong, came before the Admiralty with certain new notions or ideas; and his first idea was to construct a vessel with a wooden bottom and iron topsides. This was carried out in the Enterprise. Mr. Reed affirmed on the 26th of March, 1863, in a lecture at the Institute of Naval Architects—
"That the smallest turret-ship, carrying but a single turret, if wholly armour-plated and made seaworthy, must be considerably larger than the Enterprise."
Now, he would compare the Enterprise, built by Mr. Reed, with the Minerva turret, built by Messrs. Laird at Birkenhead. The length of the Enterprise was 180 feet; of the Minerva 180 feet; breadth of the Enterprise, 36 feet; Minerva, 35 feet; draught of water of Enterprise, 15 feet 6 inches; Minerva, 8 feet; tonnage of Enterprise, 993; Minerva, 1,000; horsepower of Enterprise, 160; Minerva, 140; speed in knots, Enterprise, 9·94; Minerva 10·5; broadside of Enterprise, 220 lb.; Minerva, 300 lb. They were both plated with 4½-inch iron in midships and tapered off towards the ends. The Times of the 20th of February, 1866, said—
"The Minerva, the first of the iron-clads ordered in Europe for this war, arrived in Rio on the 12th from Liverpool in thirty days."
Mr. Reed, at the Institute of Naval Architects, on the 26th of March, 1863, with reference to iron-cased ships of war said—

1853
"The Enterprise, Research, and Favourite, certainly represent my ideas, in so far as I could give scope to them under the peculiar circumstances of their construction, and I am perfectly willing to be judged by a comparison of those vessels with others of like size."
He (Mr. Seely) would then compare the Research with the turret-ship Huascar, which was as near her size as possible, built by Mr. Laird at Liverpool for the Turkish Government, and which had proved a far superior vessel to the Research—Research, length 198 feet, Huascar 200 feet; Research, breadth, 38 feet, Huascar, 35 feet; Research, draught of water, 15 feet 3 inches, Huascar 16 feet; Research, tonnage, 1,253, Huascar, 1,100; Re-search, horse-power, 200, Huascar, 300; Research, speed in knots, 10·35, Huascar, 12·27; Research, broadside, 2201b., Huas- car, 600 lb. The Liverpool Albion of the 29th of January said, referring to the Huascar—
"This vessel, after being completed for sea, left here for Holyhead on the 17th of January, 1806, encountered very severe weather on the passage, but proved herself an excellent sea-boat, very buoyant, and rolled easily, even when placed broadside to a heavy sea in the race off Holyhead. She left Holyhead for Brest on the 20th instant, experiencing severe south-west gales in the Channel, but fully maintained her character as a good sea-going ship, and arrived off Ushanton the 22nd instant, and anchored safely at Brest on the following morning. The Huascar had her guns on board—namely, two 40-pounders (broadside guns), equivalent to a broadside of 680 lb. She had also her full complement of shot and shell, and stores and provisions for some months on board, in addition to about 100 tons more coal than she intended to carry for ordinary service. The trial, therefore, of the Huascar during the late severe weather we have had in the Channel, and when loaded unusually deep, is most satisfactory, and proves that armour-clad ships of even small size can be built on Captain Covyper Coles' turret principle, to combine speed and sea-going qualities of the first order, carrying at the same time a much heavier and more effective armament than vessels of similar tonnage of any other construction."
Mr. Reed's second idea was plough bows. He knew it was irregular to refer to a past debate of the present Session, but he believed the noble Lord had asked, "Will any gentleman show me a ship of her tonnage that goes as fast as the Pallas," which had been built for speed? Now, he would compare the Pallas with the Newcastle, designed many years ago by Mr. Watts. The Newcastle, a wooden ship, was a much faster ship than the Pallas. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: But she was an old sailing frigate.] That makes it so much the worse. If the Pallas was outstripped by an old sailing vessel, so much the worse for
1854
Mr. Reed's ship. The following were the figures:—Pallas, length, 225 feet; Newcastle, 250 feet; Pallas, breadth, 50 feet; Newcastle, 52 feet; Pallas, draught, 24 feet 6 inches; Newcastle, 20 feet; Pallas, tonnage, 2,372; Newcastle, 3,027; Pallas, horse-power, 600; Newcastle, 600; Pallas, indicated power, 3,518; Newcastle, 2,453; Pallas, speed, 12,627; Newcastle, 13·28; Pallas, broadside, 5201b.; Newcastle, 1,7001b.; Pallas, displacement on trial about 2,860; Newcastle, 2,665. Mr. Reed's third idea was to build a much shorter ship than the Warrior and make her equally fast. He said at the Institute of Naval Architects in March, 1864—
"I freely stake my reputation, such as it may be, and all my anticipations of every kind, upon the fact that the Bellerophon cannot fail to steam over 14 knots."
Now, the average speed of the Bellerophon was 13·6 an hour, and this was obtained at her light draught of water without armament, stores, provisions, or coals on board. The average speed of the Warrior, with six months provisions and stores, was 14'356; nearly three-fourths of a knot faster than the Bellerophon. The length of the Bellerophon was 300 feet, and of the Warrior 380 feet; the tonnage of the Bellerophon was 4,270, and of the Warrior 6,039; the indicated horse-power of the Bellerophon was 4,707, and of the Warrior 5,469; the speed in knots of the Bellerophon was 13·645; and of the Warrior 14356; the displacement on trial of the Bellerophon was about 5,630, and of the Warrior, 8,852. The fourth idea of Mr. Reed was improved Alabamas. In his lecture at Greenwich, in November, 1863, Mr. Reed said—
"I state with the utmost absolute fearlessness and confidence that the Admiralty are now building a corvette from which neither the Alabama nor Florida could hope to escape."
Now, he (Mr. Seely) would compare the Amazon—which the noble Lord was of opinion was the fastest of her class—built by Mr, Reed with the Flying Fish by Mr. Watts—built many years ago, and a much faster vessel. The Amazon's length was 187 feet, that of the Flying Fish 200 feet; the Amazon's breadth was 36 feet, that of the Flying Fish 30 feet 4½- inches; the Amazon's draught was 16 feet 6 inches, that of the Flying Fish 13 feet; the Amazon's indicated horse-power was 1,660; that of the Flying Fish, 1,345; the Amazon's tonnage was 1,081; that of the Flying Fish, 950; the Amazon's speed

