Sitting of 27 April 1871

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Lunatics (Scotland)* [117]: Vaccination (Scotland)* [118]; Metropolitan Poor Act (1867) Amendment* [119].
Second Reading—Dogs* [114]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [115].
Committee—Report—Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes* [91]; Lunacy Regulation (Ireland)* [102].
Considered as amended—Ewelme Rectory* [96].
Third Reading—Bath City Prison* [100], and passed.

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK—ALBERT MEMORIAL.—QUESTION.
MR. HARDCASTLEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the unsightly iron tie bars lately fixed between the arches of the Albert Memorial are permanent or temporary; and, whether there is any truth in a report that the columns are bulging outwards so as to endanger the security of the building?
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply, that these iron tie rods had been used during the construction of the Memorial; but after it was completed they were kept up for some time because the work was not

1769
quite finished. Attention having been called to them, the work was very carefully examined, and it was found there was not the least strain, and therefore they were removed. There was no cause to apprehend the least danger to the security of the building.

ARMY—MUSKETRY DRILL AT CHATHAM.—QUESTION.
MR. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the musketry drill of the troops stationed at Chatham has to be performed at Chatham instead of the Milton Barracks, owing to those barracks, which were specially built for the use of troops going through their course of musketry instruction at the Milton Ranges, being occupied by troops not so employed; and, whether he considers the Musketry Regulations, Part I. paragraph 4; Part II. paragraph 3; and Part III. paragraphs 5 and 6, with reference to the presence of the officer-instructors, can be properly carried out under these conditions?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I am not sure how far the House will wish to go into the details of military discipline; but I have obtained from the Quartermaster General the following answer:—The preliminary drills only are performed at Chatham. There is ample accommodation at Milton Barracks both for musketry requirements and for the troops now stationed there; but, even were it not so, as a matter of discipline it has been found most inexpedient that the preliminary drills should be gone through at Milton, because a company was there often kept off duty a fortnight or more, after finishing the preliminary drill referred to in Part III., paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Musketry Regulations, when the company firing was not able to finish its practice on account of the state of the weather. This arrangement is carried on with the full concurrence of the Inspector General of Musketry, and, therefore, the paragraphs quoted in the Question are not in any way neglected. On the contrary, they are strictly complied with.

SMALL-POX AT HOUNSLOW.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether,
  1770
  considering that a death from confluent small-pox has occurred recently at Hounslow at the Barracks of the Fourth Middlesex Militia, and that the Militiamen themselves are drawn from parts of London where the disease is prevalent, he will consider the expediency of deferring the training of the Regiment until it can with safety be billeted upon the neighbouring villages?
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, a death occurred in the case of one of the permanent Staff, who resided at Hounslow, about a month ago. The regiment assembles on Monday next, and careful precautions will be taken by the surgeon to prevent any risk of infection. The recruits, who have been there nearly a month, are very free from sickness, and it has not been thought necessary to postpone the training of the regiment.

MINES REGULATION BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. WENTWORTH BEAUMONTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government will accept the Instruction of the honourable Member for West Cornwall to the Committee on the Mines Regulation Bill to divide the same into two, viz., Coal and Ironstone Mines and Metalliferous Mines; and, if so, whether he will go into Committee pro formâ on an early day, that the Bills as altered may be forthwith reprinted?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the Bill included not only coal and ironstone mines, but all mines whatever. The regulations for metalliferous mines were very different from those applicable to coal mines and ironstone mines worked in conjunction with coal. He had received representations from gentlemen connected with districts in which metalliferous mines were worked, to the effect that it would be much more convenient to them if the regulations applicable to these mines were included in one Bill, so that there would be one code. There was a great deal of force in that suggestion, and he was perfectly willing to accede to it, although he was not sure in what manner effect could be given to it. He was not satisfied that the most convenient way of proceeding with the measure would be to go into Committee upon it pro formâ.

METROPOLIS—KENSINGTON GARDENS.

  QUESTIONS.
  LORD ELCHOasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Kensington Gardens are under the management and control of Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works, or of any other authority; whether the stopping-up and diverting, at an obtuse angle, towards the Albert Memorial and Albert Hall of a portion of the broad gravel walk that formerly bisected the Gardens in a straight line from the Colebrook Dale Gates at Rotten Row to the Bayswater Gate have been done by the sole advice and authority of the First Commissioner of Works; and, if not, by whose advice and authority; whether this diverting of a portion of the gravel walk and the accompanying alterations have necessitated or resulted in the cutting down of several of the old trees in the Gardens; and, if so, of how many; whether this divergence of the Broad Walk and the other alterations in the Gardens have been done in accordance with a definite plan that was prepared and laid down previously to the commencement of the alterations; if so, what is the date of this plan, who is responsible for it, and by whom was it prepared and drawn; whether, supposing such a plan to be in existence, he will cause it to be immediately laid before Parliament; and, whether he will also lay upon the Table of the House a Plan of the whole of Kensington Gardens and of the adjoining portion of Hyde Park, &c. on which the Albert Memorial and Albert Hall now stand, showing the exact state of the Gardens, Park, &c. before the recent alterations, and also the alterations that have been made, and any others that may be in contemplation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly Kensington Gardens are under the management and control of Her Majesty's First Commissioner of Works, and not under any other control. I think, therefore, I had better leave my right hon. Friend to answer the noble Lord's Question, trusting he will be able to give a satisfactory answer.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was afraid the noble Lord had forgotten what had occurred on this subject during the last Session of Parliament. Last Session he made a proposal to throw part of Hyde
  1772
  Park into Kensington Gardens, and the House voted the money for carrying out that object; and a plan was laid on the Table to elucidate the proposal. In consequence of that the plan to carry out the design practically was considered in the Office of Works, and, of course, it was settled by his (Mr. Ayrton's) authority. Whatever had been done to carry out the vote of the House had been by his authority, and he was entirely responsible for it. The work presented only a choice of difficulties; and if the House thought it desirable to find time to discuss those difficulties, and the means of obviating them, he should be quite ready to take part in that discussion. The noble Lord did not seem to be aware that a plan was ordered to be laid on the Table, and it was now in preparation. A plan of the former state of Kensington Gardens might be seen in any good map of London, and he did not see the necessity of having one printed for the benefit of hon. Members. If the noble Lord would move for the plan there would not be the least objection to grant it.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to repeat part of his Question. ["Oh, oh!"] He believed he was perfectly in Order in asking for an answer to this: whether it is true that the diversion of the Broad Walk and the cutting down of the trees to which he had referred was done according to any definite plan prepared previously to the commencement of the alteration; if so, what was the date of this plan, who was responsible for it, and by whom was it prepared and drawn?
  MR. AYRTON: The work was carried on according to a plan approved of by myself and by my authority.
  LORD ELCHO: Did that plan embrace the diversion of the Broad Walk where it has been diverted from a straight line to an obtuse angle towards the Albert Memorial, and did it embrace the cutting down of the trees that have been cut down?
  MR. AYRTON: I have already stated that the plan was to carry out the works which have been carried out. The particular plan which was prepared contained only the commencement of the Broad Walk; but it indicated that which was perfectly settled—namely, that the walk was to be diverted towards the Albert Memorial.
  LORD ELCHO: When was that done?
  MR. AYRTON: The noble Lord may ask as many questions as he likes; but all was done by my authority, and was proceeded with upon instructions for which I am responsible. The plan was finally settled in the beginning of December.

METROPOLIS—CHELSEA EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISasked the honourable Member for Bath, or, in his absence, the honourable Member for Colchester, Whether it is true that the Metropolitan Board of Works is about to use granite in the construction of the Chelsea Embankment, and whether the cost of such granite is not about double the price of the stone which had been selected for the construction of the Embankment; and, if he can state what is the reason that granite is now to be used instead of the stone formerly selected?
  DR. BREWERreplied, that it was correct that the Metropolitan Board of Works was about to use granite in the construction of the Chelsea Embankment. No other stone had been selected by the Metropolitan Board of Works for constructing the Embankment, and therefore no comparison of prices could be made. Granite was to be used because it was deemed the most suitable for the work, and, as before stated, it was the only stone that had ever met with the approbation of the Board for this purpose.

UNITED STATES—BRITISH CLAIMS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the claims of British subjects against the United States Government (as set forth in the Return presented to the House of Commons, paper North America, No. 11, 1864) are to be considered and adjudicated upon under the Convention lately signed at Washington, simultaneously with the Alabama claims; and as the Report referred to is now out of print, if Her Majesty's Government will cause it to be reprinted?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, in reply, that no Convention had as yet been signed at Washington, and he trusted he should not be thought guilty of discourtesy if he said that it would be most injudicious prematurely to state what might
  1774
  or might not be contained in a Convention which was not yet signed. As to the re-printing of the Report, the hon. and gallant Member had better put himself in communication with the Committee on Printing; but meantime the Foreign Office would supply 50 copies of the document.

THE MATCHMAKERS' PROCESSION.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the law respecting Public Processions; and, why a Procession of people thinking they have a grievance was stopped more than two miles from the House of Commons, while frequently mobs carrying Re-publican Flags are permitted to crowd the streets on Sunday afternoons?
  MR. SAMUDAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true, as reported to him (the Member for the Tower Hamlets) by his constituents, that a quiet and orderly number of poor match-makers in the East of London, and at about four miles from the House of Commons, who were proceeding westward to show their protest against the Match Tax, which they conceived would completely ruin them, were cruelly beaten with staves by the police; and, whether he has had under his consideration that the object of preventing illegal processions of this sort from reaching the House of Commons might be more effectually obtained by widely circulated printed notices, explaining the unconstitutional nature of such processions, without having recourse to force upon persons who may naturally imagine that they are not offending against the Law, when they see so frequently large processions of Republican and other bodies proceeding unmolested by the Police through the streets on other occasions?
  MR. EYKYNsaid, he also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he has made any inquiry with reference to the manner in which a member of the Press and a medical gentleman were treated on this occasion, whether they were "run in" by the police, and whether, to supplement the charge against them of being disorderly, Policeman B 62 stated that both were drunk?
  MR. BRUCE: Sir, I shall be happy to state the law of public processions,

  1775
  so far at least as it refers to the subject of this inquiry. The law with regard to processions, political and otherwise, is this:—If they are peaceably conducted, if it is not their object to inspire the public with terror, and if they are so conducted as not to interfere with the traffic of the streets, they are not illegal. However objectionable and offensive to many these gatherings on Sunday afternoons may be, there is, as I believe and am informed, nothing illegal in them if they are so conducted as not materially to interfere with the use of the streets on Sunday; and whatever other sentiments those referred to may have inspired, I am not aware that they have ever inspired sentiments of terror. The case of the procession on Monday is entirely different. The first information of it reached me on the morning of that day. It appears that on Sunday afternoon a meeting was held in Victoria Park for the purpose of organizing what was called a monster procession, with a view of presenting a Petition to Parliament. The inspector of police who was present at the meeting was not aware that there was anything illegal in the proposed procession, or that it differed from an ordinary procession, and he did not conceive that it was his duty to call the special attention of the Chief Commissioner of Police to the fact that an illegal procession was contemplated. On the Monday morning placards were issued in the East of London, calling upon the people to assemble and form the procession. When I was informed of it, I immediately desired the Chief Commissioner to send information to these people, whose object I am well aware was quite peaceable, that their intention to come to the Houses of Parliament for the purpose of presenting a Petition was contrary to the law. The law is, that the number of persons proceeding together to either House of Parliament for the purpose of presenting a Petition shall not at anytime exceed 10; and an Act of George III. declared meetings to be illegal which should be held for the purpose of considering or preparing a Petition to Parliament within a mile of Westminster on any day on which Parliament might meet or sit. This is not a question of a meeting for the purpose of considering a Petition to Parliament, otherwise the meeting of those persons would have been quite
  1776
  legal, for they met far more than a mile from Westminster; but they met with the object of coming to Parliament to present a Petition, and the moment they did so it was an illegal procession. In answer to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), I have to say that the earliest possible means were taken of informing these poor people that the object of their meeting was illegal; but, unfortunately, it was impossible on Monday morning to make that information generally known. The first information was given by an inspector, who, with a body of police, met a portion of the procession at Bow Bridge, four miles from this place, headed by a gentleman who is a partner in one of the principal firms engaged in the making of lucifer matches. They were informed that a procession having this special object was an illegal procession, and that if they persisted in advancing they would be prevented approaching the precincts of the Houses of Parliament. There was some little scuffling, but no blows were struck on either side; and, when all was over, the gentleman who headed the procession—I believe it was Mr. May—used this expression to the inspector of police—"I have no fault to find with you, and I believe you have no fault to find with me," which was quite true. Another part of the procession was met at Mile End, and again information as to the illegality of their object was given, and no violence occurred. In each case these portions of the procession were apparently disbanded; but, many of those who formed them came on by the river steamers or by indirect routes, and at last collected in great numbers on the Thames Embankment, and formed in procession with waggons, bands of music, banners, and various other ensigns. About 100 yards from the termination of the Embankment they were met by a body of police and told they must proceed no further. Then an attack was made upon the police, not by the persons who formed the procession, but by a number of the violent class commonly called "roughs," who flung stones and other missiles against the police, and broke up the standards of the processionists and used them against the police. One policeman was injured severely, and several others were more or less hurt; but the police were under

  1777
  the command of the district superintendent, and I am positively assured by him that neither there nor anywhere else did the police strike a single blow; they received many, but they did not strike one. I believe they did their best to avoid the use of any more force than was absolutely necessary to prevent that which would have been illegal, and which I think it was my duty, under the law and in the interests of public order, to prevent. With respect to the subject of the Question asked me without Notice by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn), I have not specially inquired into the matter, but I had asked Colonel Henderson what truth there was in the statement that these two gentlemen were illused. His reply was that, in spite of the efforts of the police, a great number of women and children got into the Hall, which was very inconveniently crowded, and that a large number of people also assembled outside the Houses of Parliament. He therefore cleared the Hall, and prevented the entrance within the gates of all persons except those who had a right to enter. These gentlemen were there, and endeavoured to force their way in, but were informed by the police that they could not be allowed to enter. I am informed that they used very irritating language to the police, and that the police did not use more violence than was necessary to prevent that which, had it been permitted, would have led others to attempt to get in.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: After what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, I wish to ask him whether he will not bring in a Bill to prevent these processions, at all events on Sunday afternoons?
  MR. BRUCE: What happened yesterday does not give me much encouragement as to the prospect of passing such a Bill.

ARMY—INSPECTORS OF THE RESERVE FORCES.—QUESTION.
MR. H. R. BRANDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government, in making future appointments of Field Officers of Artillery as Inspectors of the Reserve Forces, to select these officers from the late Indian list (now Royal) as well as from the old Royal list; and, if not, why not?
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, selections for the Reserve Forces are made on the recommendation of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and the Inspector General of Reserve Forces jointly. The first list has been submitted to me, and I have approved it. It consists of British officers only; but there is no exclusion of officers of the old Indian Service if they shall be recommended for appointment.

LOCAL TAXATION BILL—SEWERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WINGFIELD BAKERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in the Local Taxation Bill, it is intended that all moneys needed for works under jurisdiction of sewers are to be provided for out of the Consolidated Fund mentioned in the above-named Bill?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, there will be cases in which it will be impossible to include in the consolidated rate moneys levied under the jurisdiction of sewers, those rates in many cases not being fixed with reference to any parochial or local boundary, but according to the levels. There are cases in which there are 17 different levels and 17 different rates. In such cases special provisions will have to be made.

