said, he rose to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question which referred to a ticket-of-leave man who had recently committed a burglary at Ashover, in Derbyshire. He wished to know whether the right hon Gentleman had received information from the Recorder of Birmingham to the effect that that ticket-of-leave man was well known in Birmingham, that he had been dwelling there without any ostensible means of obtaining a livelihood, and lived among thieves and such associates? Was it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the ticket of leave in that particular case, and in others where men were known to be the associates of thieves?

said, the facts of the case were these:—In February, 1856, the Recorder of Birmingham transmitted to him a Report from the police of that borough relative to eighteen persons who held tickets of leave there. From that Report it appeared that eight persons out of the eighteen had conducted themselves honestly and well. With regard to two others, their characters were doubtful, although nothing was known about them which called for the revocation of their tickets of leave. But as to the remaining eight the Report stated in general terms that their conduct was bad. He, therefore, desired inquiries to be made with regard to them, and it turned out that three of them had committed indictable offences. One of them had been convicted, and his ticket of leave was necessarily withdrawn according to the general rule, while two of them were sentenced to terms exceeding those to which they were originally sentenced, and their tickets of leave were of course revoked. That left five of the eight whose conduct was reported to be bad, and, with regard to those five, two of them had been cautioned by the police, and one of them had subsequently disappeared from Birmingham, but, as the other had since given up a disreputable house, which had been the resort of thieves, his ticket of leave was not withdrawn. With regard to the remaining three, he (Sir G. Grey) directed the police to warn them. The police thereupon informed them that if they did not discontinue their course of life their tickets of leave should be withdrawn. He had not received any further communication from the police with respect to those three. The Recorder of Birmingham suggested that, notwithstanding the suspicions against the eight out of the eighteen, it would be harsh to withdraw their tickets of leave without affording them an opportunity of showing that these suspicions were groundless, and he (Sir G. Grey) concurred in that suggestion. The Recorder suggested that it would be desirable to remove these persons from Birmingham. He (Sir G. Grey) desired the police to communicate with them, and inform them that they were being observed, and that in the event of their continuing a dishonest course of life measures would be taken for the withdrawal of their tickets of leave. He imagined that, with regard to the particular person inquired after by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the object which the Recorder had in view was attained, and he had left Birmingham because the place at which he had committed the crime was in another part of the country—at Ashover, in Derbyshire.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether there was any intention to establish a military prison in connection with the camp at the Curragh, and, if so, whether any steps had been taken as yet with respect to it?

in reply, said, that two propositions had been made for the establishment of a military prison, one for the purchase of an existing civil prison, and the other for the erection of a new prison within the limits of the camp of the Curragh. No decision had yet been come to upon those propositions.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had taken any steps to prevent Judges holding the office of Member of Council at Malta?

said, that he had thought it expedient to recommend that an Order in Council should be passed by which it should be provided that in future Judges of the Superior Courts in Malta should not be eligible for seats in the Council of Government.

said, he wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government was prepared to give effect to the recommendation of the Smithfield Committee; namely—

"That the best appropriation for the general benefit of so much of the site of Smithfield as reverts to the Crown would be to adapt it for the enjoyment and recreation of the public."

In answer, Sir, to my noble Friend's question, I will state the course which has been taken by the Government with reference to this matter. On the 26th of July, 1856, the Report of the Committee was sent to the City Remembrancer for observations, with an intimation that it would be the duty of Government to consider before the meeting of Parliament the propriety of introducing a Bill for the appropriation of Smithfield. On the 3rd of December the City authorities replied that they dissented from the opinion of the Committee, and that they could not recognize the claim of the Crown to the site, and submitted that such right must be substantiated by law before any legislative proceedings could be taken. In order, however, to avoid such proceedings, they requested the Treasury to assent to their plan for a dead-meat market. On the 20th of December the Treasury replied that they could not consent to the proposed appropriation of the site. But, before taking measures to establish the right of the Crown, they requested to be informed "whether the Corporation could propose any destination of the site to a public object, in which Her Majesty's Government may be able to concur." On the 27th of July last the City Remembrancer replied that the Corn and Markets Committee hoped at an early period to lay some proposition before Her Majesty's Government. That proposition has not yet been received, but a letter has been addressed to the City authorities, calling their attention to the state of the question, and asking for information as to their intentions concerning it.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Yeomanry Cavalry not being called out for eight days' permanent duty during the ensuing year, he was willing, in accordance with precedent, to remit the horse duty to the enrolled members of the Yeomanry corps?

in reply, said, that if sufficient cause were shown for not calling out the Yeomanry for eight days' duty, the Government would, as had been the practice on former similar occasions, remit the duty for the ensuing year.

For the ensuing financial year?

The communication I have received from the Inland Revenue Board only says "for the ensuing year."

said, he would beg to ask the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was the intention of Government to make any further recognition of the services of Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch in the Crimea?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have made what I conceive to be ample recognition of the merit of these services. We have acknowledged them in this House. They have been acknowledged by letters to those gentlemen; and, moreover, Her Majesty's Government intimated to them their intention of recommending the Crown to present to each of them a sum of £1,000 as a more material acknowledgment of the services which they performed during the three months that they were in the Crimea. They have, however, thought fit to decline this gift. I do not question their motives; but it seems to me that the Crown has done all that it can properly be advised to do.

seconded the Motion. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words

"Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch ably fulfilled the duty entrusted to them of inquiring into the arrangement and management of the Commissariat Department:—That the evidence in their Report proves that in the months of December 1854 and January 1855, the sufferings of the Army must have been intense, and that great mortality was occasioned by overwork and exposure, and want of food and clothing:—That the examination into this statement by the Board of General Officers materially support the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioners as to the want of organisation in the Quartermaster General's, Commissariat, and Transport Services:—That it appears to this House that, from the Report of the Board, this inefficiency must be attributed to the imperfect arrangement or conduct of those Departments,"—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, he should not be doing justice to his feelings towards his friend Sir John M 'Neill, nor to his constituents, if he were to remain silent on this Motion. His constituents took great interest in this subject, and he had presented three petitions—one from the Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh, another from a company of Merchants, and a third from the Dean of Faculties, members of the legal profession, clergymen, and merchants, urging the Government to bestow some sufficient mark of their approbation upon the Commissioners. At the time the Commissioners were sent out the honour of Britain was at stake, and the very existence of one of the finest armies that ever left these shores was imperilled. He thought the Government adopted a judicious course in deputing two gentlemen possessing such undeniable qualifications to investigate the cause of the calamities which had befallen the army. The Commissioners resolved to give up all the comforts of home, in order that they might be useful to the army and their country—and Sir John was at that time in precarious health—and the way in which they had discharged the duty intrusted to them did them the highest honour. They examined 200 witnesses, and spent fifty-five days in the investigation. What added greatly to the credibility of the evidence was, that the notes of every witness's examination were submitted to him to be revised and corrected, and he believed that, with the exception of two, all the witnesses revised in this way their evidence. The Commissioners had conferred an incalculable benefit on their country, and had embodied in the records of that House an invaluable body of suggestions for remedying errors and defects which in future times might be the means of saving the lives of thousands of our countrymen. In making their investigations they did not pursue their inquiries among the men who were grumbling and discontented, but they examined the commanders of divisions and regiments, the doctors, the adjutants, and all whose positions were such as to make them acquainted with the facts. Well might Sir J. M 'Neill say at the Crimean banquet in Edinburgh, that if the Government intended that this inquiry should be a sham, they ought to have employed other instruments for that purpose, because for anything but an honest purpose these men were incapable of acting. After the Report of the inquiry had been laid on the table certain officers thought that it conveyed a censure upon their conduct, and, belonging to high and influential families, they procured a Board of inquiry, with the view of vindicating their conduct. That Board came to the conclusion that for what had occurred in the Crimea there was nobody to blame, but that all the disorders and evils there had arisen from causes which no foresight and no ingenuity could have prevented. But, while they thus vindicated the conduct of the officers, they did not show the same tenderness for the Crimean Commissioners, whose fairness they by inference inculpated. Now, if gentlemen employed in the public service in this way did not find their labours appreciated and rewarded as they ought to be, how could it be expected that others would engage in similar labours? At the present moment who could have been better employed as a Commissioner in China than Sir J. M 'Neill? It has been said these gentlemen did no more than their duty; but he would ask whether Lord Lucan, or Lord Cardigan, or General Airey, or Colonel Gordon, all of whom had obtained honours or promotions, had done more than their duty? He could not but think that there must be some barrier in the way which prevented these two Commissioners from obtaining such a recognition of their services as they deserved; but he trusted the noble Lord would break through all these invisible fences, and that he would not fail to honour those to whom honour was due.

