begged to ask the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure to provide for a more effectual audit of railway accounts? In connexion with this subject he might direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a report lately printed relative to an investigation instituted by the Eastern Counties Railway Company. In that case auditors were appointed under the Act of Parliament, which directed that the accounts should be placed in the hands of the auditors at least fourteen days before the meeting at which they were presented; but the accounts were not submitted to the auditors until the very last day, and, consequently, they were unable to give them a thorough examination. He considered that some change in the law was absolutely necessary.

said, that in the course of the last Session a Bill came down to that House from the House of Lords for establishing an improved system of auditing railway accounts. He then expressed his opinion that it was most desirable that a more efficient audit of railway accounts should be provided, and he voted for the second reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, however, the House took a different view of the measure, and threw it out by a considerable majority. He had reason to believe that the subject had undergone most careful consideration in a Committee of the House of Lords. He expected that a measure would very speedily emanate from that Committee; but, if he were disappointed in that expectation, he should feel it his duty, on the part of the Government, to submit a measure to the House.

moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He thought the House must be of opinion, after the debates which had taken place on this Bill, that it was not one likely to prove effectual as a measure for affording relief in the destitute districts in Ireland. He reiterated his opinion that any attempt to collect the rate in aid would seriously interfere with the operation of the Irish poor-law.

, in seconding the Amendment, said that the present measure was pernicious in its tendency, and would prove most inefficient in its provisions. The inevitable result of it would be to alienate the affections of the most loyal portion of Her Majesty's subjects. They knew that disaffection was unhappily very prevalent in Ireland, and the Government had but recently been compelled to take extraordinary measures for the purpose of preventing that disaffection taking the shape of rebellion in that country. It appeared that the people of Ireland were now forced to adopt a measure which was revolting to the feelings, the just feelings, of the most loyal portion of that kingdom. The effect of it would be to strengthen considerably the argument in favour of repeal. This measure was pressed upon them against the conviction and the most strenuous opposition of almost the whole of the Irish representatives. It was passed in utter ignorance of the circumstances of Ireland, and with the erroneous idea that England would derive a benefit by throwing upon the Irish the duty of maintaining their own poor. They were treating this as a provincial question, and were withdrawing, as it were, from Ireland the privilege to which she was entitled—that of being one of the component parts of the united kingdom. Notwithstanding the evidence of the lamentable distress in some of the unions in the west of Ireland, he had considerable doubts as to the urgent necessity of such a measure as this, which alleged urgent necessity, indeed, was the only argument by which Ministers met the opposition to this Bill. They were now about giving outdoor relief, without accompanying it with any practical test whatever of the destitution of the particular districts. They were thus opening the door to every species of abuse, fraud, and imposture, against which they would have no adequate protection. Even in this country, where the poor-law worked under more favourable circumstances, they found how inadequate, after all, their machinery was to check it. In Ireland, however, they had thrown down all those barriers which they had erected in England, and placed no check whatever to these abuses in the distressed unions. It appeared, by official returns, that in Clare there were 70,000 persons receiving outdoor relief, while in Donegal there were only 2,000 in a similar position. That fact proved that the measure before the House would operate unequally, and, therefore, unfairly. The leading objections to the Bill had, on so many occasions, been so well pressed upon the consideration of the House by the Irish representatives, that he would not further dwell upon them. But it was impossible they could blind their eyes to the fact that there was at present a great crisis in the affairs of Ireland—that that country was passing through a revolution of great magnitude and importance. It was proposed that the crisis in question should be dealt with by exceptional means, but he was opposed to that principle. He believed that they would only he able to weather the difficulty they had to contend with by upholding the rights of property, and the supremacy of the law as it present existed. Measures which tended to produce violent changes, such as the confiscation of property or vested interests in property, would, in his opinion, only render more lasting the evils which were intended to be removed.

regretted that he was not in time to move the Amendment which had been proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry. He hoped, however, that the House would bear with him whilst he made a few remarks in reference to the measure, and referred to some official returns containing matter which bore upon the question. In the first place, let him be allowed to state that there was no disinclination—that there never had been any disinclination—on the part of those Irish Members with whom he generally acted to submit themselves to any altered system of taxation that might be required by the circumstances of the country. But they certainly did think it unfair that after having expressed their disapprobation of the measure—after the great debate that had taken place upon it—the consideration which it had undergone, and the jockeyship that had been resorted to in order to carry it— the Government should come down and offer them the alternative of an income tax; and that only three or four days should be allowed them to consider the proposition. The Irish Members had no finance committee, the result of whose labours might perhaps be a guide to them in coming to a decision upon the question; but he had before him a few statistical details which he would venture to bring under the notice of the House, with the view of showing that Ireland, as compared with England, was over-taxed. But before going into them, let him just ask why, if the Government had been in earnest with regard to an income tax for Ireland, they did not support the proposition of the hon. Member for Kerry? He did not believe that they were ever in earnest on the subject, or that they were entitled to thanks for their merciful consideration in not extending the tax to Ireland. His belief was, they were quite aware that an income tax and assessed taxes would not be worth collecting in Ireland; and therefore it was that those taxes were not imposed. He would now refer to the returns he had mentioned, from which it appeared that the rateable property in England was 108,000,000l.; that the average poor-rates, church rates, and highway rates, amounted to 10,000,000l. at 2s. in the pound, to which he added 7d. in the pound for income tax, and 5d. for assessed taxes, making a total of 3s. in the pound. According to the return of 1842, the rateable property in Ireland was valued at 13,187,420l., which, after deducting one-fourth for depreciation, in accordance with Mr. Griffiths' statement, left 9,890,565l. The local taxation of Ireland consisted, of poor-rates expended (1848), l,855,841l., county-cess (annual average), 142,302l., repayment of relief advances for ten years, 272,821l., and repayment of advances (Burgoyne's Commission), 953,355l, making a total of 4,224,319l.; or a tax of 8s. 4d. in the pound on the present depreciated rackrent value, or a tax of 6s. 2d. in the pound on the poor-law valuation of 1842 and 1843. The gross income of England, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was 250,000,000l., and of Ireland 18,000,000l. or 20,000,000l. The latter was, therefore, less than l–12th that of England. The net revenue of Ireland, on an average of ten years to 1844, was 4,164,264l., and the gross revenue of Great Britain and Ireland, 52,000,000l. Consequently, Ireland was paying her full proportion, without taking into account the customs and excise duties paid in England for articles purchased there for consumption in Ireland. He would next refer to a return showing the liabilities of five counties in Ireland, supposing the maximum limit of poor-rate to be fixed at 7s. 6d. in the pound, by which it appeared that the liability of Clare for repayment of relief works, county cess, poor-rate and relief advances (Burgoyne's), would be 14s. 8¾d in the pound on the poor valuation of 1842 and 1843, or 18s. 4¾d. on the present depreciated value; for Mayo, 13s. 11¼d. in the first instance, or 17s. 4¾d. in the latter; for Kerry, 13s. 3d. or 16s. 6¾d.; for Galway, 12s. 5d. or 15s. 6¼d.; and for Limerick, 12s. 0¼d. or 15s. 0¼d. He believed that it could be proved that Ireland now paid more than war taxes. There had been taxes remitted, in Great Britain, from 1814 to 1846, to the amount of 51,236,420l., and in Ireland to the amount only of 2,903,995l.; so that out of the total taxation remitted, 54,140,415l., Ireland had had remitted not quite 3,000,000l He had therefore shown that Ireland bore a very fair proportion, if not a greater proportion of taxation than she ought. Ireland was constantly held out as a burden on this country, and as a drag on her resources; and the advantage which Ireland had proved to this country in years past, and the circumstance that Ireland was forced by England into connexion with her, seemed to be lost sight of. Prom 1800 to 1847, there had been remitted from the British Exchequer to the Irish 7,995,640l., while there had been remitted from the Irish to the British Exchequer during the same period, 27,339,813l. Whatever might be the operation of the corn law in England, there could be no doubt but that Ireland had been a sufferer to a very great degree. Experience had shown that in the north and the east, the change to the farmers had been one of the most fearful description. The agricultural population of England was 22 per cent—in Ireland it was 64 per cent. The manufacturing population of Ireland was 18 percent, in England it was 46 per cent. Therefore, Ireland lost three times as much as England from the repeal of the corn laws, while England gained two-and-a-half times more. He would not take a retrospective view on that subject, but would content himself with saying that the condition of Ireland ought to have been well studied before so decided a change was made. Ireland by that change had received a blow from which it would be long before she could recover. Wholly independent of those objections, he was at a loss to know what a rate in aid meant. If it were in aid of taxation, taxation had already reached its maximum in Ireland—if in aid of charity, its only effect would be to dry up those founts of charity which heretofore had been ever open there. The only operation of the Bill would be to break down the poor-law. The worst of the matter was, that they held out no hope for the future. If the Irish people saw their way out of their difficulties, they might consent to the increased taxation. But independently of his objection to increased taxation, he objected to this particular tax. It was a farce to call it a national rate in aid; it was admitted that it would fall upon certain portions of the country ill able to pay it, and it was to be laid upon them regardless of the consequences, in checking industry and damping the efforts now making; in short, it was killing the goose for the golden eggs. It was known that the union rate in aid—the 7s.—would be required in forty-six unions and 282 electoral divisions; the national rate in aid—the 7s. 6d.—in twenty-eight unions and 157 electoral divisions, upon the average expenditure of 1848. Then, again, the unequal valuation must not be forgotten. The town of Belfast, for instance, was valued in the poor-law valuation at 20s. 8d. in the pound above the ordnance, or town-land valuation, while Roscommon was 2s. 8d. below it: so that Belfast was valued at 23s. 4d. in the pound above Roscommon; so Newtonards was 13s. 6d. above Roscommon. With reference to the probable disposition of the funds, it was right to observe that in the year ending last Michaelmas grants had been made of 36,000l., 29,000l., 23,000l., and so on, in unions where the rates were but 7s. 7d.,6s. 8d., 6s., and the like; and in unions where the rates were 14s., 12s. 7d., 11s., no grant had been made. The law could never be enforced without a new valuation, which must lead to considerable expense. He had also a strong objection to the power given to the Treasury of disposing of the funds to be raised under the Bill. Neither the rate in aid or the proposed alterations in the poor-law had been recommended by the Committees of either that or the other House of Parliament; they rested entirely upon the responsibility of the Government, and they were against the whole tenor of the evidence taken before both. That was one reason why the Government ought to pause before sending the Bill up to the other House; but, at all events, when it went up there, he trusted that House would give weight to the evidence their Committee had reported to them. He knew not where the Irish Members had been during these debates—certainly many of them had not been attending to their duty in that House; but he would ask English and Scotch as well as Irish Members, were they disposed to act, in this case, upon strict economical principles? If they pressed for immediate payment of the advances already made to Ireland, they could not obtain it; they would ask for the pound of flesh where there was none. They would attempt to draw water from a spring already dried up by their legislation. If they laid burdens upon the capital of Ireland which it could not bear, they would do away with all chance of receiving repayment of their advances, and upon themselves would rest the responsibility. But besides this, he would ask were there no political events which rendered the course they were taking exceedingly undesirable? He was unwilling to talk to a British House of Commons in the language of menace; but when all other appeals had failed, he felt compelled to ask them to look at the position of Europe at the present moment. Had the storm which had struck down many thrones and shaken dynasties yet wholly passed away—was there no lightning on the horizon—were no low peals of thunder heard—had the electric clouds of the last year passed away—had the sun yet begun to shine with its accustomed splendour and brightness—were the relations of England with foreign countries in so satisfactory a state that the House should have no apprehensions of the course they were about to pursue? Were the colonies in a contented and happy state—were they faithful and satisfied? Was Jamaica firm in her allegiance—was Guiana the staunch friend of the mother country—was Canada the strong right hand of England, to assist her in the western hemisphere? If so, they might enforce what laws they pleased; but if not so—if doubt hung over the foreign relations of the country, and difficulties existed in their colonial policy—he asked them to reflect in what position they would be when their forces were employed in enforcing the levy of an unjust tax upon an unwilling people. Might not the time arrive when, on looking to Ireland for her accustomed, grateful, and constant attachment in difficulty and danger—Ireland, whose blood had been poured out in Portugal and in Spain, in Africa and in China, and, more lately still, on the banks of the Hydaspes—they might meet with no response? Let them pause before they entirely ruined her future prospects. Let them pause and reflect, in order that that attachment—that friendship and devotion hitherto shown—might not wither away and be destroyed by the baneful ruin of an increased taxation on an overburdened and wretched people.