1855
was 12·171, that of the Flying Fish 12·725. In the case of the Amazon everything movable was taken out of the forepart. She was ballasted aft to lighten the bow and bring stern down to give more force to the screw. Eight of these vessels of the Amazon class had been laid down; of these, two were already being altered—one, the Danae, was undergoing no small alteration, for her bow was being taken down to her floor timbers. He mentioned these things for the purpose of showing that it was hardly fair to Captain Coles to couple him with Mr. Reed, considering the strong prejudice he had shown against the turret principle and the failures which had taken place in his own ships. He was exceedingly glad to hear that Captain Coles had been reinstated. He did not concur in the remarks that had been made about that gallant gentleman—such as that he had been intemperate in his language, and had said that which he had no right to say. Captain Coles was then on full pay, and it was said that he had improperly brought his invention before the public. In order that he might be at liberty to press forward his invention he applied to be placed upon half-pay, and his desire was acceded to. It was extremely harsh of the Admiralty afterwards to dismiss him, considering all that had passed. Even had he been a little intemperate in his language, and had said a few words more than were justifiable, his previous services should not have been forgotten. When Captain Coles was at Sebastopol in 1854 he received the thanks of Lord Lyons for his gallant conduct, and he was honourably mentioned in that House. In the same year he first conceived the idea of the turret principle, suggested by the difficulty the fleet before Sebastopol laboured under—heavy ships drawing much water. He saw that small ships of light draught carrying the heaviest guns were required, and he then invented a gun-raft. Lord Lyons was so pleased with the idea that he communicated it to the Admiralty, who thought so much of it that they directed Captain Coles to come home in order to carry out his invention. But peace was proclaimed shortly after, and no more was heard of Captain Coles' invention. Captain Coles, however, never lost sight of the turret principle, and in 1859 he again and again pressed it upon the attention of the Admiralty, until at length the experiments were made on board the Trusty. Those experiments were successful, and to show
1856
the great interest they excited in the highest quarters he begged to read the following letter, written by the direction of the late Prince Consort:—
28, 1861.
"My dear Captain Coles,—The Prince desires me to say that he had already seen Captain Powell's official report of the result of the experiments with your cupola gun, and his Royal High ness has desired me to write to you to congratulate you on the complete success which seems so far to have attended them when I received your letter, which I have now submitted to his Royal Highness. You are well aware of the interest which he has taken from the first in your proposed gun and shield, and need scarcely, there fore, any assurance of the gratification with which he has heard of its entire success. For, though Captain Powell reports that there is still room for some improvements in the details, yet this does not affect the principle, and his report concludes with saying that it appears to him the most important invention, both as regards the defensive and offensive capabilities of the cupola gun, that has ever come under his notice. Allow me to add my congratulation to those of his Royal Highness, and believe, &c, "C. GREY."
He had no doubt that if the late Prince Consort had lived the turret principle would have long ago been tried. In order that the system should be fairly tried Captain Coles should be permitted to design and build the vessel himself.
MR. FLEMINGsaid, he was anxious that the few observations he had to make should not be regarded as emanating from a factious spirit. He wished to call attention to the present low scale of remunerating the artificers and labourers in the dockyards, which prevented the Government from getting the most efficient men. He thought it unworthy of this great country, spending, as it did, £10,000,000 annually upon our navy, that the Admiralty should hunt the kingdom through in order to obtain cheap labour, and that they should offer far less to their workpeople than was given in private yards. Was it just and was it politic that labourers in the dockyards should be kept down to starvation point by their wages being reduced to 13 s. or 14 s. per week? It was impossible to expect a fair day's work from men who were so miserably paid. Then, there was the case of the joiners—skilled artizans—men who had to serve a long apprenticeship and to purchase a costly set of tools before they could obtain work, who were also paid far less in Her Majesty's dockyards than were men of the same class in private yards. The caulkers and the shipwrights were also underpaid, and he hoped that Government would take the case of all the people engaged

1857
in the dockyards into consideration. He also wished to know why the wages of the artificers and labourers, amounting to £15,000, engaged in breaking up old ships, were not deducted from the proceeds of those ships. He would not, however, trouble the Committee with anything further upon that point, as it was his intention to refer to the matter again on some future occasion.
MR. P. WYKEHAM MARTIN(Rochester) said, he had brought forward this subject till he was tired. He also could bear testimony that the joiners in the dockyards were paid less than in private yards. Last year he was told that they were paid so much that any discontent that might be reported to him must be the result of an hallucination, and that they could not be tempted into private yards. When he was told this he could answer nothing; he was, in fact, completely floored. But he afterwards made inquiries; and he found that a great strike was going on, and that owing to the influence of the trades' unions no man in the Government yards dared go into private yards for any remuneration that might be offered. He had now the confirmation of the last speaker, who was a large employer of labour, that he could not get joiners for the price paid in Her Majesty's dockyards. The argument used against him last year, though successful, was hardly, as he thought, fair. The Committee should remember that the joiners in Her Majesty's dockyards had practically no redress for their grievances. They could not strike as men engaged in private dockyards could do if they felt aggrieved, and deputations to the Admiralty were productive of no result. He was one of a deputation that went last year to the Admiralty. They were asked point blank, did they understand the business better than the Admiralty? With all due and proper deference he thought they did. When the Admiralty made their periodical visits they asked the men whether they had any grievances. But it was a common remark that the Admiralty knew as much about dockyards as dockyards knew about the Admiralty. Having made numerous inquiries into the matter, he found that the men in the dockyards were paid less than in private yards; in addition to which they had to find their own tools. The consequence was that the Admiralty were not getting the pick of the men among the young hands. It was said that the dockyard men had four holidays in the year;
1858
but, if they were paid as in the private yards, they could afford to pay for their own holidays. He had no connection with dockyards. There were not fifty dockyard voters in Rochester; and he had more of their votes under a Conservative Government than under a Liberal Government. It had been said that the dockyard men would not remain if they were paid so much less than what they could earn in private yards; but there was always an objection to men in employment to go elsewhere, and one reason was the expense of removing themselves and families from Chatham and Portsmouth to such places as Newcastle and Sunderland. He reminded the House that when their services were not required labourers and artizans in the dockyards were just as liable to be discharged as men in private yards. He thought the whole matter ought to be referred to a Committee of Inquiry, because, although he knew very well that the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty understood his business, and that when he went to the dockyards the men were called on to state their grievance, yet if they did so the matter was pretty sure to be handed over to some clerk in the office, who reported that everything was as it should be. He would say, let the Committee consist of one Member from each dockyard borough; let there be Admiralty officials, and let there also be a few Members connected with the shipbuilding trade of the country in private dockyards. Above all, and this was absolutely necessary, let the men of the dockyards who were called on to give evidence have a guarantee that no harm should reach them in consequence of their evidence.
MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKEsaid, he had been informed that the joiners in Her Majesty's dockyards received only 3s. 10 d. a day, while 5s. and 6s. a day was paid in private yards. Why this difference? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Superannuation.] He was much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would take up the point presently, but he was not to be diverted from his point by the interruption. Was it true that the joiners in Her Majesty's dockyards were paid 3s. 10 d. a day? And was that sufficient? Was it right? Was it right that while ship joiners received 5s. a day, in some cases 6s. a day, in private yards, the payment in the Government yards should be only 3s. 10 d.? And was the difference made up by superannuation? Was it not true that scarcely one man in ten received

1859
the superannuation? And if so, what had superannuation to do with the other nine? If a diminution of expenses was requisite it ought to take place not amongst the mechanics, but amongst those who had much higher payments, and little or nothing to do. A saving should not be attempted in the wages of the artisan and the labouring class, who had to work hard from morning to night in order to gain a livelihood; at least not till it had been attempted in the case of those who with little work could much better afford lower payment. Besides the joiners, the case of the shipwrights ought to be taken into consideration. He should like to know whether it was true that when the iron-clads were first introduced 8s. a day was paid for labour to outsiders, and that a suggestion was made to the common shipwrights in the dockyards—who had worked hard in order to qualify themselves for the labour, and who, after so doing, had succeeded the first arrivals—that after a time they might perform the same labour as the men who received 8s. He had been told that these men now received only 4s. 6d., though they were performing the duty efficiently. The noble Lord might answer the question or not. If he did, the answer would no doubt be what his (Mr. Serjeant Kinglake's) remarks suggested. If no answer was given the public would draw the inference that the noble Lord had no sufficient answer to give.
MR. FERRANDsaid, that as the representative of a dockyard borough, he should be failing in his duty towards his constituents if he did not say a few words upon the subject before the Committee. The statement which he made last Session relative to the claims of the dockyard labourers had never been contradicted, and he believed that no more just claims had ever been submitted to the attention of the House. He hoped to be able to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the matter was more serious than he imagined. It had been stated that the artificers and labourers ought to apply to the Admiralty, instead of submitting their claims to the consideration of the House, but they had been repeatedly refused by the Admiralty. During the last Session the claims of the officers of Customs were brought before the House, after having been repeatedly rejected by the Board, and the result was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the claims into consideration, and that the salaries of those officers had been
1860
increased. Unless the claims of the dockyards were taken into consideration before long, his impression was that the most serious injury would be inflicted upon them. The result of the present system was that the best men were leaving the Royal dockyards and entering private yards. The wages in the former were so low that the owners of the latter were able to draw away the best men. Those owners of private yards who denied that the artizans in Her Majesty's establishments had anything to complain of, could scarcely be regarded as impartial judges; because, while the men in the Royal dockyards were underpaid, they could, of course, secure the best workmen for their own services. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take into consideration the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochester, and consent to the appointment of a fair and impartial Committee to inquire into the claims of the men, and if those claims should be substantiated, he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would throw any impediment in the way of a fair remuneration being afforded. When iron ships were first introduced into the Royal dockyards, men from the country were employed in the work. Those who bent armour-plates received 8s. per day, the plates from 6s. to 8s., the riveters 6s., and the men in other branches 6s. These men struck for wages, and the men in the Royal yards prepared themselves for the work. The old yardsmen soon became equal to the new ones who had been introduced, but they were now receiving no more than 4s. 6d. a day, whilst the average wages in the private yards amounted to 6s. 6d. The wear and tear of clothing had increased from 30 to 40 per cent. The price of provisions had also considerably increased. House rent and taxes were higher. In many parts of England the police had received an increase of wages on account of the increased price of provisions, and the advance that had taken place in the rents and rates of dwelling-houses, and these things were worthy of consideration in dealing with the case of the dockyard workmen. Further, a considerable amount of sickness was produced by the foul air the men encountered while working at these vessels, and many of the clubs which formerly supported them had been broken up in consequence of the number of men thrown upon them. With regard to the superannuation which had been spoken of, not more than one man