I am anxious, in the first place, to remove an impression which seems to have been produced on the mind of my hon. Friend who has just sat down that, either in point of intention or in point of fact, there was anything in the instructions given to these two Commissioners that could be called a sham. There was nothing in the manner in which they were appointed, or in the manner in which their instructions were given to them, or in the manner in which the investigation was conducted, or in the manner in which their Report was received and acted upon, that could in the slightest degree justify such an assertion. The Commissioners were selected from a regard to their knowledge and their competence for the task which they had to discharge. That task was accomplished with credit to themselves and advantage to the public, and Her Majesty's Government have fully expressed their sense of the great services so rendered. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Palk), it really seemed to me to be a complete anachronism. It was a speech that would have been very much in point two years ago, when the sufferings of the army were such as he has described them to have been—when all the attention of the Government, stimulated by the impulse of this House, was necessary to relieve those sufferings at a moment when they had not yet received their appropriate remedies. But really, at this time of day, when the war has been concluded and peace established, when a year has elapsed since the termination of the war—to go back upon the state of things that existed in December, 1854, does seem to me to be not the most useful application of the time of this House. My first answer to the hon. Gentleman is, that these sufferings ceased nearly two months before the Commissioners got to the Crimea; that whereas in the first winter the army was in a state of great misery and destitution and severe suffering, after that it was in a condition that excited the envy and admiration of all who saw it—infinitely better than that of the French army, infinitely better than that of the Russian army; and that, in point of fact, at the end of the war it was in every respect in a condition not equalled by any number of troops in any part of the world—not even by troops at home. Therefore, the speech of the hon. Gentleman is only a recital of calamities past and gone, and which were remedied on the very spot and in the very service to which his speech relates. It is quite true that the sufferings of our soldiers were great. The hon. Gentleman has gone through the details with which we are all familiar. It is quite true that the knapsacks were left on board the ships at the landing which took place before the battle of the Alma, and it is quite true that those knapsacks, for some reason, did not reach the men for two or three months after they had landed. But that is not an unexampled state of things. I was conversing a day or two ago with an hon. and gallant Friend of mine who served in one of the campaigns at the Cape, and he assured me that throughout that campaign the troops had no knapsacks and no tents, and had only their blankets to screen them from the weather; but that, nevertheless, they did not suffer from the exposure. It is true that ample supplies were sent from this country to the Crimea, but that from want of arrangements on the spot the troops there derived no advantage from them. It is true there were 10,000 great-coats sent which might have been served out, but were kept in store. It is quite true, likewise, that there were boots in store that no one knew anything about, and that there was forage at Constantinople while the animals were starving in the Crimea. It is true, also, that a ship loaded with rice, was sent to convey an officer from Constantinople to Beicos. All this arose from local confusion, arising from the pressure of great and important services suddenly thrown upon men not accustomed to the details of such services. That was the real cause of the confusion that occurred—not any want of arrangement at home. The different departments sent out ample stores of all kinds for the wants of the army; but, partly in consequence of the rapid transfers of the army from one scene of operations to another, as from Turkey to the Crimea, the necessary separation of parties, and various other reasons, it is true there was not that arrangement and that foresight exhibited, which afterwards, when the officials became accustomed to their duties, fortunately prevailed. The supply of animals for fresh meat was at the beginning not properly arranged, the hospitals were not properly arranged, or cleansed, or ventilated, and the sick did not derive that advantage from them which they ought to have done. But when the hon. Gentleman speaks of the mortality of the army and of the great losses we sustained—deeply as I lament that mortality, and readily acknowledging that in great part it might have been prevented by better arrangements—he is much mistaken if he imagines that those losses were at all greater than those of the French or the Russian army. So far from that, they were less in proportion than those of our ally, whose arrangements were at one time held up as very models for imitation. With regard to the two Commissioners, no doubt they did their duty exceedingly well; but when did they go out? They went out in April and returned in July. These gentlemen, no doubt, suggested very material alterations while they were there; yet in so far as their Report furnished the Government at home with the elements of better arrangements, those arrangements had already been carried out, many important improvements had been carried out before they returned home—at any rate before their Report was sent in. Moreover, they were not the only Commissioners. There was a Medical Commission, consisting of Dr. Sutherland, Dr. Gavin, who unfortunately lost his life, and Mr. Rawlinson, an engineer, who was wounded in action in which he had unnecessarily placed himself. I am bound to say, without disparagement to Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch, that the Medical Commissioners conferred greater advantages upon the public at home and upon the army in the Crimea than it was possible for them to accomplish. Dr. Sutherland and his associates took the medical arrangements of the hospitals and of the camp into immediate consideration, and suggested improvements which were of the utmost consequence to the troops in the field as well as to the sick and wounded. Then it is said that it was a great injustice to Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch to appoint the Board of General Officers which held its sittings at Chelsea. That Board, however, was not appointed to revise the Report of the Commissioners. There were certain officers of rank—rank, if you will, both social and military—whose reputation was of course most dear to them, who had left the Crimea before Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch began their inquiries, whom, therefore, they could not examine on the spot, but with regard to whose conduct certain statements, direct or indirect, had been made to the Commissioners which were included in their Report; and when that Report was published those officers, jealous of their honour and reputation, asked for an opportunity of giving that explanation of their conduct which, not having been in the Crimea at the time when the investigation took place, it was absolutely and physically impossible they could have given to the Commissioners. That request was not made in secret or without public discussion; for it was in this House we were called upon to appoint some authority to whom these officers should make their statement. It was held not to be decorous that they should write letters in the newspapers in answer to the Report of the Crimean Commissioners, or that those who happened to be Members of Parliament should take advantage of their position as such to deliver speeches in their own defence. It was felt that the only just course towards them would be to appoint some Board of military officers, competent to be judges, to receive their statements and to hear what they had to say in exoneration of that part of their conduct which they believed to be impugned by the Report of the Crimean Commissioners. The Board of General Officers, therefore, was not appointed to sit in judgment upon Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch; on the contrary, its appointment was an act of simple justice to those officers who desired to explain their conduct in the Crimea, and was an act, moreover, which seemed to receive the sanction of Parliament at the time. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman is not one, I submit, which ought to be assented to by the House at the present moment. The first part of it records facts which nobody disputes—namely, the sufferings of the army at the time to which the Motion refers—but the latter part consists of censures upon certain officers belonging to certain branches of the service. I think it would be ungenerous at this time of day to go back to a consideration of a subject which involves a censure upon these officers after it has been subjected to investigation, and after the whole subject has, to a certain degree, passed into the domain of history. The hon. Gentleman, towards the conclusion of his speech, expressed a hope that arrangements might be made for the better instruction of officers of the army; that young men might no longer enter the army for the mere gratification of their vanity, intending to remain for two or three years only, but that all officers might in future make the military profession the serious business of their lives, devoting their whole thoughts to it. That is certainly the system in foreign countries, but it is not the case in England, and you may depend upon it, never will be. In foreign countries large standing armies are kept up in time of peace; when a man embraces the military profession he knows that he will be a soldier as long as health and strength remain, and he therefore devotes all his thoughts to it, in order to obtain promotion in the service and reputation among his fellow-citizens. The army is his permanent profession and his condition in life. In England we pursue a different course. We have in times of peace a very small army, and when war comes we are obliged to increase it, sometimes very rapidly. Officers who enter the army during war must expect when peace arrives to have their services dispensed with. It is a great object also to have our service voluntary, not compulsory; for voluntary service has something inspiriting in itself, and if it has its inconveniences it has likewise its advantages, the loss of which would be dearly purchased by the adoption of the continental system. Therefore, whatever arrangements we may make—and I trust the Government will be able to make them—for imparting to our military officers more professional instruction than hitherto they have had either the means or the inducement to acquire, depend upon it that the system which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see prevail—namely, that none should enter the army except those who intend to make it the study and business of their lives—is a principle which never can prevail in England. It is not consistent with the nature of our institutions or with our national character and habits. We must take advantage of the voluntary service of those who go into the army, whether they mean to remain a long or a short time, and make it as efficient as possible. We cannot be a military nation, but depend upon it we are a fighting nation; and depend upon it those very men who in time of peace may enter the army as a means of amusement for a short time, and, as the hon. Gentleman says, for the pleasure of wearing a red coat, if war should come, would be found most determined to brave the call. They will shrink not from the duty, but will distinguish themselves for bravery in the field, for endurance of fatigue, and for their submission to all the hardships of military life, quite as readily as the officers of any continental army, who have been drilled and tutored, and lectured into a better abstract notion of soldiers. They will be found equally gallant, whether they are placed at the head of a troop in battle, or conducting a charge, or defending a position against a hostile attack, whatever differences may exist between them in point of technical instruction or the knowledge of military details. I should hope, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman having satisfied his mind by making such honourable mention of the Commissioners—with which I fully concur—having expressed his regret at the sufferings of the army in the early period of the war—but forgetting to congratulate the country for the great improvement in its position in the latter period of the war, which I am sure he intended to have done—I trust it passed through his mind; very often hon. Gentlemen sit down without having said all they intended—having, I say, so far effected his object, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division, but will let us go into Committee of Supply without dividing on his Resolution.

thought that the inquiry conducted by Sir J. M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch in the Crimea was subversive of the discipline of the army, and he certainly would never consent to a Resolution which censured officers who acted under the authority of official superiors.