did not rise to renew the argument which he had already frequently urged upon the House with regard to the rate in aid; but, in consequence of the distressing accounts received from Ireland, it was necessary for him to advert to an answer which he gave a few days ago to a question put by the hon. Member for Montrose, whom he regretted not to see in his place, especially as he understood the hon. Member was absent by reason of indisposition. In answer to that hon. Member, he (Lord J. Russell) stated that it would be his duty, during the time that this Bill might be expected to be under consideration in that and the other House, to advance from the Civil Contingencies Fund such sums as were absolutely necessary to maintain the people who had been hitherto supported out of the grant of 50,000l. That sum of 50,000l was now entirely exhausted; the last remaining portion was sent from the Treasury last week; and the accounts last received from the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland were of a still more distressing nature, and proved that the destitution was increasing. He had stated in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Montrose, that he did not conceive that above 6,000l. would be necessary to be issued from the Civil Contingencies Fund for the purpose to which he had referred; but with these accounts before him, and considering that if the House agreed to the third reading of the Bill that night, some time must elapse before it could be taken into consideration by the other House, he did not think the Government would be justified in keeping within that limit, and he felt bound to state fairly that they would deem themselves justified in issuing such sums as they might find absolutely necessary to prevent fatal consequences from the destitution in Ireland. With regard to the latter part of the noble Viscount's speech, threatening the House in some manner with the effects which this rate in aid was to produce in Ireland, he (Lord J. Russell) should not be alarmed by those words, because he happened to have seen a most excellent letter from the Marquess of Londonderry to the tenantry on his estates in Ireland, in which he stated that he was quite sure that loyalty and habits of obedience to the law were so rooted in the people there, that, should the Bill pass into an Act of Parliament, whatever objections they might have to it, there would be no resistance to the law on their part. [Viscount CASTLEREAGH: They will all be gone to America.] If they should be gone, the rate would certainly not be collected from them; but he (Lord J. Russell) relied upon that letter of the noble Marquess, and thought it did him the highest honour, and it relieved him (Lord J. Russell) from any apprehensions he might otherwise have entertained. Having marked the reluctance of the House to vote the 50,000l., he did not see any other mode than that now proposed by which to supply the destitution, and therefore he must persevere in asking the House to agree to it.

said, the House was not surprised, probably, at the observations of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown. He believed the statement of the other night was made rather according to the wishes of the noble Lord, than according to his expectations. He (Mr. Bankes) had himself had a letter from a gentleman, who in travelling but a very short distance in Ireland had to stop his car five times in order to have removed the dead and the dying who were lying on the road. It was obvious that the present measure would do nothing to relieve the distresses of the country, and it was deeply to be regretted that the Irish Members had not acted with more union and decision on the subject. He thought that the best mode of administering relief to Ireland would be to impose a rate in aid not only on one portion of that country, but on the cereal produce of foreign countries. It was to such a rate as that alone to which he could look forward with any hope for a permanent alleviation of the ills of Ireland. Let the Government abandon, at least for a time, their views of economical science; let them also increase the postage to a moderate amount; and an ample sum would soon be received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the evils which this Bill sought to remedy. He looked upon this measure with the greatest alarm; for by the second clause he found it was provided that those parts of Ireland which had been enabled barely to weather through her late and present calamities must henceforth be compelled to contribute to the relief of the most distressed portions of Ireland; and that, in fact, those distressed districts by this Bill would be entitled to relief from the poor-rates of the more prosperous districts, in preference to the claims of the distressed in the latter districts. Now, if they wished to contrive a measure which should make ruin universal, this, he thought, was a fit mode of making that experiment. This Bill would compel those places which by good management, by good landlords, and good tenants, had attained a comparative degree of prosperity, to contribute, before they considered the interests of their own poor, to the relief of distant and badly managed, and therefore distressed, parts of the country. Now he could not see justice or reason in such a measure, and he therefore protested against its further progress. And, as an English representative, in a particular manner he felt it his duty to do so, because it afforded no valid security for the money that was about, on the credit thereof, to be advanced from the imperial treasury for the support of the distressed people of Ireland.

said, he had hitherto refrained from expressing any opinion on this measure during the several discussions which had already taken place on it, naturally feeling that the discussion should rather be conducted by the representatives of that country for which they were now legislating; but he would venture that evening to make a very few remarks explanatory of the vote which he was about to record on this question. His observations would be brief, because he had no confidence in the present Administration with reference to their conduct on Irish affairs. He had met with a passage the other day, in a play written by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and which was acted last year at Sadler's Wells, called Don Carlos, which exactly represented the Government's conduct towards Ireland. Don Carlos is made to say, in drawing a comparison—

"Like ships at sea becalmed, Whose sails flap to and fro with scanty measure."

Now, he (Mr. Cochrane) thought that all the measures which had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government were scanty measures indeed—

"Achieving nothing, still promising wonders, By dint of experience improving in blunders."

When the noble Lord introduced a Coercion Bill for Ireland, he talked in magnificent language of the remedial measures which were to he introduced for Ireland. But, as yet, he (Mr. Cochrane) had seen nothing of such measures introduced by Her Majesty's Government. This, however, he would say for the other parties in that House—alike for the late Government and the new Opposition—that two eminent men, the leaders of two parties in that House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, and the late lamented Lord G. Bentinck, had brought forward "large and comprehensive measures" for the improvement of Ireland. Whether or not the plan propounded by his late lamented Friend was or was not well adapted to the circumstances of Ireland, he could not say; but it must, at all events be admtted that it was a great and comprehensive measure; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had also stated at great length the other day an admirable proposition for the improvement of Ireland. But still Her Majesty's Government did not pretend to bring forward any comprehensive measure for the permanent relief of that unfortunate country. And yet he might be in error in bringing such a charge against the Government. There had been that magnificent vote of 10,000,000l. for Ireland. But he ventured—at the time that that vote was submitted to—to state his opinion that the expenditure of such vast sums in the manner proposed was the most fallacious policy possible; because he held that there was but one means of wealth in a nation, and that was its industry. He held that that money had been positively thrown away. Ireland—by the accounts which the noble Lord himself had read to the House—was now in a worse condition than when the money was voted to her. They had just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire that the people in Ireland were dying on the high roads. And he (Mr. Cochrane) had had an interview with a gentleman on the previous day who had just returned from Ireland, and who stated that the misery of that country was almost inconceivable. Well, then, if such were the results of their I0,000,000l grant, what hope had they that this unjust and pitiable measure of the Government could have any beneficial effect? He would tell Her Majesty's Government that they had a serious responsibility resting upon them, which could not be averted; it was of no use to seek opinions from others, to go about asking for advice and counsel; they knew that this was no new evil; they had had time to make up their minds on the course which they ought to follow, and to take a great and comprehensive view of this mighty question. And were Her Majesty's Ministers now at last not prepared to give any answer to the demands which were being made upon them from all parties, to fulfil their long delayed promise to introduce "great and comprehensive measures "for the amelioration of Ireland? Or could they only make the schoolboy retort, "What have you to propose?" He would merely say this—and he thought that a few years would prove that there was some truth in his assertion—that if they continued to rule Ireland as they had hitherto, the cry for the repeal of the Union would rapidly increase; and, he thought, justifiably so. By giving to Ireland her own Parliament, they would restore to her the valuable boon of a resident proprietary and gentry. He knew that the loss of Ireland would detract from the dignity and character of this country—it would be an irreparable loss; he knew that, but he would say that, if there were two alternatives before him, the loss of the dignity of this country, or the loss of a famishing and perishing people—he, for one, unless the Government of the united kingdom were prepared at once to bring forward measures calculated to save that people—would support a repeal of the Union, if he thought that such a measure would save the people of Ireland from perishing by starvation.