SCOTLAND—PEDLARS' CERTIFICATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DYCE NICOLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it has been brought to his Notice that 12,500 Pedlars' Sixpenny Certificates have been issued in Scotland from 1st January to 15th March without reference to the description of goods hawked or the number of the family accompanying the Pedlar; and that applications for such Certificates are daily increasing; and, whether he will make an early inquiry into the operation of the Pedlars Act of 1870, with a view to its amendment?
  MR. BRUCEreplied that he had not received any Return of the precise number of pedlars to whom Pedlars' Sixpenny Certificates had been issued in Scotland, but he was aware they were very numerous; and he had received a Report from the inspectors of police in Scotland in reference to this subject. That Report, and other information he had received, showed the necessity of amending the Act of last Session.

CATTLE DISEASE (METROPOLIS)— WATERSIDE CATTLE MARKET.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Vice President of the Council, When it is intended to remove the cordon round London which prevents the free supply for sale, and free distribution when sold, of English cattle fit for the metropolitan market, having regard to the fact that a temporary market for foreign cattle has for some time been established on the river-side under the superintendence of the Government?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act there was a provision that unless the City authorities made a water-side market at the end of this year they would lose their market monopoly. He was glad, however, to be able to state that they were taking measures for completing the market within the specified time. He hoped, when that market was finished, that the Government would be able to relax the cordon round London. The temporary river-side market was not sufficient to be relied upon for all cattle imported.

THE LECTURER MURPHY.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has inquired into the circumstances connected, with the recent outrage upon Mr. William Murphy at Whitehaven; whether he has any information to communicate to the House; and, whether any steps are being taken for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the above outrage?
MR. BRUCE: I have inquired, Sir, into the circumstances of the outrage, and I have specially asked to be informed what steps are being taken to discover and punish its authors; but I have not yet received a reply to my letter.

LICENSING BILL—POPULAR DEMONSTRATIONS.—QUESTION.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that this afternoon a number of gentlemen from Bath assembled in Palace Yard, singing patriotic songs and making a demonstration against the Licensing Bill of the right hon. Gentleman? I
1780
wish also to ask whether future demonstrations of such a nature will or will not be interfered with by the police?
MR. BRUCE: I hope, Sir, the police will always prevent any noisy or improper demonstrations in Palace Yard, whether against the Licensing Bill or with any other object.

WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker—I rise, Sir, for the purpose of moving that you leave the Chair, and I think it may be for the convenience of the House that I should accompany that Motion with a very short statement referring to the present position of the financial plans of the Government, and our intentions with regard to them. On Tuesday the Cabinet, considering the state of opinion which prevailed with respect to the financial proposals of the Government, and especially with reference to a tax upon matches, authorized my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that we did not intend to persevere with that proposal. At the same time, however, we were not aware that there was any intention to challenge, or, at least, further to challenge, after the debate of Monday night, the Budget as a whole, or the Government through the medium of the Budget. But on Tuesday evening the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), in the exercise of a discretion which was perfectly legitimate on his part, as it would have been on the part of any other Member of this House, gave Notice of a Motion challenging the whole of the financial proposals of the Government. Her Majesty's Government was unaware of the fact that this Motion was about to be brought forward until the Notice was actually given; and when we had time to consider it, it appeared to us greatly to alter the situation of affairs. Before that Notice was given our intention was to deal with the Budget in detail, upon the principles we had explained—that is to say, that while we felt ourselves bound to adhere to what we considered to be the main bases and fundamental principles of the scheme, we were ready, so far as was in our power, to consider the opinion of the House and the state of public feeling with respect to any proposals not essential to the object

1781
we have in view at the present time. That was, I think, a course perfectly legitimate for us to take as long as the Budget was before the House for consideration in detail; but if the Budget was to be challenged as a whole we did not think that that course could be pursued. We were of opinion that, in such a case, it was our duty at once to make known to the House, who were to be invited to pronounce upon it as a whole, what precise course we intend to pursue in reference to the changes that have been or might be made in it. It has been made known to me quite recently that there is a doubt—though, probably, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is better informed on the subject than I am—as to the regularity of the Motion of which he has given Notice, considered as a Motion to be made in Committee of Ways and Means. That, however, I do not consider very material to my present purpose, as there are plenty of means afforded by the forms of the House which will give the right hon. Gentleman, if he is so disposed—and I must now assume absolutely that he is so disposed—an opportunity of challenging the financial plans of the Government. If we are to consider the Budget in the point of view to which I have alluded, I think it is fair that, without waiting for the incidents of the debate, I should state to the House distinctly what it is that we now deem it our duty to adhere to, how it is proposed to fill up the gap made by the withdrawal of the intended tax upon matches, and what modifications we propose to make in the plans which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We cannot depart from what we consider to be the basis of the whole proposal—namely, that we should look in the main, if not wholly, to the income tax for the purpose of providing what is required by the Estimates as they at present stand, and as we mean to adhere to them. With respect to the Estimate of Expenditure, it has already been stated, on the part of the Government, that we shall be too happy if, in the course of the year, we find that the state of circumstances does not compel us to lay out the whole of the money at the disposal of the Government; but we are not prepared to depart from the proposals as they now stand before the House. With reference to the expenditure of the nature
1782
contemplated by the present Estimates, and which has been described as belonging to a state of things which we regard as transitory, we do not and shall not think it right to provide for any portion of this expenditure by disturbing the duties that are now imposed upon articles of consumption, with the additional disturbance of all the relations and transactions of trade in connection with the distribution of those articles of consumption all over the country, which would inevitably follow. Lastly, Sir, we must adhere to our view, which is that the interest of the country and the soundness of our financial system require that this expenditure, which the Government has proposed, and a large portion of which the House has voted, should be met by means drawn from the taxation of the country, and not by means drawn from any other source. Having settled that, Sir, it will be asked what we intend to do with the particulars of the Budget. It was the intention of my right hon. Friend, had the matter been considered without prejudice in detail upon the merits of each proposition, to have stated the arguments which, as we think, may very properly be used in favour of our proposals with regard to the legacy, probate, and succession duties, where we framed proposals which we thought to be conducive to the public interest and founded on principles of justice. ["No, no!"] I am not asking for criticism, nor am I endeavouring to filch any sort of admission from hon. Members as to the proposals, and if hon. Members will be content to wait I shall resolve their doubts in a very few moments. We have thought it our duty to look at the state of opinion with regard to this proposal, and we have arrived at the conclusion that, in the state of opinion which prevails, it would be impossible for us to obtain a fair judgment upon the proposal on its merits. ["Oh, oh!" "Hear, hear!"] I am always glad when hon. Members opposite can find relief for the occasional tedium that attends debates in this House in the slightest ray of what may afford amusement; but it does not appear to me that what I have just said suggests any particular ground for amusement, or the reverse—at any rate, I will endeavour to make my meaning clear. In regard to all public topics, there are questions of abstract

1783
merits and questions based upon the particular period at which they are brought forward. At the present moment, as at all periods, there are many hon. Members in this House who are indisposed to any augmentation of the burdens upon property, and such Members we have always to reckon upon as the natural and permanent opponents of proposals such as these to which I am now referring. But besides these, we have another set of opinion prevailing more upon this side of the House than on the other, which has reference not so much to the general principle of imposing duties upon property as to the circumstances of the time. I quite admit that an illegitimate combination was contemplated and about to be carried out on last Monday night; but here, between the two classes of opinion I have described, we have what must be admitted on all hands to be a combination of a perfectly legitimate character. We have Gentlemen who are very jealous of the expenditure proposed, and who naturally cling to and interpret strictly any declarations we have made to the effect that the expenditure is of a transitory character, and we have also Gentlemen opposite who urge with no inconsiderable force that they are entitled to object, if they think fit, to proposals involving expenditure and an enlargement of the permanent sources of Revenue. In fact, the House appears to say, and I admit its perfect right so to speak—"We are ready to make provision for the wants you have submitted to us, but we require that the provision shall be made in such a way that we shall be able to keep the subject in our own hands, and shall not place at the disposal of the Government any such enlarged resources as may have a tendency to render permanent an expenditure which you have encouraged us to hope need not be invested with the character of permanency." Under these circumstances, we consider that between those opposed to the proposal on principle and those who are opposed to it on the ground that the time is inopportune, we should have to meet a combination the perfect Parliamentary legitimacy of which we cannot deny, but which would certainly render it quite impossible at the present moment to obtain an entirely unbiassed consideration of the proposal on its own merits. We
1784
therefore, Sir, do not intend to submit to the House at the present time the Resolutions relating to the probate, succession, and legacy duties. I hope nothing that I have said can be taken by anyone as indicating that there is any change of opinion on the part of the Government with reference to the justice of the principle upon which that proposition was founded. Well, Sir, we think that our course is a very plain one. It is to make provision for the present exigency from that source which is of all sources the most available for any purposes of a more or less temporary character, and which is likewise recommended by the circumstance that it is easily borne while it lasts, and easily removed when the time comes for the Government to make the surrender. We shall therefore propose that the income tax be increased by 2d. in the pound, and the plan of computing it by percentage will stand over for an impartial expression of public opinion. If, on consideration, we come to the conclusion that its trifling disadvantages are counterbalanced by the flexibility which it unquestionably possesses, Parliament will certainly hear of it again; if, on the contrary, it is found that it introduces labour and complication to an extent which would more than counterbalance the flexibility, I am able to say, on the part of the Government, that we have never considered it so vitally associated with our candour, consistency, or honour as to put us under the imperative obligation of pressing it upon the attention of Parliament. The Budget will therefore stand in such a form that it will be easily intelligible to those who may hear it, and I trust that a favourable hearing and consideration will be given to the alterations and modifications which I have sketched out, and which will be explained more in detail by my right hon. Friend. I have now, Sir, to move that you do leave the Chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Ewart Gladstone.)
MR. DISRAELI: I gave Notice, Sir, on Tuesday last, as the House has been correctly reminded by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that it was my intention to ask the opinion of the House generally upon the Budget proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers.

1785
I thought at the time that Budget was not satisfactory, and that the decision of the House might possibly induce Her Majesty's Ministers, on the whole, to re-consider their scheme. Shortly after giving that Notice the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and announced the relinquishment of an important portion of the Government proposals, and it was therefore quite clear that my previous Notice was, under those circumstances, brutum fulmen. And, although it might possibly still become my duty to ask the opinion of the House on the general scheme of the Government, inasmuch as it would be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make new propositions, to supply the place of those he had relinquished, it was quite clear that it would be impossible for me to proceed, if at all, until the new propositions were before us. The new propositions might be satisfactory; or they might, as a whole, partake of a very different character from the original propositions of the Government; and therefore I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown should suppose I was bound immediately to proceed with a Resolution which was framed when all the circumstances of the case were so widely different. It had also transpired—and I believe with the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman—that the highest authority had intimated that by the forms of the House, the Resolution I proposed to submit could not be put; and now the right hon. Gentleman, to-day, expecting I should proceed, or take some opportunity of virtually proceeding with the Motion, announces a number of changes which entirely alter the character of the Budget, in respect to which I intended originally to solicit the opinion of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has given up the succession duties, together with that original proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the tax on matches. The right hon. Gentleman, in intimating the substitute that will be proposed—namely, an income tax at the rate of 2d. in the pound in addition to the present tax, has given up the proposed new mode of assessment, against which I myself, and I believe the majority of the House, had great objection. It will, therefore, be evident to any
1786
candid mind that I am not bound, even if I had the opportunity, which I have not, to bring forward my original Notice. But, Sir, it requires time for us to consider the propositions of the Government, and I should be glad to know what period of time the right hon. Gentleman proposes should be given the House for that purpose. [Murmurs.] If there is anybody in the House who can doubt the propriety of such a course, I must make one or two observations upon the position in which the House finds itself in regard to its finances generally, and in regard to the changes proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Let me make one or two observations on the position of the House. In the first place, we have a Budget, which proposes to provide for the whole deficiency of the year, a deficiency amounting to £2,700,000, by direct taxation. It must be at once acknowledged that that is a plan differing very much in principle from the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman announced in the Budget last week. It was not only announced that a portion of the deficiency should be supplied by means of direct taxation, but a mode of raising that direct taxation was submitted to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. At this time last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the indirect taxation of the country to the amount of nearly £3,000,000, and this year he is proposing to increase the direct taxation according to this new suggestion by nearly the same amount. Such a proposition of extreme gravity demands some time for the House to consider whether they are prepared to sanction it, and I would not ask for an immediate judgment on the matter at issue. But, besides this, there are other circumstances connected with this question, which appear to me to make it most urgent that time should be allowed us to consider the new Budget—for this is a new Budget. The right hon. Gentleman cannot forget that the real deficiency which the Government ought to consider and contemplate is not measured by the precise sum of £2,700,000, as estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that this year there have been declarations made by that right hon. Gentleman in his Financial Statement, and that there have been proposals by Bills now lying upon the Table, which will very much increase the liabilities of this country in

1787
future years, and which liabilities they would be shortly called on to meet. Now, Sir, I am not myself generally inclined to mix up the financial arrangements of one year with those of its successors; sufficient for the year are the burdens thereof; but there are cases, and such cases must be familiar to Gentlemen in this House, when it has been necessary to take that course, and the present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, on more than one occasion produced financial schemes which connected the finances of one year with the finances of those that succeeded. In addition to this deficiency announced, which, in round numbers, amounts to £2,700,000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech, calling attention to the enormous Estimate under the heading of "Miscellaneous," told us that that £900,000 will consist simply of return money expended on the Abyssinian Expedition, and will not occur in the years to follow. The right hon. Gentleman also very properly referred to the increased liability for which we must be prepared hereafter, if the abolition of purchase in the Army is decided upon by the House, and he very properly reminded the House that the £600,000 provided for that purpose in the Budget of this year must be at least doubled next year. Well, £900,000 and £600,000 make £1,500,000, and I think the House will remember that there is a Bill upon the Table of the House, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer also very properly referred in his Budget—a Bill respecting local taxation, containing, as I think, a monstrous proposition for the transfer of a branch of Imperial taxation to satisfy the local cravings of obscure bodies, who, if they are known for anything, are known for the painful notoriety of their general administration of local funds. If the £1,200,000 which is thus to be transferred is added to the £1,500,000 I have already referred to, the House will see there is another sum of £2,700,000, which we must contemplate when we are considering the Ways and Means. My right hon. Friend near me reminds me that the cost of retirement must also be provided for, but I shrink at this moment from the contemplation of a subject so vast. Cursorily adverting to it, I will, on this occasion, confine myself to the figures with which we have been furnished by the Chancellor
1788
of the Exchequer himself. Well, now, Sir, I take the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman for what they declare themselves to be, and I do so sincerely, and with the hope that in any discussions we may have on these financial subjects, we shall not find, on either side of the House, that loose style of debate which does not accept the Estimates of the Minister of Finance. Taking, then, these Estimates as genuine, and therefore not having any right to trust to the increase of the Revenue, and not having, as I think, under the circumstances, any very strong reason to hope for the reduction of expenditure, we really have before us the prospect of a deficiency of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 to encounter the year after the current financial year. Now, some may say—"Let us shut our eyes to these contingencies." It would not be prudent, I doubt whether it would be just to do so, considering that they form part of the Financial Statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I doubt whether we should be justified in omitting them from our consideration; but there are two most weighty reasons which in my mind render it imperative that we should take them into consideration, and immediately, in consequence of the observations made this evening by the First Minister of the Crown. We must recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us some intimation of resources which he contemplated and to which he gave his approval. And what were they? Of all the Ministers on that Bench the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am not speaking of the right hon. Gentleman personally or individually, but of the office—is the one who should most weigh his words, for an incautious phrase from the Chancellor of the Exchequer may seriously affect the commerce of the country, the course of trade, the mode of investment, the legitimate speculation and enterprise of the country. I am quite sure that no Chancellor of the Exchequer is insensible to that responsibility, and I am certain that the distinguished Gentleman who at present occupies that office is too conscious of the weight attached to the words of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have used any expression of that kind without having well weighed and matured it. Now, what were those intimations that he made to the House? The Chancellor