Sir, I cannot agree with the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the time of this House can be misspent in inquiries into the causes of the calamities which befell our army in the Crimea. I am aware of the ridicule to which I should naturally and justly expose myself if I were to offer any professional opinion upon the events of the Crimean campaign, and I am aware of the difficulties under which I labour in speaking of those occurrences, in the presence of some distinguished officers who were actual witnesses of those facts. But we may depend upon it that the military profession is as subject to the ordinary rules of common sense as any other; and I see no reason why any Member of this House, who has carefully examined the evidence laid on the table, should not be in a condition to form an opinion upon the question before us. For my own part, having passed two whole summers in investigating most minutely the facts that have been given in evidence, contrary, I may be permitted to say, to my own wishes, and contrary to my expressed opinion as to any advantage to be derived from our inquiries—I have arrived at the opinion that the calamities which occurred in the Crimea arose from circumstances which it was not in the power of any individual in the Crimea to control. I am happy to find that the noble Lord at the head of the War Department (Lord Panmure) expressed the same opinion in the speech which he made a short time ago at Arbroath. The mistake of those who have been foremost in demanding inquiry into the sufferings of the Crimean army consists in the attempt to throw the blame upon individuals. The first person sacrificed in consequence of these calamities was the Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary for War. I am certain that anybody who reads the evidence given by the noble Duke before the Chelsea Board of Commissioners, must admit that he did everything in his power to avert the calamities that befell the army, and that he was only responsible with the rest of the Government for what took place. I also believe that Admiral Boxer, Captain Christie, and Lord Raglan fell victims to that senseless clamour which was raised against them in this country upon anonymous authority. Now, Sir, I have always attempted to remodel had systems, instead of attacking the individuals who had to work them. Let it not for a moment be supposed that I underrate the hardships and privations to which the army was subject during the winter of 1854–5. So far from underrating them, I think it is impossible to exaggerate them; and equally impossible would it be to exaggerate the patience and heroism with which they were endured. But, admitting the hardships endured by this army, I believe that no individual in the Crimea was responsible for them. I am perfectly aware that when I say so I may well be asked, "What then were, in your opinion, the causes of those hardships?" I think that the time has gone by when there ought to be any delicacy whatever in answering that question. I believe that the chief cause was your commencement of a great war with little means—in sending out a larger army than our peace establishment could afford. The army was deficient in everything but in the bravery, discipline, and devotedness of its troops. With that army suffering much from sickness you undertook a great military operation without any reserve whatever. The Government were not so responsible for that as the country, which raised the universal cry that the war should be carried on with vigour. But I think that the Government were to blame not so much for anything of their own defects, but for having given way to that absurd cry of the country for carrying on such a war with economy. I think also they were to blame for not having foreseen at an earlier period the possibility of the army having to remain in the Crimea during the winter of 1854–5. I am perfectly aware that there was a general belief that the army would not have to remain there during that winter, and that it was not till after the battle of Inker-man that it became certain that it would have to winter in the Crimea; nor was it until after that great victory that the necessities of the army became known. It is to the position in which the army then was that I attribute the calamities which afterwards inevitably occurred. That illustrious man struggled against the most tremendous difficulties which he had no power to assuage, and which were enough to appall as well as disgust any man placed in his position. Lord Raglan had no resources whatever with which to overcome the difficulties by which he was surrounded; nor was he the man to abandon his guns, his allies, and the honour of his country by endeavouring to re-embark his army. I do not think that he would have succeeded in that endeavour; but, whatever might be the severity of the hardships which he had to endure, anybody who knew Lord Raglan must feel that he would have maintained his position as long as he had a single regiment left. The army was exhausted by work beyond its strength. It was not even able to keep up that road of communication which lay between it and the harbour of Balaklava, where the provisions intended for it were landed. An outcry was raised in this country against the War Department because that road to Balaklava was almost impassable; but that cry only showed the injustice of blaming individuals for occurrences over which they had no control. The want of that road added in a frightful degree to the inefficiency of the land carriage. From want of a system of sufficient land carriage the horses belonging to the cavalry had to struggle to their knees in mud under burdens of provision for the army. The want of that land carriage is admitted, I believe, on all hands, to have been the principal cause of the misfortunes of the army, and it therefore well deserves the consideration of this House. It does not appear to have originated, in the first instance, from a want of animals, for you had 2,000 at Constantinople; it appears to have originated from the impossibility of providing forage for more than a small number of animals in the Crimea, and that number was already exceeded by the cavalry and those used by the military staff. I think, then, that a commonsense view of that position of affairs would have led to the reduction of the number of the horses, as you had not the power of keeping them in the Crimea. This brings me to another great cause of the hardships endured by the army. It struck me from the first moment that the wisest plan under these circumstances would have been to re-embark the cavalry and send them to Varna or to Constantinople during the winter, and to take baggage animals to the Crimea for the purpose of affording communication between the army and Balaklava. It struck me that it was worse than useless to keep the cavalry horses in the Crimea during the winter, for, supposing even that there had not been any danger of their starvation, the mere exposure of them to a Crimean winter, and use of them as baggage animals, would render them useless in battle. I therefore put the question to the first cavalry officer that was examined before the Crimean Commission, whether I had not formed a correct opinion as to what ought to have been done in this respect? His answer was that it would have no doubt been beneficial to the cavalry if such a course had been adopted, but that the moral effect of it would have been bad. It seems to me, however, that the moral effect of our horses dying of starvation and eating one another's tails could not have been very beneficial. I perfectly understood the meaning of that answer to be, that it would have had a bad effect upon our allies if we had endeavoured to re-embark any portion of our army. And this brings me to another subject, and that is the evil that always must arise from the action of combined armies serving under two distinct commanders. Depend upon it that, however cordial, however perfectly allied, however perfectly united the forces may be, there always must be separate interests and separate views. It must be evident to everybody who has read the evidence laid before the House, that the loss of the Light Brigade of cavalry during the earlier part of the winter was in consequence of the position which was assigned to the British army. That position was the result of an agreement between Lord Raglan and the French General. The danger to which the cavalry was exposed was pointed out to Lord Raglan, but he did not consider himself at liberty to change its position. I believe that the agreement is no secret whatever. I have heard it repeated fifty times. I have heard that its history was this: when Lord Raglan found his army sinking from overwork and dying in the trenches, he applied to the French General for assistance, or rather for a fresh division of the labour according to the strength of the army, the French army having received an accession of a great number of troops that were carried by our own transports at a time when they were most required for our own army. The answer was as satisfactory as could be expected under the circumstances. It is said that the division of labour was promised on condition that our cavalry was to be at the immediate service of the French army. The difficulty of foraging the cavalry was pointed out; but the answer was very laconic—"No cavalry, no division of labour." Although our cavalry was then put in a position where it must of necessity starve, yet I think that it perfectly fulfilled the purpose for which it was used, namely, that of acting like a scarecrow and frightening the Russians away. I believe that the calamities which befell our army during the winter of 1854–5 are attributable, not to the heads of our military departments, but to the organization and arrangements of those departments. Into the Commissariat Department there have already been introduced changes which I trust will prove to be beneficial. The Commissariat has already been removed from the Treasury and placed under the control of the Secretary for War. The Transport Service has been removed from the Commissariat, and a special force raised for that service. I trust that the anomalies in the Quartermaster General's Department will be done away with. There is no department on which the comfort of the army is more dependent than on that of the Quartermaster General, and yet he has not the power of executing upon his own responsibility any one of the duties which he has to perform; he is dependent upon other departments for the performance of those duties for which he is responsible. I believe that we shall profit by the experience which we have gained in the Crimea. With regard to the Crimean Commission, the noble Lord has truly stated what was the duty of the Board of General Officers. We were not directed to try the accuracy of the Report of Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch. All that was done in respect to those Commissioners arose from a question put by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), who asked whether or no the Commissioners would be permitted to be present at that inquiry. We would not take upon ourselves the responsibility of either inviting them or of refusing them admission; but we said that if they chose to attend they should have the fullest power of calling witnesses, and examining them upon any points they pleased. The Board of General Officers was constituted for the purpose of receiving the explanations of certain officers, whose conduct was impugned; and those officers were fully justified in demanding such a tribunal. It seems, from the first paragraph of a work lately published, that considerable excitement has been created by the Report of the Commission against the officers supposed to be responsible for the Crimean Report. Great objections have been taken to the formation of that Board; and the Judge Advocate has stated that the officers composing it were all of the same political opinion as the two noble Lords who appeared before it. I do not know where my right hon. Friend obtained that information; but I am afraid that if Colonel Tulloch had known the real truth we should have been subjected to a much graver charge—that of being a coalition. Persons of the same political views may come to any conclusion they please without being stigmatized; but if the case be so strong as to induce persons of different political opinions to agree there must be a coalition. I am afraid, then, that I coalesced upon that occasion, for I have the authority of three out of the other four officers who composed the Board for denying altogether that they are of the same political opinions as myself. At all events, we were not in a position to show our politics there, and—what is more—a soldier has no politics connected with his profession. I am really surprised, therefore, at the repetition of such a charge, even in this book, which professes to be an attack upon the Board of General Officers. I should be quite ready, if necessary, to go through and to verify every opinion which was expressed by that Board; but that would be only a waste of time, and I shall confine myself, therefore, to dealing very shortly with each case, showing the best reasons why we came to the conclusions that we did. With reference to Lord Lucan's case, it is only necessary, I think, to quote one authority, which it is impossible to oppose, and which Colonel Tulloch, who has contradicted everything else, will, I have no doubt, admit. The authority to which I allude is the following statement, which was made by Lord Lucan in the House of Lords. His Lordship said:—