1861
in ten ever received it, and then the period was so short between its being granted and his death, that not more than three men in 100 derived any great benefit from it. The constant employment agreement had been alluded to, and it was said that the men had four days' holiday. But they were quite willing to give that up, and all they wanted was a fair day's pay for a fair day's labour. With regard to the case of the joiners, the forcible statement of the hon. and learned Member for Rochester (Mr. Serjeant Kinglake) was fully borne out by the facts. In private establishments the average rate of wages was 6s. 2d., whilst in the Royal dockyards it was only 3s. 10 d. How, then, could good men be kept under those circumstances, especially as their superiors were so strict that if a man wasted five minutes it would be struck off his wages? In the Royal yards there was the strictest enforcement of labour, and the present superintendent at Devonport Dockyard did his duty so ably that as much labour was now performed in one year as formerly was obtained in two. That circumstance gave additional force to the claims of these men. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not imagine that hon. Members brought forward this subject year after year unless they believed in the facts which they stated. He firmly believed that if the Committee were appointed it would be found that a good case could be made in support of the proposal to increase the wages of these men. The right hon. Gentleman had lately said that there were Departments of the public service in which the salaries had been raised, and he admitted that there might be others in which the question ought to undergo consideration. Now, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the claims of the dockyard workmen were undergoing consideration? They were a loyal body of men, devoted to their respective establishments, and the Government could not make a greater mistake than, year after year, refusing to take into consideration their claims, when they were merely asking for common justice.
SIR CHARLES BRIGHTsaid, he laboured under the disadvantage in taking part in the discussion of being the representative of a borough which had two dockyards in it. He thought it a disadvantage, because the grievances of the workmen had been so frequently brought forward on former occasions by Members representing dockyard towns, that he feared they would
1862
not be listened to with as much attention as the subject they treated of demanded. He thought that the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Ferrand) had made out a good case. He had been largely concerned in the employ of labour of various kinds, and he knew something of the scale of wages paid in contracts and engineering works outside the dockyards. There could be no doubt there was a great difference between the wages paid in the Royal dockyards and in the private yards, and the men in the Royal dockyards felt that they were unjustly treated. Within the last ten years the wages of the working classes generally had been increased in consequence of the augmentation that had taken place both in house rent and the means of living; but the wages in the Royal dockyards had not been proportionality raised. The reason urged for this was that the men in those yards were entitled to pensions. But these pensions ought to be treated according to their commercial value. The pension was a day's pay for every ten years' service. He would take the case of the joiners, for example, whoso pay in the Royal dockyards was 3s. 10 d. a day, whereas in private yards they received 6s. 2d., making a difference of 2s. 4d. day. Supposing a man having entered at twenty years of age had given forty years' service in the Royal dockyards, he would be entitled at sixty to £39 per annum pension. Now, under the recent excellent Act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the man in the private yard invested £3 1s. 9d. for forty years, he would obtain the same amount of pension by way of annuity, and the residue of the difference of wages, if laid by for that forty years, would give him a sum of £1,456. But it was said, why did they not seek employment elsewhere? The young men did go elsewhere for employment, but the old men, who had spent many years in the dockyards, did not wish to forego that pension to which they naturally looked forward. He understood that the men were not to be had in the numbers in which they were required, and that the Government were obliged to send them about from yard to yard in steamers to execute the necessary works. He was prepared to admit that he could not suggest any remedy himself, but hoped one would be found if the proposed Select Committee were permitted to take the matter into consideration. There was one point which especially demanded their attention—that was the charge for supervision in the Navy

1863
Estimates. At Deptford the charge for supervision was £10,647, whereas the charge for wages was only £47,879. The increase on the entire Estimates for supervision was £26,053, while the increase for wages was only £10,957; therefore, they were paying£26,000 more for superintending the payment of £10,000 more in wages. In the case of five out of the seven dockyards—namely, Deptford, Woolwich, Chatham, Sheerness, and Devonport, the increase of the salaried establishments or cost of supervision, was £17,145, whilst there was absolutely a decrease of wages to the extent of £4,382. This matter required explanation, and he hoped that the Secretary of the Admiralty would be able to afford it. He was told that at Woolwich dockyard there had been engaged upon one job 240 men and boys. To oversee these there were two foremen, four inspectors, twelve leading men, and two writers, who passed on the orders from one to the other, till at last they reached the working men. In any private establishment such a superintending force would be found very extravagant and useless. Some saving might possibly be effected under such heads as this which might be applied to a fair augmentation of the wages of the workmen, who had not had any increase since 1857. It was not a fitting occasion for going fully into the matter, but he hoped that the Admiralty would appoint a Commission to inquire into the rate of wages paid to the different classes of workmen, their superannuations, and position generally in comparison with workmen in private employ.
CAPTAIN VIVIANsaid, that if these labourers thought themselves as unfairly treated as appeared from the statements to which he had just listened, it was strange that in his own part of the country he had more applications for employment in the dockyard as joiners than for anything else. But for the strong antipathy which he entertained to asking favours from any one, his noble Friend opposite would be in receipt of daily applications from him on that subject. A little while ago he had forwarded an application on behalf of two men, and the reply was, that owing to the number of other applications, it was impossible to comply with the request. He knew that the labourers set great value on the Superannuation Fund. This chronic annual grievance of the dockyard labourers showed itself in so virulent a form that it was worth while remarking the
1864
quarters from which it sprung. First of all they heard the two hon. Members from Devonport, where a dockyard existed; and then hon. Members for Rochester, where, though there was not positively a dockyard, yet the boundary line, as an hon. Member had told them, was so delicately marked that he threw up his hat for the dockyard. Greenwich, too, had been ably represented in the debate, and if its representative erred at all, it was rather on the side of elaborateness in his complaints. The hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) likewise advocated the dockyard view. [Cries of "No!" "Not yet!"] Well, at all events, the voice of Chatham was rarely wanting from these debates. It would be a pity that so much disinterested philantrophy should be wasted. He hoped, therefore, that the utterances of hon. Members would reach the ears of their constituents. The effect created upon his mind by these annual discussions was to strengthen his impression that dockyard labourers ought not to have votes. He was of opinion that both for the men themselves, for their own good, as well as for the interests of all other parties concerned, it would be a much better thing that the men in the dockyards should not have an opportunity of bringing their claims before the House in the way they now had, and of saying to candidates at Parliamentary elections as it was known they did, "We will vote for you if you bring our claims under the notice of the House of Commons."
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped he would not be intruding on the Committee if he said a few words on this subject. Not being at present at the Admiralty, but having had the honour of being connected with the Admiralty last year, and having taken part in the debate which occurred last Session on the question of wages in the dockyards, he felt it right to state some matters which had come within his own knowledge. In accordance with the promise given by the Government in the course of the debate to which he alluded he had felt it his duty in connection with other members of the Admiralty—and a good deal of the work fell upon him—to very closely investigate the question. Each of the dockyards was visited by the Board; and two or three members of the Board, seated round a table, received, without the presence of any of the dockyard officials, deputations, consisting generally of two or three men at a time, from, the different