1789
of the Exchequer, of course contemplating this possible and probable deficiency of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, and assuming, as he had a right to assume, that he would retain his office, and have to face this deficiency, told us in his Budget Speech that there were means of taxation which had his entire approbation, though they might be regarded with some little prejudice in the country. In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—"We have an excellent mode of supplying this deficiency, and that is to tax machinery employed in the cultivation of the soil." And that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls putting an end to exemptions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the tax which he approves is a tax upon the horses and carts of the farmers, and, I believe, the carts of other traders, which would produce little less than £2,000,000; and he further said that it had the merit of fixity, and therefore that it could be depended on. I heard some one ask the other day—"What is the use of Chambers of Agriculture?" I have an opinion that Chambers of Agriculture are very useful, and if their proceedings are regulated with discretion may be of great benefit. But no doubt Chambers of Agriculture will now have something to occupy their time, when they find that by the plans of Her Majesty's Government our finances are brought into such a state that in the course of 12 months we shall probably have a deficit of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is of opinion that a rational and politic mode of largely supplying that deficiency is to tax machinery required for the cultivation of the soil. In this case, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in laying down this principle, he would extend it to the horse-power of manufactures generally? If so, I can assure him he will find in me a determined opponent. This being the first intimation of the taxes of the future, I would ask, what is the other? It is a very serious one, and it refers particularly to the tax which the right ton. Gentleman has withdrawn from the Budget this evening, but with the significant communication that the principle of that tax will be brought before our notice at another time. Let us look at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1790
said in his speech. The proposition, speaking generally, was to double the duties on succession. A great deal may be said against such a tax upon grounds of impolicy and injustice. I will, however, say nothing about it at present, as it is withdrawn; but must call attention to the extraordinary declaration made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech, because it is one of the most remarkable announcements that ever was made by a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country. He told us that he had deeply considered this question of succession, and the taxes upon it, and, in his opinion, the quality of consanguinity in the arrangement of such taxes ought not to be recognized by the State. It would appear that this is a course which the right hon. Gentleman, in furtherance of his financial views, is prepared to pursue at another time. Now, in this announcement, I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put himself in entire opposition to the traditions, and even the passionate convictions, of the people of this country, and has identified himself with a principle of taxation which, as far as I know, has never been recognized by the laws of any State, ancient or modern, at least by none laying claim to civilization. Such is the position, then, in which we find ourselves. If the Estimates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer unhappily prove true—and so we must treat them, because they are founded on authentic information, and after consideration by eminent men—we must look forward to more than a possibility of a deficit of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000; and we have a Ministry which has already officially intimated to us that it is ready at any time to bring forward measures to supply such a deficiency which, as far as succession is concerned, will not recognize the principle of consanguinity, and, so far as the machinery for cultivating the soil is concerned, that it shall be subject to a tax from which every other trade in the country is free. These are grave considerations, and I cannot doubt but that they will fall deep into the minds of the people of this country. It is impossible to avoid the consideration of them, when evening after evening we have parts of the original Budget withdrawn from our attention in this perfunctory manner. What is our position? We have a

1791
new Budget. The indirect taxation which was proposed has been given up, and, as I think, most properly. The scheme for doubling the duties on succession has been relinquished somewhat hastily, but in a manner very satisfactory to the House and country at large. The mode, too, of assessing the income tax, novel and vexatious as it was, has already disappeared. I have read somewhere of the sweet simplicity of the Three per Cents. There is a sweet simplicity in the present Budget which, at any rate, will not allow any person to be mystified as to its character or contents. Then let us clearly understand our position, after all the schemes which we have for the last two years endured. We must remember it was only this time last year that in the most wanton and unnecessary manner, in a manner which very slightly benefited any class, and, so far as one branch of the Revenue was concerned, benefited none, we lost by the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer £3,000,000 of indirect taxation, and now this identical Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to inflict upon us £3,000,000 of direct taxation. This is the proposition which ought, in my opinion, to be gravely considered; and I cannot doubt but that the Government, under the altered circumstances of the case, will propose such a day for its consideration as will give us, and perhaps the country, full opportunity to consider the best course to be pursued. Before I sit down I wish to make a remark which when I entered Parliament would have been unnecessary, but which, to my surprise, has become necessary in in the Parliament of which I am now a Member. Sir, I protest against the doctrine which, if it has not been directly enunciated, has at least been inferentially impressed upon the House, and that constantly—I refer to the doctrine that because we have agreed to Votes in Committee of Supply we are bound to approve the Ways and Means proposed for those Votes. Nothing could be more unconstitutional and unreasonable. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear!" I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman impressed that upon the House with as much decision as the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the right hon. Gentleman inferentially led the House to believe that it was our duty, unless we proposed
1792
preferable Ways and Means to his own, to accede to them. What is that but the doctrine I have described? So far as I am concerned, I have no wish to shrink from the responsibility of having agreed to the Votes in Supply, and I believe there is no Gentleman on this side of the House who at all shrinks from such responsibility; but we will vindicate our right to question and criticise the Ways and Means of the Ministry; to ask ourselves whether they are adequate, whether they are just, whether they are politic. We have questioned your Ways and Means; we did not think they were adequate; we did not think they were just; we did not think they were politic. It was politic, I suppose, in the estimation of the Government, to propose a tax upon matches? It was just, in their opinion, to put a tax upon the home and the orphan—the tax upon succession. The income tax comes next; and that, I suppose, is in their view, an adequate tax. We are prepared to consider the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman: his Ways and Means are now simple. What has occurred with respect to this Budget shows the wisdom of the course the House took in questioning the Ways and Means; for the proposals of the Government have been all withdrawn, to the satisfaction of the House, and I am sure to the unspeakable relief of the country. Let us now consider the new Ways and Means of the Government, and I will not doubt but that her Majesty's Ministers will give us time to accord to them that consideration they deserve.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Like the diminutive hero of whom we were told, to our great delight, in our nursery days, the right hon. Gentleman has just been engaged in the cruel slaughter of a giant of his own creation. He has accused my right hon. Friend and myself of having laid down this doctrine—that the House, having passed certain Votes in Supply, is thereby precluded from objecting to the Ways and Means by which the services thus voted are to be met. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly had an easy victory over his own phantom. But supposing the proposition to have been differently stated, and supposing that the assertion had been that my right hon. Friend and myself had said—what we really did

1793
say—that the House having agreed, after consideration and after Divisions, to certain Votes in Supply, and other Votes which necessarily imply expenditure, is bound to make provision somehow or other for that outlay—would the right hon. Gentleman have found that so easy of refutation? And yet that was the champion he had to encounter, and not the giant of his own imagination. I have, however, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for doing what I am bound to say very few persons in the House except himself have done—namely, for making a most eloquent, and I think I may add, really successful defence of those parts of my Budget which have been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out what had not been very much thought of or dwelt on, and that was the great advantage that would have been derived from them for purposes of prospective finance. But I will not enter into this subject now: I am not going to offer any defence of what is gone. I can only say that my firm belief is, the time will come when, the heat and passions of the present moment having passed away, these matters may perhaps be considered in a different light to what they are at present. But the right hon. Gentleman has brought against me two distinct accusations which I am bound to meet. He has credited me with saying that it is my intention to, as I think he said, put taxes on all the machinery employed in husbandry. He did not understate his case; in fact, he very seldom does. Spades, harrows, flails, thrashing machines, all are involved in one common description. What was really the case? Before I proceeded to the imposition of new taxes, I thought it my duty to point out to the House that there was a large class of articles known under the name of "exemptions," a tax on which would, if the House were pleased to tax them, raise a very considerable part of the deficit. I did not make to the House any proposition of the kind stated by the right hon. Gentleman; I did not hold out to the House that the Government had the least idea of taxing those articles; but I only pointed out the facts of the case, just as I pointed out many other things which did not make very much for me, such as the item for £874,000, which will not occur next year, and the increased Vote for Army
1794
purchase, but which I thought it my duty candidly and fairly to notice, and which might have escaped observation if they had not been placed before hon. Members. These were matters which it was not necessary for me to state, yet, in calling attention to them, I never pledged either myself or the Government to any proceeding of the kind mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. His second point was with regard to the succession duties, and on that I expressed my own individual opinion, which I am bound to say I retain—that the scale of consanguinity which is peculiar to this country is not in itself founded on any very sound principle of taxation. ["Oh, oh!"] I may be quite wrong, but I am only stating what was the opinion I expressed. For that opinion I gave my reason, which was that I believe the essence of taxation to be equality, and a scale by which two persons who are bequeathed equal sums are taxed, the one to the extent of 1 per cent and the other by 10 per cent, certainly sins against that canon of taxation. But, in doing so, I accompanied my opinion with the declaration that the feeling in favour of this scale was very firmly rooted in the country, and stated that the Government had no intention whatever of disturbing it, but that they thought they might be right in trying to make some little further approach to equality by raising that scale in two of its five degrees. ["Oh, oh!"] I may have been totally wrong in that opinion. ["Hear, hear!"] Opinions, however, are not decided by cheers or counter cheers, but by reasoning. I may have been totally wrong, but I never committed either myself or the Government to any intention of adopting the policy to which the right hon. Gentleman objects. I am not aware that it is necessary for me to say anything more, except that the right hon. Gentleman, having complimented us on the "sweet simplicity" of our Budget, might have drawn the inference that so simple a matter could have been discussed at once. That inference, however, does not appear to have occurred to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought there was another reason why he would have been willing to go on; and that is, that this fearful proposal of placing 2d. on the income tax, in order to meet a transitional expenditure, is like his own

1795
act in 1867, when he had to meet the expenses of the Abyssinian War. I think, however, he has a perfect right to claim the delay he asks for, and that it will be employed to advantage, and I hope it will be satisfactory if I propose to go into Committee on this subject on Monday next.
LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he had no doubt he was expressing the opinions of those around him when he said that he greatly rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his Colleagues had not allowed any false pride to stand in the way of the withdrawal of their proposition as regarded the succession duties, and the other items of the Budget. Looking to what had occurred, he could only account for the production of such a Budget on the theory of the first Lord Shaftesbury, who used to say that everyone had within him a wise man and a foolish one; that each must have his turn, and that if the wise man were always allowed to prevail the individual would become disordered and fit for nothing; so that it was necessary at times to allow the foolish man to run his course and play his frolic. That seemed to be the case with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who for two successive Sessions had brought in, as they, the Liberal party thought, very wise measures; but now something within him, either the foolish man telling him not to be satisfied, or the idea of the wise man—"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity," urged him not to be satisfied with having acquired a great character for wisdom, but to bring forward this time a foolish Budget. In this instance, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he would not only be foolish, but frolicsome also, for 18 jokes had been counted in his speech. Moreover, he not only proposed to inflict heavy burdens, but he went out of his way to exasperate the landed interest by pointing to the farmers' horses, and saying that although he did not desire to tax them this year, yet on another occasion the subject might be well worthy of consideration. Those who on the Government side of the House belonged to the landed interest, had supported many measures that had led almost to the annihilation of representatives of their class. Feeling the smallness of their present number to be a misfortune,
1796
he desired that some remedy might be found, so that more of the representatives of the landed interest would be found on that side of the House, which was now so largely occupied by hon. Members for boroughs. The existing evil was greatly to be deplored; but if the House passed such measures as those which had been hinted at, the evil would be increased by many who now represented land on the Ministerial side of the House being excluded from the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to him to be like the Nottingham man who was recently mentioned in the newspapers as having acquired a reputation for great wealth, which enabled him to live on his relatives, who thought they were to receive large bequests. The right hon. Gentleman had this year been reputed to be possessed of great wealth, and by even the best-informed it was believed that he would have a surplus of £2,000,000; but during the last week of the financial year there was an "ugly rush" for the money. Although knowing this, either from some infatuation, or in his rollicking reckless manner, the right hon. Gentleman had this year encouraged applications for money to be made to him which led to the deficit. First came the Secretary for War, who asked—"Can you spare me £600,000 this year?" The right hon. Gentleman replied—"Oh, yes; and what shall you want next?" "£1,200,000," was the reply. Next came the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, while at the Poor Law Board, was asked by the landed interest to consider the subject of rating personal property. He thought—"Before I leave this office I should like to do something to snub these country gentlemen." Therefore he resolved not to give them anything, but he went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said—"If you can spare me £1,200,000 next year, I will then relieve house property to that amount," though nobody had asked for it. If business was to be conducted on these principles; if the landed interest was to be treated in this manner; it was time for some of the few remaining representatives of that interest on the Government side of the House to enter their protest against such measures. He was very glad that, as in the case of the man at Nottingham, the Friends of the right hon.

1797
Gentleman had given him, or rather his Budget, a decent burial, instead of calling on the rest of the House to attend his obsequies; and he trusted that, if the observation of Lord Shaftesbury were true, the right hon. Gentleman, in the character of the foolish man, having played his pranks and run his rigs, would return, as the wise man, to the wisdom and gravity of a former period.
MR. FAWCETTsaid, as it might be supposed that the new Budget just introduced would be popular among persons of advanced Liberal opinions, he was bound, considering his views on taxation, to enter his earnest and decided protest against the principle contained in it. He had never concealed from the House that he held extreme democratic opinions; nevertheless, he had not lost sight of the dangers of democracy, and no one who had considered the subject could doubt that, among the many advantages enjoyed by democratic institutions, there was this disadvantage—that, if not properly checked, they sometimes tended to make government expensive. Now, the House would remember the debates two or three years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister fought nightly over that historic animal, the Trojan horse; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the House that inside it there was a great democracy, which, if once let loose, would issue forth and sway the Government, regardless of the true principles of finance, and involve the country in unwonted extravagance. Well, three years had passed; but it was the extravagance of the Government, not the extravagance of the democracy, that the country had to fear. There was a large exceptional expenditure of £3,000,000 this year, and the House was asked to provide the whole of it out of direct taxation. Now, who paid direct taxation? A small minority in each constituency. If, therefore, the new Budget were sanctioned, we said, in effect, to the democracy—"Be as extravagant as you like, sanction any expenditure you choose, there will be a Government who will tell you the expenditure is transitional, and you, the majority, will not pay the bill, but every farthing of additional taxation will be thrown upon the minority." The authority of Ricardo, Mill, and other writers on political economy might be quoted
1798
against him to show that taxation, whether direct or indirect, in the end fell, to a great extent, upon the working classes; but the great fact you wanted to bring home to the people was, that if they desired extravagant armaments the money must not come first out of other people's pockets, but must come directly out of their own. Although this might not be a popular doctrine, yet he believed it was the true one. He, therefore, protested earnestly and solemnly against the plan for throwing the additional expenditure entirely on the income tax. In this country, no doubt, the working man was heavily taxed; but still more heavily taxed than the skilled artizan with £2 or £3 a-week were the clerk and the poor widow, struggling to bring up a family and maintain a certain appearance on £100 or £150 a-year. Upon these persons the pressure of local taxation was constantly increasing, and now that the working classes had a majority in almost every constituency, were they to lay down the doctrine that additional expenditure should be paid by the minority out of direct taxation? He might, perhaps, be in a minority in expressing these opinions, but considering the state of Europe, and that owing to the encouragement given to a wicked rivalry in armaments, country after country was running with inevitable certainty into financial embarrassment, he thought it was the duty of that House, now that they had a democratic suffrage, to relax not a single check which might tend to prevent extravagance. He ventured the other night to make a suggestion to the Government, and he would venture to make another. On that occasion he asked them to withdraw their Budget, and he now asked them to revise it. The country did not accept the doctrine that because some sums had been voted in Supply, that the House was pledged to the expenditure; and he ventured to predict that if the Government attempted to carry out any financial proposals which involved the expenditure of £72,500,000, they would find they were not carrying out the wishes of the country. He should be false to the principles he held, and unworthy of a seat in that House, if he did not do everything in his power to protest against what he regarded as a fatal doctrine, which would lead the country to disastrous ruin—the fatal doctrine, that additional expenditure