"For himself he felt little concern, because, immediately after the conclusion of the evidence, Colonel Tulloch came over to him, and, although he had never said a word or communicated with that gallant officer before, he, Colonel Tulloch, said he thought it due to him (the Earl of Lucan) to state that had he not been misled by the evidence given him in the Crimea by General Airey and Colonel Gordon, he or the other Commissioner would never have said a word to his (the Earl of Lucan's) disadvantage."

Therefore it appears that, according to Colonel Tulloch's own view, Lord Lucan had perfectly justified himself. With regard to Lord Cardigan, it seems to me that his is just the case of a man who gave the very good reason for not paying his debts—that he had no money. Lord Cardigan did not do certain things that were suggested, because he had no authority; and it was proved that he had no power to do more than he did. As to General Airey, the House will remember that when these Commissioners went to the Crimea to inquire into the case of the stores and the Commissariat Department, another officer was sent out with the full authority of the Government to inquire into the conduct of the staff officers; and when I read to you the instructions which were given to General Simpson, and his Report upon the subject, I think that the House will see that that is far better evidence as to the conduct of the staff officers than any which could possibly be given by the Commissioners. Moreover, those officers never received any intimation of any charge being brought against them, and the first syllable which they heard about it was upon the appearance of the bluebook. The instructions which were given to General Simpson in the Crimea, at the same time that the Commissioners went out, were in these words: —

"It will be your duty to look into the composition of the general staff of the army and report your opinion of any change which it may occur to you to think necessary to Field Marshal Raglan. All appointments and removals from the general staff of the army will rest with the officers in supreme command; but you will not fail, if you find any officer in your opinion unfit on trial for the duties intrusted to him, to report the same without favour or affection to the Commander in Chief."

Then General Simpson, on the 26th of April, reported to Lord Raglan as follows:

"Ever since my arrival in the camp, it has been my daily custom, by personal intercourse, to make myself acquainted with every officer employed on the general staff of this army, and there is not one of them I would wish to see removed. I confess myself to have come among those officers with some degree of prejudice against them in my mind by the gross misrepresentations current in England respecting them. I do not think a better selection of staff officers could be made."

Now, I really would ask my hon. Friend who brought forward this Motion whether with this testimony before him he would ask the House to commit such an act of injustice as to say that the calamities in the Crimea arose from the conduct of the heads of the departments that are mentioned? Whatever he does with the remainder of his Resolution, I trust that he will strike out that portion of it. Allow me, in justice to Mr. Commissary General Filder—whom I never saw in my life—to say that I think he was exceedingly hardly used; because just at the moment when things were improving and the whole Commissariat Department was rearranged, he was removed, and others were sent out to the Crimea who reaped the benefit of his experience and of all that he had done. I am perfectly willing to admit that the Crimean Commissioners have done their duty most conscientiously and most fearlessly, and no doubt that duty was a most anxious one; but I must say that I think the extent of their services has been somewhat overrated. I see, for example, that the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. J. Ewart), and some hundred other most respectable gentlemen connected with that great town, have agreed to the following resolution:—

"Looking back to and comparing the condition of the army previous to the commencement of your labours with the state in which you left it, it is not too much to say that to your exertions we owe the preservation of the remnant of that noble body of men, and the rescue of the country from impending failure and disgrace."

I beg to say that the army never heard before that they had been rescued from "impending failure and disgrace" by the exertions of the Commissioners. Those gentlemen did not arrive in the Crimea until the 13th of March, by which time the former evils had been remedied, the men were actually overladen with clothing, and the army altogether in as good a condition as any army could possibly be expected to be. But it was not in the power of the Commissioners, according to their instructions, whatever their intentions might have been, to have done what is supposed. Their instructions were to inquire, report, and make suggestions; and the only suggestions which they made upon the spot which I can trace were something about ovens and quinine. The Commissioners never themselves attributed blame to any of those gentlemen who appeared before the Board at Chelsea; but they were in haste to submit their Report to the House before it was laid before the Commander in Chief, and if, when presented, it had been accompanied by that expression of the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, that the calamities in the Crimea arose from circumstances which no one could control, I think that that would have been quite sufficient, and that the inquiry which took place at Chelsea never need have occurred. With reference to that inquiry I will only add, for myself, that I have been actuated by no personal feeling whatever respecting any person. I had as many friends and near relations, perhaps, in the Crimea as most people, and they were all regimental officers serving in the trenches; but, owing to the length of time that I have been on half-pay, I had not the honour of anything but the slightest personal acquaintance with a single officer on the staff in the Crimea. Regardless of private friendships, however, I trust that I shall always have moral courage enough to do justice to everybody who I think has been wronged.

Although I would willingly not trespass upon the time of the House, I think, considering my past relation with the military department of the Government, that I may be allowed to say a few words with respect to the Motion under discussion. I agree with a great deal that has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and I confess that the first impression which the proposed Resolutions made on my mind was one of regret at the re-opening of questions which I hoped had been settled, and were not again to be adverted to. I think that we must all feel a desire, having passed through the Crimean campaign, to draw the veil of oblivion over everything which would appear to imply blame or censure to individuals. No doubt, when, after a long peace, an army suddenly takes the field, there must be great inexperience, great deficiencies, and great confusion; and I agree with the gallant Officer, that the error which was made by the Government of which I was a member was in attempting too much. I say frankly that I think we were to blame for so doing. But it appears to me that in all these discussions the main difficulty which besets us is, that we have never had a clear idea whom we are to try. From the speeches of some hon. Gentlemen it seems to be their opinion that we ought to try the Chelsea Board; but with that I have nothing to do—the General Officers who constituted that Board have concluded their inquiry, and I have no doubt that they have acted conscientiously to the best of their ability. They may have fallen into error, but whether they did or not, with that we have nothing to do. It is quite true, as has been stated, that the changes which were made in the management of the army—such as the division of the Land Transport from the Commissariat, the ordering of the railway, the improved clothing, and so on—were made previously to the arrival of the Commissioners in the Crimea, because they were sent out in the autumn, and the Commissioners did not arrive till the following March. I again say we are not here to judge the Chelsea Commissioners, or to say whether or not they executed their duty to the utmost of their ability; but I think that all persons in this House, not excepting the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) will freely admit the faithfulness and ability with which Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch fulfilled a difficult, a delicate, and a most invidious task, and the question we have to consider now is, not whether certain officers in the Crimea were to blame—not whether the Board of Officers at Chelsea were to blame—but whether two gentlemen who were sent from this country to discharge a most arduous and invidious duty did discharge that duty faithfully and ably; and, if so, has the country, and has the Crown, marked in an unmistakeable manner their approbation of the services performed? I confess I heard with great pain the noble Lord at the head of the Government speak depreciatingly of the services of these gentlemen. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Not only have I not done so, but I stated the exact contrary.] Well, I am willing to do justice to the noble Lord, and I hope he will do me the justice of admitting that I have done my utmost to prevent this question being brought before the House, because I have repeatedly pressed upon him in private the course which I hoped he would have adopted with regard to these gentlemen. The question, however, now is before the House, and I am bound to express my opinion with regard to it. The noble Lord spoke of the Report of Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch as being a valuable Report, but at the same time as not being more valuable than many other Reports which had been made. Now, the House should remember, firstly, that the subject of this inquiry was far more important in its character, altogether differed from the subjects of ordinary Reports; and secondly, that the services of these gentlemen were not confined to the inquiry they have made, nor is the whole result embodied in their Report, though their Report contains a mine of information upon which, no doubt, many important changes in our military administration will be founded. I have been told by medical men in whose judgment I place great confidence, that although without doubt a great deal of suffering in the Crimea was produced by privation and overwork, yet if there was one cause which more than any other contributed to the mortality of the army, it was scurvy, owing to the troops being kept so long feeding upon salt meat. I believe that it is not denied that when Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch arrived in the Crimea the Commissariat were still issuing hard biscuit and salt meat, and hard biscuit was entirely useless to men whose gums were affected by scurvy. It may appear from statistics that deaths among the troops arose from a great variety of diseases, but I believe that those diseases were only the result of scurvy, and that scurvy was therefore the original cause of the destruction of the army. Well, Sir, these gentlemen immediately effected the introduction to a great extent of fresh meat and bread in lieu of salt meat and biscuits. I have heard military men say that there is this peculiarity about every commissariat, which is, that as long as they can get people to eat it they will always issue salt meat and biscuits; and the reason is, obviously, because it entails less trouble in collection and no more trouble in issue than any other articles of food. This being so, Sir John M 'Neill took measures that tenders might be sent in to Mr. Filder from persons offering to supply fresh meat, and at the same time Colonel Tulloch introduced the practice of baking fresh bread, and established bakeries to supply the troops with fresh bread two or three days in the week; and thus these two gentlemen rendered a most important service in addition to preparing their Report. Now, Sir, do not let us consider who was to blame. I have frankly said that in one respect I think the Government were to blame, and with regard to other matters I wish to cast blame upon no man. The Report of the Commissioners, except in one single sentence, and then only by implication, brings no charge against any one; and I bring no charge, for I have too strong a feeling of sympathy for men engaged in so difficult and dangerous duties to impute blame to them when they endeavour to discharge their duty to the utmost of their ability. Let me however, ask the House if it does not think it fitting that it should express some opinion in approbation of the service of these two gentlemen? I would venture to suggest to the hon. Gentleman who has moved these Resolutions to withdraw all but the first, and to engraft upon that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. J. Ewart), with the exception of the first two lines, so that it would read thus:—

