said, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had made inquiries as to the case of Joshua Wolstencroft, recently convicted before magistrates at Oldham for shaving another man on a Sunday, and fined 5s. with costs? Also, whether the fine with costs, will be remitted?

said, that Her Majesty's Government had no power whatever to remit fines of this nature. By the enactment, those fines were payable to the poor, subject to a deduction of one-fourth to the informer. He would further state, that no remonstrance had been made by the person convicted. As to the other part of the question, the Government had no power to interfere. He had made, therefore, no special inquiry; but he had received a letter from a person engaged in some trade at Oldham, saying that it was the general practice of the barbers there not to shave on Sundays, and that the prosecution had been undertaken at their instance.

said, that he had to entreat the attention of the House to an important matter, and to point out the special position of the House in reference to a Bill now before it, having for its title "To explain and amend the Act of last Session for the better Management of the Metropolis." A statement had been made with regard to that Bill founded on an entire misconception of its nature. It was a Bill which would deprive many parishes of their ancient rights, and deprive many thousands of the ratepayers of the metropolis of privileges which they had enjoyed for 300 years. It had been said that there was an ambiguity in the wording of the Act of last Session, and this Bill was only intended to remove it; but ambiguity was a very convenient word, when Ministers are about to do some great job; and this he considered was what Ministers intended to do by that Bill.

said, that he must remind the hon. Member that the Bill to which he alluded was one of the Orders of the Day for that night, and it was highly irregular, therefore, for the hon. Member to discuss it on the Motion, "That the House at its rising adjourn until Monday next." The hon. Member had given notice of an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee, and he ought to postpone his observations until that Motion came on.

said, that that was just what he was coming to. He wanted to know when the Bill was to go into Committee. He was afraid that the Order might be read at midnight, and thus all discussion be prevented. His object was to procure the postponement of the Order, that the House might interfere to protect the country from the wrong, the oppression, and the tyranny which were about to be perpetrated. If the House was determined to persevere with the Bill, at any rate it should not be done in ignorance—they should not say to him after Easter, "Why, you should have told us all this before." Well, but the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government had told them that it was necessary to pass the Bill before Easter. He did not believe a word of it. The noble Lord had been misled—he did not know if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Public Works (Sir B. Hall) had done it, or if any one else had done it, but he had been misled—he had evidently not read the Bill. It had been said there was an oversight in the original Bill. There was no oversight—he could prove there was no oversight at all. The Bill was brought in in violation of a direct promise—[Cries of "Order!"]

said, that the hon. Member might put a question to any Member of Her Majesty's Government as to the time at which the Bill was to be brought on, but it was not in order for him to discuss the merits of the Bill which was the subject of one of the Orders of the Day.

said, that he would confine his observations as much as possible within the limits prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker. He would only refer to what was the law of the land, and to the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers with reference to that law. The law to which he referred was an Act of the last Session of Parliament. The preamble of that Act said, that "Provision should be made for the better local management of the metropolis, in respect to the sewerage, drainage, paving, cleansing, lighting, and improvement" thereof. It was not only specified in the Act itself, that the powers conferred by it should not extend to matters relating to the Church and the management of the poor, but such was the express understanding on which the measure was passed; and when a deputation from the parish of Clerkenwell, with the vestry clerk at their head, came down to that House one evening, and, greatly alarmed, called out the right hon. Baronet to have a conversation with them in the lobby, he assured them that the measure would neither affect the Church nor the poor. The parishioners went away satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman, enchanted with his manner, and very possibly deluded and humbugged. The present Bill was of such importance, that it was the duty of the Government to bring it forward only under such circumstances as would insure for it the most careful and minute consideration. He entreated of Her Majesty's Government either to permit it to be referred to a Select Committee, or to postpone it for a month, so that the various parishes, which it was designed to affect might have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. If either of those courses were adopted, the House would hereafter thank him for hav- ing prevented one of the grossest acts of injustice ever attempted by the occupants of the Treasury bench. There was no necessity for precipitation in the matter at all; nor would any inconvenience result from holding the approaching elections under the old Act, a measure which, if he was rightly informed, had received the sanction, not only of Mr. Welsby and the late Mr. Cowling, but of the Attorney and Solicitor General—all those high authorities being in favour of preserving intact the rights of the already existing vestries.

said, he felt some difficulty in following his hon. Friend, and answering the question he had put, without deviating from the rules that had been laid down for the guidance of the proceedings of that House; but he should deal with the matter in the best way he could under the circumstances. He could assure the hon. Member and the House that the Government had no other anxiety than to preserve the parishes from an impending litigation, which threatened to be not only extensive but expensive. There was no such unanimity on the present Act as the hon. Gentleman appeared to suppose; on the contrary, there was a serious conflict of opinion as to its construction. On the 8th section, which purported to hand over the faculties and functions of the already existing vestries to the new ones, grave doubts had arisen, legal opinion being divided as to whether the particular vestries alluded to by the hon. Gentleman were included in the term "already existing vestries." If the old and the new bodies, standing with equal pertinacity on their presumed rights, were both to make a rate next Easter, the rate would infallibly be disputed by the public, and there would be nothing for it but a tedious and costly appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. In that state of things the Government thought it better to substitute legislation for litigation, and with that view they introduced the declaratory measure which had proved so distasteful to the hon. Member. The reason why the Bill was pressed forward with such expedition was, that the Government desired to save the parishes from expense—an object which could be attained only by an immediate measure.

said, he hoped that ample time would be afforded for the consideration of the Bill. It had passed its second reading at a very late hour the other night, on the representation of the hon. and learned Attorney General that it was a measure of no very great importance; but it was very questionable whether it would not deprive various parishes of their existing rights in relation to their churches and their poor.

said, he was prepared to show that the Bill involved no breach of faith towards the parishes, and that it would carry out the intention of the Act of last Session. In order to prevent litigation, it was absolutely necessary that the measure should be proceeded with without delay.

said, he must also urge the necessity of avoiding precipitate haste in dealing with the Bill, as its provisions occasioned great disappointment to the metropolitan parishes.

said, he wished to know what was the latest hour at which the Government would go into Committee on the measure?

said, he could not tell when the first business (the Army Estimates) would be finished, but it was very desirable that his right on. Friend (Sir B. Hall) should have an opportunity that evening of explaining the grounds on which the Bill was based. After twelve o'clock, however, the House could not be expected to listen to such a statement.

Sir, I rise to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the necessity of taking some steps for obtaining a pledge from the Russian Government to secure that the graves of the British officers and soldiers in the Crimea shall be respected, in the event of the positions at present occupied by the allied armies being evacuated. As the time appears to be approaching when the allied armies will have to leave the position which for the last year and a half they have occupied in the Crimea, it is to them and to us a matter of melancholy importance to inquire what is to become of the monuments which the pious care of sorrowing friends and admiring comrades has raised to the memory of the gallant men who fell in defence of their country, and now repose in a far distant land. This is a subject which will not fail to awaken an interest deep as it is general, for there is scarcely a family which has not had to mourn the loss of some relative, and there is hardly a house in which there is not one dead. I am anxious, therefore, to obtain from Her Majesty's Government an assurance that they will, if it should be in their power to do so, take measures to obtain from the Russian Government an assurance that the monuments and graves of the British officers and soldiers buried in the Crimea shall be respected when the allied armies shall have retired, and the country shall have again fallen into the hands of its original inhabitants. It may be said that no Christian Power would authorise or permit the graves of the dead, even though those dead had been its enemies, to be desecrated or molested; and most sincerely do I hope that this sentiment may find favour with the Russian Government. I know not what course they may be disposed to take; but I can call to mind two instances where a noble forbearance has been shown by nations with whom we have been at war, and where the graves of British soldiers have been treated with veneration and respect. The brave and generous Marshal Soult himself raised a monument on the heights of Corunna to the memory of his noble and gallant enemy, Sir John Moore; and to this day a yearly rent is paid, raised from a battalion of Guards, for the ground in which are interred the remains of their heroic comrades who fell in the ill-fated sortie of Bayonne. And, although it is, perhaps, scarcely natural to expect that there should be the same community of feeling and the same sympathy between the British and the Russians as between the British and the French, I am yet unwilling to believe that Russia will not facilitate some arrangement which will convey to the sorrowing relatives of those who have fallen in this war an assurance that the graves of the departed will not be desecrated. If peace should soon be concluded, it may not be difficult to obtain this concession; but if the war goes on and the British army should find it expedient to break up their camp in the Crimea and take up a new position elsewhere, the graves of our soldiers will then be at the mercy of the enemy, whose feelings it is but reasonable to suppose will be less favourable to us than they would have been if peace had been restored. Even in that case, however, some understanding might be come to, even with a hostile Government, on a subject appealing so tenderly to the instinctive emotions of our common humanity. That large burial-ground where are read the names of Cathcart, of Strang- ways, of Estcourt, and of many others, the pride and glory of the British army, is the very spot that might be chosen as the site for a redoubt in case the neighbouring heights should be fortified. But there are other humbler burial-grounds, not undeserving of our pious care. In one of these repose some hundreds of the Guards who fell at Inkerman, including a gallant friend of my own, whose place it is my privilege to fill in this House; and in close proximity lies a spot where the fallen of the Coldstream Guards have found their final resting-place. A few stones mark the place of their sepulture, and it is just one of those localities least likely to be left without disturbance if the original inhabitants were to return. Nor must we forget that the people who lived in that country have been ruined by the war. Their houses have been levelled, their vines uprooted, and of their trees not a vestige remains. Whatever, therefore, the feelings of the Russian Government may be in our regard, it is but natural to expect that these poor people will come back to their desolated homes animated with no very friendly sentiments towards us. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I trust the House will be of opinion that I have made out a case for the interference of the Government on this mournful subject. We may not give back life to those who have fallen in their country's cause; but some endeavour may at least be made to insure that all that is mortal of them may rest undisturbed in their remote, but not unhonoured, graves.

Sir, the subject which the hon. Gentleman has brought under the notice of the House is one that, no doubt, must enlist the feelings of all those who reflect upon it; and I can assure him that it shall not escape the attention of Her Majesty's Government during the negotiations which are now proceeding. I really cannot anticipate that there will be the slightest difficulty in obtaining from the Russian Government an assurance—if, indeed, such an assurance can be necessary—that the monuments which record the fall of our brave countrymen who have sacrificed their lives in the Crimea shall receive that respect which among all civilised nations such memorials invariably command. Whatever we may think of our Russian adversaries, we must do them the justice to admit that they have carried on war with all the courtesy which becomes a great country. Their treatment of the gallant force which surrendered to them at Kars has been most humane and generous. That noble garrison received every consideration which the magnanimity of the victors could prompt; and, therefore, there is no reason to suppose that those who have known so well how to treat the living will be wanting in due respect towards the dead. However, both the hon. Gentleman and the House may rest perfectly satisfied that the subject will not he lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government.

said, he entirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the subject, that some efficient steps should be taken to secure the object in view; for, though he concurred with the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government in what he had said as regarded the manner in which the Russian officers and the Russian troops had conducted themselves, it was to be borne in mind that the population of the Crimea was a mixed one, many of them not being Russians at all, and many of them having been totally ruined by the present war. He had not the slightest doubt that the Russian Government would be willing to comply with any proposition which our Government might put forward on the subject. His opinion was, that some portion of ground should be set apart as a burial-place for our troops who had fallen in the Crimea, the Russian Government to receive a rent charge, and the ground to be well guarded.

said, he begged to ask the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure in the course of the present Session for the union of the Universities of Aberdeen? Great inconvenience arose from the present state of matters, students being deprived of the use of the library and other advantages.

said, that the subject of the introduction of a measure for the purpose of uniting the Universities of Aberdeen engaged the attention of the late Government, and he believed that a union between those bodies was desirable; but difficulties were experienced as to how far the institutions should be merged, and whether the chairs of each should be included in the amalgamation. He was happy to say that the parties locally interested in the question were now nearly agreed as to the terms of union; and he would only add that he should cheerfully lend them his best assistance to carry out their object.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there existed any order by the Board of Admiralty prohibiting the admission of workhouse boys into the navy? A board of guardians of the Isle of Wight was desirous to get one of the boys admitted into the navy, but they were informed that the Admiralty had issued an order against the admission of workhouse boys into the service. He mentioned the circumstances to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), a few days since, and he informed him that the order was issued by the Board, and had not emanated from himself. As the order worked most injuriously, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was true that such an order existed?

said, he could not answer for what third parties had told the hon. and gallant Officer. In point of fact, there was no such regulation as that referred to.

said, he would now move, in accordance with the arrangement made with the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) last night, that on Thursday, the 10th of April, Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motions; and he at the same time would express a hope that from that time the House would consent to establish the rule that for the remainder of the Session Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motions on Thursdays.

said, that while the Bill relating to the appointment of certain officers of that House, which had now received the Royal Assent, was under discussion, the noble Lord at the head of the Government promised that a Minute of the Treasury should be prepared, providing that in the appointments to such offices attention should be paid to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker. The recommendation of that right hon. Gentleman had been acted upon with reference to the appointments which had recently been made, and the selection of the Gentlemen who now occupied seats at the table had met with the entire concurrence, he believed, of every Member of the House. The Act itself, however, did not contain any provision that regard should be paid to the recommendation of Mr. Speaker, and he wished to ask whether such a Minute had been prepared as the noble Lord had promised, assuring to the Speaker the power of making recommendations to the Crown when vacancies might occur, and, if so, whether there would be any objection to lay such Minute upon the table?

replied, that the Minute had not yet been drawn up, but when it was prepared it should be presented to the House.