1799
was to be borne entirely by direct taxation.
MR. LIDDELLtendered his thanks to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) for the principles which he had just enunciated, and at the same time he wished the House to consider what was the pretext of the Government for meeting the deficit of the year wholly out of direct taxation. The Government said it was transitional expenditure, but what security was there for it; because experience taught them that expense incurred for defensive purposes was a lasting expenditure. To say that was but throwing dust in the eyes of the House, of which the erection of fortifications was an instance in proof, and therefore it was that he asked what security was there that this increased expenditure would not become permanent. He was glad they were to have two or three days in which to consider the new proposal of the Government, and he hoped that in the meantime what had been said by the hon. Member for Brighton would go to the hearts and homes of the vast majority of the people. It was but just that some part of the expenditure of the year should be met by indirect taxation.
MR. ILLINGWORTHprotested most strongly against the doctrine which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had attempted to lay down; because, so long as over £40,000,000 were raised by indirect taxation, it could not be said that the largest portion of the expenditure of the country was met by direct taxation. So long as the majority of the House was elected by classes altogether above the working classes, there would be no fear of the democratic power becoming omnipotent here, and therefore it appeared to him premature to meet such a danger as the hon. Gentleman had pointed out. It would have been more to the point, however, if the hon. Member had been able to produce an instance where the democratic form of government had proved to be the more expensive form of government.
MR. OSBORNE: AS, Sir, "my poverty, and not my will, consents" to sit on these benches of advanced Liberals and retrogade Democrats, I rise to say, or rather to make my protest—not being that anomalous thing an advanced Liberal, or that almost extinct animal a Tory Member—that I can agree neither with
1800
my hon. Friend opposite the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), nor with the hon. Professor, who, I believe, is the only man among us who would adopt the Phrygian cap. I must add that I very much condole with my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. I know it has been said by a French cynic that there is something in the misfortunes of our best friends which is agreeable to us. I do not experience that feeling myself; but I do condole with them in the incident of the noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord George Cavendish), who, I thought, was a Ministerialist beyond Ministers, helping a lame dog over the stile as he has done to-night. I was, indeed, somewhat surprised to hear the sentiments enunciated by the noble Lord; but I confess I was not able to follow him through the whole of the likeness which he drew, when he compared my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a gentleman at Nottingham. To whom he referred I cannot say; but it seems to me that the resemblance was not so true as he might have made it if he had likened him to a gentleman whose name we meet with in the Old Testament—I mean Jonah. Of the other side of the House my right hon. Friend has assuredly no cause to complain, and if he has been thrown overboard with all his sins upon his head—he tells us he has not repented—if he has been thrown overboard to the fishes—and I must say I do not envy the fish that got him—if he has been thrown overboard by the captain of the vessel, it has been the work of his Colleagues—I was going to call them his confederates. It is worthy of notice that the new Budget which has been proposed to us, assumes, we are told, the appearance of a simple Budget. If I am glad it assumes that simplicity, I must not be supposed to agree with the extreme doctrine which has been laid down by the Tory-Democratic Member for Brighton. I am of opinion that, if the upper classes of this country are to enjoy the luxury of periodical panics, they should be prepared to pay for them. I think that the only way to bring about a reduction of expenditure is to make them pay for it; for until they feel the screw pressing on them depend upon it we shall never see that reduction of expenditure of which the hon. Member for Brighton is

1801
so great an advocate. Feeling this very strongly, and that it is a thing above all others that we must ultimately effect, I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would candidly tell the House that there would not be another alteration in his scheme before Monday—yet, if it comes before us, as at present framed, on that day I hope we shall have a proper discussion of the incidence of taxation, and that when we are called upon to vote the Ways and Means for the year, the House will not be actuated by a false shame, as the Ministers have not been actuated by any false shame in assenting to withdraw their Budget, and will press for the withdrawal of their Estimates also. They are about to plunge the country into an expenditure for what they call their Army Regulation scheme, of which none of us knows the fullest extent. The House of Commons has in consequence been placed in a most unprecedented situation. You have been called upon to give your assent to a Bill without any definite statement of the cost which it would involve having been laid on the Table. I trust, therefore, that when you re-consider the Budget you will be prepared to go further, and to re-consider your vote on the Army Regulation Bill. However, whether you do so or not; of this I am sure, that the money which you will be called on to pay, in order that the Minister of War and his subordinates may ride their military hobby-horse, will be found to have been laid out on a project which is not worth the cost. I am delighted to be told the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to yield to the pressure which was put on him by his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench. I am sure he means well, and I would throw out to him a suggestion which he might consider before Monday. He has gone to considerable expense—I do not mean that he himself has, because we shall have to pay for it—in preparing a new stamp with the motto, "Ex luce lucellum" which, for the benefit of the successful capitalists whom I see around me, means, I may observe in passing, "From light a little gain." Well, that stamp is ready, and why should he not attach it to a tax which was recommended the other night by an hon. Gentleman who sits behind him, and who, although he attacked his Budget, walked into the same Lobby with him—
1802
I allude to the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford)? Why should he not, I say, attach this Ex luce lucellum to a tax on photographs, which is a most objectionable impost, being a tax on the vanity of men and women, and not on the necessities of life? For that reason, Ex luce lucellum being ready, let him place it on photographs, and take something off the income tax.
MR. NEVILLE - GRENVILLEexpressed his apprehension that, although the succession duty was for the present withdrawn, yet that it would not only be reproduced on some future occasion, but that they would also seek to place a duty on the motive power of manufacture in agriculture. Should such a contingency occur, they might depend upon it that the motive power in manufactures would not long escape.
LORD GARLIESthought the time was come when the House should be informed what the meaning was of the phrase "transition Estimates," for, as far as he could perceive, the only Estimate answering to the description was that the country was to be called upon to pay only £600,000 this year for the abolition of purchase, and which would change to £1,200,000 next year.
MR. GILPINsaid, that while he had felt it to be his duty on a previous occasion to make some strong observations against the original Budget, he had done so with regret. He had now a more pleasant duty to discharge, to congratulate the Government on having taken the course which as wise and honest men it became them to take—that when they found they had committed an error, to retrace their steps at the earliest possible moment. The wisest men might make mistakes, and it was only fools who persevered in them when discovered. The present action of the Government would, he believed, strengthen their position in the estimation of the country.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he must take the earliest opportunity of protesting against the idea of transferring the house tax from Imperial to local taxation. They all knew perfectly well that London was the place which would be most benefited He happened to have a freehold property of three or four houses in a town in Wales, and a] so of a house in the City of London. Not one of the houses in the town in Wales to which he referred paid the house tax. He was

1803
sorry for it, because if they did he would have an increased rent. In the City of London, for a house of a similar size, he received a rent between nine and ten times greater. Every man who had to pay 9d. house duty was well recouped by getting £1 additional rent. He protested against transferring such a tax from Imperial to local purposes.
MR. MAGNIACexpressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal firmly with the exemption of corporations from legacy duty, if not this Session, at all events in some future one.
MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNsaid, that while expressing dissatisfaction at the new scheme propounded by the Government, he entirely approved the course taken by the Government in throwing over the eccentric taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped this would be the last Budget of that character which the people of this country would see, and that, at any rate, it would afford a lesson to the Government not to permit one of their Members to indulge his desire of producing something of an unusual and startling nature, but rather to adhere to those old-fashioned and more simple principles of finance which had hitherto maintained their ground. He was especially pleased that the match tax had been thrown over, and the succession duties also, with the proposal to substitute percentage for poundage in levying the income tax; but he was not at all satisfied with the imposition of an increase in the direction of that tax. There was no necessity for resorting in so large a degree to an increased income tax for an expenditure which was said to be transitional and temporary. If it was, why not meet it as other transitional and temporary expenses were met not by a loan, but by the simple plan of suspending the reduction of the National Debt? He hoped, however, the Government would not be prevailed upon to abandon their scheme for the abolition of purchase. Within the last few years several Acts had been passed for converting sums of money in the Post Office Savings Banks into Terminable Annuities. The Trustees for the Reduction of the National Debt were empowered to devote the surplus funds, which were not required for meeting the demands of the depositors, to the purchase and cancelling of stock. He believed we were at the present moment
1804
applying more than £2,000,000 per annum to the reduction of the Debt. Well, if the expenditure of this year were really exceptional, let it be met by the simple means of suspending the reduction of the Debt, instead of putting additional burdens on the people.
VISCOUNT BURYshared, the general feeling of satisfaction that many of the items of the Budget proposed the other day had been modified. Her Majesty's Government had shown a very wise discretion in yielding to the expression of opinion which had made itself heard throughout the country, and the course which they had now chosen would be generally approved; but he could not, however, agree as to the propriety of an additional 2d. in the income tax by way of substitute for the proposals they had abandoned. That tax might have all the simplicity attributed to it; but he concurred in a great measure with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Brighton, that the tax, however simple, fell with an undue weight and pressure upon a class already sufficiently burdened. He was one of those who from the first had felt it his duty to oppose one part of the expenditure which had been proposed by the Government, and he could not but think if that expenditure were now abandoned all the difficulties in which we were involved, and in which the Government were evidently involved, would disappear. If the Bill for the Regulation of the Army were either withdrawn or considerably modified as regarded the abolition of purchase, the whole question would be simplified, the present difficulties of the Government would, in some degree, disappear; and we should not be reduced to the expedient brought forward by the Government to-night. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had intimated that he would not have ventured on the imposition of an additional 2d. of income tax were it not that the expenditure which it was to meet was of an exceptional and temporary nature. He disputed the statement that this expenditure could be transitory or exceptional. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, it was true, set aside a suggestion made to him while speaking, that we should in future years have to provide for a scheme of retirement in the Army; but the House could

1805
not shut its eyes to the fact that money would have to be procured year after year to carry out a retirement scheme, and they had not had even a hint from the Government of the amount which would be required for that purpose. If the abolition of purchase were for the present relinquished we should have a respite; we should not only not have to provide £600,000 in this year's Estimates, but should be relieved for a time at least from the contemplation of the large sums which the retirement scheme would cost. He therefore agreed with those who had suggested that the Government should re-consider the Estimates which they had submitted to the House in this particular; in doing so it could not be supposed that they would suffer in the opinion of the country if they adopted this course, which would be a manly, straightforward, and proper one. The Estimates were framed at a time when the Government had, no doubt, turned over their Ways and Means in their mind, and had arrived at certain conclusions. Now, Government acknowledged that their Ways and Means, which they had thought were acceptable to the House and the country, were not so, and with perfect straightforwardness and with perfect honour they re-modelled their scheme. Why should not they with equal straight for ward ness and equal honour re-consider the Estimates which rendered those Ways and Means necessary? If the Army Organization Bill were withdrawn, we should be relieved from all the embarrassment which it had caused in our finance.
MR. PEASEtendered his most hearty thanks to the Government for the manner in which they had re-modelled their financial scheme. With reference to the suggestion of the noble Lord who had just sat down, as to the Army Organization Bill, it seemed to him to be too late, after the House had actually voted money for carrying out the abolition of the purchase system, to ask the Government again to revise their Estimates; and if there was one thing more than another he trusted the Government would not do, it was to follow the advice of that noble Lord with regard to the question of Army purchase. He thanked the Prime Minister for the pledge he had given, to take the advice of the hon. Member for Sheffield and those who voted with him, to reduce the expenditure
1806
when the state of Europe warranted that course; and he much hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would leave the question of agricultural horses alone on all future occasions.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he would remind the House that when the Budget was introduced, he suggested that the deficit should be obtained in the mode now adopted by the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to hold to his sliding scale of the succession duties; but he (Mr. Collins) was of opinion that the taxing of successions on personal property, ranging from 1 to 10 per cent, would never have been achieved but by a Parliament of landlords. This was an anomaly that ought to be got rid of. In an equalization of the succession duties, it should begin from the top, and 5 per cent should be the maximum in any case of succession; while, with regard to personalty, 2 per cent should be the maximum with reference to nearest relations, and 5 per cent in the case of strangers, and this should include the tax on successions which is now levied in the shape of Probate Duty. He held that if the people of this country were determined to add materially to the defences of the country they should know that they would have to pay the bill. The pressure of the income tax on incomes below £200 had been much lessened by the reduction of £60 from the assessed amount. The House ought steadily to keep in view the reduction of the National Debt, and, except in times of war or great peril, they ought not to suspend the action which was now going on for decreasing that Debt by means of Terminable Annuities. Though, in principle, he thought it was objectionable to obtain an increase of Revenue by increasing one tax only, yet this was only a transitional period so far as concerned increased expenditure, and it would not be sound policy to obtain an increase of Revenue by increasing the duties on tea and sugar, which were comforts, he might almost say necessaries, of the poor. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought that the Government had adopted a wise plan.
MR. BROOKSsaid, he had been an Income Tax Commissioner, and was of opinion that that tax inflicted great injustice on the poor. He admitted that considerable improvements had been

1807
made in the income tax by which the injustice was not felt so much by the very poor; but, still, there were a great number of professional men and people who derived their income from limited sources, who felt the injustice of the tax most keenly, while by more wealthy people the injustice was hardly felt. It seemed to him that we were in danger of falling on the income tax because the wisdom of the Legislature could think of nothing else. When the income tax was first proposed by the late Sir Robert Peel, it was intended as a merely temporary measure to raise the country from the condition into which it had fallen; and he (Mr. Brooks) thought it would be impolitic in the highest degree to allow Her Majesty's Government to impose an additional income tax for the purpose of accomplishing measures which many on the Opposition Benches disapproved.
MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he did not suppose that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) cared much when the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne), in commenting upon his (Mr. Fawcett's) honest, frank, and courageous speech, spoke about Democrats. The remarks of the hon. Member for Waterford upon the hon. Member for Brighton would not lessen the confidence which a very large part of our working people had in him. The hon. Member for Waterford, no doubt, was a frequent source of amusement to the House, and if he (Mr. A. Herbert) were a giver of dinners, he would feel so much indebted to him for the favour of his company to dinner, that he would always keep an empty chair for him. [Mr. OSBORNE: It does not follow that I should come.] Then, in that case, the loss would be his own. While perfectly ready to acknowledge this debt which they all owed to the hon. Gentleman, he could not help observing that if the hon. Member wished to forward any political object, or if he saw in politics any meaning whatever, beyond their affording a fighting arena in which every man was to stand on his own hand, and joke on every subject, he would become more useful to the country and to his own constituency if he would imitate the hon. Member for Brighton. [Mr. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!] He was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman had a talent for music, in addition to his other accomplishments; but,
1808
notwithstanding the interruption, the hon. Gentleman should hear the end of his sentence, and receive the advice he was about to offer him, which was that he should become a retrograde Democrat as soon as possible. The only difficulty that lay in the way of his (Mr. Osborne's) adopting that advice, was the impossibility of his retrograding from a position he had never attained, because the speeches of the hon. Gentleman never contained a single Democratic or Liberal sentiment, and might just as well have been delivered from the opposite as from the Liberal Benches. The hon. Member had instanced the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) as being the only man in the House ready to adopt the Phrygian cap. Caps were dangerous subjects for the hon. Gentleman to refer to; because there were different kinds of caps; there was one which "makes music as it goes," and which had a highly professional character; and if ever there was a subscription raised in the House to present any hon. Member with a cap of that kind, he should be glad to add his name to the list of subscribers. ["Oh!"] He did not agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Brighton, for this reason, because he did not think that the money levied in the form of taxes throughout was expended in the interests of the working population. At the present time, pounds were expended upon the Army and the Navy; while only pence were devoted to educational purposes, and the endowments throughout the country, great as they were, were not applied in such a way as to meet the real wants of the population. As soon as the money raised by taxation was expended in forwarding the real interests of the working population the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brighton could not be too closely or too faithfully followed.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he must congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having retired with so much grace and frankness from a false position, in acknowledgment of which, no doubt, the country would award them all the more honour. Hon. Members near him shared his regret—a regret increased by the fact that he had found himself compelled to vote against the Government—that the Prime Minister had felt it to be necessary to spend £26,000,000 this year upon the national armaments. The right