"That Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch ably fulfilled the duty intrusted to them of inquiring into the arrangement and management of the Commissariat Department; and that, considering the able services rendered by them as commissioners in the Crimea, and the testimony in their favour of Her Majesty's Government, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that some especial mark of approbation be conferred upon them."

I confess that I entertain strong feelings upon this subject. It is by no means easy to find gentlemen who will make a Report which by implication affects persons of high standing; and if you wish in future to have true and faithful reports you must show your appreciation of men who are willing rather to encounter obloquy than to conceal or gloss over that which they ought in duty to make known; and I must say that, looking at the services which have been rendered by these gentlemen, it does not appear to me that they have received justice at our hands. I again repeat that we are not here to sit in judgment upon the Chelsea Board of Officers, but the question for us to consider is, ought not these Commissioners, who had to discharge a most delicate, a most difficult, and a most invidious duty, and who discharged that duty with the utmost faithfulness and ability, to receive from the country some mark of approbation?

I agree generally with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts; but I am not quite sure that I agree with him that a veil of oblivion ought to be cast over all the transactions of the campaign of 1854–5. But, although I hope and believe that those events will never be forgotten, I so far agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to consider that it is not advisable now to bring them under the consideration of the House of Commons. There can be no doubt as to the sympathy entertained by the House and by the country for the sufferings of the army; but I am disposed to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) that the events of that campaign should only be referred to for the purpose of effecting certain changes in the organization of our military departments; but I take a different view from him as to whether the services of these Gentlemen ought to receive a fuller measure of recognition than they have received as yet. The question is one which this House, and, I believe, the country generally, regard with great interest. Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch were selected by the Government at a moment of great difficulty and great anxiety to conduct a most delicate, a most difficult, and a most invidious inquiry, and I believe that no two public functionaries ever discharged a difficult duty with more ability or with more honesty than they did. When they published their Report the Board of Officers at Chelsea was appointed to inquire into certain charges which it was alleged were contained in it against certain officers holding a high position in the army. I have not the least intention of casting any censure upon that Board; on the, contrary, I heard with great interest what fell from my gallant Friend, and I am quite convinced, and I believe that the country is convinced, that the duties of that Board were ably and honourably discharged. My gallant Friend the Member for Huntingdon has stated that it was not the intention of that Board to inquire into the conduct of Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch; but, at the same time, they communicated to those Gentlemen that they were at liberty to appear before them. I think that in that respect the Board of Officers acted with perfect fairness; but I must confess that, under all the circumstances of the case, I think that Sir John M 'Neill exercised a wise discretion in trusting to the opinion which had been privately expressed to him by the Government, and not appearing before the Board. Colonel Tulloch adopted a different course, animated, I believe, by a feeling highly becoming to him as an officer; but still I think that he would better have consulted his own dignity if he had followed the example of Sir John M 'Neill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Herbert) has borne testimony, and the House responded to his statement, to the services of these gentlemen; and the question now before the House is, whether those services have been adequately recognized? I will not enter into the rumours with regard to some supposed understanding with Colonel Tulloch before he went out, that higher military rank would be conferred upon him on his return. I see that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) dissents from that proposition, and I am not prepared to say that there was any such understanding. After the language of the noble Lord this evening I am not disposed to impute to him unwillingness to do justice to these Gentlemen; but I must express my opinion, which I believe is one very generally entertained, that the Government have not recognized their services with the promptitude or generosity, or to the extent which they ought to have done. It is perfectly true, as has been stated by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Palk), that, on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the War Department, no public recognition of these services was made until, I believe, a year after the Report was presented, and certainly six months after the appointment of the Chelsea Board; and, if I recollect rightly, it was not until this very Session that the noble Lord opposite made in Parliament any declaration of the approbation of Her Majesty's Government. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Last year.] I beg pardon; but, beyond that verbal recognition, no reward, no compensation has been given to these officers, and I heard this evening with very great regret the answer which was given by the noble Lord to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. J. Ewart). When I saw that question on the paper I did most earnestly hope that the hon. Gentleman had some good reason for putting it, and I anxiously expected that the answer of the noble Lord would have been different from what it was. Under these circumstances I would join my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire in pressing my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Palk) to alter the terms of his Motion. I am not disposed to be a party to the unnecessary revival of painful questions with regard to the conduct of the war; but, on the subject now before the House—the claims of the Commissioners—I am disposed to have a very clear opinion. I believe it would be inconsistent with the forms of the House for the hon. Member for Liverpool to move the Amendment of which he has given notice upon the Motion of my hon. Friend, which is itself an Amendment; but I think the objects of both hon. Gentlemen will be answered if my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Palk) will drop the paragraphs of his Resolution referring to the conduct of the war, and add to his first paragraph relating to Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool, If my hon. Friend will adopt that course I shall give him my vote.

said, that he had heard with great pain the answer given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the question which he had put to him that evening. He should certainly never have asked that question had he not had strong reasons for believing that some proper mark of distinction would be conferred, at all events, upon Colonel Tulloch. The Crimean Commissioners undertook a most painful and arduous duty, and they discharged it in a manner which justified the confidence which had been reposed in them by the Government, and entitled them to the eternal gratitude of the country. Far be it from him to say anything against those officers who were alluded to in the Report. The judgment of the country was, he believed, against them, and that was sufficient. He could not, however, help expressing his deep regret that the distinguished men who undertook that arduous duty should have been so entirely passed over, and that no proper recognition of their merits should have been made. He had hoped that the noble Lord would have met this question in a different manner. He could assure him that there was a very strong feeling about it in the country, and that the people would not be satisfied until there had been made to these two gentlemen some proper recognition of the valuable services they had rendered. He entirely approved of the course which had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), and he hoped that, altered as that right hon. Gentleman had suggested, the Resolutions would be agreed to by the House.

said, that if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire had not fully coincided with his own opinions he should still have considered it his duty to defer to the judgment of those who had much better means of forming an opinion upon this subject than he himself possessed. As it was, however, that concurrence did exist, and he, therefore, had no difficulty in acceding to the suggestion which had been made. Another Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words

"Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch ably fulfilled the duty entrusted to them of inquiring into the arrangement and management of the Commissariat Department; and that, considering the able services rendered by Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch, as Commissioners in the Crimea, and the high testimony in their favour by Her Majesty's Government, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that some especial mark of approbation be conferred upon them."—instead thereof.

I had hoped to have had a more decided expression of the opinions and feelings of the House upon the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert), but if I am to infer from the calls for a division that the feeling of the House is decidedly in its favour I shall not oppose it. I have no wish to stand between the generous feelings of this House and the accomplishment of its wishes. Nobody more heartily desides than I do that the services of these two gentlemen should be recognized. I did certainly think that the offer made to them was the more natural and appropriate acknowledgment for services of that description; but, at the same time, if the House is of opinion that the Resolution as amended should be adopted, I for one shall not oppose it.