Sir, I have opposed the principle of this measure throughout on two grounds—first, that it is inherently vicious, unjust, and impolitic; secondly, that it is not required, as its supporters allege, by an overwhelming necessity; there are other preferable modes of meeting the exigencies of these western, unions. That the principle of this rate in aid is inconsistent with that of the poor-law itself, local responsibility, and wholly indefensible, except on the assumption of an overbearing necessity, is in fact admitted by its authors. The question, therefore, really is, does that necessity exist? Are there not other and preferable modes of meeting the exigency of the case? No doubt there is a necessity for advancing money from the Exchequer, as you are doing under this Bill, for the all-paramount object of saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of starving poor in the west and south of Ireland. What I dispute is, that the security you are taking for repayment of your advances in the rate in aid is not the best kind of security that could be devised, or indeed, a good security at all. I believe many better substitutes could have been devised. I voted on every opportunity for an income tax as a better security. But what I consider the best security by far is, that which I myself have proposed to this House on every occasion when a vote of money has been demanded for this purpose, which I urged last year when the vote of 132,000l. was proposed, and this year when the 50,000l. first, and afterwards this 100,000l. were proposed. On all these occasions I urged the House to take, as a double security for the advance, first, a lien upon the rates of the unions, with a power to sell the land itself for arrears of the rate; and, secondly, to expend the money in the productive employment of the poor whom you fed with it, by which you would give an increased value to the land, on which your security was based. Sir, had the Government thought fit to adopt this course, no rate in aid would be necessary, no unjust pressure would be imposed on the well-managed unions of the north and east for the relief of the mismanaged unions of the west and south—nor would there exist the danger of the non-repayment of our advances, which so many Members from Ireland now tell us plainly will never be repaid. The power to sell the land itself for satisfaction of the arrears of poor-rate, the Government has at length determined to be necessary; nor have I any doubt that, before long, they will equally open their eyes to the expediency of the other branch of my proposal of last year—namely, the productive employment of the thousands of ablebodied poor, whom they now insist on maintaining in idleness at the cost of the community. But if they will only make up their minds to this plain, common-sense principle at once, and without any further delay, they may give up their Rate in Aid Bill, with all its admitted faults and vices, its notorious perils and dangers; for I undertake to show them, that if they will only employ the ablebodied paupers of these western unions in productive labour, they will save all the cost of their maintenance—that is to say, they will obtain value in full for it; and as the ablebodied class composes at least two-thirds of the entire pauperism of those districts, and as the unions themselves are capable of defraying the cost of the remaining one-third, that is, of the relief of the helpless poor, there will be no necessity for travelling beyond the bounds of those very districts for the ultimate repayment of the entire expenditure. I take as a sample the five unions of the county of Mayo, perhaps the worst circumstanced of all these districts, viz., the unions of Ballina, Ballinrobe, Westport, Swineford, and Castle-bar. I find from the inspector's report that the estimated number of paupers requiring relief in the coming summer is as follows, viz., Ballina, 27,000; Erris, 8,000; Ballinrobe, 25,000; Westport, 28,000; Castlebar, 18,000; Swineford, 24,000, making in all 130,000. Captain Hamilton reports that of the 27,000 paupers of the Ballina union, 4,500 consists of ablebodied men, having 14,000 persons dependent on them as their families. This will make 18,500 belonging to the ablebodied class of poor, out of 27,000 in all, or two-thirds, or more than two-thirds, of the whole. It is reasonable to presume that the same proportion of the ablebodied class to the whole number of paupers, prevails in the other unions of Mayo. Consequently, of the 130,000 likely to be chargeable this summer to these five unions, two-thirds, or upwards of 86,000, will belong to the class of ablebodied poor, and one-sixth of this number, or not quite 15,000, will be able-bodied men. Now, it is evident that if means could be found for setting to work these 15,000 ablebodied men productively, so as to get back the cost of their maintenance, you will reduce the actual loss or cost of maintenance of the poor of these five unions to only one-third of what it is, or will be, this summer—you will reduce it to an amount which the rates collected in the union itself may very fairly be expected to cover, as I find that last year about one-third of the expenditure for relief of the poor was so collected in these unions. If you can contrive to make the two-thirds of the paupers of these unions, consisting of the ablebodied class, self-supporting, the unions themselves may be expected to be competent to maintain the other one-third, consisting of the helpless poor alone. Now, I have often dwelt upon the notorious and admitted fact, that these western districts of Ireland afford a vast field for the production, and even profitable employment, of labour. This very county of Mayo alone has 800,000 acres, more than half its entire surface, in a state of primeval waste for want of labour; 470,000 acres of this is reclaimable with profit, according to Mr. Griffiths. Is it possible to suppose that the labour of 15,000 men might not be advantageously employed upon this vast surface of useless land, in want of drainage and reclamation, through the ensuing summer months? But in addition to this resource, there are many thousand acres of land hitherto cultivated, and now lying waste. Mr. Brett, the able county surveyor of Mayo, in his evidence be fore the House of Lords' Committee on the Irish poor-law, estimates it at 50,000 acres—50,000 acres of arable land lying waste at this moment, and wholly unproductive, without stock, crop, or any thing but weeds growing on them. Could not means be devised, by the wisdom of statesmen, for setting to work the 15,000 ablebodied paupers, whom, with their families, we have got to maintain this summer, upon a portion, at least, of these 50,000 acres of land now lying waste and untenanted, and actually in pawn at this moment to the board of guardians for arrears of poor-rate? But if this is inadmissible, there are the unfinished and unrepaired roads of the county. Mr. Brett, the county surveyor, declares, in his evidence before the House of Lords' Committee, that the roads throughout the county are becoming absolutely impassable for want of labour on their repair, and the completion of those begun in 1847, the grand juries having refused to make presentments for the purpose, through the known impossibility of collecting the county cess. Why not, then, employ the 15,000 ablebodied paupers of the county on this work—at least work which would fully repay the entire cost of their relief, and that of their families? In proof of this assertion, I have to call the attention of the House to the statement given in the paper I hold in my hand, of the perfect success of an experiment of this kind, on a large scale, too, recently made in the county of Kilkenny, in the union of Callan. It appears that by some happy accident the board of guardians of that union have contrived to evade or set aside the usual prohibition issued by the Poor Law Commissioners against the employment of the ablebodied paupers on productive work of any kind; and, by leave of their sensible assistant-commissioner, they lately engaged the county surveyor, Mr. Carter, to find employment for their ablebodied poor in repairs and improvements of the county roads; and here I have the result in detail, as given in his report. Mr. Carter reports that the work was entirely executed by the paupers, under careful superintendence, working at task-work, but for ration pay, given in meal, in the necessary quantity for the support of themselves and their families—just the same as the guardians must have paid them as outdoor paupers doing nothing, or breaking stones in quarries, where they were not wanted. And the result is, that their pay came, at the end of the quarter, to 736l. 2s. 9d., while the work done by them, valued at the usual prices of the county, amounted to 772l. 4s. 10d., giving a profit of 36l. 2s. over and above the saving of the entire maintenance of these ablebodied poor men and their families. Now, this is not a theory, but a fact. If the union of Callan were able to save the entire expense of maintaining their ablebodied poor, by employing them on this kind of public work, why could not the same thing be done in the five unions of Mayo, or the twenty-one unions for which we are passing a rate in aid? Will it be said that paupers will not work? Here I show you that they have worked in the union of Callan, and earned their entire maintenance, and more than that. Is it supposed that the poor of Mayo are more idle and demoralised than the poor of Kilkenny? I meet this by the evidence of Colonel Knox Gore, before the Lords' Committee. He said he had been recently employing, on an average, 1,000 labourers. He had taken them from the outdoor pauper list, and he found, after a few weeks, that they worked readily, willingly, and assiduously, and did their utmost to earn the very scanty wages he was able to pay them. Then look at the system you are pursuing. You are levying rates on all Ireland to support near 90,000 ablebodied paupers in the county of Mayo, comprising 15,000 working men, in mere idleness, through the coming summer, while the roads of Mayo are becoming impassable for want of labour to repair them, and the lands of Mayo are going out of cultivation for want of labour to dig and to sow, to drain and to hoe them. I ask you to reconcile this conduct, if you can, to common sense, common prudence, common justice. If the roads of Mayo would not absorb all its surplus labour productively, there are hundreds of thousands of acres of waste lands requiring reclamation; there are the wet lands requiring arterial drainage; finally, there are the lately cultivated lands thrown up requiring tillage. Mr. Brett says many landowners would let these lands merely for the amount of the poor-rates. Why may not the guardians or the Poor Law Commissioners, to whom the arrears of rate from these lands are due, take them on lease and cultivate them by the labour of the idle paupers, and at least make them self-supporting—make them earn their maintenance? Surely, if only for the sake of keeping up the habit of work and industry among them, this would be desirable. But there is not a doubt that they would earn the full value of their maintenance, which would be repaid to you, who make the necessary advances, either by the crops of this autumn, or by the improved value of the land, drained or reclaimed, or, finally, in the case of road-work being prepared by a charge on the county cess. Having all these resources at hand for the productive employment of these idle paupers, and being obliged to advance the funds necessary for their maintenance as you are doing now, I say it is intolerable that you should be compulsorily taxing other districts wholly unconnected with these unions for the repayment of those advances which you persist in wasting on merely keeping alive the ablebodied poor. The example of England proves to you that it is consistent with a well-administered poor-law to apply the outdoor labour test to ablebodied paupers, and employ them on useful public works, when there is an extraordinary pressure on the rates. It has been often done in England with the sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners. It was done in no less than forty unions last winter. Employment was given generally on road works; but, in some cases, as in that of Sheffield I quoted to you the other day, in the reclamation and cultivation of waste lands. Why, when the urgency of the case is so much stronger, can you not resort to the same expedient in Ireland? Sir, the policy of refusing to do this seems to me so infatuated I know not how to characterise it. I venture to foretell that the common sense of the country will, before long, rise up against so ruinous a system; and that you will resort to the old Elizabethan practice of setting to work the ablebodied poor of the Irish unions. But if you will only do this immediately, you have no need of your rate in aid. You have only to advance the necessary funds on the credit of the rates, and the improved value derived from the productive works will enable the unions to repay your advances with certainty. Meantime, you will have the security of the fee-simple of the lands liable to rate. You will thus reduce the pauperism of the west of Ireland to a very manageable compass. You will relieve the owners and occupiers of land there from that panic which is now driving the farmers to emigrate to America with their capital, and which is indisposing capitalists from purchasing or renting land there. Relieve the rates from the pressure of the ablebodied poor by productive employment, for which these districts afford so ample and promising a field, and you remove that impediment which will otherwise render your Incumbered Estates Bill and Sale of Land Commission of no use, from the unwillingness of parties to buy or to lease land there under present circumstances. You have in the west of Ireland a vast field for productive industry. You have a population willing to work that field, and develop its latent wealth, if only they be employed at a bare living wages on it. You are obliged to find capital wherewith to maintain them. I say, apply it in such a way as to render them self-supporting, at least in such a way as to commence the work of improvement that is wanting, and, at the same time, set the example of industry and energy, and remove the bar which now deters private capitalists from entering on the same field. The spell once broken, the work would go on of itself. The rates reduced by productive employment, owners and occupiers will set themselves to work after your example. Capital will spontaneously flow in, both for purchase of land and its improvement, and all your difficulties will vanish, and an era of growing prosperity commence. Having this opinion of the inexpediency of the course that is now pursued, and the far preferable character of that I have pointed out, I, Sir, can only repeat now the vote I gave against the principle of this Bill on the second reading.

asked, if hon. Gentlemen had read the accounts just received from Mayo? If they had, it was impossible for them to believe that the utmost amount to be raised under this Bill would be at all adequate to the growing increase of distress. Three-fourths of the unfortunate inhabitants of Mayo were without clothing, houses, and employment. In such a state of things, the rate in aid would have the effect of increasing the evil, and of stopping employment, because a greater number of substantial people would be driven out of the country. In his opinion, assistance could best be rendered by the Government undertaking large works of public improvement, so as to give an immediate stimulus to employment. He was utterly astonished at the course pursued by the English Liberal Members—by the advocates of popular liberty, and those who contended that there ought to be no taxation without representation—in supporting a Bill that violated every principle of constitutional liberty. He had himself proposed an Amendment on this Bill on a recent occasion, and he found that not one single Liberal English Member divided with him. The present case was an extra one—it was a case of famine; and as such it ought to be provided for, not by the poor-laws, but out of the imperial exchequer. He was quite willing that Ireland should bear her fair share of the general taxation; but so long as the Union existed, he could not consent that Ireland should be exclusively taxed for what were justly imperial purposes. They had been told that by opposing this measure they contributed to increase starvation and want. If he thought that the measure would save the people from starvation, it should have his support, were it even ten times more unconstitutional than it was; but when he saw that the money already granted had not that effect, but that death from starvation was still advancing with rapid strides throughout the land, he did not want to allow this money to be expended in a similar manner. He thought that other steps ought to be taken. They were well aware of the fearful extent to which the ejectment system added to the mass of pauperism in Ireland; but if they thought it wrong, why was that system allowed to continue? He believed there never was a measure more calculated than the present to deprive this country of all moral weight among the Irish people; and believing, as he did believe, that it was also most unconstitutional, he felt it to be his duty, not merely as an Irishman, but as an English representative, to give it his most decided opposition.