1809
hon. Gentleman would, doubtless, have preferred that the cost of those armaments should have been reduced rather than increased; but he had been compelled to yield to the pressure that had been put upon him by the country. The political horizon being at present without a cloud, he could not see the necessity of adverting to the heavy expenditure of years gone by, and he hoped and trusted that the Government would soon be able to alter their policy on that head of expenditure.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcongratulated the House and the country upon the course that Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to adopt in withdrawing the most objectionable features of the Budget. He wished to second the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Sinclair Aytoun) that this was a fitting opportunity for the suspension of the action of the machinery for the reduction of the National Debt, in place of throwing the whole expenditure upon the direct taxation of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in introducing, in 1866, the measure under which that reduction of the Debt was effected, had recommended it on the ground that its operation might be suspended whenever the requirements of the country should demand it.
MR. GLADSTONE: As this subject has been referred to in several quarters, I may, perhaps, be permitted to state that in bringing forward the measure to which the hon. Baronet alludes, I did not use the expression that its operation could be suspended in the event of certain contingencies happening. I have not the words before me that I actually used, when laying the principles of the measure before the House; but, speaking entirely from memory, what I believe I said was this—that the system proposed to be established by the measure would provide us with a most ready and convenient means of borrowing without our going into the money market. By resorting to this fund, therefore, we should be borrowing in the strictest sense of the word, and not merely suspending the operation of the system.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould urge that the present, at all events, was an occasion when we should be justified in availing ourselves of the resources that the system offered us. He
1810
approved the suggestion for the taxation of photographs, by which a large sum might be raised without putting pressure upon anybody.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.

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

CONTROLLERSHIP OF THE NAVY.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. T. BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the multifarious duties of the Controller of the Navy, and to move a Resolution on the subject, said, the attention of the public had been drawn to this office of late, in consequence of the melancholy loss of the Captain, of the recent changes in the Admiralty, and of the retirement of two public officers connected with the shipbuilding department of the Navy. It would be generally acknowledged that for a long time past an impression had prevailed that dockyard work was unnecessarily costly. Although he did not share the views of those who thought that the cost of dockyard work was inordinately extravagant, still he thought that such work was more costly by 10 per cent than similar work executed in private yards; and this in spite of the fact that the cost of labour in the public dockyards was cheaper than in private establishments, and of the great advantage which the former had over the latter in having continual employment for the machinery which they possessed. When it was recollected that the Vote for Stores and Wages in the Home Dockyards during the year amounted to upwards of a million and a-half, it would be seen that a saving of only 5 per cent upon that sum would amount to £75,000. They would all admit that to effect this saving to the taxpayers by reducing the cost of dockyard work was an object worthy of considerable effort. It was patent to all who had in any way investigated the subject, that in the administration of those large dockyard establishments there was too much concentration of detail and management at Whitehall; and the fact that the Controller, who was responsible

  1811
  for the management of those establishments, was an over-worked officer, arose to a great extent from that excessive concentration of responsibility in London. At the last inquiry into the management of the dockyards, the Duke of Somerset stated that it was impossible for any person, however able, adequately and efficiently to discharge all the duties at that time imposed on the Controller. Recent changes had, however, materially increased the duties of that officer, the departments of gunnery and stores having been added to the former scope of his functions, already more than sufficiently onerous; and, to add to it, he had been also made a member of the Board of Admiralty. While the Controller himself could not possibly discharge all those duties, the fact that he was nominally held responsible absolved those officers who really had the conduct of the details of dockyard business from the wholesome responsibility which ought properly to rest upon them, and which gave the greatest possible stimulus to individual effort. He would suggest, therefore, that the Controller should be relieved of a portion of his duties by giving a more independent authority to the local officers of the dockyards. He might attach undue importance to that suggestion; but if he represented anything in that House at all, it was the successful application of the principle of decentralization to the largest industrial affairs. He would retain the office of Admiral Superintendent, because it was necessary to have in those establishments a naval officer of high rank to represent the Admiralty, to impose a check on the requisitions sent to the dockyards by the captains of ships, to superintend the steam reserve, and to see that every vessel fitted in those yards was duly equipped for naval service. But his proposition was that the shipbuilding work of the dockyards should be placed in the hands of a professional officer, on whom there should rest an undivided responsibility in respect of those duties; and in order to secure the services of men fully competent to undertake that great responsibility, it would be necessary to improve the social status and increase the salaries of the professional officers of the dockyards. It was the opinion of the most competent judges that a promoted workman was not the fittest person for high administrative
  1812
  functions, involving more or less general knowledge, of a vast variety of trades, and that, in order to have the highest professional office of each dockyard well filled, they required the services of a gentleman who possessed not only a knowledge of workmanship but also an appreciation of finance. The title of master shipwright was not much coveted by the persons employed in that capacity, nor was it quite suitable to the principal officer appointed to undertake the work of shipbuilding in one of Her Majesty's Yards. The title of Deputy Naval Constructor would be more appropriate; and the relative rank of those officers should also be improved, as in France, where the officer at the head of the shipbuilding work in a dockyard held relative naval rank with a captain; and where the highest officer connected with shipbuilding held the rank of a rear admiral. The Companionship of the Bath might likewise, he suggested, be given from time to time, with advantage, for long and meritorious service on the part of those officers. While thinking that their pay was discreditably inadequate—the highest salary given to a master shipwright at the head of one of Her Majesty's Dockyards being only £600 or £650 a-year—he advocated no hasty or ill-considered change; but if the salary were raised to something like £2,000, he felt confident the money would be well spent for the public interest. He had himself been connected with a private shipbuilding establishment, and also with one of our largest railways; and in each of those establishnents a salary was given of not less than £5,000 for the discharge of duties in no respect exceeding in importance those devolving on the principal responsible officers in Her Majesty's naval Yards. It would be better to employ a few administrative officers possessing the highest skill in those departments, at large salaries, and to introduce further economy—care being taken not to injure the efficiency—from time to time in the clerical staff. Again, a valuable and effective economical reform would be effected if the principal shipwright in each of the naval Yards were, before being allowed to commence building a ship or undertaking any important repairs, to be called upon to furnish an estimate of his own of the probable cost. Independent estimates from subordinate agents had

  1813
  been found of the greatest advantage in the execution of railway works. He would further suggest that the names of the officers by whom the several estimates were made should be mentioned in the tabulated Statement given to the House, so that in the event of any great discrepancy between the cost and the estimate the public would know who was responsible for any such administrative failure. Again, if the dockyards were treated more completely than at present as separate establishments, a most valuable incentive to efficiency and economy would be applied to those charged with their management. Then, the present system of promotion in the dockyards was very unsatisfactory. Even among some of the humblest grades of the artizan class promotions, he believed, were made, not directly by the local officer, but by reference to the central authority in London. That was altogether wrong; because, while the central authority must depend, in such cases, upon the report of the local officer, the local officer, on the other hand, was deprived—which he should not be—of due control over the workmen under him. If that system were more fully adhered to, changes of the Government would be less prejudicial to the efficiency of the dockyards. Sir Baldwin Walker stated in evidence that, during the 13 years he held office, there had been no less than seven changes of Administration. Then the question arose, where were they to look for persons competent to fill the offices he proposed to create, and—in endeavouring to show them in what direction they should look to supply their wants—he had no hesitation in saying that the best school of training for the public service was the public service itself. It had produced such shipwrights as Mr. Lang, Mr. Watts, and, he believed, Mr. Reed. He also ventured to say that if the system of decentralization were fully applied to the Royal Dockyards, and if each dockyard was separated from the others, there would no longer be the great delay which existed at present in presenting to Parliament the audited accounts for shipbuilding. The last accounts for 1867–8 were only submitted to the Accountant General for his approval in November, 1870—two and a-half years after the expenditure had taken place—and, for the purpose of criticism, they
  1814
  were useless; but the accounts might be produced more speedily if they were audited locally. As regarded his late father's great works, the whole of the audits were done in their respective localities on the spot; but if they had been done in London, all the houses in Great George Street would not have furnished room enough for the Staff required to be employed. Passing from this topic, he would make one or two observations with respect to the office of Controller of the Navy; and, in reference to that subject, he must say that a considerable reform seemed to be required at Whitehall. After full consideration, he concurred in the opinion expressed by Sir Frederick Grey, before the Duke of Somerset's Committee, that the office of Controller should be abolished, and that the Second Sea Lord should be put at the head of the dockyards and constructive department. In order to carry that out, it would be advantageous that a professional officer having a knowledge of shipbuilding, rather than a naval man, should be made responsible to the Admiralty for a matter requiring such technical knowledge as shipbuilding. As an instance, proving the value of this suggestion, he would give the name of Sir William Seppings. With regard to the Staff of the Constructor, he would suggest that it must be in all respects efficient and sufficiently numerous to enable the Constructor to make more frequent visits than hitherto to the Royal Dockyards; for no supervision at Whitehall could be so effective as personal inspection; and the master's eye did more, in accelerating the dispatch and improving the quality of the work, than the most voluminous correspondence and the most intricate Returns. His attention had been called to this subject in consequence of the sympathy he felt for the British Navy; and in speaking on these matters, and in suggesting the principle of decentralization, he was doing the best he could to communicate to the House whatever he might have inherited from a very distinguished leader in industrial enterprize. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. M. CHAMBERS, in seconding the Motion, said, he considered the speech just delivered to be both instructive and practical, founded upon full reflection, as well as actual knowledge.

  1815
  His political experience in association with the dockyards for many years convinced him that there were numerous defects in their management. One of these had partially, if not altogether, passed away—namely, the injury produced by appointments of officers and artizans through political influence. The main object was to obtain capable and industrious workmen, and to effect that it was desirable to learn whether, when men were wanted at the dockyards, they were selected by any officer who knew their capacity, and whether they were chosen simply for their merits. He did not say they should bribe talent, but they must adequately pay talent; for it had happened more than once that men who had advanced in the Royal Dockyards to considerable eminence had been lured away by private shipbuilders offering them a larger salary, continuous employment, or an improved position. Remarkable instances of this evil had occurred during the Crimean War, when skilled labour of this description was in great demand. Such men should have increased wages, and more extended power, and certain prospects to induce them to remain in the service of the country, and unless we raised the maximum salary in these cases, and were more cautious in suddenly, and even capriciously, discharging large numbers, we might lose some of our ablest men educated in the Royal Dockyards, and deter others from accepting employment, and the public service would suffer. The object should be to make and retain men valuable to us in the conduct of our dockyard business. He therefore pressed on the attention of the Admiralty the necessity of affording due encouragement to the best workmen to raise themselves by talent, industry, honesty, and good conduct to the position of heads of the different departments, for by so doing we should be able to command the services of good men, who had, or had not, been brought up in the Royal Dockyards, by ensuring them remuneration and rewards equal, or nearly equal, to those they could obtain in private establishments. In these scientific days talent, industry, and integrity were highly prized, and if first-rate talent were not highly paid we could not command it, because of the great competition existing for the services of men possessing these
  1816
  qualifications between the Admiralty and private firms. He would give to certain officers in the Royal Dockyards some degree of authority with reference to those employed under them. Superintendents might have the power to hire and promote the men, but over these officers there should be very careful and close observation. If, also, they could establish some system like this—giving the ganger, or leading man of shipwrights for instance, the power of hiring those who assist him, and making him answerable for the excellence and rapidity of the work done, they would insure not only efficiency but economy. He thought the suggestions of his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings well worthy of consideration by the authorities at the Admiralty with respect to the internal management of dockyards. Economical considerations, however, rendered it difficult to acquiesce in the suggestion to appoint in each dockyard two or three superior officers in addition to the Admiral Superintendent; we should rather see whether good workmen could not advance to such a position as would enable them to discharge the duties which the hon. Member contemplated. It could not be denied that, notwithstanding all efforts for reform, this part of our National expenditure was comparatively too high and it was probable that one explanation of the undue cost of the dockyards was the unnecessarily complicated mode of keeping the accounts, which rendered it difficult to audit them at short periods in the same manner as the accounts of private establishments were audited.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient that the Controller of the Navy should be relieved of a portion of his responsibilities by giving more independent authority to the local officers of the Dockyards,"—(Mr. Brassey,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GOSCHENobserved, that the matter under debate had been brought forward in an able speech, and with that practical knowledge of detail which was always displayed by the hon. Member who proposed it (Mr. T. Brassey.)