Resolved, "That Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch ably fulfilled the duty entrusted to them of inquiring into the arrangement and management of the Commissariat Department; and that, considering the able services rendered by Sir John M 'Neill and Colonel Tulloch, as Commissioners in the Crimea, and the high testimony in their favour by Her Majesty's Government, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that some especial mark of approbation be conferred upon them."

said, that, in proceeding with the Motion that stood in his name on the subject of the Army Estimates, it was not his intention, as the Committee were aware, to invite them to agree to the whole of the sums which the Government computed would be required to carry on the service of the army throughout the ensuing financial year. Having regard to the circumstances in which the Government and the House were placed, and following the precedent set in the case of the Navy Estimates, it would be sufficient if the Committee voted money enough to cover the payments likely to fall due in the course of the next four months. As the major part of each Vote would have to be submitted to the ensuing Parliament, and as even the money now to be voted on account would have to be re-voted in the succeeding House of Commons, he should best consult the convenience of the Committee by not anticipating the discussions and explanations which were sure to arise when the Estimates were again brought forward hereafter, and by abstaining, therefore, from now entering into any details with regard to the various items and services comprised in those Estimates. With respect, however, to the number of men, which formed the first Vote, he was under the necessity of pursuing a different course. Of course the numbers were the same whether the Estimates were voted for four months or for the entire year. The number of men which he should propose to ask the Committee to sanction for the ensuing year was 126,796. Last year the number voted was 246,716, so that there was a reduction this year in round numbers of 120,000 men upon all the various branches of military service which formed the land force of the country. The reduction in the Guards and Infantry was 78,510, the number proposed this year being 84,063 against 162,573 voted last year. This reduction was effected by voting a diminution of the rank and file of the various regiments. Last year the average strength of the regiments in the Crimea was 2,000 men, and the average strength of all other regiments of the line, except those in the East Indies, was 1,200 men. This year the average strength of each regiment, not counting those in the East Indies, would be 840 men. In the Cavalry there would be a reduction of 7,495 men, 9,325 men being asked this year, against 16,820 voted last year. This reduction was effected by diminishing the number of troops in each regiment from 8 to 6, and the number of men in each regiment from 640 to 350. In the Artillery and Engineers there was a reduction of from 28,221, of all ranks, to 21,924, and in the Military Train and Hospital Corps there was a reduction of 8,191 men. The Foreign Legions, consisting of 21,719 men, which had been disbanded in the course of last autumn, completed the total of the reduction. No doubt it would be asked whether a real reduction had been effected during the last twelve months to the extent of 120,000 men! The numbers proposed this year were certainly less by 120,000 men than the numbers voted last year, but it did not follow that that number of effective men had been discharged in the course of the year. In the case of the Foreign Legion and the Land Transport Corps 30,000 men had been discharged, and that left a reduction of 90,000 to be accounted for. The number which was voted last year for the Guards and Cavalry was 173,000, but the effective force never really reached that strength. He believed the army was at its strongest about the month of April last year, at which time there were 129,857 men, or 48,650 below the establishment. Consequently, they had had to deal with 42,355 Guards, Cavalry, and Infantry. Between that time and the 1st of February, this year, 20,000 men had been discharged, and there now remained 22,361 to be discharged in order to bring down the effective force to the strength which he proposed to vote for next year. That number included the two regiments of Cavalry which were brought from India in the course of the war, and which, on the termination of the war, had been replaced on the Indian establishment. This would account for a diminution in the number mentioned of about 1360, leaving 21,000 still to be dealt with. He anticipated that between the 1st of February last, which was the period when his return was taken, and the commencement of the ensuing financial year, the War Office would have been able, by various means—either because the men were unfit for the service, were themselves desirous of leaving it and could be spared, or of bad or indifferent character—to discharge from 10,000 to 12,000 more. There would, therefore, only remain about 9,000 effective men over the establishment which he now proposed should be voted for next year. With regard to that 9,000 men, the course which would be taken was this. He had lately been furnished with a return of the losses to the army in men for ten years ending in the year 1853, and it appeared from that return that upon the whole strength of the Infantry and Cavalry, which during those ten years amounted to 121,532, there was an annual loss arising from deaths, discharges, and desertions, of 12,700 men, or at the rate of 1,000 a month. Now, if the army were at once reduced to the actual strength proposed to be voted, they would have to meet a monthly loss of about 1,000 men; and to do this, they would be under the necessity of commencing to recruit in order to supply the vacancies thus continually occurring. Of course there was very considerable expense attendant upon filling up vacancies in the ranks by means of recruitment, for every recruit had to be provided with a kit, besides his bounty, in case of being a new soldier. Instead, therefore, of taking that course, recruiting had been entirely suspended, and these 9,000 men were to be kept as a sort of reserve upon which to draw for the number that would be required to fill up the vacancies as they occurred; thus in about six or nine months the army would be reduced, in the case of the Guards, Cavalry, and Infantry, to the strength which it was now proposed should be voted; but for the remainder of the year it would, of course, be necessary again to have recourse to recruiting for the purpose of keeping the effective strength up to the requisite number. With regard to the Artillery and Engineers, they did not at present exceed by more than 2,000 men the number proposed to be voted, and these would be reduced before the commencement of the financial year. For the reasons he had already stated he would not enter into further details, but move that the number of men for the ensuing financial year should be a number not exceeding 126,796.

said he felt it to be his duty to rise at the earliest opportunity and express in the strongest manner his deep regret at having ascertained—he feared beyond the possibility of a doubt—that the suggestions which had been made by the Select Committee over which he had had the honour of presiding last Session with regard to a most important class of army officers—he meant the medical officers—had not been at all attended to, and that the position of those gentlemen in the service was now exactly what it was when that Committee first met, and the war began. Yet one of the first notices which were given by the Government when they acceded to office was, that the medical department of the army should engage their particular care—and, indeed, the noble Viscount the Prime Minister himself stated that a modification of that department was in contemplation. The Committee on the Army Medical Department differed from the suggestion which was then made by the noble Viscount, and recommended that the management of that department should be, as now, in the hands of one individual, and not of a board, as was suggested by the noble Lord. He (Mr. Stafford) had always stated, and again desired to state, that it must be to the latest moment of the noble Lord's life a proud gratification and an honest pleasure to him to reflect on the state in which he had left the army of the East; and no praise could be too high and no eulogy too warm, neither ought any party feeling to induce hon. Gentlemen to withhold the expression of that praise and eulogy for the manner in which army reform had been carried out, and the comfort of the soldier established under the noble Lord's Government. It was with all the more regret, therefore, that he feared, from what was going on, or rather from what was not going on, now that the popular enthusiasm in favour of the soldier had somewhat cooled down, and other topics of pressing interest engrossed the public mind, that the Government found themselves in the position of being obliged to say, with regard to army medical reform,—"We have dismissed your case. The tide of economy is setting in. All we have promised you, we are unable to perform; and because you are not aristocratically connected, and possess no Parliamentary influence, but are a scattered and disjointed body, you must not expect us to do any more for you." Of course, the state of suspense in which the Army Medical department had been kept for nearly two years had called forth from every one of these gentlemen feelings of disappointment, vexation, and disinclination to continue longer in the service. What they asked was this—and he was authorized by all those with whom he had been in communication to say it—"Tell us one thing or another. Tell us that you are going to do either something or nothing for us; for at present all promotion is stopped except in cases of death." Very few would enter the service; but none wished to retire from it until they knew what arrangements were to be made. In fact, the medical department of the army was in a worse—that was, in a more unsatisfactory—state than if promises had never been held out, or if reform had never been suggested, and if the Government had never consented to the appointment of a Committee. For it was that consent which obtained the appointment of the Committee by the unanimous vote of this House; but it ought never to have been given, and on other subjects had been frequently withheld by them from fear of raising hopes which might be followed by disappointment. If they believed, as they had often expressed, and as he firmly believed they could not express too strongly, that the bravery of the British soldier, his fortitude, his discipline, his good conduct, rendered his life and comfort very precious; and if, as had been observed by the noble Lord, the system of free enlistment, and the absence of conscription, as the only means which existed in this country of filling up the gaps created in the ranks of the army, rendered that life more valuable still, then he would ask the Government by every remembrance of Crimean difficulties, and by every recollection of Crimean glories, to see to it that the medical department of the army was supplied with the most promising young men, and that the scale of pay was sufficient to attract them to the service. As these matters stood at present, the East India Company, the large steam-packet establishments, the requirements of the colonies, and of an increasing population, drew from the army medical profession many men of ability. He (Mr. Stafford) protested against any longer procrastination in this matter; and he asked his hon. Friend now, before he took a vote in Committee, or else on the report of the Resolutions, to state what the intentions of the Government were; whether they intended doing anything or nothing for the Army Medical department; and so let this deserving and honourable class of persons know definitely and finally what their destiny was to be.