1865
classes of workmen. The men had received no previous intimation whatever from their officers of the questions which would be put to them; and he was bound to say that they answered the questions put to them on the subject of their wages with great intelligence and fairness. The Board went most narrowly into the question, heard their arguments, and the comparison between their wages and the wages paid in the private yards, and listened to what they had to say on the point of superannuation. In a few days after those examinations were concluded he left the Board of Admiralty, but he was bound to say for himself that he agreed with the decision of the Board. As the Board had to deal with as many as 15,000 men, there might be some inequalities as regarded a few men; but he had arrived at the conclusion that on the whole, considering the permanent nature of the employment, and the system of superannuation, the present rate of wages was sufficient. The rate of wages in the dockyards was now for "established men"£68 a year, and for "hired men" rather more than £45 a year. As to a Committee, he was bound to say that if they followed the recommendation of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Martin), he thought they would not receive a very satisfactory report from such a Committee as he suggested. The hon. Gentleman said that the Members of the Government knew very little about the matter. But he (Mr. Martin) would have the Committee consist of Members of the present and the late Governments, of dockyard Members, and of one or two gentlemen with a special knowledge of the subject. Judging from the observations made by the dockyard Members in the course of the discussion, be did not think that with no one to help them, except the ignorant officials and the one or two specially informed shipbuilders, they would be likely to bring up a very impartial report. Let him go for a moment into the real question. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) said, in the first place, that the wages in the dockyards were insufficient, because a number of the men in those yards were leaving the public service. He denied that altogether. He distinctly stated it was not the fact. He asserted that up to the time when he left the Admiralty, which was only a short time ago, that was not a correct representation, and he had ascertained that since then the number of men leaving the dockyards was not
1866
even so large as before. Therefore, he believed anything which could be said upon that point would not tell in favour of such an inquiry as was suggested, but quite the other way. The dockyard men were not dissatisfied. At all events, they did not show it by leaving the dockyards. He would further illustrate this by the way in which the question of wages concerned a very large body of dockyard men. There were three classes of men employed in the yards. First, the "established men," who, in addition to their wages, were entitled to superannuation. There were next the "hired men," who, though they were not "established," might be said to be permanently employed in the yards at fixed rates of wages. The third class were the "factory men," who were only engaged from week to week. The wages of this last class were fixed by the engineers who had a discretion up to a certain maximum fixed by the Admiralty. Those factory men might, if they liked, take their discharge to morrow. Their wages fluctuated, if necessary, with the wages of the market; but those wages had not been increased by the engineer, and simply because the engineer had not found it necessary to increase them. This fact was of more significance when taken in connection with the circumstance that in many cases the wages of those "factory men" had not reached the maximum which the engineer might have given them if he had thought it necessary to do so. Their wages had not been in any case increased for five years. The question of superannuation had also been raised in the discussion, and he must say that with respect to it some hon. Members appeared to him to labour under an extraordinary delusion. One hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) said that the number receiving superannuation was in the proportion of about three to every 100 in the total number of men. He had referred to the Estimates, which he believed to contain perfectly correct information on the point, and in the Estimates he found that the number of "established men" entitled to superannuation was 9,600, and the number of artificers actually in the receipt of superannuation 3,000. There could be no question as to the value of superannuation to a body of men; and it was to be measured by a very much higher standard than that which the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) had applied to it. And did hon. Members think that the prospect of permanent employment

1867
was worth nothing? Hon. Members kept harping on the 6s. paid in the private yards as compared with the 4s. 6d. paid in the dockyards. But did they really think that the 1s. 6d. or 2s. was the real difference between the advantages in the respective employments? He could assure the Committee that in reply to questions put to them the intelligent workmen themselves stated that they put a very considerable value on the prospect of permanent employment. When asked as to the comparative advantages of the dockyards and the private yards in respect of the element of permanency those men did not hesitate to admit that their advantages were enormous, and when asked why if they thought their wages inadequate they did not leave, they at once attributed their remaining to the certainty of permanent employment. Let one inquire from a private builder to what interruptions in their wages his men are liable and he will at once see the force of this. The Committee must allow, therefore, for that very considerable advantage, in addition to the advantages of superannuation, which superannuation was given not only in old age, but in cases of permanent disability when the other requisites of superannuation had been complied with. An hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Bright) had said, "You never raise the wages in the dockyards." It was perfectly true that they had not been raised recently. But they had been raised twice in the last twenty years, and those increases were, he would undertake to say, quite equal to the rise in wages which had taken place in private yards from the Crimean War up to the present time. Besides that, the agitation which took place on the subject of superannuation should not be forgotten. The superannuation before 1859 was very trifling, and it was thought necessary to increase it and to put the dockyard men on the same footing in that respect as the other servants of the Crown. That was considered at the time a great boon, for it practically doubled their retiring allowance. The facts with regard to pay and superannuation which he had mentioned, the fact that the men were not leaving the service, that there was not the least difficulty in getting hands—as every Member of Parliament must know, for they were overwhelmed with applications to get into the dockyards—and especially the fact that the factory men's wages, which were regulated by the engineer, did not require to be increased—all these things justified the Government in the course they
1868
had taken. All these things required the Government not to yield to the requests which hon. Members for the dockyards made—no doubt with perfect honesty, but in reliance on the representations made to them by their constituents—and not to do that which would have the effect of adding £100,000 a year to the Estimates. He hoped, then, he should be pardoned if he said that these debates, year after year, were not founded upon the real facts of the case. They were told every year that men were leaving, and that the attractions of the dockyards had ceased; and yet every year they knew that the men were not leaving, and that the attractions of the dockyards were not only as great, but much greater than before. That being so, the time had come, he thought, when hon. Members might be appealed to fairly to leave these things in the hands of the Government, and not on the one hand to protest against undiminished Estimates, while on the other they cried out for increased and unnecessary expenditure.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, that the cases of the dockyard men and of those in private yards were totally different. The dockyard men had, first of all, a very great advantage in having permanent employment, and they valued it exceedingly high. In the next place, they had something in the shape of superannuation. Then there was another important circumstance, and that was that whether it was wet or fine the dockyard man received his wages. That was not the case in private yards. When the day was wet the workmen had to stand off the slips, and then they got no wages. Then there was another considerable difference. The general system adopted in the dockyards was to pay by the day, and the men worked in the ordinary way to earn a day's wages. But in private yards the wages which they had heard so much of were given as a general rule for piece work, in which a man made much greater exertion in order to get a greater amount. The general effect of all that was that the men, knowing the advantages on the one side and the other, did not leave the dockyards, and that private builders could not get them. As to the alleged rise in articles of consumption, having been in business thirty years, he believed that his men purchased everything cheaper now than they did then, and he knew that their wages had been increased 25 per cent. Provisions had very little or nothing to do with the question; it was rather a question of whe-