  1817
  He wished, however, that the House should look closely to the terms of the Motion. The hon. Member thought that considerable advantage would be derived from decentralizing the management of our dockyards, and by giving greater responsibility and power of individual action to those who were at the head of the respective dockyards, and relieving the Controller of the Navy of part of his responsibility; but one great difficulty in the way of such a plan—a difficulty to which a Government Department must always be exposed when placed in competition with private enterprize—was the necessity of having a minute control over the expenditure. The desirability of maintaining responsibility in a central department, and thereby procuring that rigid supervision over expenditure which that House in all cases demanded, rendered it necessary that the Control Department should be responsible to the public for every shilling spent, and, therefore, they could not allow the same latitude to subordinates which might be allowed in private yards. This was illustrated by the question of promotion. The hon. Member suggested that local officers should have the power to promote men who had distinguished themselves in their respective dockyards. But promotion to workmen meant increase of pay; and if they gave this latitude to local officers, they would part with their control over the increase of expenditure. The same principle, moreover, would apply to many other Departments. There was, no doubt, considerable force in the argument that they should give as much latitude as possible to local officers; and his predecessor in office, the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), had taken several steps in this direction. For instance, formerly the local authorities were not allowed to spend more than £5 without reference to Whitehall, whilst now the limit was £50. This step showed that the views of the hon. Member for Hastings had been partially shared in and acted on by the Admiralty. It was a question however how far they should go in their desire to relieve the Controller of the Navy of his responsibility, for clearly there must be some one person who must be responsible for carrying out a general policy as endorsed by the Board of Admiralty, and individual officers at dockyards, even if they comprised
  1818
  such distinguished men as the hon. Member had suggested, could never be allowed to carry out each their own designs. Two questions had been raised by the hon. Member, which were perfectly distinct—the question of the civil or professional as against the naval management; and that of the subordination of the dockyards to a central authority. If such a professional man as had been proposed were to be appointed the question would arise, what would be his relation to the Admiral Superintendent and Commander-in-Chief? It appeared to him that there was a slight confusion in the mind of his hon. Friend, because the duties which he assigned to the Admiral Superintendent could easily be performed by the Commander-in-Chief, and under his plan there would be two admirals and one professional person besides, who would receive a salary equal to the salaries of the two admirals together. There would be thus three officers in every dockyard, with the professional man almost quite independent of the Admiral Superintendent; and a division of responsibility which would not be for the advantage of the public service. For instance, he could see there would be no duties left for the Admiral Superintendent at all, and it would be necessary to abolish this office—which, he thought, was contrary to his hon. Friend's intention, as he (Mr. Goschen) concluded his hon. Friend wished both officers to be continued—leaving the Commander-in-Chief, who would be responsible for the whole of the discipline, and the professional man responsible for the whole of the shipping. One question had suggested itself to his mind while his hon. Friend was speaking with regard to the dockyards and with regard to Whitehall. The question was—would it be wise or possible at present to confine shipbuilding entirely to professional persons, without giving the naval element any voice in the construction of the ships? The hon. Gentleman spoke of the re-organization of the Department at Whitehall, and suggested that the whole of the shipbuilding should be taken out of the hands of the Naval Lord and placed in the hands of a professional person. His (Mr. Goschen's) experience on that point was of the most recent date; but from what he had read, he should judge that nothing would be more certain to lead to endless conflicts

  1819
  than fixing the rule that naval men should have no voice in determining the ships to be built, which they would have afterwards to navigate, and for which they would be afterwards responsible. It was true that professional persons might be better employed in shipbuilding than naval men, though everyone was aware that there had been naval men of very great experience in shipbuilding, who could distinguish themselves almost as professional shipbuilders; but both in the dockyards and Whitehall his hon. Friend had rather overlooked the difficulty of working the system. No doubt the Controller of the Navy's duties were multifarious. Not that his duties had been increased, as his hon. Friend had erroneously supposed; but the actual labour he had to perform had decreased by the changes made in the Department, which had relieved him of a vast amount of actual writing, though not lessening his responsibility. The evidence of Sir Spencer Robinson before the Committee showed that when he was a member of the Board he was obliged to spend a great deal of his time in drawing up reports and writing minutes. Latterly, the Controller of the Navy had certainly been made responsible for the whole matériel of the fleet—stores, guns, and ships; and it had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers)—and he thought his right hon. Friend was right—that the concentration of this responsibility in the hands of one man made it easier to work the system, and to get that unity of action, which was most important and so much more efficient than a division of duties. The difficulty of the case, arising from the vastness of the operations placed under his control, was serious; but the mode of dealing with that would depend on the subsequent organization of the Department. With all respect for the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings, it would not be advisable to relieve those who were already responsible to Parliament, from responsibility for the ships which were being built, and for their cost, and it would be impossible, unless the Admiralty system was changed, to give the dockyards power to increase expenditure, without leave from the central Board. It was impossible to give latitude to any subordinate officers, if, at the same time, it was wished to keep a control over the expenditure; and though
  1820
  they might be economical, the right could not be given them to make contracts, to raise prices of labour, or take any steps by which the liabilities of the public would be increased. For this reason, it appeared to him to be necessary to keep the principle well in mind that, while endeavouring to localize, so far as they could localize, they should keep the purse strings tightly in hand. The hon. Member for Hastings had alluded to the advantages of a local audit. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the more an audit was made on the spot the more efficient it would be, and he assured his hon. Friend that his efforts should not be wanting to clear up the question of audit, and to see if any improvements could be made. The hon. Member had likewise referred to the dockyard accounts being some years in arrears. That was being reviewed. This was partly due to the fact that the system of keeping the accounts of the different dockyards separately had only been lately introduced. By the month of June, however, the accounts for another year would be placed on the Table, and he trusted that by the end of this year the accounts for a third year would be presented; so that, by that time, the accounts would be brought closely up to the present time. He deprecated any measure being taken by the House which would relieve those from the responsibility to whom really the House and the country must look for successfully carrying on the business of the dockyards. The more correspondence could be avoided, and the more encouragement could be given to the authorities in each dockyard to make reductions, and to be as efficient and economical as possible, the better, and such inducements and such latitude would be given. In conclusion, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a Division; and he would assure him that everything that could be done would be done by the Admiralty to attain the end desired.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he was very ill-qualified to make even a single remark on this occasion, as he was unfortunately absent from his place during what he had been told was the very able speech of the hon. Member for Hastings, and he had heard only the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Chambers.) He understood

  1821
  him to have proposed that persons who, by dint of ability and perseverance, had risen to the rank of master shipwright might be ultimately appointed Superintendent of the Dockyard. The proposal had often been brought forward in this House; but he had always entertained the greatest possible objection to it, and he was certain it would be a great mistake to abolish the naval Superintendents. It should be remembered that in dockyards, vessels were not only built, but also masted, armed, and fitted out as fighting ships of war, and on all these matters the most valuable suggestions were constantly made by the naval Superintendents, on points of which a civil Superintendent would be entirely ignorant. It would prove fatal to the best interests of the service to appoint anyone except a naval man to the office of Superintendent.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he could not listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty without feeling a desire to appeal to him on a subject to which he had often previously drawn the attention of the House. He thought the authorities might avail themselves of the English tendency to yachting enterprize in order to extend the system of a naval Reserve. Persons who contrived vessels for purposes of sport and enjoyment, might be offered such admission within the pale of the service as would be an encouragement to them; and a plan might also be devised for registering those yachts which might be suitable, as part of the Navy. It was said that the naval strength of this country mainly depended upon the construction of gunboats and other small vessels, and that being the case he thought it would be greatly to the advantage of the service, if the Admiralty would recognize and encourage the spirit which induced English gentlemen to expend money and time and talent upon the building and management of yachts, for they would thus lay the foundation of a most efficient naval Reserve. Gunboats were exactly the kind of vessel which many gentlemen affected, and in which they would embark their money if such an inducement were held out to them. With regard to the safety at sea of large, and particularly of iron-clad ships, as compared with smaller vessels, he would simply mention that it was only owing to his own conviction of her
  1822
  unseaworthiness that his son was prevented from going to sea in the unfortunate Captain by having his appointment cancelled. Before she went on her fatal voyage, he had given Notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to what he considered her faulty construction, but was induced to forego his intention by the late First Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, that after the assurance he had received from the First Lord of the Admiralty, he should not press his Motion to a Division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE, in moving the appointment of a Scientific Committee on Naval Design, said, that the Navy Estimates having come on unexpectedly, it would be undesirable for the First Lord now to press the third Vote. The Report of the Duke of Somerset's Committee was not yet before the House; and it was therefore impossible to deal with a branch of the subject to which a recent melancholy occurrence had imparted so momentous an interest. In April, 1863, he moved an Address to the House for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the best mode of constructing iron-clad ships. The proposition led to considerable discussion, it being opposed by Lord Clarence Paget, then Secretary to the Admiralty, who said that it would be very unadvisable to refer such a matter to a Commission, and that it would create an imperium in imperio. He added that the Government had the best means of information on the subject, and as they were responsible to the House and the country for the construction of Her Majesty's ships, it would be better that this responsibility should rest in their hands. Considering, however, that iron as a material for shipbuilding had only then been newly introduced, and that the first attempts in vessels such as the Research had been unsatisfactory, he still believed that a small Committee of scientific naval men would have been useful. He did not wish them to dictate to the Admiralty as to the description of ships to be built; but when everything had been clearly laid down, it would be

  1823
  the duty of the Committee to take the drawings into consideration, and pronounce whether, in regard to safety, stability, &c., they would accomplish the objects the Admiralty had in view. His Motion was rejected; but the War Office were more wise. They appointed an "Iron Committee," whose labours were attended with great advantage to the service. He believed that if such a Committee as he proposed in 1863 had been appointed the Captain would never have gone to sea, for she would never have been laid down. There had been the most reckless innovations at the Admiralty of late years; its constitution had been destroyed; its naval element had been depressed; and the whole machinery of the Department had been brought into such a state of confusion, that the most fearful results had followed. As regarded the Captain, which vessel it was impossible to exclude from a discussion of this nature, he held that she was laid down under a dereliction of public duty, and that authority was given to private parties who were not responsible for the result. When, again, it was found that she was drawing too much water, she ought to have been returned to the shipbuilders in order to be brought back to her proper draught. He must again say, he believed that if such a council as he had advocated in 1863, and oftentimes since, had been in existence, we should not have witnessed the catastrophe which had only a few months since caused such general grief, nor should we have had to deplore so many and such expensive mistakes as those which had been of late years committed. Economy in this country appeared to be a fitful disease; but it should be remembered that it was far easier to pull down and destroy than to build up. He would give as an instance of what he had advanced, Sir James Graham, who, when he was at the Admiralty, resorted to economy, the result of which was, that the country had to pay £2 for every one thus imaginarily dispensed with. It would, however, be only right to say, that, after the hot fit was over, that right hon. Baronet seemed to become conscious of his error. The millions of money which had been squandered in the education of the constructive department of the Navy would of themselves alone have sufficed to build us a Navy. But
  1824
  what had we now? Some most remarkable specimens of naval architecture, it was true; and if they were multiplied we should have the greatest Navy the world ever possessed. We were told that we had a Navy stronger than that of any other country. It was not surprising that first-class European Powers should have first-class fleets; but the smaller Powers were collecting formidable iron-clads, and might, by a combination of which we had some instances lately, direct an attack against this country. Our policy now, however, was to hold our hands in building large ships for some time to come, and whatever we could afford to spend should be spent to complete our inner line of defence, and arm our commercial ports with a force of gunboats sufficient to protect them from invasion. In this way we should avoid those periodical panics which were so expensive, and which caused so much suffering to the working classes. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) on many points; but he did not approve of his suggestions with regard to alterations in the dockyards. It would be found that very considerable additions were required in the dockyards. At Portsmouth, for instance, the master shipwright had to do duty as storekeeper and engineer; and it was absurd that one man could perform the work of those three offices. The hon. Member recommended that when a ship came into harbour the master shipwright should estimate its defects. Under the present system, when a ship arrived from foreign service, the officer sent in a sheet of defects, which was forwarded to London, and after elaborate calculations an order was sent down for repairs. But, perhaps, in the meantime, when the ship had been docked, more serious defects were discovered, and these were entered in a supplementary sheet, which was sent to the Admiral Superintendent. However, as economy had to be observed, the unfortunate officer had probably to be content with having only half the defects of his ship made good. No one could understand the mass of accounts which had been accumulated; and many accounts for work done under one Admiralty did not make their appearance until the whole of the Admiralty had evaporated. Not a single member of the recent Admiralty remained; for the First

  1825
  Lord had gone abroad, the Secretary to the Admiralty had been transferred to another and a better place, and the Controller had been superseded. When the accounts were made known next year, no doubt many hon. Gentlemen would come down to the House overflowing with wrath; but they would find no one to blame, because the Admiralty, under whose direction those expenses had been incurred, was gone. He admired the good sense of the present First Lord, and hoped he would improve this state of affairs. In order to do so, he would have to recur to the old arrangement, and have a Board largely composed of naval elements, and he must call in to his counsels scientific men, able to decide neglected questions. He would find wreck and ruin in every part of the naval service; and he could not do better than follow the example of another right hon. Gentleman, and make a clean breast of it and recant the whole thing. The wisdom of 300 years, which he would advise the right hon. Gentleman, if he might, to return to, could not be upset with impunity by any incompetent civilian. He desired especially to call the attention of the House to the scientific branch of the Navy. The shortcomings of the Admiralty had been most painfully brought under his notice in connection with his suggestion to the India Office for the opening of a canal between Ceylon and the mainland of India for the purpose of shortening the passage to Calcutta. The answer made to him was, that the localities had not been properly surveyed. He had, however, some reason to believe that those seas had been minutely surveyed, and after careful investigation, he found that in 1861 the Government of India, in a fit of economy, had given up surveys, and handed over to the Admiralty the responsibility of surveying the Indian Seas. The Admiralty accepted the responsibility, and forthwith paid off the officers and extinguished the service. And so great was the fever for economy at that time that they actually reduced to pulp 30 or 40 tons of records, bearing upon some of the most interesting operations which led to the acquirement of our Indian Possessions, and the material was sold for 12 s. per cwt; £100 being carried to Her Majesty's Exchequer as the result. Amongst the documents destroyed was a whole set of charts of the Red Sea, so
  1826
  that it would be necessary for that sea to be re-surveyed, at considerable expense. He found some of the charts, with which he was more particularly concerned, stowed away at the Admiralty. No blame attached to the officers at the Admiralty in this matter, for the Surveying Department was confined in the most wretched dog-holes of rooms, and certainly required a little of the right hon. Gentleman's time and attention. There was no civil engineer in the City of London who would not be ashamed of carrying on the surveys necessary for his business in such rooms as they had at the Admiralty, for the accommodation of a Department which had the surveying of the world under its charge, and which had to execute works of the greatest importance. If the First Lord, when at the Admiralty, went upstairs to Admiral Richards's room, and those above it, he would find something which would astonish him, and he (Sir James Elphinstone) should, be deceived in the right hon. Gentleman if he did not soon make some most necessary and favourable changes. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, a small Committee, composed of scientific and naval men, be appointed permanently, to investigate the designs of all ironclad and other vessels proposed to be built for the service of the Royal Navy, and to report to the Board of Admiralty as to their stability, and fitness in other respects, to fulfil the purposes for which they are intended,"—(Sir James Elphinstone,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, the effect of the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) would be to appoint a permanent Committee which would direct the Admiralty in all its proceedings, and he could scarcely imagine a more unfortunate arrangement. He could understand the hon. Member's dissatisfaction with the vessels produced by successive Admiralties; but his proposal would not remedy the evil of which he complained. The Motion of the hon. Baronet would erect into permanence a Court that would have control over the Admiralty, and take

  1827
  on itself the responsibility of the stability of vessels and their fitness in other respects. The object of the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seeley) in 1868, which he supported, was to obtain a scientific inquiry, to take into consideration the leading characteristics that should be adopted in the future construction of vessels for the Navy. Now, the general characteristics were those which were the groundwork for the policy of shipbuilding throughout the country—and a large deliberative assembly of scientific men might prove useful in laying the groundwork of a sound policy of shipbuilding; and these were matters which might fairly come under the consideration of the House. But any interference with minute details would take from the Admiralty that responsibility which ought to rest upon them. He thought a more disastrous course could not be adopted, and therefore felt it his duty to oppose the Motion.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would ask the hon. Baronet not to press his Motion in its present form, especially as he believed a Committee already existed whose business it was to advise the Admiralty upon the subject of designs, as well as another Committee to investigate the nature of the designs of certain ships which were referred to them, and respecting which they had already afforded some information to the House. To those Committees it seemed superfluous to add a third, which could only perform the same functions. If, however, the office of Constructor of the Navy were re-constituted at a time when neither of those Committees was sitting, there would be some reason for the proposal to refer designs to some scientific persons, besides which the plans should be submitted to some naval gentlemen. As some re-construction of the Board of Admiralty must be made, some body like the old Navy Board might be appointed, by which means much work would be distributed to those who would have time to attend to it, and would be removed from one overworked man, who could not now be held responsible on account of the amount of work he had to do.
  MR. GOSCHENobjected to the proposal of the hon. Baronet, because the appointment of a permanent Committee would relieve the Admiralty of express
  1828
  responsibility, and trusted he would not insist upon a Division. The precedents on which the hon. Baronet relied did not relate to a permanent Committee, but rather referred to such a Committee as had recently been appointed to consider certain specific questions. It had frequently been said that the naval element at the Board of Admiralty had been suppressed; but the hon. Baronet, in repeating the statement, had forgotten to mention that besides the First Sea Lord and the Junior Lord, the Board had the assistance of Captain Hall, the Third Lord, who had succeeded to Admiral Robinson, Admiral Richards, the hydrographer, of Admiral Mends, Captain Hood, Captain Willes, and he was not sure that there were not other naval men connected with the Admiralty. The statement that the Navy had no opportunity of making its voice heard at the Admiralty ought not to remain uncontradicted, because the First Lord had every means of deriving great assistance from the naval profession. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Baronet, the House would recognize the inconvenience of having a separate Committee of naval and scientific men sitting permanently. As long as he held the position of First Lord it would be his desire to avail himself, to the greatest possible extent, of the aid of such scientific and naval men as were willing to afford assistance, and his predecessor had done so before the appointment of the existing Committee. That Committee had rendered eminent service in clearing up the questions which were referred to it; but, from an administrative point of view, considerable difficulty was likely to arise from the appointment of such Committees, owing to their interference with the current business of the office. The country would derive much advantage from the investigation as to the stability of ships and other controverted questions, but the responsibility of the Admiralty ought not to be diminished. The object of the Admiralty in appointing the present Committee was that the country might be assured as to a matter of great interest, on account of which it was worth while to incur some inconvenience; but if an irresponsible Committee were co-existent with the Admiralty for any lengthened period, in what position would the latter be placed? If the Admiralty overruled the decision of