was glad to hear the intimation of the noble Lord, as to his intention to make larger advances than he had at first contemplated for the relief of the perishing people of the west of Ireland. He (Mr. Grattan) had just received letters from Ireland to the effect that the distress of the west was rapidly extending to the north and south of Ireland; in fact, undertaking for funerals appeared to be the best trade in Ireland now-a-days. Captain Larcom had stated that 16,000,000 quarters of grain had been produced in Ireland during the last year, which, if they had been retained in that country, would have maintained double the population. And yet the people, notwithstanding that more than abundant harvest, were allowed to die of starvation. Did they think that an Irish Parliament would have allowed such a horrible state of things to take place? Would not an Irish Parliament have imposed an embargo on the ports, have shut up the distilleries, and, in fact, taken every necessary step for the preservation of the lives of the people? When the noble Lord's country was threatened in 1795 with a French invasion, Ireland (although England was not then in a distressed condition) generously determined on raising a force of 40,000 Irishmen to strengthen the arms of England against her Continental foes, and voted 200,000l. to defray the expenses of that force. He would, therefore, ask whether the United Parliament was dealing generously or justly with Ireland in her present calamitous condition? The present measure was fraught with ruin to the few who still possessed a little capital in Ireland. If they merely did justice to the people of Ireland, all their difficulties would vanish. He hoped to see the day when the lords and ladies of the empire would coin their spoons, and take the bracelets off their arms, not to bear down, but to raise up the people. England was not asserting her position; she was making war with Mr. Duffy, instead of applying her energies to meet the difficulties of her position, and instead of asserting her eminence among the nations of the earth. England had destroyed the agriculture and manufactures of Ireland. Where were these things to end? As long as they drained the country of her gentry, they would never be able to afford the people employment; and as long as they were in want of employment, there would be no prosperity in the land. They might try plantation schemes as much as they liked; they would never succeed while those who derived their rents from the land were absentees. Let them tell the people not to pay one shilling of rent to an absentee proprietor. That would be an intelligible proposition. He implored the noble Lord to follow some portion of the advice of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth. But let him not he deceived, and think that if he obtained a new set of proprietors, he would have saved the property of the country. He would vote for the third reading of the Bill.

said, he should commence the observations which he had to make on this Bill, by entering his protest against the invidious distinctions that had been drawn by the Gentleman opposite, the Member for Bridport, between different sections of the Irish Members; such comparisons ought to be given up. He had also to protest against the manner in which the hon. Member alluded to the restoration of the Irish Parliament, as being equivalent to a separation between the two countries. He believed that the tendency of the present debate was in favour of a restoration to Ireland of her just rights; and his firm conviction was, that the repeal of the Union would lead to a more real and sound connexion between the two countries than had over been witnessed before. He should also protest against what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the former grants having produced the bad consequences that they now sought to struggle against. The present state of the country was owing to the recurrence of the famine, and not to the dole of money—large, he admitted, under other circumstances, but small and inefficient under the amount of evil which it was intended to check. As to the Bill before the House, be had voted for it, because a most harsh and cruel alternative was alone held out—that of electing between it and a still worse measure. But if hon. Gentlemen would not listen to the advocates of repeal, they ought to pay some attention to the representations of those Irish Members who had always opposed the repeal agitation. Were it only from a feeling of gratitude for past services, the aristocracy of the country ought now to be attended to by this country. He was grateful to the noble Lord at the head of the Government—for at present people should be grateful for even common humanity—for the promise that the miserable dole of 5,000l. or 6,000l. a week was to be increased. By the niggardliness of that House, and of the English people, the funds had been heretofore doled out in so wretchedly inefficient a manner that hundreds of thousands of the people had perished of absolute starvation. Even if successful to the utmost of their hopes, this Bill would only keep the wretched pauper population in that state between life and death which was hardly preferable to death itself, whilst the vast population outside the walls of the workhouses were loft absolutely destitute. It was a mockery that ought to bring back shame on the name of England to describe as relief the misplaced and cruel economy and niggardliness that brought such fearful destruction among the Irish people. It was not the west of Ireland alone that was in distress. He had letters from gentlemen residing in the neighbourhood of Kilkenny, in which were described scenes of distress of the most dreadful character, while from other parts of Ireland, whose means of access to the metropolis were, comparatively speaking, difficult, he had received communications giving him details of terrible scenes of desolation and misery, which were not to be surpassed even in the west. Of what use, then, would such a measure as this be in stemming so dreadful a torrent? If the House really wished to relieve Ireland of much of her distress, why let it interfere to put a stop to that horrible system of reckless evictions which at present disgraced some portion of the landed interest of Ireland. He knew in a few cases there might be an excuse for such proceedings in the frightful reduction which had latterly taken place in the value of landed property in Ireland; but, nevertheless, the House or the Government ought to interfere to prevent these gross and cruel outrages upon public decency. The Cork Examiner of last week gave a most horrifying account of some evictions which had recently taken place on the property of Mr. Marshall Leason, of the country of Kerry; and while such occurrences were allowed to take place, it was hopeless to expect the condition of the people to be improved by measures of this description. No doubt the landlords were rendered desperate by their own sufferings; but again, he repeated, that was no excuse why Government or the House should not interfere to suppress such a practice. It was driving the farmer class from the land, who were the staff and yeomanry of the country: it was killing the poor by thousands, while it hardened and brutalised those who could still maintain their footing upon the ground; and therefore, no question, whether of foreign or colonial importance—whether relating to England or any of her dependencies—ought to be entertained until something were done to stop the progress of so terrible a system. It was to the farmer and smaller landholders that they must look for the regeneration of Ireland; and to preserve that class it was absolutely necessary that some steps should be at once taken to prevent these wholesale evictions. Another unfortunate circumstance, which dreadfully affected Ireland, was the quarter-acre clause of the poor-law. That clause had been the means of universally denying relief to the hungry and the famished all over Ireland. No man who held more than a quarter of an acre of land could claim relief under the poor-law, and the result was that thousands perished of absolute starvation, because they were refused relief on that account. The British public—the British Parliament—ought not, upon an occasion like this, when adversity had not only paralysed the energies of the people, but was rapidly depopulating the land, to grudge money to Ireland; but as a measure of humanity, if not of justice, they ought cheerfully to come forward to the assistance of unfortunate Ireland. England was ready enough to spend her money upon the improvement of her public buildings and monuments, but denied to Ireland the means—trifling though they were—of preserving her people from hunger? When the future historian came to relate the terrible events of the day, and to point to the splendid edifices which adorned the great cities of this country, built up in the present time, what would be the reflections of the succeeding generation which might happen to dip into his pages? Why, of shame and humiliation, that their forefathers should have been extravagant in gratifying their own tastes, while the people of the sister kingdom were crying out for help against a visitation with which it had pleased Providence to smite them. Let the House, then, take warning in time, and by raising up and fostering an independent and industrious class of agriculturists in Ireland, save the country from absolute ruin, and their own name from being stigmatised with cruelty in the future.

still believed that the measure would prove a failure, although, like other Members who had spoken against it, he was quite prepared to submit to any tax which was calculated to benefit Ireland, if just in its principle. The responsibility of the failure of this measure, therefore, would not rest upon them, but upon the Government, who were inducing the House to advance money upon insufficient security. It would seem that Government felt they could not get the money to meet the present distress from the House, and hence they had recourse for it to Ireland itself; and certainly, if Ireland had the money, that would be a fair and proper course; but he was prepared to prove that the money could not be got from Ireland. One-half of the unions and electoral divisions of Ireland were in a state of bankruptcy and absolute pauperism, and therefore the whole of this tax must fall upon the other half of Ireland. Now, how was it possible that in such a state of things Ireland could raise this money? The thing was perfectly delusive. The noble Lord at the head of the Government complained that he had received most distressing accounts from Ireland of the sufferings of the people: well, so had nearly every Irish Member in that House; but who was responsible for that suffering? Why, surely, the noble Lord, for he was warned of these passing events long ago, so far back indeed as the commencement of last year. The whole Irish Members, as a body, foresaw the return of the famine, and took every opportunity of warning the Government that in their past, and in fact their present, poor-law policy, they were pursuing an extreme system, which must eventually result in the entire loss of their money. By a return for one of the recent half-year's expenditure in the present modes of relief, it appeared that 700,000l. had been altogether expended, of which 200,000l. was for the expense of spending it. Now, was it possible that any country could continue to go on evenly under such a state of things as that? In his view of the case, there ought to be a maximum rate for the support of the poor, beyond which no union nor division should be allowed to go; and then, if the locality could not support its own poor, the whole united kingdom should be equally responsible for the excess. That was a question which applied with as much force to England as Ireland; so far, however, as it regarded this country it had yet to be debated; it had been commenced in reference to Ireland, but ere long it must be taken up with the view of applying it to the whole of the united kingdom. At the time of the union it was agreed that the manufactures of Ireland should be destroyed—that the manufactures of Ireland should be destroyed upon condition that she was to have an exclusive supply of agricultural produce to this country. Now that bargain had been broken by the repeal of the corn laws, no doubt for the advantage of the community generally; but no benefit was likely to accrue from it to Ireland. Under these circumstances, Ireland had some claim in her present emergency upon Parliament and the country; for the House might depend upon it that the greatest misery Ireland could ever suffer, would be the want of a market to obtain a remunerative price for her agricultural produce. She had no other resource but agriculture to depend upon—and destroy that, and you annihilate the people. This rate ought not to be confined to one particular part of the kingdom; to be just, it ought to extend to the whole. And here he must be allowed to say, that he was glad to find hon. Gentlemen opposite desirous, not so much of opposing the principle of voting the 50,000l. as a grant, as of being let into the secret of how the money was spent. Well, now, that was a very just ground to take up, for he held in his hand a return of the money advanced to Ireland, and he found that there was no account given whatever of the way in which the 4,500,000l. was expended under the provisions of the Labour Rate Act. That, in his opinion, was quite sufficient to induce any body of English Members not to vote in favour of grants, and a complete justification for the unwillingness of the House to grant further sums to Ireland. That anxiety, however, to know how the money was expended, ought not to be confined to Ireland, but ought to extend to the entire imperial treasury; and it was with that feeling he warned the House that, in passing this measure, they were voting money without taking sufficient security for its repayment. Before he sat down there was one other difficulty standing in the way of Irish improvement, which he must be allowed briefly to advert to. He meant the attacks which the press of this country had made upon Ireland, particularly those papers which were supposed to be under the influence of Government. These attacks were well calculated to set the feelings of the people of this country against Ireland; for no class in Ireland escaped the calumny of some portion of the English press; and the difficulty was, that when Government felt disposed to deal out justice to Ireland, they found the feelings which these attacks gave rise to standing in their way. He hoped, however, that in future, the press would act with more liberality to Ireland; and without detaining the House further, he would sit down with simply reminding those English Members who supported this Bill, that the opinions of Ireland upon it might be gathered from the fact, that while 172 petitions had been sent from that country against it, only one had been presented in its favour.

remarked, that the word "general," in the title, was at variance with the intention of the Bill. The contents of the Bill only applied to a proportionary part of the united kingdom, and in lieu of the word "general," it would be more in conformity with the contents of the Bill if the word "separate" were inserted instead. He felt it to be his duty to enter his protest, now that the Bill had passed, against this innovation of the Act of Union, which he considered the House had broken through most unjustifiably. If they adopted the word "general," it would imply that the rate extended over the whole country, which it ought to do under the Act of Union. There was another objection he had to the Bill, or rather, he wished to propose the insertion of two words into the title, which would make more explanatory the objects of the Bill; besides, if these words were not introduced, it might lay the Irish representatives who had opposed it open to the obnoxious charge of having opposed it from motives of inhumanity. The reason which had induced the Irish Members to oppose the Bill was simply that the parts of the country upon which it was proposed to levy the rate were better off than those which the rate was intended to relieve, while they felt that it would most materially cripple the working of the poor-law in Ireland. He should, therefore, like to add two other words to the title, and he did not think there would be any serious objection on the part of the Government to adding them. He wished to insert after the word "certain," the words "other more," which would make the title read thus—" To make temporary provision for the support by a rate in aid of certain other more distressed unions and electoral divisions in Ireland." That, he thought, would show the people of England the reason why the Irish Members stood up against the Bill to the last, because there were other portions of the country but little removed from the destitution which the rate was intended to remove.