Sir, I rise to call the attention of the House to the present state of the appellate jurisdiction in the last resort, and to suggest measures calculated to remedy the defects of this branch of the public service. I am aware that the subject is under investigation in another place; but I submit that that is not a sufficient reason why it should not be discussed here. If the matter regarded simply the privileges of the other House the case would he different; hut it concerns the general administration of justice and the rights of the whole community. I think, therefore, that this House ought not to remain a stranger to the discussion of matters so deeply affecting the whole body of the Commons of England. Sir, I propose to consider, first the working of the present system, and then those remedies which the public service in the administration of justice requires. I must remind the House that there are three branches of appellate jurisdiction administered by the House of Lords, namely, 1st, appeals from the Courts of equity; 2ndly, writs of error; and 3rdly, Scotch appeals. Each of these presents various anomalies and inconveniences. Let us see, in the first place, who are the Judges who sit in the House of Lords. They are the Chancellor, the Lord Chancellor, three ex-Chancellors, and the Lord Chief Justice. The senior ex-Chancellor, though he still delights that illustrious assembly with his eloquence and wisdom, cannot, at his advanced age, he expected to attend regularly to the judicial business of the House. The Lord Chief Justice is prevented by the duties of his eminent office from sitting often on appeals in the House of Lords. There remain two ex-Chancellors. They seldom sit together. If there be one sitting with the Chancellor, and they differ in opinion on an appeal, there is no judgment, and the judgment of the court below is confirmed. This occurred five times during last Session. It is most unsatisfactory to the suitors. Let us now consider the subject of appeals from the Courts of equity. If the appeal is from the Chancellor, it is heard by the Chancellor himself in the House of Lords; and this is not only an anomaly, but a scandal. It is true that he is usually assisted by another law Lord; but he would naturally be in favour of the view of the case which he had before taken, and might influence the other law Lord. If, however, they differ, there is no judgment. And if the Chancellor is assisted by two law Lords, either of them agreeing with the Judge appealed against decides the case. When the appeal is from the two Lords Justices, the result is equally unsatisfactory. They are, by their learning and consummate judicial ability, equal, if not superior, to any two judges in the House of Lords; and if the appeal be heard by the Chancellor with two law Lords, and there is a difference of opinion, the decision is that of two Judges against two Judges. But in some cases the Chancellor hears a cause assisted by the two Lords Justices. Then the appeal is, in most instances, from three Judges to two, or, if it be from the Chancellor and Lords Justices to three Judges in the House of Lords, still one of the three is the Judge appealed against. Suitors in such cases will naturally say that the decision of their appeal depends on the chance, whether one of the ex-Chancellors or another happens to sit with the Chancellor to hear it. This is most unsatisfactory, and derogatory to the character of the court of appeal. We come now to writs of error from the courts of common law. In those cases the decision of the common law Judges in the Exchequer Chamber may be reversed by two or three equity Judges who never held a brief in a court of common law. And at any rate the Lord Chief Justice is the only common law Judge in the House of Lords. It is true that the House summons the common law Judges to assist in hearing difficult cases or writs of error. But this is unsatisfactory, for the Judges can take no part in the proceedings. They cannot ask a question of the counsel, nor suggest a point in argument, and they sit as silent as the mace on the woolsack. They can only answer such questions as the House puts to them at the conclusion of the arguments. In Scotch appeals the system is still more absurd. The appeal is from Scotch Judges of the greatest eminence and experience, to English Judges who have no knowledge of Scotch law. It is true that at present there is in the House of Lords a noble Lord (Lord Brougham) who, being remarkable for the extent and variety of his knowledge, is learned in the law of Scotland. But this is an accidental circumstance, and even that noble Lord cannot be supposed to be so well acquainted with Scotch law as the Judges who have passed their lives in its practice and administration. To exemplify the results of this system, I need only refer to the case of Stuart v. Fullarton, decided by the late Lord Wynford in the House of Lords, which was so manifestly contrary to the law of Scotland that it was found necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to amend the judgment of the House. And on the 31st of July, 1851, Lord Aberdeen said—

"He knew that many changes had been introduced and much light had been thrown on the Scotch law by several of the Judges of England, especially Lord Mansfield, but, at the same time, it was unsatisfactory that the law should be administered by persons who, in spite of their best intentions and highest integrity, frequently entertained feelings at variance with that system of law which they were expounding. What (he added) would be said if a man had to appeal from this country to the Parliament at Paris, and yet it was undoubtedly true that the French law was less removed in spirit and principle from the English law than the law of this country was from the Scotch law."

This subject was, in the year 1851, considered by the Faculty of Advocates of Edinburgh, and they unanimously approved a report of a committee of their body, recommending that the House of Lords should have the power of summoning the Scotch Judges to assist in Scotch appeals, and that a person should be appointed, thoroughly conversant with Scotch law, to take part in the hearing of appeals from Scotland in the House of Lords. I come now to consider the remedies which may be resorted to, for the purpose of correcting the evils which I have pointed out. The first question on this part of the subject is whether the House of Lords should continue to exercise the appellate jurisdiction. There are two inherent evils attending the continuance of that jurisdiction—namely, that the House only sits for six mouths in the year, and that there must be two Supreme Courts—the House of Lords and the Privy Council. But to the abolition of the appellate functions of the House of Lords, there are, no doubt, serious constitutional difficulties, for that measure would no doubt weaken the authority and detract from the dignity of the Upper House of Parliament. These reasons make me desirous of seeing some way to improve and to preserve its appellate jurisdiction. With the same view Her Majesty's Government have proposed to create peers for life. I will pass over the legal objections to that course. But on constitutional grounds it seems to me very dangerous. The comparative facility of creating large batches of life peers must tend to destroy the independence of the House of Lords. It is, however, suggested that the Royal prerogative of creating peers for life, supposing it to exist, might be limited by Parliament. But if this were so, another objection would remain. The object is stated to be to give those peerages to ex-Judges, who would assist in hearing appeals in the House of Lords. But then you would have an appeal from Judges in the full vigour of life and lately engaged in the full swing of professional duties at the bar, to Judges who have retired on account of advanced age or ill-health, and, therefore, less competent than the others for the discharge of judicial duties. Another objection is, that such a course would tend to create a distinct class in the Upper House, like the noblesse de la robe in France, who did not amalgamate with the rest of the aristocracy, but were considered an inferior caste. Having regard to these considerations, I beg to suggest, after much consideration, that the ancient constitution of this country points out a remedy for the inefficiency of the present Court of Appeal in the House of Lords. I am prepared to show that by the ancient constitution of Parliament, the Lords and the Judges together formed a great Court of Appeal in the last resort. There were in the early period of our history three Councils of the King, that is to say, the Consilium Privatum, the Consilium Ordinarium, and the Magnum Consilium or Parliament. The former was something like the Cabinet Council, and consisted of Ministers of the Crown. The second was composed of the Judges, great officers of State and councillors. Its history is somewhat obscure, but it is certain that it not only sat apart as a Council, but also in the great Council or Parliament. Lord Hale, in his Treatise on the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, p. 12, says, that from the 28 Edw. I. to the 20 Edw. III., the writs summoning the Judges and others of the Ordinary Council to Parliament were in the same form as those directed to the Barons. It may be argued thence that both had the same powers, and some writers hold that it was so. But this was undoubtedly true with regard to the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of Parliament. Thus Lord Hale says—

"In ancient times, as in Edw. I. and Edw. II. and the beginning of Edw. III., the Consilium Legale, the Chancellor, justices, &c., were not barely assistants, but had a voice of suffrage as well as of advice in the affirming or reversing of judgments, &c., though, in process of time, the grandiour of the Lords got in effect the whole jurisdiction from the Consilium Ordinarium, and left them only as assistants and advisers, which seems to obtain about the beginning of Ric. II."

This participation of the Ordinary Council in the jurisdiction with the Lords is strictly in accordance with constitutional principle; for all temporal jurisdiction in this country is derived from the Crown. Our appellate jurisdiction belongs to the King in Parliament, and the judgment is the King's by the advice of the Lords; and it was therefore competent to the King to exercise his jurisdiction with the advice of his councillors in Parliament as well as of the Barons. The subject, however, will be made clearer by briefly examining the ancient method of proceeding in Parliament. The King in Parliament formed the great remedial Court of the kingdom. When that assembly met, petitions poured in from all quarters. They were received by the auditors and triers of petitions. Palgrave, in his learned work on the King's Council, p. 63, says—

"The auditors of petitions constituted a Parliamentary Committee composed of some of the Judges and a delegation of Bishops, Earls, and Barons."