said, that he fully concurred in the opinions expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. No department had been more exposed to difficulty in the Crimea than the Medical department of the army, and he trusted that when the Army Estimates came before the next Parliament, some general statement would be made in reference to that department. For the sake of the efficiency of the army before the enemy, it was important that the utmost attention should be paid to the state of the medical department. In reference to another department—the Commissariat—the discussion which had taken place had brought to the painful recollection of the House that that branch had been almost entirely neglected before the recent war, and the Government should now give it at least so much consideration as would prevent it from relapsing into the same condition. Public attention had been drawn to this subject very much, and he had seen in an extremely sensible work, published by a Commissariat Officer, the suggestion that, instead of being a civil department, the Commissariat, with the exception of the accountant branch, should be altogether military. Such was the case in India; and in respect to his division in the Crimea great advantage was derived from the assistance for commissariat purposes of two or three military officers, who, however, could not continue that aid when their division came before the enemy. He ventured to hope that the Government would take this point under consideration before the meeting of next Parliament. With respect to the Transport Corps, it seemed objectionable that that should be totally independent of the Commissariat, for what the Commissariat were to do without the Transport Corps he did not know. He thought that the case of the non-commissioned officers who had received commissions and were now reduced called for liberal consideration. With respect to the number of men required for the army, he deemed it was the duty of the executive Government to propose the amount on their own responsibility. He remembered it was stated at the beginning of the last war that, if the army was insufficient, that was more the fault of the House of Commons than of the executive Government. He demurred to such a statement, for he hardly recollected any proposition made by the Government as to the numerical force of the army being altered by that House; and unquestionably the executive Government must possess the best information as to the probability of a greater or less force being required. He believed the numerical force of the army, except with regard to the artillery and engineers, was nearly the same as in 1853, but the expenditure was considerably greater, and the question was whether due economy had been observed in all the departments. He was afraid there had been some extravagance with respect to the Staff; but the only mode of reconciling economy with efficiency was by restricting all dispensable services. He hoped this point would receive the consideration of the Government, and that measures would be taken for improving the Commissariat department, which he thought was not in a satisfactory state.

said, that the Committee of which he was a member had recommended that an extra-assistant surgeon should be appointed to every regiment; for it was found that, as there was only one assistant-surgeon to each regiment, not only was it impossible for the surgeon and his assistant to discharge their duties efficiently, but those officers were unable to obtain leave of absence. If from sickness, or any other pressing cause, the medical officers were compelled to absent themselves from their regiments for any length of time, they were obliged, at their own cost, to provide for the medical charge of the troops during their absence. He believed the Duke of Cambridge had expressed a decided opinion that an extra assistant-surgeon should be appointed to every regiment, and that medical officers ought to receive leave of absence on the same scale as the other officers. At the commencement of the late war there was no department of the army in which there was so marked a deficiency as the Medical department. After the battle of the Alma the wounded remained on the field for at least twenty-four hours before they received medical attention, owing to the want of a sufficient number of medical officers. He thought that, in whatever deportments of the army reductions were effected, there ought to be no diminution in the number of regimental medical officers.

said, he was a member of the Committee referred to by the hon. Baronet, which was most fairly constituted, and which had recommended an increase of pay to medical officers of the army; and he hoped the Under Secretary for War would be enabled, when the Report of Supply was brought up, to state whether the Government intended to take any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committe with regard to a most meritorious class of officers of the army.

could assure the Committee that the state of the Medical department of the army continued to receive the attention of the Government. He had himself been a member of the Committee, but he did not remember that they recommended the employment of an increased number of medical officers. If that were the case, however, the Government had carried out their recommendation; for there had not only been an increase in the number of surgeons attached to infantry regiments, but there had also been a very large increase in the medical staff. Comparing the expenditure for the medical staff of Great Britain and Ireland in 1852, 1853, and 1854, with what it was at present, it would be found there had been an increase amounting to about £40,000 a year. The hon. and gallant General (Sir De L. Evans) had stated, that although the number of infantry was now less than it was before the war, the expenditure for that branch of the service had increased. There was undoubtedly an increased charge, which was attributable to the fact that, although the number of rank and file was less than in 1852 and 1853, a larger number of officers and non-commissioned officers was retained, in consequence of the change in the constitution and organization of regiments. Before the late war each regiment consisted of only ten companies, but in 1854, on the proposition of the right hon. Member for South Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert), the number of companies in each regiment was increased from ten to twelve. The right hon. Gentleman urged that that should be a permanent increase, and the recommendation was concurred in by the late Mr. Hume. The retention of the extra companies and the additions to the rifle corps occasioned the increased expenditure to which the gallant Officer referred.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had not given an answer to his question. He had not stated what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Medical Department of the Army. He hoped he would give some information on bringing up the Report.

said, he was glad to hear that the reductions of the army would be carried out in such a manner as not to deprive the country of the services of good and established soldiers. Considerable reductions had been effected since the war, but the men discharged were generally those of weak health, of indifferent character, or whose term of service had nearly expired. He had feared that they were also going to discharge some 8,000 or 9,000 men whom he regarded as the pith of the army, but he was glad to hear that the Government would not adopt such a step without further consideration. With regard to the regimental medical officers, he could assure the Committee that they were not adequately rewarded for their services. He knew many of them who had served during the whole war with the army in the East, who had encountered what he might term all the medical difficulties besides the war difficulties, who had grappled with the cholera in Bulgaria, who had subsequently attended the army in the Crimea, who had discharged arduous duties on battlefields and in the trenches, but who now remained at home without reward, promotion, or distinction of any sort. He wished strongly to impress upon the Government the importance of providing an efficient military train. If during the war with Russia there was one corps whose deficiency was commented on more strongly than another, it was the absence of a land transport and military train. The evils which befell the army in the Crimea were all attributable to an entire want of any organization of a military train. He was afraid that this corps were to be reduced too low in strength, for a force of 1,200 men with an army in the field would be about enough for one division,—that was, for 5,000 or 6,000 men. He supposed that some reduction was necessary, in consequence of the pressure put upon the Government by the House of Commons, which looked with an evil eye upon military expenditure. These 1,200 men would be, he supposed, split up among different camps of instruction. He trusted that they would be called upon to discharge not only the minor parts of their duty, but that they would be exercised in carrying ammunition, which ought to be close; tents, which ought to be handy; and ambulance, which ought to be close. Matters ought to be so arranged that the military trains should be practised in marching in the camps to which they were attached with these articles. If they were accustomed to march with the brigade, the regiment, or the division to which they were attached, they would know where they ought to be in a division, and they would learn how to look after their own tents and their horses. It was not by separating them, but by bringing them together, that they would be made efficient. All the evils of the first winter in the Crimea were traced to the absence of an efficient land transport, accustomed to military drill, and knowing their horses and their duties in support of regiments. The military train should be kept up, and whether an expedition were small or large it ought not "to go out" without its land transport corps. Of course, if the war 9d. were taken off reductions in the expenditure must be made. An enormous reduction was taking place in the factories at Woolwich, and great misery and distress were inevitable when as many as 5,000 workmen were discharged from one Government arsenal, some of whom had been for three years and upwards in the Government service. He thought it would be worthy the consideration of the Government whether some facilities for emigration might not be fairly offered to those labourers and artisans who were thrown out of work, not from any fault of theirs, but from a cessation of employment in consequence of the peace. Many of these persons had no resource but the parish, and it was a question whether the Government, which had so great an extent of frontage and roads contiguous to its establishments, should not contribute something either to the maintenance of the roads or towards the poor rates of a parish so situated. At present there was a great pressure from these circumstances, upon the rates of the borough which he had the honour to represent,

said, that the expenditure for staff pay and allowances was very high, and if he had the honour of a seat in the next Parliament he should bring the subject before the House. In the field a General could scarcely have too many aides-de-camp, if they were efficient; but at home he did not think that any general officer required more than one aide-de-camp.

hoped that the attention of the Government would be given to the position in which a non-commissioned officer was placed when he received a commission. He knew a case where a distinguished soldier had refused his promotion on account of the pecuniary position in which he would have been placed by accepting a commission.

said, the present regimental arrangements were such that the expenses were more than any officer could afford who had no private resources. The only alternative for noncommissioned officers who were promoted for distinguished services was retirement, or assistance from the Government. He thought the subject required immediate attention.

said, he thought the question of the position of these officers generally was too large to be discussed on the present occasion; he would, however, ask whether it was consistent with the character of this country that non-commissioned officers promoted to commissions should be in a worse position than before they were promoted.

said, he did not think it possible that any non-commissioned officers who had been promoted could be in a worse position than if they had continued non-commissioned officers and served out their time. The proposition made by the War-Office to the Treasury was, that those who had obtained the rank of captain should have a permanent retired allowance of 5s. a day, those who were lieutenants 3s. 6d. a day, and those who were cornets 3s. a day. The whole number of officers of this class was 161, of which 18 had either died, or sold their commissions, or retired on half-pay, leaving 143 with commissions at the present time, of 161 promoted during the war. It was impossible to grant them extra pay without granting the same to officers who proved they had no private fortunes. Of the 143 officers thus circumstanced only 19 were drawing simple regimental pay as cornets or ensigns. All the rest were either drawing lieutenant's pay, or regimental and half-pay. Sixteen were riding-masters, 63 quarter-masters, and 4 pay-masters.

said, he believed the remedy for this difficulty was a determined measure to reduce the expense of the messes and the whole system of expenditure in the army.