thought that the word in question was not open to objection. The word "general" was used as in the case of the income tax, which was said to be a general tax on property and income; and as the assessed taxes were said to be general, although they applied only to England and Scotland, and not to Ireland, he thought that the word general might be used as well in the present case as in those he had pointed out.

took occasion to remind the House that the late Secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Ward), in moving the estimates, and in explaining the alterations which the Admiralty proposed in the dockyards, made some observations with respect to the manner in which the business was carried on by the dockyard officers. Since that time certain hon. Members, following up the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, had made use of strong language in reference to those officers—some having oven gone the length of charging them with gross and profligate mismanagement. Now, having had five years' experience of the manner in which business was carried on in the dockyards, and entertaining as he did the highest respect for the officers of those establishments, believing that they were actuated by the most ardent desire to promote the public service, and having always found them conscientious and zealous in the discharge of their duties, he felt bound to say that the observations which had been made upon them were by no means deserved. He would do the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of the Admiralty the justice to say, that he did not think he intended to convey the impression to the House which some hon. Gentlemen had attached to his remarks. It had been said, too, that the Board of Admiralty had for 200 years been conniving at gross peculation and extravagance in the dockyards. In disproof of this assertion, he would refer to the investigation into dockyard affairs which had taken place under the Commission of Inquiry, appointed by the 43rd George III., passed in 1802, and to the various amendments subsequently introduced by successive Boards of Admiralty. Without denying that the system was open to improvement, he felt bound to maintain that the charges which had been urged against it were greatly exaggerated. It was said, for instance, that there had been no audit of wages; but that did not arise from any loose management on the part of the authorities, but simply because they had always found their preliminary inquiries sufficient to secure accuracy. Then again it was said that there had been no general survey of stores; but that was because of the enormous expense which such a survey would have occasioned, and because it was considered to be unnecessary, in consequence of other arrangements calculated to secure the same end. With respect to the existence of any check upon expenditure, it should not be forgotten that there was a monthly return of all the stores, which was duly verified by the superintendents.

regretted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Ward) was not present, in order to explain personally that he had had no intention whatever of ascribing blame to the officers of the dockyards. So far was his hon. Friend from stating that the system hitherto pursued at the dockyards had been a system of peculation, that he, on the contrary, was much struck and greatly satisfied, on strict inquiry, by the honesty with which the public business had been carried on in the dockyards. No doubt there was room for improvement there, as in all large establishments of a similar nature.

expressed a hope that the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty would postpone these votes until the hon. Member for Montrose was in his place, to move two amendments of which he had given notice—one for the reduction of the number of admirals, and another for the reduction of the dockyard battalions and shipwrights. His hon. Friend had been unable to remain in the House owing to a sudden attack of cold, which rendered him inaudible, and, as his amendments were of importance, it was advisable to let the votes to which they had reference, stand over until he was present.

would prefer proceeding with the votes; and he would afford the hon. Member for Montrose an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the estimates upon the bringing up of the report.

said, that with reference to the charge of peculation against the officers of the dockyards, all those hon. Members who had taken part in the exemination of the subject last year were satisfied that there existed no grounds for any such imputation. But there was a concurrence of opinion in their minds that the management of the dockyards had been excessively defective; and he believed that a commission or a committee had been appointed to revise the system, and place the establishments more upon the footing of private concerns. It was agreed that the stock should be taken, and that other arrangements should be carried out; and he wished the right hon. Baronet to state the result of these improvements.

said, that an inquiry had been made into all the dockyards, and that the report consequent upon that inquiry had been carried into effect with gratifying success.

complained of the small share enjoyed by Ireland in the great sum expended upon the naval establishments of Great Britain. Out of a total expenditure of near 2,000,000l., only l,355l. went to Ireland. He called upon Government to redeem their pledge of constructing a harbour and establishing a steam factory at Haulbowline, in the Cove of Cork. There was no difficulty now as to the title of the land for the erection of the latter establishment.

admitted the pledge to which the hon. Gentleman referred. They were bound to establish the naval works in question, and were most anxious to do so. Up to the present moment, however, a difficulty as to the title of the requisite land had delayed the works; but as soon as the title had been made good—and he was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the difficulty in this respect had been overcome—an additional vote for the purpose would be applied for. As to the steam factory, no doubt there had been an intention to erect an establishment of the kind; but that intention had been abandoned, with a great many other schemes involving expense.

would remind the House that it would be very harsh treatment towards Ireland if there were to be only one naval establishment there. He would remind them that, by the Act of Union, to which reference had been made, it was stipulated that there should be a dockyard at Cove; but, without reference to any promises made at that period, the Government ought, in common justice to the country, and for the sake of their maritime interests, to carry out a plan of such utility as that of making Cove a naval establishment. He would appeal to the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Launceston, whether Cove were not a most desirable harbour for such an establishment. While on that subject, he would ask, was it creditable to the Navy to have a guard ship such as the old Crocodile, which, in her best days, was known as a "jackass" frigate, bearing the admiral's flag in such a harbour as Cove?

Sir, having been appealed to by the hon. Member who spoke last, I add with pleasure my testimony to the importance of a steam basin at Cork, and sincerely regret that some small proportion of the millions so lavishly wasted in Ireland in 1847, was not applied to this purpose, which would have been a really reproductive work, and equally useful in a national and local point of view. It is always with reluctance that I ask for the attention of the House; but really we have of late heard and read such absurd and mischievous misrepresentations with respect to naval affairs, both here and elsewhere, that although I am fully aware of the difficulty of dealing with a dry professional subject clearly and intelligibly, and sincerely wish the task had fallen into abler hands, I feel it to be a duty I owe to my country to endeavour to dispel prejudices so unfounded, and at the same time so dangerous; and I am encouraged by reflecting, that at least no one will deny the paramount importance of the question at issue—that it is by her maritime strength and superiority that this country has been enabled to raise herself to her present proud pre-eminence, or that without that strength and superiority she could not maintain her rank amongst powerful rivals and competitors even for a single year. Withhold from our merchants that naval countenance and protection on which they have hitherto been accustomed to rely in peace as well as in war, or diminish it below that which other nations afford to their subjects, and see what execrations would be heaped on the heads of those shallow and shortsighted politicians (as well as on any Government weak enough to give way to them), whose mischievous interference had caused this national degradation. In all former times, and when our military organisation and preparations were much more perfect and complete than they now are, a British Parliament has always viewed with particular jealousy any diminution or mismanagement of the Navy; and I am confident that if I searched Hansard I could quote numberless declarations from the hon. Member for Montrose, testifying his utmost readiness (even at the moment when he was waging his fiercest warfare against the Army Estimates), to vote any sum which might be necessary for the duo efficiency of the Navy. The whole question at issue, therefore, is simply this—What do we understand as constituting that state of due efficiency? Is it that relative strength and superiority which the experience of the past has proved to be absolutely necessary for our defence and protection; or have some new circumstances arisen which render all these precautions no longer important? Now, Sir, I discard as wholly unworthy of consideration or argument all the wild and vague talk we have heard of the changed views and disposition of the world, of an increasing abhorrence of war, and a general inclination to settle all disputes by amicable negotiation, rather than by the sword. Would to God, Sir, that I could place the slightest confidence in these, I fear, visionary assertions; but when I look back to the events of the last three years, and see that in 1846 President Polk was only deterred by our firm and determined attitude from putting into execution his avowed intention of seizing our territory in Oregon; that in 1847 he actually attacked and conquered Mexico; and that during the last eighteen months Europe has been most fearfully convulsed by a mixture of foreign and domestic warfare—I cannot believe that any sane man will venture to assert that this is a moment in which the Government of the country can be justified in still further weakening the small amount of force we at present maintain in a state of efficiency, and without which our mediations and interventions would be wholly disregarded. In all other respects our situation remains precisely the same. We are still only separated by a narrow strait, and a very few hours' sailing or steaming, from a formidable and powerful neighbour maintaining large naval and military establishments, the whole weight of which might on any critical occasion be turned with much greater facility and rapidity than formerly against us. And, Sir, besides all this, I have, I confess, an old-fashioned prejudice in favour of experience, in preference to theories and professions; and I have therefore been observing attentively how these "men of peace," who assure us that "the spirit of the times" is so decidedly opposed to all violence or appeals to arms, are conducting themselves in their own individual capacities with respect to this question. They are obviously becoming an active and prominent party; and if their views are as pacific as they represent them to be, we should, I imagine, see them exerting all their endeavours to forward this most laudable object by inculcating the great maxims of Christianity—charity, forbearance, and brotherly love—assuaging all religious differences and animosities—disposing all classes of society to throw aside mistaken and injurious jealousies and suspicions—and, in short, by inducing all within their influence to become loyal, peaceable, cheerful, and contented in the various situations in which it has pleased Providence to place them. But now, Sir, does this description in the slightest degree resemble all that we hear and read? I think not. Those gentlemen seem to me as pugnacious politicians as I ever remember during the course of a pretty long experience, and they must therefore excuse me if I judge of them rather by their practice than their professions; and that remembering the old fable of the sheep, the wolves, and the dogs, I frequently imagine that I see one of the most plausible and insidious of their body approaching the poor innocent sheep, with the most tranquillising assurances that a great change has taken place—that wolves are no longer carnivorous—that liberty, equality, and fraternity now govern the world; and that if the sheep could only be prevailed on to dismiss from their service throe troublesome and disagreeable dogs—whose names, I believe, were Army, Navy, and Ordnance—the wolves would be delighted to fraternise with them, and to lead them to all the sweetest pastures and clearest brooks. Sir, we all know the sequel of the story—the dogs were discarded, and their dismissal was followed by a grand fraternal banquet, consisting entirely of mutton in all its various shapes and forms! With this catastrophe before my eyes, these gentlemen will forgive me if I prefer the dogs to the wolves, and if I venture to express my fears that they are proceeding by sap and mine against those great safeguards of the empire which they dare not openly attack, and endeavouring to mislead the country by exaggerating the expense, disparaging the management, and sneering at the efficiency of our naval establishments. Nothing strikes me so forcibly in these discussions as the unbusinesslike way in which we go to work, when we talk about our establishments being too large, without ever giving ourselves the trouble to inquire what proportion they bear to those of other maritime Powers. It is a very remarkable fact, and one which deserves our most serious consideration, that during the whole of the inquiry last year not a single question was asked by the leading Members of the Committee tending to obtain any accurate information of the naval force of other nations; and I cannot, after a laborious search through the whole index and appendix, find anything like a return—which might have been so easily obtained—of the actual state of the navies of France, Russia, America, &c.; and yet without this information how can any man venture to assert whether our own is unnecessarily large, or dangerously small? I repeat, therefore, that the whole question at issue is simply this—what are we to consider an efficient Navy? Is it to remain as it has hitherto been of a character so decidedly superior as to be able on all occasions to defend our coasts and commerce at home, and at the same time those widely scattered colonies and interests which demand protection in every quarter of the globe? Or is it by successive curtailments, and a parsimonious and paralysing policy, to be suffered to dwindle gradually down to a state of comparative inferiority? The French Navy consists at this moment of (about) 50 ships of the line, 50 frigates, and (towards) 100 armed steamers. The Russian of (about) 50 of the line, 25 frigates; and the United States 12 of the line, 14 frigates, making together a grand total of 112 of the line, and probably near 100 frigates, besides steamers. Now, Sir, our whole force last year according to the returns published by the Select Committee on the Navy Estimates consisted m round numbers of only (about) 70 ships of the line—of which near 20 are old, and of a very inferior description—55 frigates, 21 first class, 34 second class, and 124 steamers; whereas at the end of the year 1793, the first year of the French war, we had actually in commission 78 ships of the line, 101 frigates, with 76,000 men; further increased in 1794 to 89 ships of the line, 120 frigates, with 85,000 men; and yet any Gentleman who will take the trouble to read the naval history of that time, may see with how much difficulty our coasts and trade were protected, and what heavy complaints were made by our merchants of the losses they sustained from the enemy's cruisers during the first years of that war. At later periods of this war, we had to contend with Spain and Holland, as well as with most formidable coalitions in the north of Europe, and finally with America; and it is impossible to look back, without wonder and admiration, to the rapidity and decision of our naval operations on those critical occasions; but what would have been our situation if our force had been diminished in the manner now proposed by our financial reformers? Sir, why do I trouble the House with these historical recollections? I do so because they ought to reflect that what has already happened may again occur, and that it is their bounden duty, as the guardians of the national safety, as well as the national honour, to maintain, unimpaired in its efficiency, that force on which both must principally rely in the hour of danger. It is at this moment too low in amount; and the reduction of 3,000 men, small as it may sound, will deprive us, I fear, of the means of keeping up that squadron of exercise and instruction which, after so long an interval of peace, has become so urgently necessary for the service. We forget that without skill and discipline, even courage and numbers are of little avail, and that on former occasions—more particularly at the commencement of the wars in 1758 and 1778—we began our naval operations with such indecisive and unsatisfactory engagements, that the nation was thrown into a paroxysm of alarm and indignation, from which it did not recover for many months, and which produced the worst effect both at home and abroad. It was for the purpose of affording this important and indispensable instruction to the rising generation that a small squadron was fitted out during the Administration of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and which, although since too much diverted to other services, and not sufficiently employed in the manner originally contemplated, must nevertheless have been productive of considerable advantage; but it is now entirely broken up, and I fear the rigid rules laid down last year by the Committee preclude all hope of its revival. I have already troubled the House at considerable length, but it is necessary to say a few words on some very mistaken animadversions, which I have heard and read, with respect to our continuing to build new ships, while we have already so many in our arsenals which have never been at sea. As I have just proved, I hope, that our whole stock of ships is too low, I need not say much on this subject; but people in general are not sufficiently aware how fast these immense wooden fabrics deteriorate, even when laid up in our harbours with every possible care taken for their preservation. A steady perseverance in our building system is, therefore, absolutely necessary, and it is only to be regretted that the want of space in most of our dockyards, and the small number of our building slips, render it impossible to keep, as the French do, a large force on the stocks completely ready for launching, and much less exposed to decay, than when actually in the water. And it should also be recollected, that a considerable proportion of our ships being of old and objectionable classes, it is much better economy to replace them by new ones, than to incur a heavy expense in repairing them. I have thus endeavoured—although, I fear, very imperfectly—to counteract the effect of those bold but unfounded assertions which might, if left uncontradicted, have produced a dangerous impression on the public mind. I have, I hope, shown, that while the Navies of other Powers have been gradually increasing, ours, during the last twenty years, have been allowed to diminish; and if very great exertions had not been made by the late Administration to remedy this deficiency, our relative inferiority would have been greater than at any former period in modern times. I abstain, purposely, from entering into any further particulars, and will only, in conclusion, implore the Committee to persevere steadily in all the plans adopted by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth for the defence of the country, more particularly for the improvement of our dockyards, and their adaptation to the repair of our steam navy, without which its efficiency cannot be secured; and, finally, that the instruction of our rising generation of officers, on whose skill and experience the country must rely for its safety and protection on future emergengies, may not be neglected or postponed for the sake of some small and inadequate saving of expense.