Hale gives a number of precedents on this subject, and they show that the Judges were always included among the triers of petitions. I will only give three of these precedents. In 14 Edw. II. the triers were three bishops, one abbot, two barons, five judges; 14 Edw. III., four bishops, two earls, three barons, four judges; 20 Edw. III., one bishop, one abbot, one baron, and four judges; so that in this case there was a majority of judges among the triers. The triers of petitions are classed by Fleta among the King's Courts. It was their duty to receive the petitions and class them, and refer to the proper courts or offices those which belonged to their respective attributions, retaining for cognisance in Parliament the matters which belonged to that highest Court. Now, it is clear that the Ordinary Council shared this important jurisdiction as triers or auditors of petitions with the Lords; and this is a conclusive proof that the Judges and others of the Council were not mere assistants and advisers, as they are now, but a part of the high Court of Parliament for hearing appeals. Palgrave, in his book on the Council, p. 64, and Spencer, in his work on the Court of Chancery, show how this change took place, which reduced them to their present condition of mere assistants of the Lords. What I propose is to return to the ancient constitution of Parliament by restoring to the Judges their power of voting with the Lords on appeals and writs of errror. It is, no doubt, lawful for the Crown to summon the Lords Justices and Vice Chancellors to sit with the other Judges in the House of Lords; and, indeed, any Privy Councillor may be so summoned. If this prerogative were exercised, and the Judges were all empowered to vote in the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in the House of Lords, a great and powerful Court of Appeal would be constituted—composed of all the Judges of the Superior Courts, and others learned in the law. I should also propose, that it be a rule that no Judge should sit on appeal in any case which he decided in the Court below, and that the Lord Chancellor should never sit on an appeal from himself. There should be a permanent Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords, who should constantly sit there, and preside in all appeals from the Lord Chancellor. There should also be two or three Scotch Judges summoned, who should remain in London during the Session of Parliament, as advisers of the House of Lords in Scotch cases, and who should have votes; and they should be paid a salary to enable them to live in London during the Session. Out of such materials as these the House of Lords might constitute a judicial committee like that of the Privy Council. The new sys- tem which I have proposed would remove the chief defects of the ultimate appeal to the House of Lords, but still great inconveniences would remain. In the first place the House of Lords sits only during the Session of Parliament, but a Court of Appeal ought to be open all the judicial year, to administer justice. Moreover, if the House of Lords continues to be a supreme Court of Appeal, there must be two Courts of last resort. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could not be abolished for the purpose of transferring its jurisdiction to the House of Lords. For the Judicial Committee can sit all the year round, and it gives general satisfaction to the suitors, and it could not be abolished to transfer its jurisdiction to a Court open to the suitors for six months only. Consequently, if the House of Lords be retained as a Court of Appeal, there must still be two supreme Courts of Appeal. This is a most serious defect of the judicial constitution of the kingdom. I may exemplify this proposition by observing that on the Wills' Act, for instance, there may be one construction given by the House of Lords, and another by the Judicial Committee. The same may occur on questions of domicile and the construction of wills and deeds. And, indeed, a single Court of ultimate appeal is essential for developing and forming a system of jurisprudence. It is doubly important in this country. For it is a peculiarity of our system that the main part of it rests entirely on precedents. We have no code or corpus juris. The law makes the precedents, and the precedents make the law. The consequence of this vicious circle is, that the law is very uncertain. It is, indeed, in a transition state. The Judges of late act on the principle of seeking to do substantial justice. This is wise, but it increases the uncertainty; and it often happens that after a case has been argued by the ablest counsel, no one can say what the judgment of the Court will be. Lawyers do not often tell these secrets to the laity, but the truth is, that the Judges do what they please. If it were not for their general high character and independence, this country would suffer from that miserable state of servitude in which the law is vague and uncertain. This state of things can only be corrected by a single supreme Court of Appeal constantly sitting, which would tend to form and settle the law; and, without such a Court, it is vain to think of codification. The Court of Cassation, in France, is an example of this subject, for it has done much to form the jurisprudence of that country, by its decisions as the sole supreme Court of Appeal. Another defect of the House of Lords is, that it is not a regular permanent Court. The ex-Chancellors are not bound to attend, and the other Judges are fully occupied with their duties elsewhere. The attendance is, therefore, uncertain. It is impossible that such a Court should be consistent and steady in the principles on which it administers justice. Ours is, indeed, the only country that has no independent Court of Appeal. The only real remedy is to create a single Court of Appeal, like the Court of Cassation—to take the most competent persons from the bench and bar in every branch of the profession, and make a great Court of Appeal, invested with all the jurisdiction now divided between the House of Lords and the Privy Council—entirely independent, permanent, and constantly sitting to hear appeals. The Judges of this Court would have leisure to become perfect judges of appeal; they would be in constant communication with each other, and they would learn one from the other, and so enlarge their minds—and be perfectly independent of the opinions of the Courts below. Without such a Court a code would be comparatively useless. This Court of Appeal would also fill a serious want of our legal institutions—that of a Criminal Court of Appeal. This is a great anomaly. It is true that a Judge may, on the trial, reserve a point for consideration in the Exchequer Chamber. But he I is not obliged to do so. Recourse may be had after judgment to the Secretary of State. But it is surely unconstitutional that the liberty or life of a man should depend not on an appeal to a Court of law, but on a Minister of the Crown. At common law, a writ of error in a case of felony does not stay execution, so that a man may be hanged, pending the writ, though it may turn out in the Court of Error, that the judgment was contrary to law; and so Blackstone says, that the reversal of judgment may be some consolation to his friends. The statute 89 Vict. c. 69, provides, indeed, that execution shall be stayed in misdemeanor, when a new trial is applied for; but in capital cases the writ of error is still only allowed ex gratiâ. The attention of the Common Law Commissioners was directed to this strange ano- maly, and they, in their eighth Report, strongly recommended that all judgments, both in felony and in misdemeanor, be rendered liable to revision by new trial on cause being shown. The difficulty was, however, stated, that if such appeals were allowed in criminal cases, the Courts would have no time to decide on them. The objection is strange. It would vanish, if an independent permanent Court of Appeal were constituted. That Court might also be referred to by the Government on questions of legislation and law reform, and so give valuable assistance to the Legislature in various ways. I have now concluded this subject, the importance of which will, I hope, be my excuse for detaining the House for so long a time. The hon. Member then moved—

"That the present state of the Appellate Jurisdiction in the last resort is unsatisfactory; that a Supreme Court of Appeal ought to be constituted, presided over by permanent Judges of Appeal."

said, that before the House went into Committee of Supply, he wished to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last year they voted 136,000 men for the militia, and a sum of £3,365,684 was voted for their support. From returns which had been made, it appeared that not one-half of the men had been embodied. There was, therefore, a sum of £1,500,000 which had not been expended. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) the other night what had been done with that money, and he said he thought it must be in the Exchequer; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his financial statement, said that the whole of the money voted last year was expended. What he now wished to ask was, what had become of the money; whether it had been expended on other objects than that for which it had been voted, or remained in the Exchequer?

said, his hon. Friend was mistaken if he supposed that when Estimates were voted all the money was supplied which was required for the Estimates, and it did not follow that all the supplies voted in Committee of Ways and Means were expended. In the present case, if the whole of the militia had been embodied, the effect would have been that there would be a further deficiency of £1,500,000 than there actually was. By the Appropriation Act the Government were enabled, if there was an access in one part of the department, to supply deficiency in another part of the department, and the saving of the expense of the militia was applied to other services of the army.

said, he must complain of the absence of particulars. There were fifty-five different establishments scattered over the world, and explanations were given in the Estimates only as to three of them, so that the House had no means of ascertaining whether any of those establishments were necessary or not. Now that the Commissariat and Ordnance Departments were placed under one head, he thought the duties of the officers of those departments connected with the civil establishments might safely be united.

said, he wished to obtain some information respecting the duties of the superintendents of the Royal gun factory and other departments at Woolwich; also, as to the functions of the captains instructors. He would also take that opportunity of asking what was the meaning of the new appointment of building engineer?

said, he was equally anxious to hear what was meant by a building engineer. He would also ask whether some officers did not hold two offices—the inspector of machinery, for instance? He suggested that it would be more convenient in future to mention the names of the officers in the Estimates.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) that it was desirable to consolidate the different departments abroad, and that principle had been already acted upon. At present there were twenty-two storekeepers, performing the additional duties of barrackmasters, and during the last year seven or eight storekeepers and eight barrackmasters in the United Kingdom had been dispensed with. In reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. M. Chambers), he begged to say that the superintendents of the various departments had the supreme control of, and were responsible for, all the operations of their various departments. The captains instructors were second in command, and it was intended that they should give instruction to young artillery officers and to a certain number of artillery soldiers, whom it was proposed to send through the various manufacturing departments, in order that they might become acquainted with all the operations in those departments. The building engineer was a new appointment which had been made for economical reasons. The building operations of the Royal Arsenal were formerly under the direction of an officer of the Royal Engineers, and it was found that it would be cheaper to employ a civil engineer to conduct those operations. The experiment had been tried, and the result was a saving of about £1,100 a year. As to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne), he (Mr. Monsell) could only say that he was not aware of any case in which an officer held two appointments.

said, it was difficult to reconcile the statements just made by the right hon. Gentleman, that the superintendence of certain buildings being committed to a civil engineer occasioned less expense than the employment of a military engineer, with the observation made the other night, that the pay of the Army Works and Land Transport Corps was at a comparatively high rate because they were civilians.

said, he noticed that in some districts the items for rent rates and taxes were higher in the present Estimates than in the last, and he wished to know whether that arose from any addition being made to the barrack accommodation?

replied, that in the Woolwich district additional barrack accommodation had been secured; but in the London district the increase was occasioned by the necessity for having considerably more accommodation for a very largely augmented amount of stores. The Government had been obliged, for this purpose, to make use of storerooms in the London Docks and at some of the wharfs.

said, he wished to inquire what had become of the premises belonging to the Government in Tooley Street?

said, he regretted to say that their predecessors had given a lease, for ever, of those valuable premises, by which considerable difficulty had been caused to the Government.

said, he wished to know what had been done for the accommodation of soldiers' wives?

replied, that he believed, in two or three places, at least in one place certainly, there had been lately erected accommodation for a certain number of married soldiers, and another was provided for by the present Estimates. The whole of the recommendations of the Barrack Committee were under the consideration of the Government now; but he should he much deceiving the Committee if be did not inform them that the expense of carrying out those recommendations would be very considerable. It had been found that, according to the ordinary rate, to provide for six married soldiers in a hundred would cause an expense in building a barrack of about £8,000, or, at all events, £6,000. Now, multiplying that by the number of thousands to be provided for, it would be a very large sum.

said, he would, while the question of barrack accommodation was before the Committee, take that opportunity of paying his tribute of gratitude to that excellent lady, Lady Alicia Blackwood, for the services she had rendered at Scutari in providing accommodation for the soldiers' wives, who, before she did so, had been living in a state of the most abandoned profligacy and dissipation. With a small aid from Government, assisted by the subscriptions of private individuals, and zealously seconded by Miss Nightingale, she had established an hospital for the women themselves, and schools for their children, promoting among them habits of order and industry, so that now they did all the washing required for the military hospitals.

said, he wished to know whether he was to understand that it would cost £6,000 or £8,000 to provide barrack accommodation for six men and their wives?

said, he must explain that when a number of plans for barracks were sent in to the Committee appointed by Lord Panmure, the first plan selected was for an infantry barrack for 1,000 men, and the cost of it as estimated by sworn surveyors was £147,000, and that share of the cost which would he caused by providing accommodation for such a proportion of married soldiers was £8,000.

said, that the permanent barracks now building at Aldershot were costing, he believed, only £40 or £45 for each man.

said, he thought the Committee ought not, without some further explanation, to pass the present Vote, which amounted to about £112,000 more than the Vote of last year, and a very small part of the Vote was required for the seat of war, the greater portion being for the West Indies and other colonial and home establishments. He saw no necessity for that vast increase.

said, that the hon. Member and others on the same side of the House had insisted on the Government pulling down a large number of usefu barracks; and now the people throughout the country were calling on the Government to put an end to the billeting system; where, then, were the soldiers to go? The Government were not to blame for providing additional barracks, for the soldiers must be accommodated somewhere.

said, he had not mentioned a word about barracks.

said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Williams) was hard to satisfy; for the sum required for the West Indies this year was £1,322 less than the sum voted last year.

said, that there prevailed a great desire that the soldiers should not be billeted on public-houses. In a town in the county he represented there were barracks, but not sufficiently large to receive all the militia stationed there, and consequently a portion of the militia was billeted, greatly to the detriment of the discipline of the regiment. He believed that the Ordnance Department had sent down a surveyor with a view to enlarge the barracks, and he should like to know whether that was the fact?

said, he was afraid he could not hold out any expectation of an intention on the part of the Government to enlarge the barracks in question.

said, that the surgeon to Woolwich Arsenal received 13s. a day, and the assistant surgeons 7s. 6d. a day. Their attendance only commenced at ten o'clock in the morning, and, when an accident occurred before that hour, it could not be immediately attended to. He was told that the artificers in the arsenal contributed so much a week to the medical attendants. He wished to know how much the contributions of those men amounted to?

said, the appointments referred to by the hon. Member were quite new, and had boon made in consequence of the number of accidents which had occurred in the arsenal. The only salaries received by those surgeons were those described in the Vote.