1869
ther one man or two men were required. The best friends of the workman were not those who put his case most strongly, for they had probably been misled, but those who put it fairly.
MR. SERJEANT GASELEEsaid, it was unnecessary to defend the representatives of the dockyard towns for having taken up the cause of their constituents. It was all very well for the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), who had scarcely heard a word of the debate, to rush into the House, let off his speech, and then rush out again, after crying down the claims of the dockyard workmen. If the hon. Member had so many applications for joiners, that only proved that the men were very badly paid in Cornwall. The hon. Gentleman had thrown out a taunt about disfranchising the dockyards, thus adding insult to injury. But he might have waited to see what Monday would bring forth. He could say that he had found the artificers of the dockyards a most independent class of men. The real fact was, that hon. Members for dockyard boroughs, on both sides' of the House, had taken up the case of the workmen because they had evidence that they were not treated as they deserved, and because every class of labourers in the yards had come forward with complaints. It had been said that the men ought to bring their complaints before the Lords of the Admiralty. He considered it absurd to expect poor labouring men to wait on the Lords of the Admiralty with complaints. For his own part, he never looked forward to an interview with the Lords of the Admiralty without fear and trembling. And in addition to that, the Lords of the Admiralty when in Portsmouth were always in such a hurry that it was impossible to obtain an interview with them. The argument against raising the salaries of the men appeared to be that their present pay was sufficient. It was said that these men received wages equivalent to what they would get in private yards, but it was shown by calculations that the superannuation was worth 3½d. a day, and that the holidays were only four. The permanent employment might be worth something, but the Admiralty had the further hold upon the men that they had wives and children and could not therefore leave their homes in search of other employment; but because they had got them tied by the leg, was it fair, was it generous, to take advantage of them? That they got a man for what they could was an
1870
argument which would apply to all officers of State, and he saw a great many men who were paid much more than they were worth. The question in this case was whether the men were fairly paid, and the best proof that that was not the case was to be found in the fact that every single class was dissatisfied. They could vote money fast enough for particular persons, but when a claim of justice was brought forward it was met with the cry of economy. In addition to being underpaid, the dockyard labourers suffered from a grievance which, in the case of persons of a similar class in life, had been several times brought before the House that Session—namely, they were being deprived of their houses, which the Government officials were pulling down to make way for increased dockyard accommodation.
MR. MONKsaid, he must protest against the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian), that the dockyard labourers should be deprived of the electoral franchise. A perfect remedy against intimidation and against Government control or influence in the dockyards was to be found in the ballot, which might be tried in that case, though it might not be adopted for the whole kingdom. At all events, he trusted that they would not hear anything more of disfranchising the dockyard labourers at the very moment when the Government was about to propose an extension of the franchise.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it does not appear to me that any argument has been used during this debate which might induce Government to accede to the proposal for a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) who has discharged his duty on this occasion with great ingenuity and ability, and with a good humour worthy of imitation, objects to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian). Now, the hon. and gallant Member for Truro is not a Member of the Administration, and in making the remarks he has made this evening he could only be influenced by public feeling and spirit. The hon. and learned Gentleman complains that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro did not remain to hear the arguments in answer to his speech. Now, what was the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman? Why, simply, that the places in the dockyard were filled because the people of the surrounding county were poor. If this be true, and I do not mean

1871
to insinuate that it is not true, I ask, why are not the Government, in common with all other employers, to obtain the benefit of it? The hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Let us not bear down the poor, but let us let fly at the rich." I am delighted that the hon. and learned Member has come into the House of Commons with a determination to attend the Committee of Supply through all the Civil Service Estimates, and to propose to cut down the salaries of all who are above the labouring class. The hon. and learned Member has laid claim to being an economist, but says the economy is in the wrong place, that when we come to the salaries of Ministers and official persons he will see what he can do, and no doubt he will be found through the long weeks of Committee doing himself honour in the character of a defender of the people. But we who sit on the Treasury Bench are the most defenceless of creatures, and if the hon. and learned Member is dissatisfied with us he, along with others, has the power to turn us out. But, says the hon. and learned Member, they never get turned out. From certain experience I know that not to be the case, for although I have sat four or five times on this Bench in the course of my life, four or five times I have been driven from it. Falling short of executing capital punishment upon the Government, the hon. and learned Member adopts the milder course of letting fly at the great extravagance of Ministers and other public men. I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend when he says, "Let us be generous." I deny that it is the business of this House or of any other body administering funds which belong to others to be generous. Our business is to be just, and not to be generous. We are arbitrators between parties, and we can only indulge our feelings of generosity by a departure from the claims of justice. Generosity to one party in such a case becomes robbery of the other. How does the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the observations made by the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Childers)? But it is said it would be impossible for these men to state their case to the Admiralty, because when before the Admiralty they would be subject to intimidation. If that be true as regards the dockyard men and the Board of Admiralty, it would be equally true of the workmen at Woolwich and the War Department; it would be equally true of the men employed in the Post Office and the Post-
1872
master General; it would be equally true of the men employed in the Inland Revenue Department and the authorities of Somerset House; in fact, the same thing would hold good of all branches of the public service. Now, I take the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, ingenious as it is, and I ask what it comes to? Why, to this: that owing to intimidation, or to what you like to call it, it is not in the power of the executive Government, and they are not the proper persons, to determine what wages should be given to these workmen, but that that duty should be left to Members of the House of Commons and its Committees. That is a very formidable doctrine, I want to know for what function the executive Government is fit if it be not that of regulating the scale of wages which shall be paid to the public servants? The hon. and learned Gentleman, according to that principle, has found a shorter road to economy than he may have thought of, because if it is not fitting that the executive Government should determine what shall be the wages of the men engaged in the dockyard, surely it is not necessary for him to inquire whether the salaries paid to the Board of Admiralty are too high or too low, but whether they ought to be paid any salaries at all, seeing that Members of this House are better qualified to discharge those duties. I say that if there be one function more than another which this House should delegate to the executive Government, it is precisely this. But the hon. and learned Gentleman said that these workmen are unjustly treated in comparison with the persons occupied in private shipbuilding yards, and that, too, after hearing the statement of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda). The hon. and learned Gentleman did not attempt to answer that hon. Member's statement except by saying that an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fleming) who is connected with a private shipbuilding yard is of a different opinion. Now, I have no doubt that both of those two hon. Members are men of equal character and experience. Here, then, we have two authorities connected with private shipbuilding yards who come forward and give different opinions, one of them (Mr. Fleming) being the representative of a dockyard borough (Devonport), and the other (Mr. Samuda) not being the representative of such a borough, and having no conceivable motive that we know of calculated to bias his judgment on this subject.