thought that the Government was in a difficult position; on one hand the country was calling out for reduction in no measured terms; on the other, in that House, the Irish Members were calling for a new establishment, for no other reason except that it would benefit Cork. He was sorry that the gallant Admiral the Member for Launceston had given some sanction to that proposal, at a time when they were all agreed that our establishments ought to be kept up as economically as possible. In his opinion, the multiplicity of our establishments was a great source of needless expense, which might be very much reduced; and the benefit to Cork was no reason for creating a new establishment The dockyard at Deptford cost 6,600l a year, of which the wages amounted to 2,900l., or about 18 per cent upon the expenditure. In the Portsmouth dockyard, the expenses of the establishment were 23,000l. a year, the expenditure 191,000l., so that the expenses of the establishment were nearly 10 per cent upon the expenditure, which was certainly a large per centage upon the work done for the country. He thought they had too many of these establishments already, and that the work would be better done, and at less cost, if the number was diminished. He must say that there was certainly nothing in the present estimates to lead to the supposition that the Navy was neglected. No alarm need be felt on that score. The Government were the persons most fit to determine the number of men; but he must remark that they were now paying more for stores and wages in the dockyards than they were in 1843, and he should have been glad to see greater reduction than was proposed. The proportion of establishments and stores to the number of men was higher now than in 1814 or 1815, although the price of stores was infinitely greater then than now. That was a fair way of testing the economical management of the dock-yards; and though he believed that the Government were taking steps in the right direction, he was satisfied that more might still be done without at all impairing the efficiency of our Navy. He protested against the increase of our establishments, and he had risen to make that protest in consequence of the calls which had been made upon the Government.

reminded the hon. Gentleman that the estimates for the present year included items which were not embraced in the expenditure of 1814.

had taken care in his comparison to omit those items which related to the victualling yards and the steam navy,

said, that he could not agree with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire as to the greater economy of our naval administration in 1814 and 1815. He had taken ten years preceding 1828, and calculated the average expense of the Navy during that period; and from 1818 to 1827 the cost of the Navy was 6,141,000l.; whilst from 1833 to 1838, it was 4,746,000l.; during the five years of the late Government it was 7,062,000l.; and during the three years of the present Government, 7,492,000l. So that from 1818 to 1827 it was 6,141,000l; and from 1842 to 1846, 7,062,000l.; showing an increase of 921,000l. in the latter. But the House must look at the additional charges during the latter as compared with the former period. There were first the contract packets, 473,000l. Then the average number of men from 1818 to 1827, was 14,700 men; from 1842 to 1846, 39,600—making a difference of 85 per cent; and the additional cost upon an increase of 85 per cent in the number of men would be 779,100l.; in addition to which there were additional pensions to the amount of 83,000l.; making a total of additional burdens of 1,335,000l., and as the excess of naval expenditure was only 921,000l., it was clear that if the 1,335,000l. were added to the expenditure between 1818 and 1827, there would be now a decrease of 4,400l. Since that period, too, the steam navy had been created—steam basins constructed, and great alterations made in their dockyards, the expense of which ought to be added to that decrease. At all events, he had shown enough to prove that the management of naval affairs had of late years been more economical than it was formerly.

thought that the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had very unfairly attacked hon. Gentlemen who had urged upon the Government the case of Cork harbour; the harbour of Cork was distant from the city, and a harbour of the utmost importance in case of war. It had always been so esteemed by naval officers, and on those grounds he was anxious to urge on the Government the propriety of carrying out, not any extensive alterations, hut a few trifling improvements, which would not cost more than 30,000l., in a harbour which was able to contain the whole Navy of Great Britain in perfect safety. The fortresses which defended that harbour were in a dilapidated state; and he hoped that the Government would not hesitate to incur the trifling cost which would make that harbour impregnable. He also begged to urge upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government the state of a harbour which had been much neglected—the harbour of Bantry, and also of the lighthouses on that coast. He hoped the Government would not be deterred by the opinions of a few Gentlemen opposite from placing the Navy in that position by which, in time of war, it might he able to maintain its supremacy.

complained that the estimates had been brought on unexpectedly, it being supposed that the debate on the Irish Bill would occupy the whole evening. It was probably under this supposition that the hon. Member for Montrose, who had several Motions on the Paper, had vanished. It was probable that many Members of the Government were now donning their silk stockings and pumps, with a view to making their appearance in a more brilliant assembly. As economy was the order of the day, he thought there only ought to be three Lords of the Admiralty, instead of six; but he would not cut down the clerks a single sixpence. If he was too late to move that reduction, he would give notice to do so on the bringing up of the report. He had no wish to interfere with the efficiency of the Admiralty, nor would the reduction of the Board from six to three have that effect. He also thought it would be well to reduce the salary of the First Lord some ten or twenty per cent. The clerks, generally speaking, were ill paid.

was happy to bear his testimony to the fact that the Navy had never been in a more efficient state than under the late First Lord and the late Secretary to the Admiralty; whilst, at the same time, due attention had been paid to economy. He wished to know whether there was any improvement as to the method of coaling the steam navy, for, considering that only 100 tons could be put on board in a day on the old system, it was desirable that some other mode should be adopted. Another question to which he wished to call the attention of the Government was with regard to the freight of specie. He thought it would be better if some arrangements could be made for altering the present practice.

was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the handsome terms in which he had referred to the state of the Navy under the late Lord Auckland and his hon. Friend Mr. Ward. He was glad also to have the opportunity of bearing his testimony to the merits of his hon. Friend the late Secretary. He must say, that during the short time he had been at the Admiralty, he had never mot with a more zealous public servant. The attention of his hon. Friend had been much given to the subject to which the hon. Gentleman first referred—that of coaling the steam navy; but he (Sir F. Baring) had been so short a time in his present office that he was not yet acquainted with all the details of it. He believed, however, that before long a new plan would be adopted. With respect also to freight of specie, the question was one of considerable difficulty, and he had not yet been able to come to a satisfactory determination upon it.

called attention to the great increase which had taken place under the head of No. 11 (new works). From 1833 to 1840, the average yearly expense was 95,000l., but for the next years it had been 426,000l. He observed that 120,000l. was asked for towards the works at Keyham, and 15,000l. for the breakwater at Plymouth Sound. He observed from the estimates that 1,366,749l. had been already voted towards that breakwater, and 1,464,646l. had been expended? He wished to know how it happened that the expenditure had exceeded the sum voted? In the evidence given before the Select Committee it was stated that the powder magazine was to be removed at a great expense, and that the new site had not been resolved upon. He thought it would be time enough to vote that item when the site was fixed upon.