said, he wished to know what was the total sum included under the various heads of this Estimate, which it was proposed that the Committee should now vote for the establishment at Enfield in addition to the £30,000 voted in 1854, and the £40,000 voted in 1855? He and his hon. Colleague (Mr. Spooner) had opposed that Vote, on the ground that the supply from the trade in Birmingham and London would be sufficient. They said that if a factory were established it would not be available during the war. He wished to know what portion of the sum now to be voted was for the Enfield factory, which had already absorbed £70,000? The widest estimate given before the Small Arms Committee was £150,000, but he had every reason to believe that that estimate would be exceeded. The right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance had promised that a separate account should be given of the sums expended on this establishment, and of the number of muskets which it had turned out. He was told that not one single musket had been produced there, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information on the point, and would also tell them how many muskets had been produced by the trades of Birmingham and of London. The estimate given before the Small Arms Committee was, that Birmingham could not be relied on for more than 25,000 muskets annually, but he believed that Birmingham had supplied more than four times that number during the past year, and was now supplying at the rate of six times that number. The trade of London had also increased in a similar manner. So determined were the Government not to rely on the trade of England for the supply of arms for the defence of England, that they had sent orders to America, Liege, and France, for arms; and he should be glad to know how many had been supplied from those quarters? He believed the number which they had got from abroad was very insignificant. The result would show that the ancient national resources of England—its manufacture of arms—had been fully operative, while the costly experiment at Enfield and the foreign orders had been of no avail.

said, he wished to know whether the numbers had been reduced at Enfield? It was notorious that that establishment had as yet done no good. The right hon. Gentleman was obliged to get muskets from America. Now, American muskets were notoriously very bad; and the right hon. Gentleman paid America £3 10s. for muskets that were not really worth 50s. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had correctly predicted last year that not a musket would be made in the factory at Enfield during that year, and he might have added nor during this year either.

said, he thought it was desirable that the public should know what was being done at Enfield. He had been told that the Enfield musket was a very good one, but ho supposed that referred merely to the finish.

said, he wished, before the right hon. Gentleman replied, that he should know what the Committee were talking about. He asserted that the Enfield rifle, under that name, was almost entirely made at Birmingham. A Committee investigated the subject of arms some time back, and came to the conclusion that there ought to be a manufactory at Enfield to operate as a check upon the trade. It was said that men could not be got at Birmingham to turn out more than 25,000 muskets a year. But the fact was, the trade had turned out 100,000 the year before, and 150,000 last year. Make but the contracts, so that they could be understood by master and man, and there would be no limit to the supply of serviceable arms. The manufacturers could always supply Government 50 per cent cheaper than any Government establishment. If every circumstance and expense were taken into account, it would be found that Government establishments invariably produced a loss.

said, he would most willingly admit that nothing could have been better than the conduct of the gun manufacturers of Birmingham during the past year. They had worked admirably. They had supplied to the Government, he believed, not less than 100,000 muskets, and he was sure that in the course of the present year they would produce a still greater number. This did not, however, alter his opinion as to the importance of the factory now being erected at Enfield. When finished it would produce rifles at a cost much smaller than that at which they could be procured at Birmingham, and would provide the Government with a very salutary check upon the gun trade in times of pressure. It was quite true that the factory was not yet completed, but it must be remembered that, owing to the necessity for altering and reducing the plan as originally presented to the House, the building was not commenced until January, 1855. Nearly the whole of the machinery had now been received, and it might be confidently expected that the factory would commence operations in the month of July or August next. He did not think that eighteen months was such a very long period to be required for the erection of a factory which would contain between 700 and 800 machines, some of them of an entirely new construction. The amount of the Estimate for this factory was £34,470, namely, £15,378 for stores and machinery, and £19,092 for works and building. The cost of erecting the factory at Enfield would be £9,000 or £10,000 more than it would have been had it been built, as was proposed by the Government, at Woolwich.

said, that the existing accumulation of buildings and combustible stores at Woolwich was a good reason why the factory should not be erected at that place. He considered that it would have been a very imprudent proceeding if it had been persevered in.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance asserted that Government could get machinery cheaper from America suitable to the manufacture of arms. That was demurred to at the time, and a Committee was pressed on the Government, the result of which was, that it was agreed a sum of money should be voted for the establishment at Enfield. That establishment had not realised expectation up to the present time. He wished to know what amount of arms had been received from America, from Liege, and from France; what price had been paid for them, and whether they equalled the muskets of Birmingham and Enfield? When a large Vote was taken for Enfield, he had felt a conviction that, by improving the manufactory at that place, it might turn out 1,000 muskets a week.

said, his answer to the last question was, that the factory was not finished. They had received no muskets from America, except twenty as patterns. They had received 12,000 from Liege, which were quite equal to those made in this country. The price was a little less than ours.

wished for an explanation of the expenditure which had already taken place, as well as of that which would take place when this Vote was agreed to.

said, that that information would be given in the next Vote.

said, that £70,000 had been already voted for Enfield. Now, what he asked was this, that Government should state to the Committee what they had done with that amount, how much they now wanted, and how they intended to dispose of it. He had no objection to a Government factory to check trade, but he feared that if the trades were not encouraged during peace, whenever a war broke out there would be a deficient supply. He believed that in such a case there would be found the same deficiency as there unfortunately was when the late war—he hoped he might call it—broke out. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would tell the Committee how the money had been expended, and that the House of Commons would from time to time require to be informed what was being done at the Government factory.

said, he had the same objection to the present Vote as he had to the previous one. They had seventy-five establishments in the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and they had no particulars of any one of them, and they were required to vote £915,000 for wages without any particulars whatever. In the naval establishments they gave them the number of persons employed, as well as the amount of wages. He hoped that hereafter they should not have Estimates supplied in so useless a form.

said, that last year the House was told that London and Birmingham were fully equal to the work of the supply of arms, provided the orders were given them at proper times, so that their works should not be disorganised. He thought this Vote should be expunged from the Estimates. He had no doubt that if the money granted had been laid out in stores from London and Birmingham, there would have been an adequate supply at the time they were wanted. As it was, he fancied the Government factory would get to work when the war was over. Like Kneller Hall, which was provided for the instruction of teachers, it was an utter failure.

said, he hoped that the Government would see the propriety of giving the Committee all the information in their power respecting an establishment which had cost the public so much money as the factory at Enfield.

said, the whole amount, which would be expended upon the building up to the end of the financial year, was £51,124 11s. 9d.; the amount expended upon machinery was £49,561 9s. 11d.; the additional sum required for machinery this year, £15,000; and the additional amount required for the building, about £19,000. Some hon. Members appeared to consider that this expenditure was a proof that the Government manufactory did not answer; but it was difficult to understand how they could come to such a conclusion when it had not yet got into working order. Whether the manufactory answered or not could not be known until it produced muskets. He believed it would produce 50,000 muskets a year at a very much lower rate than they would he supplied at by the trade of the country; but, supposing it did not produce them at a lower rate, a Government manufactory of tills sort would be of great advantage in checking the exorbitant demands of parties, and in meeting those urgent demands for arms which might be anticipated always at the commencement of a war. Another great advantage of the manufactory would be, that it would diminish the necessity of keeping too large stores in hand, which, when they came to be used, might be found to consist of articles of obsolete pattern. He had every reason to believe the manufactory would succeed, because skilled persons, who had had opportunities of comparing it with similar establishments in America and elsewhere, had almost pledged their reputation upon that point. The manufactory would be at work in three or four months; and, next year, they would be in a better position to form a correct opinion as to its usefulness.

asked, whether there would be any objection to furnish Parliament with a detailed account of all the money spent at Enfield, whether for machinery, building, or any other purpose?

said, he had no hesitation in giving such a promise.

said, he did not doubt that the manufactory would be successful when the war was over. Every one of the arguments put forth by the right hon. Gentleman in support of the Vote had been combated in the Committee, and had failed to convince them of the necessity for such an establishment. He was not convinced by them at the time, and he was not convinced by them now.

said, he thought such an establishment useful in checking the exorbitant demands of private traders when a large supply of arms was suddenly required by the Government. He wished to call the attention of the Government to a demand that had been made on the artificers of Woolwich Arsenal for the payment of £5 for income tax up to April last. Some of these artisans had been called upon to work beyond their ordinary hours, and when by so doing they had increased their earnings beyond £100 a year, Government bad called upon them to pay income tax on that amount, and not on the average of three years' earnings.

said, he thought the question alluded to by the hon. and learned Member utterly irrelevant to the present Vote. He wished to know at what price the American rifle was to be supplied.

said, they proposed to make a charge which would pay themselves for the price of the machinery which they had erected for constructing the rifle. The price would be about £3 10s.

said, that it had been stated that £150,000 would be required for the works at Enfield, and that they would be able to turn out 50,000 muskets a year. Now the interest on such an expenditure would be equivalent to about 7s. for each musket. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state what he supposed the cost of the Enfield musket would be, and what was the cost of the Birmingham musket?

said, the Government were paying the Birmingham manufacturers £3 4s. The price at which they expected to produce the same article at Enfield was £3. This calculation was made by the captain at the head of the Enfield establishment, assisted by one of the most skilful gunmakers of America. He had said that the demand upon the Birmingham manufacturer was likely to continue for two or three years. The troops of the East India Company were not yet armed with the Miniérifle, but they were all to be supplied with that weapon. With regard to our own army, every British soldier had a Miniérifle in his hands, but it was absolutely necessary to have a large quantity in store ready at any moment to put into the hands of the militia and the regular army in case of need.

said, that lest it might be supposed that the Birmingham manufacturers were making excessive profits, he wished the House to remark that, while they were charging £3 4s., the Americans were asking £3 10s.

said, that with reference to the question of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. M. Chambers) as to charging the artisans with income tax, he begged to state that the House two years ago imposed the income tax on persons having £100 a year. Now, nothing could be more unfair or calculated to excite dissatisfaction, than exempting persons in Government employment. The hon. and learned Member said the artisans were not liable unless their income had averaged £100 a year for three years; that was quite true as regarded trades and professions. Those persons, however, were not charged under Schedule D, but Schedule E, for income from office, profit, or employment. The rule with regard to persons employed by Government was to deduct the income tax from the salary, but that could not be done, when it was not known till afterwards that the salary would amount to £100 a year.

said, he had himself known of a case in which artisans who had earned more than £100 a year through working overtime were assessed to the income tax.