  1829
  the Committee as to the design of a ship, a controversy would immediately arise in this House, while if the Admiralty followed the decision there would simply be a transfer of responsibility. He felt sure the House would not sanction the appointment of such a Committee, however great might be the services it would render at particular periods.
  MR. CORRYsaid, he had had the good fortune to serve at the Admiralty with three Controllers of the Navy, or Surveyors, as they were formerly called, of very great ability, for whom he had the highest respect, yet he never felt quite satisfied on the subject of designs, nor quite sure that the ship ordered would be the ne plus ultrâ of perfection in shipbuilding. Every vessel was the result of a series of compromises, and what produced a good effect in one direction often tended to an evil effect in another; and the difficulty was how to combine the various objects aimed at with the best general results. The department of the Controller of the Navy was divided into two distinct branches—one the shipbuilding, and the other the engineering branch, and in each of these a totally different principle prevailed. As a rule, all designs for ships were prepared in the Controller's Department; but although the Engineer-in-Chief had been as competent in his branch as the Chief Constructor, the designs for engines were never prepared at the Admiralty, but invariably obtained from the first engineering firms in the country. He had a strong opinion as to the advisability of obtaining advice from private shipbuilders also, as he had shown by calling for competitive designs when he held the office of First Lord; but the experiment which he made did not have a satisfactory result, for although he obtained an excellent design for a turret-ship from Mr. Laird, yet that was mainly a copy of the Captain, and he was not disposed to build a second ship on that plan until the first had been tried, and he thought he had reason to congratulate himself and the country for having resolved on that policy. A permanent Committee would, he thought, be apt to get into a groove, like the permanent officers at the Admiralty; and he was therefore inclined to think that a permanent Committee would be a mistake. At the same time, considering the enormous cost of our ships at the present day, more
  1830
  money being frequently spent on a great ship than was spent on a palace, he suggested that before a design, especially for a new armour-clad ship, was approved, it should be referred to some of the ablest scientific men whose advice could be obtained, including the naval officers best acquainted with the subject of naval armaments. He had hardly over talked over a new armour-clad ship with naval officers without receiving suggestions of great value, though unfortunately these could not be adopted without incurring great expense, the vessel being already built. In his opinion, the armament of our ships was not in a satisfactory state There was no reason why vessels of the Minotaur class should not be armed with 25-ton guns, for bow and stern chase, and he knew it to be the opinion of a distinguished gunnery officer that even 35-ton guns could be worked on board them. In the event of a war the armament of our ships would be of the greatest possible importance, for on the weight and power of the guns the issue of a naval engagement might depend. He hoped, therefore, that the First Lord would see that every design was thoroughly considered and discussed, and would get the best advice to be obtained from outside, so that in respect of construction, rigging, and armament these costly ships might be turned out in the best possible way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—CASE OF COMMANDER CHEYNE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAYrose to call attention to the case of J. Powles Cheyne, a retired Commander in Her Majesty's Navy—a case, in his opinion, of considerable hardship, and one which he had undertaken to bring before the House on its own merits. He (Sir John Hay) had the honour of submitting the case to the House last Session—[See 3 Hansard, cxcix. 1248]—but owing, as he was afraid, to his imperfect advocacy, he was unable to induce the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) to do that justice in the matter to which he thought that Commander Cheyne was justly entitled. That distinguished officer had since petitioned the House to take his case into consideration. In that Petition he stated

  1831
  that he entered the Royal Navy in 1844, and had accompanied three expeditions to the Arctic Seas; his services on each of those occasions being fully recognized by Sir James Ross, Captain Austin, and Sir Edward Belcher. He was afterwards appointed to the Simoom, a vessel employed in the time of the Mutiny in carrying troops to India. Whilst serving in this ship off the Cape of Good Hope, he saved a man from drowning, but had his own skull fractured in the effort. The accident, however, did not impair his reason, but prevented him from serving in hot climates. On his return home, he applied for his promotion to the Duke of Somerset, one of the fairest and best First Lords who had ever served at the Admiralty, who thought it better to provide for him in another way. There existed at that time at the Naval Hospitals, appointments filled by naval lieutenants, whose duty it was to superintend the wards, assist the medical officers, and see that discipline was maintained. The result of his application was, that the noble Duke appointed him lieutenant of the Royal Naval Hospital at Plymouth, as he believed for life, or at any rate so long as he could discharge the duties. The advantages of his appointment were that his half-pay of £150 was increased by £200, with a house partially furnished, and certain other emoluments worth about £80 a-year; making an income of £430 a-year—as he thought for life. The appointment, moreover, was given as a reward for meritorious services. In 1869, however, he was dismissed by the then First Lord of the Admiralty, in consequence of the reductions made in that Department, and so lost not only his salary, but also being obliged to spend £60 for the removal of his furniture. He had since applied in vain for compensation; but his salary was to be continued until he should be 55 years of age. Upon the retirement scheme, he retired upon the new retired pay of his rank according to length of service, and the additional rank of Commander was also granted. About a month or so afterwards the Admiralty informed the Commander "that they were in communication with the Treasury as to how his position would be affected by the new retired scheme." After a considerable correspondence, Commander Cheyne was unable from the 1st April, 1870, to draw
  1832
  a single penny of his retired pay. He then enclosed Her Majesty's Order in Council to the Queen, humbly imploring that Her Majesty might graciously cause her Order in Council to be carried into effect. This step at length obtained an order from the Admiralty that he was to receive his retired pay of £275 per annum; but the same letter informed him that his pension was to be reduced from £200 to £80 2s. 6d. per annum, the deduction exactly counterbalancing the increase of the retirement, leaving him in receipt of £355 2s. 6d. per annum until he was 55 years of age, after which time his pension was to be withdrawn, leaving him with only £275 per annum. Commander Cheyne was subsequently reduced to narrow circumstances. He applied to the Duke of Somerset for his Grace's intervention. The noble Duke replied by expressing his regret at the view taken by the Board of Admiralty—that when he appointed him to the Hospital he did not foresee the abolition of the office—but that not being then in office he could not interfere in the matter. He (Sir John Hay) thought that, considering the many hardships this gallant officer had endured in the public service, the risks he had run, and the misfortunes which had befallen him, the House would be prepared to take his case into consideration, and afford him such redress as his grievance merited. It was true he got the rank of Commander; but that would not help him to educate or maintain his children, while it should not be forgotten that he had been reduced from a position in which he had been supporting himself in comfort and respectability to one of comparative poverty and distress. He hoped, therefore, the case of Commander Cheyne would be considered favourably by the Admiralty, and that they would deem it right to give him some equivalent for the salary of which he had been deprived.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped he should be able to satisfy the House that the gallant officer in question had been treated with liberality, instead of his case being one of hardship. He had no wish to dispute the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) who had just spoken, with respect to the services of Commander Cheyne, who had, he believed, done good service to his country, but who,

  1833
  unfortunately, had lost his health in 1863, so that it was impossible he could be promoted to active service. The Duke of Somerset eventually gave him an appointment in the Naval Hospital at Plymouth, and according to his hon. and gallant Friend he was given to understand that the appointment was for life. That, however, was not the case, and Commander Cheyne was only entitled to hold that appointment until he was 55 years of age, when, according to the rules of the service, he would have to retire. On the abolition of the appointment in 1868, his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was most anxious to do what was right by the gallant gentleman, and intended to procure him an appointment in the Coastguard; but, pending that, he was given an allowance of £200 a-year, so as to bring up the allowances and half-pay to the salary which he received when at Plymouth Hospital, and he was to receive this till retirement. Of course when he retired on half-pay under the retirement scheme, the question arose whether he should receive the allowance of £200 a-year, and it was considered that he was not entitled to the whole of it; but only to the difference between his half-pay at the time and the amount of the allowance which he got under the old system. The allowance was accordingly reduced to £80 2s. 6d.; but the two payments made to him amounted together to the sum which he previously received. When in the Hospital, Commander Cheyne got a salary of £200 a-year, his half-pay being £127, while there was £50 the value of a house, making a total of £377 a-year. That amount he was to receive until the age of 55, when he was to be retired with half-pay amounting to £182 a-year. Now, at the present moment Commander Cheyne was in receipt of £275 retired pay, besides compensation amounting to £80 a-year, making together £355; while at the age of 55 he would have a pension of £275 a-year, instead of £182. Now, considering that he had no duties whatever to perform, and that he received almost identically the same amount as when he held the appointment at Plymouth Hospital, he was sure the House would be of opinion that he had been treated with that liberality which hon. Members no doubt desired to see extended to every officer in the service.
  1834
  There were, he might add, three or four other cases of precisely the same kind, in which no complaint whatever had been made, Commander Cheyne being, as far as he knew, the only one who had said he had a grievance.
  MR. F. STANLEYsaid, that where officers were engaged in arduous duties, they had a right to look for some consideration at the hands of the Government. If they were dealt with on the strictest principles of what they were entitled to receive, the country was likely to fall into the danger of meeting with that service only which they were obliged to give, and not with that cheerful fulfilment of duty which it had been the pride of the Navy to render. It appeared that Commander Cheyne had met with a serious accident which damaged his prospects materially and permanently injured his health, this accident had occurred while Commander Cheyne was in the service, and, as he was informed, while saving the life of one of the men of the fleet. If over there was a case in which the Admiralty would have been justified in applying their rules with leniency, it would be in a case of this kind. Commander Cheyne was appointed by a former First Lord to a place which was then understood to be permanent, though he was not inclined to dispute that it was subject to further revision by the Board of Admiralty. He understood that the appointment was one to be held during good behaviour, and that it was also one of those often given to officers who had deserved well of their country, the duties of which they were able to perform, though they might not be equal to the active service of the fleet. He would not go over all the facts; but would merely say that the fact of the summary supersession of Commander Cheyne was to that officer a grievous and unjust injury, and it further proved that a case of considerable hardship had been brought to the notice of the House by his hon. and gallant Friend, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman opposite would give it a favourable consideration.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £1,038,202, Victuals and Clothing (Seamen and Marines).
MR. CORRYsaid, that, as he was unavoidably absent when the First Lord of the Admiralty made his very clear Statement on the first night of the Naval Estimates, he was anxious to avail himself of the present opportunity to make a few remarks on the subject of the number of seamen at present borne on the books of the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the deficiency in the number of our seamen, and had spoken of it as "deplorable." In that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, for our seamen were the backbone of our Navy. It was the command of seamen which determined the position which any country could hold as a naval Power. Money might build ships, and purchase steam engines and stores, but it could not make seamen, and as the mercantile marine no longer furnished any considerable supply to the Royal Navy, it was of the greatest importance that an adequate number of pure seamen should be maintained in the service. But the First Lord of the Admiralty appeared to be unaware that the present Government had been burning the candle at both ends, and it was not surprising it should be wasting away. There had been a large reduction both of men and of boys since 1868, as, during the last two years, the Vote for men, exclusive of marines, had been reduced by upwards of 5,000, but he was himself responsible for nearly 1,000 of that number. In 1868, just before he left office, he had re-organized the reserve of ships in the ports, whereby he had reduced about 1,000 men, but these men had not in the least contributed to the power of the Navy, because they were old pensioned men, shipkeepers, and others unfit to go to sea. By that reform a considerable economy had been effected, as it had reduced the cost of the annual maintenance of each of the larger ships in the Reserve from £1,000 to £200. The late First Lord had also reduced a considerable number of unserviceable men. The actual number reduced by him by the Estimates for 1869–70, and 1870–1, was 4,070, but of these, according
1836
to his own Statement, 685 were blue-jackets, in the former year, and, in the latter, 500—showing a total reduction of 1,185 pure seamen in the two years, which was a very serious diminution. It might be interesting to the Committee to know how materially the number of pure seamen had been diminished of late years. In 1858 the number of pure seamen borne on the books of the Fleet was 23,161; in 1860, in consequence of the Italian War, they were increased to 32,700. In 1861, when the Civil War was raging in America, the number was 31,138, and there was then a gradual reduction to a normal state until 1864, when the number was again 23,039. In 1866 they were reduced to 20,805; in 1868, as stated by the late First Lord, to 20,085; and now, in 1871, they were about 18,000. The axiom amongst naval men was, that it was not safe to reduce the number of seamen below 20,000 men; and if it was important in former times that that number should be maintained, it was much more so at the present time, when the supply of men from the merchant navy might be said to have almost ceased. The cessation of the supply of seamen from the merchant navy was the necessary consequence of the establishment of the naval Reserve, since which the supply had been going down till it had almost reached zero. In the year 1860–1, when the Royal Naval Reserve was established, 2,788 men from the merchant service entered the Royal Navy, nearly making up for the waste of the year; in 1864–5 the number fell to 795; in 1866–7 it was 409; and the First Lord of the Admiralty said that in 1870–1 only 50 men entered the Royal Navy from the merchant service. As the Government could get no men from the merchant service it followed, of course, that the Royal Navy must be made self-supporting—that was to say, they must train up boys in sufficient numbers to maintain the required number of seamen. But the present Government had reduced the number of boys as well as of seamen. In the year 1868, the number of boys in the Navy was 7,765; in 1870–1, the number was 7,005 only. He had strongly objected to that reduction in the discussions on the Navy Estimates in 1869 and 1870, when he had stated that he had ascertained from a Return he had called for in 1868 that the number then borne was no more than adequate to supply the