said, he must oppose the vote for steam docks and steam basins at Keyham, and call the attention of the Committee to the manner in which Parliament had been systematically misinformed with regard to the extent and intended cost of these works. In the Navy Estimates of 1844, Parliament was informed that certain works were to be commenced at Keyham; those works were to cost 400,000l.; and, on the faith of this estimate, Parliament voted 30,000l. On the 25th September of the same year, a gentleman of the name of Baker, a contractor, proposed to the Admiralty a plan of operations at Keyham. The Admiralty, in a letter, dated September 30, approved of that plan. It required the expenditure of 713,000l., for the completion of a portion only—not of the whole—of the intended works; and the Admiralty entered into engagements with Mr. Baker to that effect. In virtue of these engagements, the Secretary of the Admiralty had stated, that Parliament was pledged to expend this year, at least, 120,000l. at Keyham. Nevertheless, the next estimate presented to Parliament, in 1835, was only for 675,000l. Now, the Admiralty must have known, at that moment, that the whole of the works in contemplation at Keyham could not be completed for less than twice that sum; yet, in 1846 and 1847, the same estimate of 675,000l. was laid before Parliament; at length, last year, the estimate was increased to 1,225,000l. The Navy Committee, however, discovered that an important item had been omitted from this estimate; and now they were told that 1,322,627l. would be the sum required, or above three times the original estimate. Without doubt, the Committee will suppose that this increase on the estimate had arisen from the works at Keyham having been extended beyond what was originally intended. Nothing of the kind; on the contrary, the hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for the Admiralty told the Navy Committee, "that the scale upon which the Admiralty would propose to open Keyham would be less than half that laid down in the plans which they found traced out by the previous Government." He likewise told the Navy Committee, that it was originally proposed to have two basins and three docks at Keyham, and that the present Government had struck out one of the docks. It was evident, therefore, that from the year 1844 to 1848, Parliament had been regularly misinformed with regard to the extent and intended cost of the works at Keyham. It had, however, been said, that the works which were estimated in 1844 at 400,000l., were different from those which are now to cost more than 1,300,000l. How did they differ? Precisely in the same manner as the foundations of a house differ from the whole house when completed. The foundations of a house were useless, unless the house be built; so the works of 1844 would have been useless without the subsequent works? But why was not Parliament informed in 1844 of the necessity of those subsequent works? why not furnished with an estimate of their intended cost? What, he asked, would hon. Members think of an architect, who, being employed to furnish an estimate for a house, should merely state the cost of the foundation, and, by so doing, should lead his employer to believe that for the sum so stated the house could be built, and should thus induce him to commence a building disproportionate to his wants? This had been exactly the conduct of the Admiralty with regard to Keyham. If in 1844, instead of informing Parliament that 400,000l. would have to be provided for works which were about to be commenced at Keyham—if the Admiralty had plainly stated that it would be useless to commence these works unless Parliament were prepared to expend l,300,000l. upon them, what would have been the consequence? In all probability, Parliament, knowing that there were costly works connected with the steam navy in progress at Woolwich and Portsmouth, would have hesitated to commence far more costly ones at Keyham—would have required more information, and, perhaps, have referred the question to a Select Committee; and if the Committee had been like the Navy Committee of last year, the works at Keyham would never have been commenced; for the Navy Committee reported, that, if those works had not been commenced, they would have had no hesitation in recommending Parliament to withhold its sanction from those works. There was no doubt that great blunders had been committed with regard to the works at Keyham. First, they were on the lee shore, and, therefore, exposed to the prevailing winds, instead of being on the weather shore, and sheltered from the prevailing winds. It was, however, a strange fact that all our dockyards were upon the wrong shore. Secondly, there was not a sufficient depth of water at Keyham. The bottoms of the basins were to be twenty-two feet below low-water mark, but the entrance to them was five hundred feet from low-water mark; therefore the largest class of steamers would only be able to enter the basins at spring tides. To remedy this defect, it was proposed to cut a channel through the mud, and to endeavour to keep it open by constant dredging. Third, the entrance to the basins being at right angles to the current of the stream, large steamers would run the risk of considerable damage in entering, unless they entered at the top of the tide, that is, at slack water. Fourth, the basins were to be extravagantly large; the two would cover above sixteen acres, and therefore would easily contain between fifty and sixty steamers of the largest size; that was about three millions' worth of steamers. What possible use could there be for such enormous basins, when there was such a harbour as the Hamoaze at hand? Fifth, these works were prematurely undertaken. In 1844, works connected with the steam navy were in progress at Woolwich and at Portsmouth. Parliament, as usual, was misinformed that they would be completed for 100,000l; since then about 400,000l had been expended upon them. Now, the Admiralty should have waited till these works were completed, and then, if experience had proved their expediency, works of a similar character might have been constructed at Devonport for about a third of what Keyham will cost. Sixth, all these works were undertaken partly in consequence of a most ludicrous miscalculation of the pecuniary benefits to be derived from them. It was calculated, that by means of these works, steam vessels could be repaired for about 25 per cent cheaper than by contract. Prom this calculation, the cost of the works and of keeping them in repair was omitted. Now, it would be easy to show that the interest of the money so expended, and the cost of keeping the works in repair, would be nearly equal to the whole cost of repairing the steam navy by contract. Therefore, instead of a saving of 25 per cent, there will probably be a loss of 75 per cent by this mode of repairing the steam navy. Let him warn the Committee against ever believing any statement made by the Admiralty or by the Ordnance, or by any other public department, of the cost of any work performed by them, for they invariably omitted from their calculations about one-half of the elements of the cost. It was evident, therefore, that these works at Keyham had been begun in the most thoughtless, reckless, and unbusiness-like manner. They were, however, but a specimen of a system which has been pursued for years both by the Admiralty and the Ordnance. The waste of public money was most deplorable. 500,000l. had already been expended on Keyham; to complete these works a further sum of 800,000l. was the estimate. If they were completed for that sum, Parliament might rejoice at the lucky termination of works which ought never to have been commenced, and which would cost nearly as much as the great national undertaking of the breakwater at Plymouth. To prevent such occurrences in future, it was worthy of consideration whether there should not be a board of public works, to which all plans and estimates, both of new works and of alterations of old works, should be submitted, which should be responsible to Parliament for the accuracy both of plans and estimates, and without the full report of which board as to the nature and probable cost of an intended work, no estimate for works should ever be presented to Parliament. If there had been such a rule in 1844, Parliament would not, by voting 30,000l. on an estimate of 400,000l., have unwittingly pledged itself to works costing 1,300,000l With regard to these works at Keyham, it still appeared to him that the wisest plan would be to stop them, and to pay a forfeit to the contractor; by so doing there would probably be a saving of 700,000l.; he, therefore proposed to the consideration of the Committee a reduction of 120,000l on this vote.

said, that as he was in office at the Admiralty when the works at Keyham were undertaken, he was enabled to afford the House some information on the subject. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark had proposed in the Committee on the Navy Estimates that a stop should be put to these works, but his proposition was supported by only one hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding; and he (Mr. Corry) therefore hoped that the Committee of the House would support the Committee upstairs in their decision, by rejecting the hon. Baronet's Amendment. The hon. Baronet had said, on a former occasion, that the Admiralty, under the pretext of making economical repairs, were squandering large sums upon the works at Keyham. Now, these works were undertaken solely in order to maintain the efficiency of the steam navy in time of war, when, he maintained, they would be absolutely necessary to the safety of the country. It must be obvious to every one acquainted with naval affairs, that if there were any part of the coast where it was essential to have basins and docks, and other means of repair for steam ships, that place was Devonport. As a great part of our naval force would be required in the event of war for protecting the coast of Ireland, or for blockading the western coast of France, Devonport was the nearest point at which provision could be made for its repair, and that port was also the first that could be made by steam vessels returning in want of repairs from any foreign station, with the single exception of the Baltic. He admitted that a majority of the Select Committee had expressed the opinion that if the works at Keyham had not been commenced, they would not have recommended that they should be undertaken; but, with all deference to the Committee, he would rather rely on the opinion of Gentlemen who had much more acquaintance with matters of this kind than the Members of that Committee could possibly possess. Mr. Ward, the late Secretary at the Admiralty, nearly all the naval Lords of the Admiralty, the late Lord Auckland, Admiral Bowles, Mr. Sidney Herbert, many engineers, and, indeed, all the witnesses examined before the Committee, with only one exception, he believed, had urged the necessity of establishing extensive works for the repair of steam machinery and steam-ships at Devonport. It had been said that the works might have been commenced on a small scale; but he considered that there could be no worse economy than to commence important works of this kind on a small scale. In 1838 an establishment for the repair of steam vessels was made at Woolwich on a small scale, and in five years it proved to be wholly insufficient, and it was found impossible to alter the works so as to form part of a large engineer establishment, and considerable loss to the public was the consequence. The hon. Baronet had given a most exaggerated account of the capabilities of the basins at Keyham. It was true that the basins were very extensive, but this arose from the necessity of having space for bringing the ships alongside the wharfs, that they might be placed under the shears to receive the immense weight of boilers and machinery to be put on board them; and, so far from those basins having been constructed on an extravagantly large scale, it was in evidence that they were only about one-third larger than the basin at Portsmouth, and he bad lately been informed by a most intelligent officer of that yard, that so far from the basin there being found to be unnecessarily large, the only mistake had been in not making it larger; and it was the duty of the Government, in undertaking new works, to take care that sufficient accommodation was provided. The hon. Baronet had said that a gross blunder had been committed in placing the works at Keyham on the lee shore; but as the dockyard was on the lee side of the harbour, it was deemed advisable, for obvious reasons, to place the basins on the same shore. The hon. Baronet was also entirely mistaken in his statement respecting the depth of water, for he (Mr. Corry) would state, on the authority of the engineer officer in charge of the works, that the channel would be kept perfectly clear without having recourse to dredging. Although he admitted it was desirable that Parliament should have as full information as possible as to the extent to which it was intended to carry new works, yet it was very difficult on commencing a great undertaking of this kind to determine upon details, so as to make a satisfactory estimate. During the progress of such works various enlargements or alterations might appear necessary; and if in 1844 the Admiralty had laid before Parliament a full estimate of the works at Keyham, they would have been deceiving the House, for it was then imposssible to foresee what extent of accommodation the growth of the steam navy might ultimately require. He denied, however, that the Government, in the course they had taken, had any intention of deceiving Parliament, for their estimates had not pretended to provide for the whole work, but for particular portions of it, which were specified, and for which the sum stated to be required would amply suffice. The increase in Vote No. 11 had been noticed, but that increase was caused by the same circumstance which had led to the increase of many other heads of the Navy Estimates—by the necessity of providing for the maintenance and repair of the steam navy. Another cause of the increased expenditure for works in the dockyards was this—when the late Board of Admiralty came into office, they found the dockyards in a state of dilapidation; they considered it their duty to place them in an efficient condition, and hence considerable expense had been incurred; hut he believed that the expenditure which had thus been occasioned had been attended with results most advantageous to the public service.

denied that he had made any mis-statement of the nature which the hon. Gentleman had attributed to him.

said: Mr. Bernal, I beg to inform the hon. Member who spoke from the opposite benches that the Committee which sat last year upon the Navy Estimates did nothing more than recommend that the contracts already entered into by the Government should be completed. The Committee did not know whether this sum of 120,000l. was all that was required to complete the works at Keyham. But my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark is quite right in moving his Amendment, because I think that it is high time for a plan of these works to be laid before Parliament, and as yet we have had none. The right hon. Member for Tyrone is an advocate for the method of getting money in advance, and for postponing the plan; but I hope this system will never again be adopted, for it is a most disgraceful one. As to the necessity for constructing a steam basin at all in this spot, the Committee of last year came to a resolution that there were already steam basins enough, and that, if Keyham basin had not been begun, it ought never to have been undertaken. There are ample basins enough at Portsmouth and Chatham, where there are, at each place, large establishments. These are quite enough to provide for the repairs of steam-ships during a great war. But there is now no great war. All those preparations seem to be made in anticipation of such a struggle as that which took place at Trafalgar. Is this, may I ask you, a wise policy to pursue with reference to your taxpayers? For my own part, I deny that it is good policy to construct such works at all. The private steam-ship builders have no steam basins. Napier has none at his works. All that he has is a wharf on the Clyde, where his steamers are brought alongside to have their boilers taken out or put in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone has said, that you must estimate the expense and size of the steam basin at Keyham by the extent of its wharfage. If so, why is there any basin at all? Why, you had much better have constructed a sea wall, alongside of which your steam vessels could have ranged, in order to have their engines put in and taken out, as is practised in all the private manufactories. But all these great works are, in my opinion, only so many schemes for expending and idly wasting the public money. And my belief is, that if the Government had a California or a Peru to go to, instead of having only the pockets of the people to tax, they could not have shown a more reckless degree of extravagance. Here now, in this very estimate, is a sum of 97,000l. for removing a powder magazine; and you are told that it is necessary for you to have this great store of powder—no less than 47,000 barrels, in order to be provided against the chance of a great war. But is it necessary for you to be thus provided? In fact, there are 90,000 barrels, and this additional store of gunpowder is, in my opinion, utterly useless. The only remedy that I perceive to this most extravagant course is, for the electors of this country as a body to declare that it is far more dangerous for the country to be subjected to such an expense than for it to have to encounter the risk of a great war.