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury would submit the point to the law advisers of the Crown; for he did not hesitate to say that if the persons alluded to by the hon. Member for Lambeth had had the income tax stopped from their wages, it had been done contrary to the last Income Tax Act, which declared that the income should be calculated upon the average of the previous three years.

said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring the matter before the Treasury, on the part of his constituents, it should be submitted to the law officers; but the Government had themselves no doubt as to the meaning of the Act.

said, he thought it would be better to obtain the opinion of the Judges in the manner pointed out by the law.

said, that, now that the duty of providing clothing for the troops devolved upon the Government, the Committee had a right to know what securities were taken that the large sums expended for that object were judiciously and economically laid out. Already complaints were made as to the inferior quality of the article supplied. The advertisements issued for the contracts stated that the materials from which the clothing was made were to be taken to Weedon, to which place the persons undertaking to make them up must go to fetch them; and that the garments, after being completed, must be delivered into the stores of Messrs. Hayter and Howell, the Government packers. The cloth being purchased by contract, the Committee ought to be told—first, who was the officer responsible for its quality and its fitness for the uses for which it was intended; and next, whose duty it was to inspect the clothing, when made up and delivered into the hands of the Government packers. The Government should also explain the principle on which the charge for "packing" was regulated, and whether it included delivery, because, from the advertisements, it would appear that the clothing had only to be delivered into the stores at Birchin Lane, a place which, from its distance from the river, necessitated the process of recarting before the clothing could be despatched for distribution. At the close of the last war the subject of army clothing was thoroughly investigated, but the present Government did not seem to be aware of the information then collected. They talked of the great exertions in this respect which had been made by this country through the means of its present resources; but the fact was, that during the last war we provided a much larger amount of clothing, not only for our own troops, but also for those of our allies.

said, that the advertisement to which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred was connected with a state of things which he might characterise as one of transition between the establishment of a clothing store at Weedon, and those arrangements by which it was proposed that the supply of clothes to the army should ultimately be carried into effect. He should, therefore, give the best reply in his power to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, by informing him what the system was which would be followed out after the 1st of April next with respect to the subject under their notice. Up to the present moment not a single suit of clothing had been ordered, received, or issued by the clothing department, inasmuch as it was only within the last few days that the officers and inspectors of that department had been completely organised. After the 1st of April next, however, all cloth which was ordered for the purpose of making army clothing should be delivered at Weedon, and should be there examined by the inspectors appointed for the purpose. The gentleman at the head of the department at Weedon was Mr. Elliott, who lately held a position of considerable importance in Canada, and who would have placed under him five or six skilled inspectors. When the cloth had been received at Weedon and inspected by those gentlemen, it would, in the case of the Artillery, the Cavalry, the Guards, and the Sappers and Miners, be delivered up to the corps themselves, upon whom would rest the whole charge of making up their own clothing. That arrangement, he believed, would be productive of great economy, and it had been computed by an able officer, that the saving likely to be effected in the Artillery department alone, under the new system, would not be less than £14,000 annually. The money thus saved, he might inform the Committee, it was the intention of the Government to apply to the improvement of the quality of the cloth which was provided for the use of our troops. With regard to the rest of the army, the arrangements to be adopted were still under the consideration of his noble Friend (Lord Panmure). In the case of the infantry, no doubt great difficulties would present themselves in dealing with the question efficiently, inasmuch as the regiments in that department of the service were constantly changing from place to place, and were often employed on distant stations. Whether the depôts of those regiments could be made available for carrying out the new arrangements for making up the clothing he was not prepared to say; but in case they could not, it would be necessary to have their clothing made up by tender, and under those circumstances it was deemed advisable that the clothing of the Irish regiments should be made up in Dublin, and those of the English in Yorkshire, or some other locality in the north. The whole of the packing would be done in the Government establishment at Weedon, and therefore the expense of army packers, which amounted to £12,000 or £13,000 a year, would be entirely abolished. He had not yet turned his attention to the documents which showed the course pursued at the expiration of the last war, but he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) for bringing the subject under his notice.

said, the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman had sketched was perfectly satisfactory, and he was glad his questions had elicited that statement, because he was convinced it was of vast consequence that both the cloth and the clothing for the army should be inspected by officers of the Government on Government premises, that in the event of the troops being supplied with bad articles the public might know whom to blame.

said, he felt bound to complain of the clothing which had been served out to the militia. He was aware of one case in which clothes had bean served, and half the buttons had come off in less than fourteen days. With regard to the boots which had been furnished under the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, he might observe that nothing could be worse. They cost 8s. 3d., but the upper leather was of a bad description, and the soles were made of leather shavings, and the consequence had of course been, that they wore out in a remarkably short time. He believed that in the case of trousers a contract had been entered into to furnish them to the troops at the rate of about 4s. 1d. per pair, but it was perfectly well known that no respectable dealer would undertake to furnish them at less than 5s. or 5s. 6d. a pair. If the soldier were not furnished with a good article, of course it would wear out in a comparatively short time, and he would then be put under a stoppage of pay in order to replace it. This was a subject, therefore, to which he thought the attention of the Government ought to be directed. There was a rumour afloat, that in the case of the clothing of the German cavalry the articles were so bad, that the men were to receive £2 each, in order to refit themselves in pantaloons and boots. That mode of proceeding, he could not help thinking, would be found to entail very heavy expenses upon the public. He regretted that the barracks at Weedon were to be turned into a gigantic clothing depôt. He did not think Government contracts generally answered, and he believed they were extremely detrimental to the interests of the service.

said, he must caution the Committee against supposing that by the new arrangement the Government would obtain the clothing much cheaper. He was satisfied the country would be quite ready to pay a fair price for better articles than were at present supplied to our troops. He found that the cost of clothing for the cavalry now averaged from £9 to £10 per man, and for the infantry the cost was £5 per man; but was it likely that two suits of clothing, well made, and of good materials, could be obtained for £5?

said, he had lately ordered uniforms for the regiment he had the honour to command from a clothier in Dublin, who stated that he would have to send the clothing to Weedon. Now, could any arrangement be more absurd? With regard to the system of inspection, he thought it should be conducted by the officers of the respective regiments, who were the best judges of the suitability of clothing and accoutrements. Inspectors of saddlery had been appointed, and among others a man named Brodie, who was formerly in the Dragoon Guards, but who, in his opinion, was not to be trusted in such a position. He hoped the Committee would be informed whether any compensation was to be given to the German Legion for the bad clothing issued to them, which had been condemned by a board of regimental officers. The Land Transport Corps had been supplied with trousers which were wholly unfitted for the service in which they were engaged, and he wished to know by whom those trousers were made, and whether they were to be issued to the troops. He also begged to ask, whether the saddlery supplied to the 2nd Regiment of German cavalry had been condemned by the officers, and whether the contractor had been required to pay for efficient equipments? He saw that there were to be inspectors of accoutrements, but he defied any one who had not seen the accoutrements worn by the men themselves to give a proper opinion of their efficiency. He felt certain that the system of the soldiers making up their own clothing would not answer, because the soldiers were for a great part of the time abroad on foreign service. The system had broken down in the French army when in service abroad.

said, he was much gratified to hear that measures had been taken to improve the quality of the clothing issued to the soldiers of the British army. He doubted whether the contract system was the best that could be resorted to for the clothing of the army, because there was frequently great disinclination on the part of the higher class of manufacturers to tender for Government contracts. He hoped the Government would, in future, pay less regard to economy than to the quality and excellence of the articles which were required for the use of the troops.

said, he had received a letter from the Messrs. Isaac and Campbell, in which those gentlemen denied the justice of a charge brought against them in that House on a former evening, in reference to the mode in which they had fulfilled an army clothing contract. The firm in question had supplied in a very satisfactory manner the regiment which he commanded.

said, he was glad to find that the Government did not propose concentrating the whole of their stores at Woolwich. For his own part, he thought it would be very advisable to make Weedon the great rendezvous for the stores.

said, he wished to know what provision was made for the repayment of the Sardinian loan, and also whether payment had been made for the forage which had been supplied to the Sardinian army?

said, he was not aware that any repayment had been made. Last year the Estimates had contained an item for provisions to be supplied to the Sardinian forces; but there was no such item this year. The noble Lord had also inquired about forage for the Sardinian army: the calculation was for a supply for 60,000 animals, with an addition of 25 per cent for contingencies.

said, he could only find 46,000 animals included in the Estimates.

said, there were at this moment 30,000 animals in the East; there were others at home; and the Estimate was framed on the assumption that it might be necessary to keep 60,000 at the seat of war.

said, the 60,000 of course included the artillery, the cavalry of different forces, and all the Commissariat forces.

said, he wished to inquire what proportion of soldiers in the Crimea was supplied with huts?

replied, that nearly the whole of the army was under huts at the present moment.

said, that it was announced in an authoritative manner some time ago that the entire army was hutted. He regretted now to learn that some of the men were still without huts.

said, that abundance of huts had been sent out to accommodate all the soldiers in the Crimea.

said, he must complain that the Estimate was not sufficiently clear as to the amount required for huts. In another page he found an item of £250,000 for huts, which ought to have been placed under the same head as it appeared under last year.

said, that great complaints were made in the Crimea with reference to the supply of huts. It appeared that they had not been furnished in sufficient number to afford shelter to half the army; and he had further to observe that he could prove that the greater portion of the huts had not been sent from this country until the period which elapsed between the 25th of November and the 1st of January. That was, he asserted, an indisputable fact. He wished to know whether any supervision had been exercised over the contractors who had furnished the huts. The articles supplied had in many instances been so bad that the boards would not hold nails; and in fact the wretched way in which the contracts for huts had been fulfilled was perfectly notorious in the army. He believed the present heads of the War Office prided themselves greatly on the efficiency of the provision made for the comfort of the troops; but he undertook to say that, if Sebastopol had not been taken, the army in the Crimea would have been in a worse position this winter than that from which it had suffered so much during the preceding winter. Some of the troops were not hutted even at the present moment. He would give an instance of the very imperfect and unsatisfactory arrangements made under that head. In one division the huts for the officers would only accommodate eight of their number. The commanding officer had, in a very generous spirit, determined on applying the huts to the use of younger and less seasoned officers than himself, and had therefore been compelled for his own part to live in a tent. He knew the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) would tell him that the officers were now actually hutted. But how had that taken place? Why, the officers, and the sergeants too, had hutted themselves out of the débris of Sebastopol, and if Sebastopol had not been taken they must have remained unhutted throughout the winter. At the end of November two-thirds of the army had been under canvas, and many of the men had been frost-bitten in their tents. With regard to the huts at home, he confessed it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was spending too much money in those temporary buildings. In his opinion the present unsatisfactory state of the barrack accommodation in London deserved the serious consideration of the Government. There were no means of accommodating troops in the heart of the empire in case of any sudden emergency? He much regretted to find that a Vote on account of the Portman Street Barracks still continued in the Estimates, for he believed that such a building in such a spot was a disgrace to the metropolis. He was afraid that it was in contemplation to build barracks at Battersea Park, but he did not believe that they could secure proper exercise grounds in that district. He was given to understand that a better site could be obtained in the north of London towards Bayswater, which was one of the great avenues of London. If the Government considered it necessary to keep troops in the vicinity of London at all, he hoped that they would apply themselves to building efficient barracks, and not year after year coop up the troops in what was little better than a stable-yard, for which, too, they paid a most inordinate price. Above all, it was absolutely necessary to provide them with sufficient exercise ground, without which they would be paralysed.

said, he wished for some explanation with respect to the sum mentioned in the Votes for gun factories.

said, that as it appeared on the face of the Estimates, he really could not make out what the Vote was for. For small arms the sum of £1,800,000 was put down. Why, if each stand cost no more than was alleged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, £4, provision was made for something like 500,000 stand of arms. Another item was for the supply of iron ordnance shot and shell. He wanted to know how that shot and shell was to be procured—whether by the old way of contract or by the new method of constructing a foundry for that purpose? If the latter method was to be adopted, he should certainly make the Motion of which he had given notice at once, without waiting till the question of Woolwich foundry came under discussion. He also wished to know whether the saltpetre required would be obtained as usual from the East India Company in exchange for powder? One of the most extraordinary items in the Votes was that for miscellaneous stores. It was not fair to put such enormous sums under such a head without giving some explanation, by way of appendix or otherwise, of the details. Among the charges was one for machinery at Waltham. He believed that better powder-mills were required at Waltham Abbey, and he should be happy to hear that the machinery alluded to was for the purpose of erecting additional mills there, which would be a judicious expenditure. He also wanted to know whether any of the rights of the Ordnance Department with regard to the water of the river Lea in that neighbourhood, or of any tributary streams, had been abandoned, as he feared, from the appearance of one of the items. When he was Clerk to the Ordnance, a water company had applied to take water from the Lea, but the application had been strenuously resisted, and consequently failed. He very much feared, however, that another one had been more successful.

said, that an hon. Gentleman had alluded to the large number of huts which were constructed last year. In his opinion the Government had exercised a wise discretion in adopting the course they. had. It was impossible to build barracks sufficient to accommodate the very large number of soldiers that required housing at an emergency, therefore huts were substituted; and if they were now roofed with slate instead of with felt, he believed that they would last from twenty-five to thirty years. He should be very glad to know what the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire meant by an observation which he had made, that the officers of the Army Works Corps were far better accommodated than any other portion of the army?

said, that what he meant to say was simply this:—When he was in the Crimea more attention seemed to be paid to their officers than to the accommodation of anybody else, and he wrote home to that effect.

said, he thought that if the hon. Gentleman had adopted the course he did the year before, when he made himself so useful to all classes of the service, it would have been much better than to have raised a prejudice against officers who went out to render essential service to the army.