1837
waste of men. Assuming that the proper number of seamen to be kept up was 20,000—below which he hoped the number would not be allowed permanently to fall—the number of boys in training required to supply the waste of men was 3,500. The waste of boys in 2½ years was 18 per cent; and in round numbers 3,500 boys in training provided 3,000 to reach the rating of ordinary seamen, which was just equal to the waste on 20,000 men. He had heard a rumour that the First Lord of the Admiralty intended to increase the number of boys by 500, and he should be glad to be assured that the rumour was true. If it was, he hailed it as an auspicious commencement of the naval administration of the First Lord, in which he wished him every success.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he mentioned, in introducing the Estimates, that there was considerable difficulty in filling up the gap that had occurred by the unfortunate loss of the Captain and another ship, which was the main cause why the number of blue-jackets had fallen below the number on the Estimates. The problem of the Navy was not that more men were wanted beyond the number in the Estimates, but in keeping up that number. If the right hon. Gentleman simply wished that the blue-jackets in the Fleet should be increased by 1,000, that was a proposition to which Her Majesty's Government could not accede. It was true that he had ordered 500 extra boys to be entered; but they were included in the Estimates of this year, in place of the blue-jackets who at present were not entering from the merchant service. There would be so many more boys; but so many fewer blue-jackets, because at present blue-jackets could not be got. Why could not they be got? He could not assent entirely to the views of the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. The fact was, the whole system of recruiting for the Navy had been changed, and instead of going into the market for recruits, the Admiralty recruited the Navy by entering boys, and there had been no difficulty in procuring as many boys as the Admiralty thought necessary. If you did not go permanently into the market for seamen, it was difficult to secure seamen at any moment when you wanted them. There was great unanimity of opinion upon this point—that the material which
1838
the Admiralty got from entering boys was infinitely superior to that which could be got from entering men from on shore. The right hon. Gentleman contrasted the number of seamen in 1858—namely, 23,000—with the present number, which was over 18,000. Well, he (Mr. Goschen) maintained that 18,000 with the present class of ships, was a force far superior to that of 23,000 with the ships of the year 1858. Two or three of the ships that were now being built would be equal to a whole squadron of former times. Surely, then, it could not be contended that we were bound to have as many seamen now as we had in former times. There was another and a very serious point which would be appreciated by the right hon. Gentleman, and that was that when the Admiralty had got a large number of men it was exceedingly difficult to employ them with the present ships. An iron-clad fleet was not like a squadron of the old style of ships, which could cruise under sail for long periods. Iron-clads constantly required to be coaled, if they were to be kept at sea; and that difficulty increased in proportion to the substitution of iron-clads for other ships. The best course that could be adopted was to have a large Reserve Force, the men in which were engaged in seafaring pursuits during the greater part of the year, who were trained to work guns, and whose services could be had at any moment on an emergency. If a regular force of 30,000 men was kept up under the present system of armour-clad vessels, the men would be in harbour more than half the year, to the great detriment not only of the service, but of themselves. He was quite alive to the necessity of keeping up the number of boys in the service, as urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Corry), and he had already shown it by his proposal to increase their number. He believed that the number of men in the service at the present moment was 18,000; but, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite disputed that fact, he supposed that he had been in communication with one of the clerks of the office, who had given him information on the subject. [Mr. CORRY: I never go near the Admiralty.] The right hon. Gentleman had made that statement upon what he termed good authority; but it was evident that there could be no good

1839
authority upon the exact figures, except those who were in the Admiralty.
MR. CORRYremarked that it was only due to the clerks in the Admiralty Office that he should state that he had not obtained his information from any of them upon this subject. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman assuming that nobody out of the Admiralty Office could have any knowledge as to the number of men in the Navy. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that officers in the Navy, who paid attention to to such subjects, could not form an estimate, or that he (Mr. Corry) himself could not do so? He had not asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to increase the number of blue-jackets, for the best of reasons; because that would have been a request to perform an impossibility. The blue-jackets could not be got. The Admiralty seemed to him to content themselves in this, and every other branch of the service, with making humdrum provision for a peace establishment, without ever providing for the possibility of a war; but, in the opinion of the highest authorities, the number of seamen should never be reduced below 20,000, and that number could easily be gained by entering a sufficient number of boys. This might be effected in two and a-half or three years, when boys now entered would obtain ratings as ordinary seamen.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he had had the honour of serving upon the Naval Commission, which recommended that the Reserve Force in the ports should never be reduced below 5,000 men. In not carrying out that recommendation, he considered that the Admiralty were not fulfilling their duty to the country. It was impossible rapidly to increase the naval force from the mercantile service; and even when the men were obtained they were generally not worth having. That circumstance, combined with the present small number of blue-jackets in the service, would have rendered it impossible to commission 12 sail of the line, had circumstances made such a course necessary during the past 12 months. He must say, that having been for 50 years in the service, he was just as capable of judging of what was going on in the Navy as the right hon. Gentleman himself, or any of the Admiralty clerks. He had been to look at the ships for himself,
1840
and he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was not a well-manned ship in the Navy; and he would mention, as a fact, that he had seen a sloop of 600 tons go to sea with only 20 able-seamen on board—a number utterly inadequate to manage her. It was well known that Her Majesty's ships could not go to windward, and therefore the masts and yards of the ships ought to be reduced to a manageable size. During the last 12 months 1,000 men had been lost to the service, including the 500 lost in the unfortunate affair of the Captain, and he considered that, if this country were dragged into war, we should not have an able-seaman to fall back upon, which was a disgraceful position for us to occupy. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, who was not answerable for existing shortcomings in the Admiralty, would look into the matter for himself, and would refrain from coming down to that House to defend a system which every man with the slightest acquaintance with naval affairs knew was utterly indefensible. He should move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
MR. BOWRING, observing that the discussion had mainly reference to a Vote which had already passed the Committee, asked for an explanation of the large increase in the Vote for Seamen's Clothing in the class now under consideration.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken, and that it was always competent to discuss the numbers of men on Vote 2, which provided the victuals to feed the men. Before making a few observations on the subject of the entry of boys for the Navy, he wished to express his deep regret at the loss of Mr. Reddie, a distinguished public servant, to whom the country was much indebted for many years of useful service. His calculations respecting the supply of boys assisted the late Board in deciding the numbers of boys to be entered annually for training, and the result of which had been to fix the number at 7,400 as required to compensate the waste of 18,000 men. The First Lord of the Admiralty proposed that there should be 7,500 Boys for the Navy; but that would be

1841
only 100 over the number required to supply the ordinary waste of 18,000 men, and would hardly replace the 500 men lost by the extraordinary calamity to the Captain, or the 300 who deserted from the Flying Squadron. It would be advantageous to increase the number of boys under training, while shortening the time of service for the men; making it eight years instead of ten, and then discharging them into the Royal Naval Reserve. It seemed to him that by some such process as that the Naval Reserve would be receiving well-trained men, who would be available for service in the event of an emergency. The expenditure for training a larger number of boys as seamen at all the various ports, with advantage to themselves and also to the country, should be borne not only by the naval Votes, but to some extent also by the Board of Trade, and even by the Educational Department.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKanimadverted on the increase of nearly £70,000 on the Victualling and Clothing Vote this year, and asked for an explanation regarding it? The Government often did very silly things, and one of them was continuing to go into the metropolitan market, the dearest in the world, to buy fresh meat for the purpose of salting it at Deptford for the use of their ships, instead of buying it ready cured in Ireland, on the Continent, or in America, where it could be had as good and much cheaper.
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, said they had an excellent Reserve of 4,300 Coastguardsmen; a most valuable force, itself only 700 men short of the 5,000 which the hon. Baronet was anxious to get; in addition to which there was never a time when we had more seamen in our ports ready for immediate service than at present. As he had explained in introducing his Estimates, the present system of having fewer squadrons abroad, and concentrating our force at home, had materially strengthened our position, and the diminution of our seamen had occurred in our fleets abroad, not in those available for home defence. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the First Lord of the Amiralty and his clerks as being unequal to deal with those naval matters on which his own naval experience entitled him speak with authority. As far as he was personally concerned
1842
that might be true; but he demurred to the tone of the hon. Baronet's remarks in reference to the many gallant admirals and captains of great experience, great acquirements, and high position in the service who were engaged at the Admiralty, and who were quite as competent as the hon. Baronet to judge whether our fleets were well-manned or not; and, in connection with that subject, he admitted the whole question of the supply of boys to be one of the most important connected with Naval administration. With regard to the increase of the sum required for stores, the explanation was that last year there were large stocks on hand, and therefore it was necessary to spend less money than in the present year. He entirely agreed with the hon. Alderman (Mr. Alderman Lusk) with respect to the supply of preserved meat; but there was an old contract for 11 years in existence which somewhat tied the hands of the Admiralty.
MR. CORRYobserved that the Coastguard was in existence when the Royal Commission sat; and that Commission recommended that the Reserve should be greatly increased. With regard to the oil supplied to the Navy, he understood that it was of a very bad description.
MR. CANDLISHcomplained that no reference had been made to the fact that we were paying more and receiving less this year than last, and no explanation had been given of the fact.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in his observations he had not alluded to the gallant officers at the Admiralty, but to others, who in giving advice to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord had no responsibility whatever. He altogether repudiated the notion that he and his friends who ventured to criticize the Estimates, derived their information in a stealthy manner from the subordinate officers employed there.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that when he was at the Admiralty a large contract for the supply of preserved meat from Australia was entered into, and the late First Lord declared that that proceeding was successful. He wished to know whether the accounts received from the ships and depôts were confirmatory of the good quality of the meat?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the reports on the Australian meats had been

1843
very satisfactory. There was danger in obtaining preserved meats without taking precautions as to quality; but he was bound to say that the meat of this kind supplied to the Flying Squadron was very good.
SIR JOHN HAYconfirmed the statement that the arrangement for Australian preserved meats had given great satisfaction, and he was glad to hear that it was to be continued. It was due to the Admiralty to state that the provisions supplied to the Flying Squadron were of very good quality.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £67,103, Scientific Departments.
SIR JOHN HAYinquired, Why there had been a reduction in the amount of rewards under this Vote; also, why there had been a reduction in the surveys; and, whether the interesting deep-sea dredging experiments undertaken by Dr. Carpenter were to be continued this year?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the amount taken for rewards was reduced in consequence of the experience of past years, and in doing so there was no change of policy. No more than £500 had been expended in previous years, and therefore only that amount was now asked for. As to the surveys, the reduction was made in consequence of part of the survey having closed. He must ask the forbearance of the hon. Baronet in reference to his third question, not being able at present to answer it.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, that in 1861 the Government undertook the whole of the Indian Surveys, and yet since then nothing had been done. The survey papers, as to the Red Sea, he understood had been lost at the Admiralty; and it was very desirable, with the increasing commerce, that there should be a fresh survey there. The mouths of several Indian rivers also required fresh surveys, because there were constant changes going on there. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them the assurance that this matter would not linger any longer.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Indian Surveys were under consideration by the Indian Department.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was always an increase going on in the salaries of the officials of the different Departments,
1844
and he would be glad to hear that the First Lord's attention was directed to this.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, it required a continual check to keep salaries down; but he could assure the Committee that a careful cheek was to be found in the Treasury. There was scarcely one of these salaries which had been increased, which had not been fought very hard in the Treasury; and it was only when a very strong case was made out that an advance of salary was made. As to the case of the Royal Observatory, considering the arduous nature of the duties, the officers there were not at all highly paid.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he had noticed not only this year, but every year, that there had been a small increase on almost every salary. Two years ago, he had examined the accounts from 1835 downwards, to ascertain why the Estimates were doubled; and he had found £20 in one place, £30 in another place, and £50 in a third: the result of the combined increases being that the Votes presented an increase of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 to what they were a few years ago. He was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty would keep his eye upon this.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he believed a similar state of things would be found to have occurred in every house of business in the country.
Vote agreed to.
On Motion to report Progress,
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES BILL— [BILL 91.]
(Mr. Baxter, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY NOTES BILL— [BILL 91.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS moved—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have the power to introduce provisions into the Bill making the Law uniform as to the days upon which bills falling due upon holidays shall be payable."
  In an article in The Times on the 24th of this month, it was pointed out that a great discrepancy would be caused by the Bank Holidays Bill, as the effect of it would be that in some cases bills falling

  1845
  due on a public holiday would become payable on the previous day, and in other cases on the day following. He had conferred with many bankers, merchants, and lawyers upon the subject, and the only objection urged against his proposals proceeded from some of the latter, who said it would nip in the bud a fine crop of litigation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have the power to introduce provisions into the Bill milking the Law uniform as to the days upon which bills falling due upon Holidays shall be payable."—(Mr. Watkin Williams.)
  MR. BAXTERhoped the House would not consent to the Instruction; because it had nothing whatever to do with the Bill before the House, which was a simple Stamp Bill, introduced in accordance with a promise made by the Prime Minister, when a previous measure was under consideration. He had received several representations from Chambers of Commerce, expressing hopes that the Government would resist the hon. Gentleman's Motion, as the matter was one which ought not to be dealt with in a Stamp Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that some time ago he urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring forward this Bill in precisely its present form; and he thought it was the general opinion of the House that it should be allowed to pass sub silentio, without any alterations being introduced into it. He should, therefore, strongly support the Government in this matter.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watkin Williams) would prejudice the question by forcing his Motion to a Division. It ought to be taken up on independent grounds, rather than in connection with the present Bill.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he would also appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the Motion. In order to effect the great object of giving holidays to bankers' and merchants' clerks, it was worth while to run the risk of the very slight inconvenience which, in some cases, might possibly arise from bills being payable in some cases a day before, and in others a day after a holiday.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

DOGS BILL— [BILL 114.]
(Mr. Winterbotham, Mr. Secretary Bruce.)
DOGS BILL— [BILL 114.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, explained that the 1st section extended to the country the provisions of an Act now in operation in the metropolis, in reference to stray dogs, authorizing the police to take possession of any dog found straying on the highway, not being under the control of any person, and to detain it until claimed by its owner. Should such dog wear a collar bearing an address, notice to be sent by post to such address of the fact of detention. When three clear days have elapsed, without the owner claiming the same and paying all expenses, such dog may be sold or destroyed. The 2nd section authorized the justices to order dangerous dogs to be destroyed. The 3rd section empowered the local authority, meaning in a borough the council, elsewhere, the justices assembled in Petty Sessions, on apprehending danger from mad dogs within their district, to publish an order placing such restrictions as they may think expedient on dogs being at large for such a period as they may prescribe, and for such parts of the district as may be thought proper. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. DILLWYNthought the Bill gave powers of too arbitrary a character, which would require modification in Committee.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad this Bill had been introduced, as there was much doubt about the law on the subject; and suggested that power of appeal should be given, not so much against the order, as the conviction by the local authority.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend the Law relating to Criminal and Dangerous Lunatics in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. ADAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. Bill [117.]

  VACCINATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to alter and amend the Law relating to Vaccination in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. Secretary BRUCE, and Mr. ADAM.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 118.]

  METROPOLITAN POOR ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STANSFELD, Bill to amend the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STANSFELD and Mr. HIBBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 119.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Second Report—University Tests (No. 78).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Protection of Life and Property in certain Parts of Ireland* (77).
Committee—Bankruptcy Disqualification* (65–79).
Committee—Report—Local Government Supplemental* (58); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental* (62).
Third Reading—County Property* (35); Fairs* (44), and passed.

EPPING FOREST.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONasked the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Whether there was any objection to the issue of a writ for the election of a Verderer of Epping Forest, the legal number of four having been reduced by death to one? He understood that a large number of beautiful trees had been marked for destruction during the ensuing month, which there would be some chance of saving if proper officers were appointed. The remaining Verderer was unable by himself to constitute a court; but if another was elected this could be done, and he was informed that at least one gentleman of position in the county was prepared to serve the office. He understood also that several landed proprietors in the county were anxious for an election, in order that certain disputes as to forestal rights might be settled, and that the object which he himself had in view might be attained—namely, the preservation of a portion, at least, of this beautiful forest for the benefit of the densely populated districts in the East-end of London which bordered closely upon it.
THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied that it was for the freeholders of the county to petition him in the usual form, proving the death of the late Verderers. This had been done in the case of the New Forest, a writ being thereupon issued.

EPPING FOREST.—QUESTION.

  PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN CERTAIN PARTS OF IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to empower the Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of Ireland to apprehend and detain for a limited time persons suspected of being members of the Ribbon Society, or of being concerned in the commission of any crime or outrage under the direction or influence of the said Ribbon Society, in the county of Westmeath or in certain adjoining portions of the county of Meath and the King's county; and to continue "The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1870"—Was presented by The Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 77.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.