1873
But the hon. and learned Member for Portsmouth rejects the evidence of the witness who is totally unprejudiced. [Mr. FERRAND: No, no; the private yard.] What motive can the fact of a connection with a private shipbuilding yard supply for wishing to keep down the wages in a Government dockyard? But the hon. and learned Member himself also quoted the evidence of a gentleman connected with a private yard. In fact, the rule which we are to have laid down to us appears to be this—that the representation of a dockyard borough is necessary in order to qualify a man to speak as a competent witness on this question. Who are the advocates of this proposal but the Members for a dockyard constituency, and those who bear a kind of cousinship or near relationship towards them? That is the claim which is put forward. But then it is said it is impossible that all classes of workmen in the dockyards should be dissatisfied unless they had real and just cause for being so. It is perhaps difficult to suggest or explain them all, but still there may be other reasons which have led to that dissatisfaction. At any rate I will say this, and I think it will scarcely be questioned by any one, that the servants of the public in general, in common with the servants of every other class of employers, are much better treated now than they were thirty or forty years ago. I believe there is no doubt at all about that fact. And yet if we go back some thirty or forty years ago we shall find, I think, that the servants of private employers then were more discontented than they are now, while the servants of the Government were then contented. At any rate, you will not find any records of their discontent in the debates of this House. And why is that? That question is open to this answer—that when any body of public servants find educated and intelligent men who are ready to tell them that they are ill used, and who are also ready to go before Parliament and argue that they are ill used, in fulfilment of their duty to local constituencies, it is no wonder that the workmen in the dockyards should believe that which is told them by their representatives. I repeat that undoubtedly the servants of the public, like the servants of other employers, are, at any rate, much better treated now than they were thirty or forty years ago, and in conjunction with that I find that there is a machinery annually put in motion to place their case before the House of Commons now which
1874
was not the fact then. Be that, however, as it may, at all events it is the duty of the Government on a question of this kind to take its course decisively. On our part, at any rate, there is neither true humanity, generosity, nor
mercy in allowing these workmen to be deluded. It would be the greatest of cruelty towards them for us to encourage them in the indulgence of false hopes. It is our duty to listen, and to listen respectfully, to all that falls from Members of this House; and although there may be some occasional inconvenience arising from it, I am glad that the fullest opportunity is given—and I would not wish for a moment to narrow it—for the free discussion of every subject in Committee of Supply. It is in the power of hon. Gentlemen to take precisely what course they may please; but certainly we are not as free as they are. It is our duty to examine carefully, impartially, and with the best knowledge we can obtain, into the case of these men, with a view to the redress of any real grievances, but it is also our bounden duty to say firmly and decisively that we will not, while we continue to enjoy the confidence of this House, intrust to Committees of the House, or to any other tribunal, our function of determining what are the wages which should be paid to the workmen in Her Majesty's dockyards.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that his chief object in rising was to move that the Chairman should report Progress, and ask for leave to sit again, although in the absence of the Speaker from the House, he did not know how it would be managed. The hour was too late (a quarter to twelve) for them to take that very important vote that night. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) had held out some hope of action on the part of the executive Government in that matter, which was, however, dispelled the moment the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to allow any inquiry to take place. If a Committee were granted the justice of the case of these men could, he believed, be proved with the greatest facility. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
MR. FLEMINGsaid, he thought it was the duty of a great country like this to secure good labour, and when it obtained it to keep it. It might be true that poor men from Cornwall would be glad to enter Her Majesty's service in the dockyards with the view of getting a little higher wages to save them from destitution; but

1875
the question was—Would good workmen care to remain long in that service? They should be so remunerated as to have an, inducement to remain there. He quite agreed that in administering public funds it was their duty not to be generous; but there was a principle to be observed in these matters, which was quite as high as generosity, and that principle was justice. They had labourers in the dockyards who were receiving 13 s. and 14 s. a week; and he appealed to any employer of labour whether they could expect such men to give the country the proper amount and kind of labour for such remuneration as that. In a private yard a joiner received 6s. a day, and was not entitled to superannuation, but had constant employment, because there was great demand for labour. In the public yards the wages of a joiner were 3s. 10 d. a day, with a distant prospect of a superannuation; but the value of that was not equal to the difference between the wages of the public and the private yard. For able-bodied labourers 13 s. or 14 s. a week was insufficient remuneration, and it would be better to give the labourer wages on which he could live than to drive him to work overtime. Some worked even all night to earn more money—some kept lodgers, and resorted to other means of increasing their income. After working overtime, men did not give that amount of physical labour which the country was entitled to expect from them. He hoped the Committee would see the justice of the demands made on behalf of the dockyard labourers. Who else was to be the judge of the rate at which labour should be paid? If the Board of Admiralty were of a more permanent character, instead of being a fluctuating body, perhaps it might itself deal satisfactorily with these matters.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that as one largely concerned in the employment of labour, he deemed the subject under discussion unworthy the attention of the Committee, and the discussion itself out of place and calculated to do serious mischief. If the workmen were so badly paid in the Government dockyards, why did they not go to the private yards? If they considered superannuation and allowances worth so little, why did they remain? No doubt the work in the Government yards was admirably done; the only fault was that enough was not done. When hon. Members associated with Government dockyards advocated an advance of wages, they
1876
assumed a position inconsistent with their dignity and independence. The wages in the private yards were nominally higher than they were in the Government yards, but in the latter the men had perpetuity of employment, whether there was little or much to do, and were sure of their places. ["No, no!"] His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Gaselee) said it was not so; but he would tell his hon. and learned Friend that the work done in the Government dockyards was not equivalent to the wages paid. I wish to convey to the Committee the profound impression I have that this kind of discussion affecting wages is calculated to do great injury, and is not worth the attention of the Committee.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would like to ask a question on a matter which had not been adverted to in this chiaroscura debate, and it is why, when the expenditure for labour at the dockyards was decreasing, the total increase for wages amounting only to £4,000, the salaries for superintendents were increasing, the increase this year being £17,000. This increase was remarkable, and required explanation. He had never before heard it seriously proposed to discard the Constitution of the country so far as to refer the administration of the dockyards to a Committee of the House. The proposition was so extraordinary that he wondered any one could have suggested it, and he could only account for its being made by the fact that there were many new Members in the House. The duty of the House was to examine the demands of the Crown for public money, and to see that they were not excessive, but instead of checking they had been proposing to increase the supply, which was exactly what they were not entitled to- do. Curiously enough, hon. Members seemed to glory in being considered representatives of dockyards, although hitherto hon. Members had been so designated only in reproach, but he hoped they would not continue to accept the designation, and that they would represent places and taxpayers rather than dockyards and tax receivers, who, on principle, were disqualified to vote for Members of Parliament. That the dockyard men should be voters was an excrescence which bad crept in upon the constitutional system. They were originally employed from week to week, and thus, not being deemed to be in the public service, were allowed to exercise the franchise, but now

1877
that their position was permanent it was doubtful whether they should be entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections. The inconvenience of departing from the constitutional practice was seen in the claims that were every year being most improperly urged upon the House in their behalf. The Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibited a wise firmness in saying the Government would not allow a Committee to investigate the wages paid to the servants of the Government.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty how it was that on the naval station at Hong Kong the salaries were £5,000, and the wages £5,000 a year? There were there thirty five ships, many of them scarcely seaworthy. From the proportion of wages to the total Vote it appeared that a little economy might be applied. He should like to know whether the thirty-five ships in harbour or afloat in the China seas were really seaworthy, or whether they were kept there as a formality, and officers employed to little purpose?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for the Tower i Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), that the Vote for superintendence was nearly the same as last year, and that it was owing to the new method that had been adopted in arranging the Votes that the charge under that head appeared excessive. For example, the whole of the cost of the superintendence of the dockyards had been transferred from Vote No. 1, with the view of plainly showing what was the real expenditure for such service. The charges of £9,000 for gas and £3,000 for writers had also been transferred for a similar purpose. Next year this charge would bear comparison with the Votes of previous years. Respecting the vessels at Hong Kong, his hon. Friend (Mr. Moffatt) would remember that at the time of the Chinese War a large number of gunboats were sent out; and on its termination, as a considerable expense would have been entailed by the voyage home, it was resolved that a certain number should be retained at Hong Kong, and there used for the suppression of piracy and for whatever purpose they were most suitable. As they became rotten they were broken up.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that in the course of the discussion many statements had been made which were calculated to mislead the Committee. He was not aware that hon. Gentlemen had called themselves
1878
"dockyard Members," but he remembered the time when the greatest reproach that could be cast upon any one in that House was to say that he was a metropolitan Member, and especially a Member for the Tower Hamlets. He knew that the metropolitan Representatives had done much to retrieve their fame at the late election, but he was not aware that there were any new Members for the Tower Hamlets. A very unfair attack had been made upon the Constructor of the Navy (Mr. Reed), and it had been asked why the Government did not employ private builders? But the private shipbuilders of the country bad been too highly extolled; for it ought to be remembered that the Wyvern and the Scorpion, though built by a gentleman of great reputation, had turned out two of the greatest failures ever known. He de- sired to be informed what amount of money had been spent by the Admiralty in rendering those vessels fit for service, believing this a subject which should be fully explained to the Committee. With regard to the Government dockyards in the town he represented (Chatham), he held that the Admiralty were guilty of a breach of contract towards the men engaged in them. When they first entered those yards none but wooden vessels were built; but now that the iron ones were being constructed the men had been under the necessity of purchasing new and costly tools, their clothes were more rapidly worn out, while their eyes in many instances were seriously injured by the iron. He knew workmen who had totally lost their eyesight through working on the iron ships. It was said that when so injured they got pensions; but this was no adequate compensation. Another thing was that there was no oculist in Chatham, and the injured men had to incur the expense of going to Maidstone when injured in the eyes for medical assistance. These matters, he contended, required consideration at the hands of the Government. He also thought it an extraordinary circumstance that no surgeon was provided in the dockyards. It ought to be the object of the Government to get the best men to do their work, but they could not expect to do so if they refused to pay the men a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. It had been asked why the workmen, if they were discontented, did not seek employment elsewhere? but such a question was unreasonable. It could not be expected, after they had been in the service of the Government a number of