I did no such thing. All that I did was to write a letter on the subject, and if I saw the same things I saw when I was out there last, I would do so again. The fact was, that when I was going round with some of the officers, my attention was called to a number of comfortably built houses, which, I was told, belonged to the chiefs of the Army Works Corps. I saw that a great deal of labour was occasioned by the selection of the site, which rendered an arrangement of terraces necessary, while the soldiers were lying in tents worse than any gipsy tents we see at Ascot or Epsom. I did think, and I expressed my opinion that I thought, it would have been better if those gentlemen had contented themselves with humbler lodgings, and expended a little of the superfluous labour upon the soldiers' quarters. At the same time I had no correspondence with the newspapers on the subject. I wrote to the Horse Guards, and if the hon. Gentleman chooses to call for that letter, I have not the slightest objection to its production. I said that there was some reluctance on the part of the officers to mention it, but that a general feeling existed that too much labour had been expended upon those buildings, while horses were unstabled and men unhutted, and I ask the hon. Gentleman whether at that time that was not the case?

If the hon. Gentleman had called upon Mr. Doyne and had stated to him what he has told the Committee, Mr. Doyne would have informed him that the buildings in question were not the huts for the Army Works Corps, but offices necessary for carrying on the works. Considering that 3,000 men were employed, those offices were absolutely required, and so far from Mr. Doyne occupying them, he was at the very time the complaint was made actually living in a tent with the officers.

said, he considered that the Committee had a perfect right to demand explanations upon the points which had been raised. Last year they had voted the money with unlimited confidence, because at that time the war was raging; but now there was a prospect of peace, and the state of affairs was entirely changed. The Committee of course would notice the large increase in the sum required for the Land Transport Service. Last year it was £154,776; this year it amounted to £211,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee how the sum voted last year for that purpose had been expended, and also how much of the present Vote was to be expended for waggon transport and how much for harness?

said, that, in replying to the various questions which had been put to him, he must observe that the form of the Estimates was totally unchanged this year, being neither more nor less detailed than usual. It was true that some of the Estimates were larger this year, but not the slightest difference of arrangement had been made. The new Votes had been arranged with great care, and by competent persons, notwithstanding which he had no doubt that they might be still further amended, and he should be much obliged to hon. Gentlemen for any suggestion which would have that effect. The hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) had put a question to him respecting the sending of huts to the Crimea. He was perfectly willing to produce any returns which might be called for on that subject; but the Committee would recollect that 60,000 men had been sent out to the Crimea; a demand for huts was made on the 2nd or 3rd of August; and almost all the huts were sent out during September and October, and a large number were sent out within a fortnight of the time they were ordered. He thought the exertions which were made to meet the order were highly creditable to the contractors, who executed their work very well. There were two classes of huts—the Gloucester hut, and one erected under the inspection of Sir John Burgoyne, which had been set up for exhibition, but was not considered by the officers and men more suitable than the Gloucester huts; with respect to the quality of the hut no complaints had been made. They must also recollect that at about the same time an order was received to send put 200 mortars and 200,000 shells to the Crimea, and it was obviously the duty of the Government to supply those stores first, as they were of vital importance with respect to the siege of Sebastopol, and, in his opinion, they were perfectly right in doing so. The tonnage of the huts alone amounted to 30,000 tons, and the difficulties of transport at the time were almost insuperable. With regard to the huts at home, no doubt stone or brick barracks would be better; but it would be recollected that the huts were erected to meet an exigency, and in no other way could accommodation have been supplied so rapidly. An outcry had, with reason, been raised throughout the country against the billeting system, and if the Government had delayed any provision for lodging the militia until they could erect stone and brick buildings they would have had to wait a long time indeed. The real evil was, that Parliament had been pleased, since the year 1815, to get rid of a large amount of accommodation for the reception of troops, which rendered necessary great exertions to supply the want felt at the commencement of this war; but he certainly thought the Government had adopted the wisest course in providing for that want by hutting the troops. With respect to the barracks in London, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Knox) would find in this year's Estimate that the Government had taken a sum of £33,000 for the purchase of a site for barracks for the Guards. The necessity of removing the Guards from Portman Street Barracks was much felt by Lord Hardinge, but, though during the last eighteen months they had been looking for a suitable site, they had not been able to find one which was entirely satisfactory to the military authorities. In answer to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington (Co-lonel Dunne), it would be found that a sum of £572,000 was taken for the supply of iron ordnance, shot, shells, &c. The sum of £8,650 for machinery at Waltham Abbey was for the extension of the powder-mills there, the cost of which extension was mainly defrayed by a sum paid by the River Lea Company under an Act procured by them last Session. With respect to the amount of £211,000, set down for the supply of waggons and harness to the Land Transport Corps, the whole of that Vote, excepting £77,000 for harness, was for the purchase of carts and waggons for that corps. The £30,000 for machinery was required principally for that used in the construction of a gun foundry alluded to by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), now building, and for which an item was included in the next Vote, under the head of Royal Gun Factories.

said, he wished to call attention to the subject of Lancaster guns, for as there was an item in the Votes for £572,482 for the supply of iron ordnance, shot, shells, &c., he imagined that under the head Ordnance was included the Lancaster guns. He had moved for returns of the number of those guns which had become disabled in the siege of Sebastopol, &c. At the request of the Ordnance he had withdrawn his Motion; but it was reported that the guns had all become disabled except two; much to the satisfaction of those who had to work them, as they were so erratic in their conduct. It was said by those who understood them that the cause was a fault in construction. The Ordnance Department had stated that certain experiments were to take place. He should like to know the result, and whether those guns would be continued in the service. He would also ask if the experiments had taken place under the auspices of the committee at Woolwich, which, he believed, did not stand very well with the public or the service.

said, the hon. and gallant Member was entirely mistaken in saying that the committee at Woolwich had not given satisfaction. That committee was appointed by the Duke of Newcastle, and was composed of men of the highest scientific knowledge; and he believed they had given the greatest possible satisfaction to the public. As regarded the experiment of the Lancaster gun, the inventor had not had the advantage of having it placed under that committee, the experiment being made under the supervision of a separate committee—Mr. Lancaster wishing the matter to be kept secret. There had been the most various results from the experiments with the Lancaster gun, even in one day. At one time it was pronounced to be eminently successful, while at another time, and at another place, it was declared to be a failure. At ail events, it was impossible, at the present moment, to allow the Lancaster gun to be introduced into the service. It was a gun fit only for special service, and on particular occasions, and not one to be adopted as a part of the regular armament of war. Whether it would ever become so was a question on which officers of high scientific attainments very much differed in opinion.

said, he was glad to hear that it was proposed to do away with Portman Street Barracks. He observed a Vote was taken for ground for the new barracks at Chelsea, but no sum was asked for building them. He must express his anxiety that the site at present occupied by the National Gallery and by the barracks adjacent thereto should be secured by the Government. There was a Bill now pending for the formation of a company to be called "The Imperial Hotel Company," the promoters of which contemplated erecting a large hotel on the site of the National Gallery, in Trafalgar Square. That position was once described by the late Sir Robert Peel to be the finest site that was to be found in any city in Europe, and ho hoped the Government would never let it pass out of their hands.

said, he saw £9,000 down for machinery for the gun factory. They had no gun factory, and there was a Motion to oppose its erection. If the Vote were passed, they would have the machinery and no factory.

The Vote is merely a Vote on account.

said, that as there were such large sums for machinery, there must consequently be a great consumption of coals; he, therefore, wished to call the attention of the Government to the fact that an efficient system of smoke consumption had been discovered, which, if adopted, would be a source of great economy.

said, he thought the Vote for machinery should be postponed, because if the factory were done away with, the machinery would be useless. He wished to raise the question whether it would be worth while for the Government to manufacture their own ordnance; he would also remind the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance that he had not answered his inquiry with respect to the large item of £1,250,000 for miscellaneous stores. He was sorry also to learn that the Government had allowed the Waltham Water Bill to pass. The Government of Lord Derby had opposed it successfully, on the score of injury to the public service.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had not given any explanation on the subject of the huts in the Crimea. He could speak from experience that the huts there were of the very worst description. He did not believe that any one plank of those originally sent out was sound. He was not speaking of the huts that had been recently supplied, but of the two sorts that were at first furnished, and which were called the Portsmouth huts and Gloucester huts. He believed that there was not a single plank of those huts which had not been split by the sun. He should like to know what was the amount of the contract?

said, he could not state the amount of the contract, but he knew that the Gloucester huts were considerably cheaper than the huts that had since been supplied.

said, he had given notice of a Motion to postpone the Vote of £40,000 for the erection of a foundry for iron cannon at Woolwich, in order to allow the subject to be inquired into by a Select Committee. Without giving any opinion as to the propriety of the Government setting up as manufacturers, he thought that, as it had been considered proper last year to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of the supply of small arms, it would be equally proper to take the same course with regard to iron ordnance. He believed that no iron ordnance in the world was comparable to that of Great Britain. At the siege of St. Sebastian some of the cannon were fired, it was said, 3,000 times, while from 1,200 to 1,500 rounds were considered enough to wear out iron guns in general; but at Sebastopol there were guns which had been fired 6,000 times, and yet were not then completely unserviceable. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had no doubt heard that iron smelted with charcoal was better than iron smelted with coal, and was desirous of introducing artillery manufactured from charcoal iron mixed with coal-smelted iron. When he (Colonel Dunne) first entered Parliament there was a great outcry against any attempt of the Government to set up as manufacturers, and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had declared that a Government manufacture always cost 50 per cent more than a private manufacture. If that were so, the House surely ought to pause before sanctioning the erection of a cannon foundry, as was proposed by the Vote now before the Committee. The Government could not get charcoal iron in England, but he was told it was to be got from Nova Scotia. That province, however, did not produce sufficient charcoal for such a purpose; the wood there was fir, and not oak or hard wood fitted for conversion into charcoal. He thought it would be cheaper to give a higher price to the manufacturers at home, and then appoint an efficient person to see that the guns were properly made. It had been the custom, many years ago, to send artillery officers to the Carron and other gun foundries, and he believed a similar practice would be useful in the present day. Manufacturers would, no doubt, gladly receive any suggestion for the improvement of iron artillery, while officers would derive very great advantage from a practical acquaintance with the process of manufacture. Unhappily our artillery officers had not generally been instructed in the casting of cannon, so that they could not be competent to superintend factories. Such a duty required the skill which could only be acquired by long experience. Foreign nations obtained cannon from us, which showed that ours was the best. Even America could not smelt iron so cheaply as we could; and we exported iron to every country in the world. We should seek to improve the composition of guns made by the manufacturers. All theory required to be supported by a certain amount of practical knowledge. His right hon. Friend had talked about the scientific department at Woolwich—a body comprising many gentlemen of great scientific attainments, but still only theorists, and whose decisions were not so speedy as could be desired. He had heard of a committee last year to inquire into rifle arms, which did not meet for nine months. Then, again, experiments were not carried out so completely as they should be. He thought he had stated sufficient grounds to justify his request that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the Vote until a committee had decided upon the propriety of adopting the unusual mode now suggested for procuring a supply of iron ordnance.

said, he did think this a proper period for voting any large sums for temporary buildings, and he should like to have some explanation as to the manner in which the Vote was to be expended.