expressed his surprise that no Member of the Government should have thought it necessary to explain this vote; for there was nothing by way of explanation in the estimate itself which seemed to bring it within the recommendation of the Committee of last year. The Committee recommended that the works contracted for the construction of a coffer-dam should be continued, but that no progress should be made in building factories till the Navy Estimates of 1849–50 should have been submitted to the House. Now, as far as he could gather, part of the expenditure seemed to be on account of factories. It appeared to him, that in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of last year, which was founded on good sense, that, so far as the Government were bound by contracts, the works should be continued; but that they should not go beyond that without the concurrence of Parliament; and he thought some explanation due from the Government as to how far this recommendation had been acted on.

said, that the reason he had not risen before was, that as those arrangements were made not by him but by former Boards of Admiralty, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone, who had formerly been Secretary to the Admiralty, the proper person to give an explanation respecting them. With regard to the recommendation of the Committee of last year, to which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire referred, that was carried out strictly by the Government, and the present vote was in conformity with that recommendation. He was aware that there would be differences of opinion as to the expediency of commencing such an outlay; hut though it might seem large, he had heard from authorities well worthy of attention that this establishment, when formed, would be of great value in case of war; and the question was whether, having expended a considerable sum on the works, they would throw that all away, or proceed in carrying those works into completion. The money he now asked for was money required under existing contracts, and he believed the contracts went further than the sum he wished the Committee now to vote. If the Amendment were carried, the works would be stopped, and all previous expense rendered useless, and a considerable sum besides must be paid to the contractors for not carrying out the contracts. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark had not brought forward an Amendment like the present last year, under the idea, no doubt, that the country was bound by contracts; but, having then allowed the works to go on, would it be wise in his hon. Friend now to stop them?

inquired what portion of the 120,000l. would be required to complete the works which the Committee of last year recommended, and how much further the Government was bound by existing contracts?

replied that the whole sum was required under the contracts.

thought that after the recommendation come to by the Committee of last year, the estimate on its face should clearly show that the expenditure was to be limited to that particular branch of works within the recommendation of the Committee.

repeated that the Government had carried into effect the recommendation of the Committee.

, in reference to the argument used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding, that it was not necessary for the Royal Navy to have a steam basin, because there was no such thing as a steam basin for the mercantile navy, requested the hon. Member to look to the East and West India Docks, and see if there were no steam basins there.

said, he had examined the works at Keyham, and there would have been, in his opinion, no difficulty in having a close estimate of the total outlay before the commencement of the works. He never saw a position in which works were placed on a better foundation, and in respect to which fewer contingencies existed, and therefore it was inexcusable in any Government undertaking such works without the most accurate previous information.

explained that the sum of 120,000l. proposed to be voted would be applied to the works connected with the coffer-dam, according to the recommendation of the Committee of last year.

observed, that what he had stated was, no private steamboat builder had a basin for the purpose of putting steam engines and boilers on board ship; and be repeated that statement. Take the case of Napier, of Glasgow. [Mr. COREY: He has a "nook."] And the Government had plenty of nooks at Portsmouth, and other places. He wanted the Government to act and calculate as private persons did.

thought that a very small sum might be necessary to complete a sea wall, and the making of docks and basins might be reserved till some future opportunity; and great expenditure might be saved by rendering it unnecessary to remove the powder magazine.

observed, that it had been stated that he had drawn an improper comparison between the number of officers in the British Navy and in the navies of France and the United States, and had not explained the circumstances which caused the number of officers in the British Navy to be as great as they were. He had stated a fact which was not denied, and the object of that statement was, to call the attention of the Government to the necessity of bringing the number of officers within proper limits. He had excellent authority on this question, namely, that of a very distinguished officer in the British Navy, who said that the number of officers in the British Navy should bear some sort of proportion to the work to be done; and if any circumstances caused the number to be greater than it ought to be, steps ought to be taken to bring it within proper limits. The officer he quoted was Sir James Stirling; he said, you have got 8,000 officers, and you only want 4,000; you are keeping up an excess of officers over and above what is necessary for the work to be done, equal to the keep of 20,000 able seamen. That was his statement before a Committee of the House of Commons. The consequence of keeping up many more officers than was necessary was, that you constantly found young men in the primo of life going about complaining to all their friends that they could not get a ship, and could not get employment; and when you put a man in command of a ship, you sent one who, perhaps, had been on shore for a number of years, and had not acquired skill in his profession.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had given notice of a Motion upon that subject; and it appeared to him (Sir F. Baring) that it would be better to postpone the discussion with respect to it until that Motion should have come under their consideration.

wished to call the attention of the Government to the impolicy of appointing so many cadets while the officers were so little employed. He found that from 1833 to 1840 they had averaged 104 a year, and during the last eight years they had averaged 150.

said, that the late Lord Auckland had thought that the number of cadets ought to be limited to 100, and had issued an order for so limiting them. That order would henceforward be complied with.

wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty was desirous that they should pass the votes that evening, and postpone the discussion of them to some other occasion?

said, that the vote then under their consideration was for the payment of half-pay to which officers were already entitled. He could not, therefore, see how the Committee could refuse to sanction the vote.

said, the item for conveyance of mails between Southampton and the Channel Islands had boon increased from 2,000l. to 4,000l., which he thought required some explanation. It had been generally supposed that the object of changing the port of departure from Weymouth to Southampton had been to save expense. The fact, however, was, that the passages from Weymouth to the Channel Islands were performed with greater rapidity than from Southampton; and the people in the Channel Islands wished the mails to be sent through that port rather than Southampton. If the new route was attended with more expense, and occupied more time, it was certainly desirable that the old route should be retained. At all events the increase required explanation.

explained that the increase from 2,000l. to 4,000l. was owing to the contractors who carried the mails having given notice to terminate the contract. The contract was advertised, and the only parties who tendered were the parties who had it before, and their tender was 4,000l. The Government had, under these circumstances, no other resource. When Weymouth was the port of departure, the Government employed their own packets; but the parties who had taken the contract preferred Southampton, because they had their establishments there. There were certainly reasons for thinking Weymouth a better port for embarkation than Southampton; but as the contract was in the hands of a private company, the Government were not at liberty to select the port. At all events, whilst the present contract endured, Southampton must be the port of departure.

inquired whether any opportunity had been given to the port of Weymouth to send in a contract for this service?

replied, that tenders had been called for by public advertisement. The new breakwater at the Isle of Portland had since been finished, and it would give Weymouth an advantage.

Then we may still hope that Weymouth may be the port of departure?

said, the subject would receive consideration at the proper time.

inquired what was the remaining term of the contracts for the packets to Alexandria and the West Indies?

said, they might be terminated on the 1st January, 1853.

asked if the Government had considered the importance of appointing some port on the west coast of Ireland as the port for the arrival and departure of the North American mail steamers?

said, that as the present contract for the conveyance of the North American mails had not terminated, the Government had not been able hitherto to give the subject mature consideration.

thought that the vote for the Post-office packet department ought not to pass without a word, in order that the country might know why no profit appeared, It was evident that many of these charges would never have been undertaken as a matter of profit. He found here a charge for carrying the mails between Alexandria and Beyrout; a charge for the mail from Singapore to New South Wales; from Suez to Calcutta, 64,000l.; from Ceylon to Hong-Kong, 45,000l. The charge for carrying letters between this country and the West Indies was 240,000l. a year. How could we undertake to pay 240,000l., when the whole gross proceeds would not amount to one-fourth of that sum? It must be from totally different motives than letter writing, because letter writers had no reason to expect that Government could be conveyers at a cost four times the amount of postage. This was calculated to injure our postage reform, and prevent its adoption by other countries.

said, that the arrangements respecting the West India packets had been made before the penny postage reform took place. The Government found it necessary to complete the communication between the mother country and her various colonics; but it appeared that it was now contended that such communication should be limited to the mere postal necessities of the country. He could not consent to look at the question as one merely of the amount of balance that might be left at the end of the year; nor did he think that, because those expensive communications between England and the colonies absorbed a considerable portion of the income derivable from postage, that that fact was to be taken as an argument against postage reform.

was as willing as any man to admit the advantages of Post-office communication with every part of the world, but if no reference was had to the number of letters passing between the mother country and a colony, they might, according to the right hon. Gentleman, at once start a line of steam communication between this country and New Zealand. He held that the accommodation provided should have reference to the amount of business and the number of letters. He said this in justice to the whole community of taxpayers.

said, that the expenditure complained of had been mainly caused by the necessities and requirements of the commercial classes. It was the object of giving increased facilities to commerce that had induced Government to set up such expensive modes of communication. At the same time he admitted that the management of the Post Office was a question that required looking into.

explained that what his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding bad said was, that it was not fair that 240,000l. should be put down for letters, which speaking fairly could only cost 60,000l. The hon. Gentleman's principle was more extravagant than that of his hon. Friend, because according to his plan there should be a post-office in every house instead of every town. His hon. Friend was anxious that nothing should be done to prevent the proof of the success of the penny postage, in so far as their islands were concerned. If these charges were all put upon the Post Office, foreigners would think that the principle had failed, whereas every one in this country must admit that no reform had ever been effected more important than that which had been suggested by Mr. Rowland Hill, and carried into operation by the present Government. He believed that the country was sincerely grateful both to Mr. Hill and the Government for their conduct in the matter.

observed, that the penny postage had no connexion whatever with steam navigation; but as the former had been mentioned, he might be permitted to say, that looking at the result of the penny postage, no experiment could have been more satisfactory than it had proved. The number of letters passing through the Post Office had greatly increased, nay, had actually doubled. In any fortnight of the present year, compared with the corresponding fortnight of any year before the postage was altered, it would be found that the proportion was as 6,000,000 to 3,000,000, and that this advance had proceeded equally in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Whether the increase of the packet service abroad happened to be large or small, was a matter that had nothing to do with the penny postage.

said, that the object of Mr. Rowland Hill, in the introduction of the penny postage, was to extend the delivery of letters and to increase the number of letters passing through the Post Office as much as possible. The change had been important and valuable. It certainly was one which ought not to be measured by its expense; neither, he thought, should the packet-service be measured by its expense.

said, that as the contracts for sending the mails from Southampton would soon expire, and as railways had effected a great change in all internal communication throughout this country, he did hope that fair consideration would be given to such tenders respecting the packet service as might, when the contracts became open, proceed from the ports of the West of England. Those ports should at least enjoy an opportunity of sending in their tenders.