1879
years, had made some progress towards the time when they would be superannuated, and had established themselves in a place with their wives and families, that they would be very anxious to forego their claims upon the Government and travel in search of employment in the other dockyards of the country. He might mention that at the meeting of the fleets there was no ship which excited so much attention as the Achilles, and this showed that the men at Chatham who built her were good workmen, whom the Government ought to endeavour to keep in their employ, and to keep them contented by giving them sufficient wages. He thought that it was really a national object to retain the services of the really excellent workmen who were now in the public yards, but who would be attracted from them if the present disparity between the rate of wages that they were receiving and that were paid in private establishments continued. He entirely concurred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)—who had spoken in somewhat a cynical style with regard to the constitutional question at issue—that it was not his duty, or that of those who concurred with him in opinion, to fix the amount of wages which the artizans in our dockyards should receive. That, however, was not the proposal for which he contended. He simply said that he thought those men ill-used as things at present stood, leaving it to the Government to say in what mode justice should be dealt out to them. As to any objections raised on the score of economy to his view of the case, he would simply observe that a fund sufficient to satisfy the claims of those on whose behalf he spoke might very easily be realized by the practice of economy in the dockyards in reference to the construction and frequent alteration of ships.
MR. FLEMINGsaid, he would repeat his Question, Why the sum of £15,000, which was set down in the Vote for the payment of the wages of artificers and labourers employed in the breaking up of old ships was not defrayed out of the sale of the materials of those vessels? He thought it would be more advisable to sell the ships at once for what they would bring, and thus save the expense of breaking them up.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that that had formerly been the custom, the balance accruing from the sale being paid into the Exchequer. The Treasury, however, acting
1880
in accordance with the recommendation of the Audit Commission, had arrived at the conclusion that the better plan was to take a Vote in the Estimates for the whole of the wages of the labourers employed in the dockyards, and to pay the full proceeds of the sale of old materials into the Exchequer.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Otway,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
(Mr. Dodson, The Marquess of Hartington, The Judge Advocate.)
Order for Committee read.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must renew the complaint which he had made in the early part of the evening with respect to the Bill not having been printed before, expressing himself dissatisfied with the official answer which had been given to his question on the subject by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was not the custom to print annual Bills, such as those relating to Exchequer Bills and to the Militia, of which the skeleton remained the same. The only exceptions were the Appropriation Bill and the Mutiny Bill, which were now printed. It so happened that some alterations had been introduced into the present Bill, principally in the number of the men, and if the hon. Gentleman wished to call the attention of the House to any of these, every facility would be given to him to do so. But the Mutiny Bill was one which the exigencies of the service made it absolutely necessary should be passed by a certain day, and any loss of time might defeat that object.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
On Question, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he must again complain of the non-printing of the Bill.
COLONEL PERCY HERBERTsaid, he hoped that in future the Bill would be printed earlier, to give hon. Members an

1881
opportunity of more fully considering the subject.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation relative to the existence of Fenianism in the army. He was one of those who considered that Fenianism was connected with a particular creed. Roman Catholic recruits had, he believed, decreased within the last three or four years, but in the superior grades of the service Roman Catholicism had been on the increase. Let them remember that the Duke of Wellington had greatly objected to the admission of Roman Catholics into the higher corps of the army, whereas there had of late years been a steady influx of recruits of that creed into those corps. [Cries of "Question!"] He was speaking to the question, because the preamble stated that the Bill was for the maintenance of the safety of the service. He had before called attention to the fact that the libraries of the soldiers were filled with books of a most seditious character, and he attributed the disasters which the British troops had experienced in New Zealand to the organization of the rebel forces by Roman Catholic priests. There were certain facts which he must characterize as dangerous in connection with the discipline of the army, although he admitted the possibility that it might be a delusion on his part.
Preamble postponed.
Clauses 1 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 22.
MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he wished to call attention to the practice of flogging in the army. The clause authorized a system of discipline of a nature so severe that it could not justly be designated anything but torture. During the year 1862, there were eighteen lashes for every turn administered on the back of the British soldier. He contended that it was a libel on the English character to contend that the average class of Englishmen could not be kept in discipline without the lash. Either we enlisted bad men, or we had incapable officers. He moved the omission of the clause.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the punishment of flogging was, according to the alteration introduced by the late Lord Herbert, only inflicted on soldiers who had been previously degraded. It was rarely inflicted, and only in extreme cases. He should vote for the retention of the clause, believing it to be necessary for the discipline of the army
1882
that such a power should be given, and believing also that it was never at present unnecessarily exercised.
MR. LOCKEsaid, the punishment ought not to be inflicted on any Englishman. We had secured the Sepoys from corporal punishment, and that punishment ought not to be allowed to remain in our own army. The minority in the House against the punishment had been gadually increasing, and he thought the time had come when it should be abolished. Flogging had been abrogated in England till a few years ago, when it was revived in the case of "garrotters." Ought it, then, to be continued in the case of the soldier? Thieves were not flogged at home. Ought soldiers to be classed with garrotters?
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the punishment of flogging was regarded by every officer in the army with aversion; and was not resorted to except in extreme cases of imperious necessity. No soldier of good character dreaded the punishment; but no good soldier objected to it when it was inflicted on soldiers of the most disreputable character. It was their best protection against the evil doers. He hoped the House would not, by striking out the clause, interfere with the discipline of the army.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that flogging had been abolished in many of our prisons without detriment to discipline. Mr. Sheppard, the Governor of the Wakefield Prison, had expressed his opinion that corporal punishment had been a failure. The punishment was a revolting one. The same arguments used now were used in favour of flogging in prisons, but the severity of the punishment was mitigated without the discipline of the prison being affected. Flogging was inconsistent with their notions of civilization, and was a soldier to be the only man subjected to this mode of punishment? The opinion of military gentlemen was not to be relied on. They were so accustomed to the punishment they could not make up their minds to forego it.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the late hour of half past one was not the time for entering on the question of corporal punishment, but he wished to express an opinion that the term "barbarous punishment" was only applicable to punishments that failed in their object of reforming the criminal; and such was not the case with flogging in the army. He thought that nonsense enough had been spoken on the subject on the preceding night which had been con-

1883
detuned by two divisions in Committee. Corporal punishment was still inflicted in prisons and in public schools.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he had ascertained that flogging was still practised in the Indian army. It had been revived by the late Lord Hardinge.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 17: Majority 39.
Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26.
MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he moved the rejection of the clause. It was an infamy and a disgrace to the country.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the word "branding" which occurred in the Bill must not be interpreted in the ordinary sense of burning. The men were merely tattooed with indelible ink in order that they might be prevented, after being discharged for gross misconduct from a regiment, from re-enlisting over and over again,, to the injury of the army.
SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, that branding was a most painful operation. He hoped some means would be found for superseding an operation that marked and degraded a man for the remainder of his life.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 15: Majority 38.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that no answer had been returned to the Question which he had addressed to the noble Marquess the Secretary for War.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had given the Committee all the information which he possessed on the subject of Fenianism the other night upon the Army Estimates. He had nothing either to contradict or to add to that statement. As to the suspicion entertained by the hon. Member that the Church of Rome had anything to do with the Fenian movement, he certainly possessed no information leading him to the belief that this assumption
1884
was well founded. The books supplied to soldiers were all authorized by the Council of Military Education. He had promised the hon. Member that their contents should be inquired into, but he really could not promise to read them himself. In the first place, if the hon. Member's account of them was correct, they might have a very prejudicial effect upon his own mind; but, in any case, he had no time for the purpose, even though one of them might bear the attractive title of The Bed, White, and Blue.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time on Monday next.