said, that though the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, on opening the War Estimates, had stated that they would be referred to the Inspector General of Fortifications to report as to the cost of the improvement of certain existing barracks, he had not explained what were the intentions of the Government in reference to the erection of such new barracks as were needed. For a long period of years the accommodation for the soldiers had been most inferior. They had been kept in crowded rooms, almost without ventilation; and within the barracks there had been no places of recreation for them except the canteens, the letting of which was disgraceful to the Government. Generally, the buildings were almost unfit for the soldiers to go into. He was aware that the system of the army had of late been considerably altered. In former days the soldiers were taught by compulsion; but at present it was endeavoured, as much as possible, to encourage the men to behave properly, and with this view, good-conduct pay, libraries, and schools had been established. Still an improvement in the accommodation of the soldier in barracks remained to be effected. If the soldier was not made comfortable in his barracks, it was not to be expected that he would behave in that meritorious manner which would sustain the character of the army. The Government Committee of last year pointed out that, notwithstanding the improvements in barracks built in late years, the accommodation was generally inadequate for the comfort and convenience of the soldiers, and contrasted badly with the accommodation afforded in gaols to persons convicted of crime. With respect to married soldiers, civilians as well as military men had expressed their abhorrence at the practice of the married soldiers living in common with the single in barracks, and the Government Committee recommended that that practice should be for ever abolished, and that separate accommodation should be afforded to the married soldiers in barracks to such an extent as the Government might approve of. He believed the canteen system had been altered, but he should be glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain in what way it had been changed. The introduction of spirits into barracks had been put a stop to with very good results as respected the conduct of the soldiers, and he trusted that spirits would not be again allowed to be brought into barracks.

said, he wished to call attention to the imperfect manner in which the huts at Aldershot were ventilated, and to express a hope that steps would be taken to effect an improvement in that respect. The supply of water, too, was very bad, and in one or two instances it had been discovered that drainage pipes had been conducted into the wells which had been sunk for the use of the camp. A great want of harmony between the different departments had been displayed in several instances. On one occasion some wheelbarrows were wanted, and, as none could he found on the spot, application was made to the proper department in London. The answer returned was, that there were some wheelbarrows in camp, and sure enough, on further search being made, they were discovered, but the barrows were in one part of the camp and the wheels in another. On another occasion, being desirous of obtaining a stove to place in an empty mess-room, which was used as a school, he had applied to various departments, but from all had received the answer that there was not such a thing to be got, though a short time afterwards he accidentally discovered a whole hut full of them, lying idle and unused.

said, he wished to ask whether it was intended to give the plan of Mr. Fergusson, with regard to fortifications, a fair consideration? Mr. Fergusson had devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject, and he (Mr. Layard) thought that gentleman had been unfairly treated. The subject was one worthy the consideration of that House, and he rejoiced that it had been referred to by a noble Earl in the other House. He should like to have an assurance that the plans of Mr. Fergusson would receive their due meed of consideration from the Government.

said, he desired to call attention to the wretched state of the barrack accommodation in this country. In some of the healthiest districts of England the total mortality, including that of infants and aged persons, did not exceed 1½ per cent of the population; while from some statistics which were published about ten years ago, it appeared that in the brigade of the Guards, consisting principally of men in the prime of life, the rate of mortality was 2 per cent, and another 3 per cent were invalided. This high rate of mortality was attributable principally to defective barrack ac- commodation. He left it to hon. and gallant Members who were familiar with the accommodation of barracks to say how far the space per man in such buildings fell short of the allowance recommended in similar cases by the Poor Law Board. The arrangements for drainage and cleanliness were also, in most cases, shamefully defective. He was willing to allow that much had been done within the last ten years to improve the barracks, but there was yet great need of amendment; and he was glad that the subject still occupied the attention of the Government. At some future day he should himself bring it before the House by a specific Motion.

said, he begged to urge upon the attention of the Committee the importance of the erection of defences upon the coast of the Bristol Channel, and would inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance what was being done with respect to such defences.

said, he thought that a time of war, when the attention of the heads of departments must be fully occupied, was not a favourable moment for carrying on large and important works unconnected with military operations. In the Portsmouth district it was by this Vote proposed to expend £200,000 upon fortifications. Considering that Mr. Fergusson stated that the fortifications which were being erected would be utterly useless, it was desirable that the Government should consider and decide upon that gentleman's plan before continuing this large outlay. A sum of £150,000 was also asked for, for the erection at Southampton of a hospital which would accommodate 1,000 patients. After what we had recently heard of the good sanitary condition of our army, he hoped that there would, when it returned home, be no occasion for such an hospital. At Woolwich £220,000 was likewise required for works. If the Government were to have foundries for shells and ordnance, no doubt this sum would be needed; but he was entirely opposed to the Government becoming manufacturers of anything except such small things as ball cartridges and rockets, which they could make better than any one else. The work would be performed both better and cheaper under a proper system of contracts, carried out by well-qualified officers. He would instance railways and other works that had been constructed under contracts. All they had to do was to get their articles well specified in the contracts, and afterwards see that they were properly manufactured or constructed. Another reason he had against the Government becoming manufacturers was, that the great and advancing improvements in the construction of machinery prevented them keeping pace with private manufacturers in producing a superior article.

said, he thought that the discussion winch had taken place had shown that, as this was the first occasion on which the Vote had been presented in this form, so it ought to be the last. It contained so many items that it was impossible for a Minister to explain or for the House to understand it. The provision of barrack accommodation was itself of sufficient importance to form the subject of a distinct Vote. He wished particularly to call the attention of the Committee to our barrack system, which, he thought, was a perfect disgrace to the country. It was useless to build barracks where there was no space to drill the men, and to quarter infantry in garrison towns where they could not even train their recruits. The accommodation for the Guards had lately been much improved, but they still had very little means of recreation. There was one small spot near the Wellington Barracks, and that was the only spot in the metropolis for the recreation of the troops, for the battalion at the Tower had no ground. In France it was very different; there the Chasseurs de Vincennes had a regular training-ground, and so with respect to the other troops of the Empire.

said, he thought that the discussion had become much confused, in consequence of the circumstances of so many different things having been mixed up with the Vote. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance would reply to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) before be entered into any other points urged during the discusion.

said, he could not see any valid reason for acceding to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington. He did not think that a Committee of that House would be more competent to decide the question than the artillery officers in Woolwich, who had investigated it thoroughly, and had reported in the strongest manner in favour of those manufactories. It would be shown that the guns made at the foundry at Woolwich were considerably cheaper than those purchased within the last few years. What were the facts in regard to the armaments of mortars obtained at a time of great pressure for the siege of Sebastopol? It was found absolutely necessary, on account of the great demands for mortars, to apply to other houses than the two great establishments with which the Government were in the habit of dealing. They selected the other houses in the country, with the best and highest reputation, and ordered from them a considerable number of mortars. Well, the result had been most unsatisfactory, as the failures had been very great, particularly as regarded one of those houses, which he did not think it necessary to name. The Government lost all confidence in those mortars; and in respect to the armament in process of preparation for the Baltic fleet, they were determined to use none but those which had come from the two great houses with which they had been in the habit of dealing. What was the result with even the best of those mortars? Why, everybody knew that at Sweaborg the mortars burst after a very small number of rounds. In all European countries the practice was for the respective Governments to establish their own foundries for the manufacture of their own cannon. By such an establishment they could always have the power of testing their own metal, and of proving its strength. Several experiments had been tried at Woolwich in regard to the qualities of foreign and home metal. In the case of the American iron the test proved that it stood a pressure of from 35,000 to 45,000 lbs.; whereas the best iron we had been able to produce could only bear a pressure up to 27,500 lbs., but the average amount of pressure was only 22,000 lbs. Certain manufacturers in Nova Scotia had offered to contract with the British Government for iron, the whole of which was engaged to stand the test of a pressure of 36,000 lbs. The proper charge for the largest gun in use in our service was 15 lbs., but there was an order issued to use only 13 lbs. to the charge, because our guns could not be relied upon to stand a greater charge. Was it wise, he asked, to rely upon the trade of the country for the supply of an article which the trade of the country did not require? Those guns could only be required for this special and exclusive purpose. He was perfectly convinced that he could show to the House that the course suggested was an economical one. Last year he recommended the establishment of a shell foundry, prophesying that by so doing they would reduce the price of shells one-half. Any Member who wished to visit Woolwich would see that prophecy verified. The same result he had no doubt would follow in regard to guns, but he did not rest his case on that so much as on the fact that it was of the greatest importance that they should have the best possible guns for either attack or defence.

said, he hoped that the firm to which allusion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, had been mulcted in the largest fine in the power of the Government to inflict. Since we had been a military power, the Government had never cast a single iron gun. And if they adopted the suggestions of the Government, they would be in the same position in which he told them two years ago they would be in with respect to gunpowder and muskets. It was then proposed to take the whole manufacture of powder into the hands of the Government. But he deprecated doing this, because in time of war the resources of these private establishments would be available. The same remark was applicable to the case of cannons. If they ceased to take guns from the private houses which now supplied them, they would in a future war find themselves without other resources than in their own establishments.

Sir, I entirely concur in the opinion expressed by various Members in the course of the debate, that, as regards articles required in large quantities, and matters of ordinary industry, it may be desirable that Government should obtain their supplies by contract. Nothing could be more absurd than that Government should make clothes, shoes, belts, and things of that kind, the common produce of the industry of the country; but cannon are matters of a totally different description. If clothes are ordered on contract, the cloth can be examined, and if it should be found of an inferior description, it can be returned on the hands of the contractor. The same is equally true of boots, shoes, and belts, where the remedy is equally obvious; but the defects of cannon are things only to be ascertained by the employment of the gun; and consider what danger you incur by going into action with cannon not perfect in the manner of their construction, or made of materials incapable of withstanding the shock of explosion. This occurred at Sweaborg. I have seen on the quay of Woolwich the mortars that burst at Sweaborg. They were split in two as if cut with a knife. Yet there was no want of thickness in these mortars. The defect was in the metal of which they were constructed, or in the casting of it. Your implements of war should be the very best that science can devise and money procure. It will not do to take your soldiers into action with muskets that will not carry, with guns that burst, and with mortars that split. Therefore I say that, from the very necessity of the case, implements of war form a proper exception to the general rule of obtaining your supplies by contract. It has been said that, in periods of singular emergency, when the imminence of the occasion renders it necessary that there should be a rapid increase of the implements of war, the Government can scarcely avoid having recourse to the trade; but, conceding this, and granting that your permanent system contemplates that a large proportion of your implements should be procured by contract, still, yon should have a basis of operation in a great establishment of your own, where you may make experiments in the different modes of manufacturing these weapons, test new inventions, and practise new improvements in the material or in the manner of fashioning that material. In point of economy, I have not the slightest doubt that the country will gain by such a system, and in illustration of this opinion I may be allowed to refer to the works at Woolwich, where a small quantity of Lancaster shells has been manufactured at a much smaller cost than, they could have been procured from the trade. With such facts before them, I trust that the Committee will not assent to the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne)—if he will permit me so to call him—for nothing could be more injurious to the public service than to prevent the establishment, at least to a limited degree, of factories for the manufacture of iron guns as well as brass ones. What, I would ask, is the difference in this respect between brass and iron? Why, if it is proper to make brass guns at Woolwich, should it not be equally expedient to make iron ones? If it is right that the Government should have the power to make one class of guns, why should it be wrong for them to make another? The distinction appears to me unintelligible. With regard to barracks, it were vain to deny that their construction, distribution, and interior economy have not been such as it is desirable that they should be. I have a confident expectation that the Committee, sensible of this fact, will not refuse to assist the Government in an attempt to improve the plan of structure and the general arrangements of these edifices in such a manner as to make them more conducive to the health of the troops, and more consistent with their social and moral habits and their mode of existence. There can be no doubt that the barracks in this country are far inferior to those of any other country in Europe. Wherever you travel on the Continent you find that buildings of this character are more airy and spacious, more judicious in the plan of their construction, and in all respects better adapted for the accommodation of troops than in England. Every day we are reminded of the necessity of providing suitable habitations for the civil population, and I cannot suppose that the House will not deem these considerations to be of equal importance in the case of our soldiers. I confidently rely, therefore, on the liberality of Parliament in enabling the Government to take the necessary steps for the improvement of the barracks throughout the country. With regard to fortifications, an hon. Member has adverted to a system which has attracted much attention—that proposed by Mr. Fergusson. Everybody who has read, with the attention it merits, the pamphlet published by that gentleman on the defences of Portsmouth, must be aware that it contains a great deal of matter well deservingof careful consideration; but it would be a mistake to draw a conclusion in favour of his system from what passed at the siege of Sebastopol. The operations at Sebastopol were very different from those of ordinary sieges. At Sebastopol there were two great armies confronting one another. One of those armies was lodged behind trenches and earthworks, from which it was the object of the other to dislodge them. But the first army had resources, both of men and ammunition, almost unparalleled in the history of war. As fast as their guns were dismounted others were substituted, and as fast as men were slain others were forthcoming to supply their places. We have been authoritatively assured that at the last bombardment the Russians lost, in killed and wounded, something like 1,800 or 1,900 men a day. Fresh reinforcements, however, were always forthcoming from the other side of the harbour, and new supplies of men were continually brought up from the army in the rear. Operations such as these furnish no parallel for a limited fortification, where reinforcement and replenishment cannot take place. It is, therefore, a mistake to suppose that the earthworks system is invariably applicable to limited fortifications. I will not go into those details which those who are familiar with the subject must have attended to, but it is well known that earthwork will not stand perpendicularly like stone. It must have a slope of forty-five degrees, and these slopes can be ascended by an attacking force much more easily than perpendicular walls terminating in a ditch. However the merits and advantages of this system are being very much considered, and no doubt the addition of earth in front of stone walls has been found to be a mode of considerably strengthening the stone revetment of a fortification.

said, that the Government could not be surprised at the jealousy with which the Committee viewed the present Vote. The Small Arms Committee had considered £25,000 to be sufficient for this purpose, but now it was considered that £150,000 was not sufficient. If they went on at the same ratio, £250,000 would be found to be necessary. The noble Lord said the only way to test a gun was in battle, but he (Mr. Hutchins) begged to doubt the fact. The Government had said that they had been defrauded by certain contractors, and he must agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that nothing could be more disgraceful than the conduct of those persons. But if the Government undertook all the different departments, they must expect to meet with deceptions, and they might as well think of becoming farmers, and grow their own hay, because last year they were provided with supplies of damaged hay.

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) to complain that there were only two firms in England capable of supplying the Government with large guns of a satisfactory description; for that, in fact, a long experience was required to enable manufacturers to produce such guns. Surely, then, they were not going to establish a foundry when they must necessarily begin their work perfectly inexperienced. Would it not be better for them at once to avail themselves of the information and experience possessed by manufacturers, and endeavour to stimulate them to greater exertions, than run the risk of failure in an attempt to set up an infantine institution. At Aldershot they had had nothing but failure from beginning to end; and if the superintendence was so imperfect in that instance, how much more so would it be in the case of a foundry like that which it was proposed to create? Before he sat down he could not help stating that he thought the name of the firm which had produced such guns as those adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance ought to be mentioned, in order to be consigned to infamy. There was not an honest man in the country who heard its name that would not treat the members of it as felons of the lowest order.

said, he wished to remind the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) that Mr. Fergusson's system did not consist of earthworks, but of bringing a large number of guns to bear upon a particular point. Did the noble Lord intend to appoint a Committee to inquire into Mr. Fergusson's scheme?

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Mr. Fergusson's system essentially consists of earth works. He arms his earthworks with three tiers of guns, and the essence of his system is to bring an immense mass of direct fire upon the works of an attacking enemy. Usually the besiegers bring a larger fire to bear upon a particular point than the defenders; but Mr. Fergusson reverses the position, and by means of earthworks, containing three tiers of guns one above the other, he brings upon the besiegers a greater fire than they can direct against the place. His plan consists of mounds of earth instead of revetments.

said, he thought that if those hon. Members who had confidence in the honesty of the manufacturers and others who executed contracts had attended, as he had, the sittings of the Committee on the Adulteration of Food, they would find that, not only were frauds committed upon the public of a comparatively harmless kind, but frauds most injurious to health and even dangerous to life. Those hon. Members might then have less confidence in the patriotic sentiments of traders and manufacturers than they now seemed to give them credit for.

said, that if the principle of the noble Lord (Viscount Ebrington) were carried out to its fullest extent, the Government would manufacture everything. When he objected some time ago to the Government undertaking for itself the manufacture of small arms, he was told that he had only the interest of his constituents at heart, although he was certain that he was advocating the best interests of the country. His constituents had no interest in large guns, but he was just as much opposed to the Government commencing this manufacture. If the guns were not good, the fault was with the Government, whose officers neglected to test them. It was probable that, in the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), the fault was with the workmen, and that the master knew nothing about the flaws. If the Government wanted guns made of a particular iron, let them say so, and state the proof they wanted, and he felt confident that the manufacturers could and would execute the order. Much depended on the quantity of charge put into a gun, and, however good the quality of the weapon, it could not be expected to withstand the effects of an improper charge. The mortars which the noble Lord had seen broken up were, perhaps, fired with the Lancaster shot; in which case it was no wonder that they had exploded. In the make of the guns adapted for that projectile there was a peculiar twist; so that if the rotatory process did not operate, the shot acted on the gun exactly like an inclined plane; and the great chance was that the explosion would split it. The theory on which those guns were constructed had been proved beyond question to be a bad one; and it was found more dangerous to use them than it was to face their fire. In being their own manufacturers the Government were adopting a vicious principle. Instead of taking up the casting of iron guns, they ought to desist from themselves making any more brass ones. Of the two, however, sound brass guns could be easier cast than iron. At first the Government might save a little by their plan, but, in the long run, private enterprise must beat them to fits in cheapness. After the immediate pressure subsided, things would gradually find their level, and then cannon would be made at a reduction of one-third their present cost. The Government ought not to manufacture anything for themselves that could be well manufactured by others, and certainly there was nothing more capable of being tested than cannon.

I think, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has adduced the best possible argument against the very course that he advocates, because he tells us it is impossible for a contractor to know whether the article he furnishes is good or bad, inasmuch as he is entirely at the mercy of his workmen, who may any day fill up holes in a gun with pieces of bad metal without any fault attaching to their employer. It is vain, therefore, to talk of the guarantee afforded by the character of a great contractor, when we have so high an authority as the hon. Member avowing that such a person has no power of controlling his workmen, who may easily cheat him, and, through him, cheat the country also. The hon. Gentleman says the Government ought to manufacture nothing. Then let us abandon our dockyards and the building of ships, and likewise rescind the Vote in favour of a limited manufactory of small arms. In regard to cannon, we want what we now have in respect to small arms—namely, the nucleus of a factory under the superintendence of the Government, which shall act as a check upon the trade, and enable you to make weapons which you know to be good and efficient for their purpose. The mortars of which I spoke before did not split at the first discharge, but after a certain number of discharges; and unless you fire off a gun supplied by a contractor as many times as it would be fired in action, you cannot be assured of its proper solidity. And I need hardly say that to subject to such a repeated test every gun coming from a contractor would consume a quantity of powder that would soon make the article somewhat dearer than those made at our own arsenals. The hon. Gentleman mixed up things that are totally distinct when he said that the mortars to which I referred split from being charged with Lancaster shot. I did not allude to Lancaster guns at all. The mortars supplied by those contractors on whom we are recommended solely to rely, when sent to the Baltic, all burst on being fired off with shells a limited number of times; and the fleet was consequently unable to prosecute the operations of the war with the success which might otherwise have been attainable. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not be induced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham in favour of private contractors to deprive the Government of the means of providing the country with instruments of war of a quality that may be safely depended upon.

said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that if they sent fleets and armies into action, they ought to be supplied with proper arms. He did not think, however, it was quite fair to throw so much blame upon contractors. During the last war, which was a very long one, iron guns were supplied entirely by the trade, and it was a very rare thing indeed to hear of a gun bursting—so much so, that during the entire of his period of service he had never seen a gun burst, and he had seen guns fired three times in a minute. At the same time he would admit he had heard of their bursting. The bursting of those mortars had been ascribed to the quantity of powder—no less than 13 lbs.—with which they were charged. Now, that depended not so much upon the quantity of powder used as on the celerity with which the guns were fired. If they were the best mortars in the world, he would have defied them to have held together under the fire against Sweaborg. He was at the siege of Martinique, which was taken entirely by mortars, and he remembered they never thought of firing off a mortar more than once every quarter of an hour; whereas both at Sebastopol and Sweaborg they were fired as quickly as they could be. The fact was, he believed, that the mortars were fired a great deal too quickly, and that they would never be able to obtain mortars that would stand such rapid firing. The Birmingham muskets supplied to the fleet in the last war were perfect drugs, and hardly ever out of the armourer's hands; so that it was a common expression among the sailors with reference to anything faulty. "Oh, it's as bad as a ship's musket." Good muskets were never known in the service until the Government took the manufacture of them into their own hands, and he thought the noble Lord was perfectly right in establishing a gun factory.

said, he must defend the contractors from the blame that had been thrown upon them in the course of the discussion. With the greatest possible care on the part of the manufacturer, workmen would "patch up" work when it was cast imperfectly because it saved them trouble. He thought the danger of deception by workmen would be greater in a Government manufactory than in a private establishment. Ho feared the Vote now asked for was not intended merely for the purpose of making an experiment; but that it was an attempt to begin a large manufactory, and he was sure that that was the worst thing they could do.

said, it was not the contractor, but the Government, who had discovered the bad workmanship. The cannon was delivered to the Government, and it was the officers of the Government who discovered that the workmen of the contractors had made a bad article. The contractor, if he had made the discovery, would not, for the sake of his own character, have sent it. It appeared, therefore, that the check of the Government was superior to that of the contractor.

said, he thought the fault was with the Government and not with the contractors, because the Government might have tried the mortars either by the hydraulic or the powder test. After the discussion which had taken place he should leave the responsibility of the Vote with the Government.

said, the Government had already concluded the purchase of land for the erection of a fortress at Swansea; but he did not believe they contemplated doing more for the present.

said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) respecting the erection of a military hospital, which he understood was to be erected at Southampton at an expense of £150,000.

said, the Government had taken a great deal of trouble in selecting the best position for a new hospital, and had fixed upon Southampton as having been recommended by the highest medical authorities in the country.

said, he wished to know who the medical authorities were?

Sir James Clark and Dr. Middleton. He also begged to state that the Inspector General of Fortifications had been called to report upon barracks generally.

said, he wished to propose that the Bill should stand over till after Easter, as there was certain amendments which, it might be desirable to make in it.

said, if the Bill were not to become law till after Easter, great inconvenience would be caused in all the parishes of the metropolis, since under the old law the elections of the open vestries must take place on Easter Tuesday, and the doubt which the Bill was intended to settle was, whether those vestries were entirely superseded by the Act of last Session. In every parish there was a number of persons who were in the habit of contesting anything or everything, and the expense of the litigation would fall on the ratepayers. He believed the Chief Commissioner of Public Works was not of the same opinion as the hon. and learned Attorney General about the necessity for this Bill, but thought that his Act of last Session absorbed all the powers of the old vestries.

said, he was anxious to carry this Bill speedily, to solve doubts and prevent litigation, but the Government were threatened that day with a very formidable opposition to it, a numerous deputation from all the parishes coming to him to complain of the haste with which the Bill had been brought in, and to request some delay, that they might have time to petition for the maintenance of the open vestries. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) had asked that the Bill should not be pressed on at a late hour that night, and considering the number of parishes concerned, the Government thought they would not be justified in doing so. It would, therefore, be quite impossible, even if the Orders of the House were suspended, for the Bill to become law before Easter. No such difference of opinion as had been alluded to existed between him and the right, hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), with whom he agreed in thinking that the effect of the 8th section of the Act of last Session was to supersede the open vestries; but there were great doubts entertained about it by men of legal eminence, and he had himself changed his opinion on the subject.