THAMES NAVIGATION BILL
On Motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Bill for vesting in the Conservators of the River Thames the conservancy of the Thames and Isis from Staines, in the county of Middlesex, to Urieklade, in the county of Wilts, and also that of Colemouth Creek and part of the Waters of the Medway, in the county of Kent, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. MONSELL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 59.]

RAILWAYS CLAUSES BILL.
On Motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Bill for consolidating in one Act provisions applicable to Metropolitan and other Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. MONSELL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 60.]

WATERWORKS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Bill to make better provision for the security of Reservoirs, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Waterworks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. MONSELL.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 61.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
Bill "to amend 'The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854,'"presented, and read the first time. [Bill 58.]
House adjourned at a quarter alter Two o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Bolton.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Princess Helena's Annuity (39); Prince Alfred's Annuity (40; Consolidated Fund (£1,137,772)*.
Third Reading—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes*(17), and passed.

INDIAN ARMY—GRIEVANCES OF INDIAN OFFICERS.—PETITION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH presented Petitions of Major General W. P. Beatson, Bengal Army, and Captain F. A. Dickins, Bengal Army, complaining of the Loss of Advantages sustained by reason of the Amalgamation of the British and Indian Armies, and praying for Relief, and asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has yet been able to come to any conclusion with respect to the suggestions offered by the late Royal Commission for the remedy of the grievances complained of by Indian Officers?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, no one knew better than the noble Earl the great importance as well as the great difficulty of this question; and he thought from what had fallen from him he anticipated the answer he was about to give. As a very short time had elapsed since he entered upon the duties of the important office he now filled, he was not yet in a position to state his conclusions as to the course that might be taken upon the Report of the last Commission with respect to Indian officers. He was very well aware of the importance of avoiding unnecessary delay in coming to a conclusion upon this question; at the same time, he was sure the noble Earl and their Lordships would agree with him when he said it was not one to be dealt with hastily or without due consideration. As soon as he should have been able to investigate the facts he would lose no time in communicating to their Lordships the conclusion at which he had arrived.

ABYSSINIA—IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.—QUESTION.
LORD CHELMSFORD: The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has, I understand, just received a telegram relating to the captives in Abyssinia. I think it will be a source of great satisfaction and comfort to the friends and relatives of the prisoners if his Lordship can communicate any intelligence that can encourage any hope of a speedy termination of their long and severe sufferings.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Owing to the great interest the noble and learned Lord opposite has taken in the fate of the Abyssinian prisioners, I informed him last night that I had received a telegram whilst sitting in this House, and I communicated to my noble and learned Friend the substance

1789
of its contents. My noble and learned Friend said that, as the information would afford comfort to the friends of the captives, he thought it would be desirable that I should state it publicly to-day; and I have, therefore, brought it down. It is—
"Information was received last night from Cairo that Mr. Rassam had written on the 28th of December to Colonel Staunton (our Consul General in Egypt) to the effect that, two days previously, he had got a letter from King Theodore, by which Mr. Rassam was invited to go to the King's Court. The King had sent an escort to accompany him, and had given him every facility for the journey. Mr. Rassam intended to start on the above date, and calculated to meet the King on or before the 10th of January. Things look promising, and the King's messenger gave every hope of the speedy liberation of the captives."
Of course, until the prisoners have been actually set at liberty, we cannot be quite sure of their fate; but certainly things look hopeful and promising.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I quite agree with the noble Earl that there is no certainty on the subject.

PRINCESS HELENA'S ANNUITY BILL
(Earl Russell.)
PRINCESS HELENA'S ANNUITY BILL

  (NO. 39.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE: In the absence of my noble Friend at the head of the Government, in consequence of indisposition—from which, however, I am happy to say he is fast recovering—I have the honour to ask your Lordships to agree to the second reading of this Bill. The object of it is to provide an annuity for the Princess Helena. I think it is almost unnecessary for me to state that with our undoubted love of our constitutional limited monarchy and our national institutions, and even from apart from any respect we may have for the personages who compose the Royal Family, we must feel it our duty, owing to a sense of dignity on the part of the country, to make due provision for the Members of that illustrious Family. Your Lordships are aware that the Queen has given up the estates which formerly belonged to the Crown; but it was not intended when those estates were surrendered that the Crown should have a smaller income than it enjoyed previously. There are already two precedents in regard to measures of this character. The first is that of the Princess Royal, and the second that of the Princess Alice. In the case, however, of the Princess Alice, as Her Royal Highness
  1790
  was not the eldest daughter of the Sovereign, a smaller sum was granted to her than had been granted to the Princess Royal. It is now proposed to give exactly the same annuity to the Princess Helena upon her marriage as was granted to the Princess Alice, that sum being a dowry of £30,000, and £6,000 a year. The three Royal marriages already concluded—those of the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, and the Princess Alice—have produced unalloyed domestic happiness, and I trust that the Princess Helena will meet with the same amount of happiness in the union which is about to take place. I may venture to recall to your Lordships' attention the fact, which must be known to all, that while the Princess Alice exhibited remarkable qualities both of mind and character at the time when her Royal mother met with a great calamity, yet as she left this country shortly afterwards in consequence of her marriage, which had been arranged before the death of the Prince Consort, the Princess Helena did after that time—she being the eldest unmarried daughter of the Queen—everything in her power to alleviate the sorrows of her Royal mother and comfort her by her society during her prolonged seclusion. Every one who has had an opportunity of witnessing this is aware of the singular affection with which Her Royal Highness discharged those duties towards the Queen. I think the happiness of the Princess will be greatly increased by the fact that, while she is about to be married to a Prince on whom she has bestowed her affections, she may hope to have the happiness of residing in this country and of continuing those filial attentions to her illustrious mother which she has hitherto found to be both a pleasure and a duly to discharge. I have now, therefore, to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."(The Lord President.)
  LORD CHELMSFORD: In the absence of my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I venture to say that I think there will be no opportunity for my noble Friend to exercise the function which devolves upon him on occasions of this kind. I do not, however, hesitate to say that there is not a noble Lord on either side of the House who will not cordially join in the proposition that has been made.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PRINCE ALFRED'S ANNUITY—(No. 40.)
(Earl Russell.)
PRINCE ALFRED'S ANNUITY—(No. 40.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE: With regard to this Bill, I may state that it is recommended to your Lordships' attention as being based on the general principle to which I have already alluded. There is not, however, a precedent for this, as was the case with the previous Bill; but I hope your Lordships, considering the great wealth of many individuals of different ranks and classes in this country, will not think £15,000 a year an exorbitant sum to give to, his Royal Highness, even during his unmarried life. This proposal is not intended to affect His Royal Highness's marriage, nor is it made in contemplation of any contingency which may at some future time change his position with reference to foreign countries. The younger branch of the Royal Family enjoy a singular popularity in this country. His Royal Highness Prince Alfred has been well educated by the late Prince Consort. He has visited almost every part of the world—in Europe, Africa, and America—and he has not only visited them but he has learnt and remembered much. Besides this he has mastered various foreign languages, he has acquired a considerable amount of scientific knowledge, and is as good a classical scholar as many of those who have received their education at our great public schools. I venture to think that these facts bear upon the feelings of respect and attachment which we all entertain towards the members of the Royal Family. I am sure your Lordships will have great pleasure in concurring in the Motion which I am about to make—a Motion which is in accordance with our common sense of duty, with the dignity of the country, and with the respect due to the Crown.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.