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the omission of the usual allowances for clothing and permanent duty. Her Majesty's Government had to answer for, among other sins of omission, that of attempting to cast a slight upon the yeomanry cavalry of the country, in not permitting them to assemble for permanent duty in the present year. The Estimates for the year exceeded former Estimates by several millions; but the yeomanry cavalry had nothing to do with the increased expenditure of the country. The expense for their useful body was only a small item, which had hitherto been cheerfully defrayed since 1815. In the Estimates for the present year that item had been reduced to £25,700 for the staff and for contingent allowances. The former Vote was £80,000, the present was reduced, therefore, by some £60,000. This saving was made up of the reduction in the clothing allowance, £20,000, and in the allowance for permanent duty, about £39,000 or £40,000, and he put it to the Government if it was worth while, for such a small saving, to risk impairing the efficiency and damping the zeal of the forces which from time to time had rendered such good service to the civil power of the country. On two occasions, in 1828 and in 1836, this force had been of the greatest service. The Government of the day, nevertheless, determined upon its reduction; they were, however, obliged to retrace their steps and restore that force, to, in many instances, even still greater strength and efficiency. He asked his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how he meant to deal with the yeomanry cavalry when the fated year 1858–59 should arrive? The necessity for economy would then be as great as it was now; and he (Sir J. Pakington) anticipated that when that year should arrive, any proposal to revive those corps would be met with the objection that it was not worth while to spend money on them, as they had not been called out for two years. If Her Majesty's Government declared against the yeomanry force on the ground that a more efficient system of police rendered it unnecessary, he (Sir J. Pakington) could understand the argument, though he could not subscribe to the conclusion. But he denied that the fact was so; and he believed that inasmuch as the police of the country was only adapted to the ordinary exigencies of the country, when an extraordinary exigency arose the military assistance of the yeomanry corps had always been found most valuable in the absence of regular troops. He (Sir J. Pakington) put it to the Government if the efficiency of any military body could be maintained under less than eight days' training; and if it was the wish of the Government to keep up the efficiency of the force, he hoped they would reconsider the subject, and not strike such a blow at its establishment. Another point to which he called the attention of the Government was one which might be considered a decided breach of faith with the officers who commanded these regiments. The expenditure for clothing these regiments was defrayed by an annual payment of 30s. per man to the officers in command. That sum, insufficient for the purpose, was in many instances advanced by the officers in question upon the expectation that they would be reimbursed out of this Vote; and if the Vote was suspended now, they would consequently be out of pocket to a large amount. The right hon. the Speaker of that House, and the hon. Member for East Kent (Sir E. Dering) were in that predicament, each having recently advanced large sums for clothing the respective yeomanry regiments which they commanded, and if the Vote was withheld, they, along with other officers so circumstanced, would be cast on their own resources. This grant had been going on for the greater part of the century; and it was neither just nor right that the country should break faith with gentlemen who had fulfilled the functions of commanding officers for the good of the country. Under these circumstances he trusted that the Government would reconsider the subject, and be prepared in the next Parliament to propose a renewal of the former Vote for the yeomanry cavalry.

said, he fully concurred in these observations, and would take leave to refer to the claims of the two regiments of yeomanry in Lanarkshire. At the present moment there was only one regiment of regulars in Glasgow, and if, as reported, it was the intention of Government to withdraw it, and at the same time not to call out the yeomanry for permanent duty, the whole military force in Lanarkshire would consist of two or three troops of horse artillery. Now, Lanarkshire contained a population of nearly 700,000 persons, of whom a considerable portion were miners; and it was of the utmost importance that there should be a proper military force at hand to aid the civil power in cases of emergency. He had been quite surprised at a return relating to the services of the yeomanry which had been laid on the table of the House; and, with respect to the yeomanry of Lanarkshire, that Report was altogether inaccurate. It stated that there was in that county a regiment with twelve officers and 279 men—that it had been raised in 1819, and that it had never been called on to aid the civil power—whereas, it had been out last year for two months aiding the civil power. That regiment had also rendered important services in 1843, and again in 1848, but if it was now disembodied, and another strike to take place among the miners, the authorities would lack the means of preserving order. He, therefore, thought the proposed economy a pernicious one.

said, he had not intended to offer any observations on the subject before the Committee; but as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken with so much confidence of his knowledge of Glasgow, he (Mr. A. Hastie) wished to state what he knew of the feeling there—

said, he had referred only to the county of Lanark.

knew something about Lanarkshire too, and could say that both there and in Glasgow too, if military assistance should be necessary, the feeling was more in favour of the enrolled pensioners than of the yeomanry.

appealed to the noble Lord to say whether it was intended to abolish the yeomanry or not, because if such a force was to be kept up at all, provision should be made for affording them the drill necessary to keep them efficient. The employment of that force in the suppression of civil disturbances was not the only service which it could render, as there were many cavalry duties, such as garrison and escort duties, which yeomanry could perform. He would also appeal to the Government to know whether, as the force was not to be called out this year, the members of the corps would be required to keep and pay duty for their horses.

remarked that untrained horses were useless in the ranks, and if the yeomanry were not called out this year, the men would, in some cases, sell their horses, and in all, the animals would lose the benefit of their previous training. In order to show the value of yeomanry as guardians of the peace, he might mention one occasion in 1842 when a body of 5,000 men assembled in his county, and there was every reason to apprehend a serious riot. The aid of regular tooops was sought, but only twelve men obtained. Lord Aylesford, colonel of the Warwickshire Yeomanry, however, issued a summons on the Sunday evening, and at 6 o'clock on the next morning two troops assembled, and their appearance completely terminated the riotous proceedings.

said, he could assure the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) that had he assisted the Government in the deliberations which had been necessary to bring the Estimates of expenditure within the limits to which they were now confined, he would not have undervalued the importance of a saving of £60,000. To bring the Estimates within their present compass it had been necessary to go through the whole details of expenditure in every branch of the service; and the Government had been compelled to postpone or abandon expenditure which it considered would have been most useful to the country, and which would be inevitable in future years. A great deal was absolutely required for the permanent defence of the country—works for the defence of the dockyards—barracks for the accommodation of men who were to defend places which ought to be fortified, and other things; but many of those matters had been postponed, because otherwise it would have been impossible to reduce the expenditure within the desired limits. He said, therefore, that £60,000 was by no means a saving that was not deserving the consideration of the House. He could, however, assure the Committee that hon. Members were quite mistaken if they thought the Government undervalued the great importance of maintaining the yeomanry system. The Government, on the contrary, was very sensible of the high value of that organization, not merely in assisting in the preservation of the public peace, because that was almost a secondary consideration, but, being in the character of a militia, as calculated to bear a most important part in the general system of national defence. It was a mistake to suppose that the yeomanry had been called out for duty every year since the peace of 1815. When he first went to the Home Office he found that a great many of the yeomanry corps had not been called out for duty for several years. They had been called out generally for three days' exercise and training in the year; and he felt it his duty to make arrangements for calling them all out for permanent duty for eight days, as being in his opinion most essential for their general efficiency. He might be permitted to say he did not think the arrangement under which the yeomanry were called together for three days during the year was calculated to increase the efficiency of the corps. Whatever might be the determination of another Parliament next year with regard to the yeomanry, the Committee would be quite mistaken if they construed the circumstance of the Government not assembling them in the present year into the slightest indication of their intention to abandon the yeomanry corps, or of any under-appreciation of the value of their services. With respect to the question of clothing, undoubtedly, if any regiment could show that the commanding officer had made contracts which were not completed, or had incurred liabilities to discharge which he had not funds in hand, that was a case in which justice should be done. But in many cases there was a balance in hand amply sufficient to meet the current demands. The clothing of the yeomanry corps was not renewed every year; it lasted for several years, and he knew that in many cases there was a balance in hand quite sufficient to meet any immediate demand. But in any case where a commanding officer could show there were claims for clothing, or saddlery, or other matters, to meet which there was no balance in hand, those were circumstances under which a proper allowance should be made. The same consideration would be extended to the question of the horses, if it could be shown that the non-assembling of the corps on permanent duty entailed loss on that account. With regard to those corps called out for particular services the same principle applied. One ground on which the Government thought they could dispense with their training this year was their having been assiduously trained in former years, which seemed to the Government to render their assembling this year an unnecessary operation. He could assure the Committee that there was no intention by the arrangement in contemplation for the present year to disparage the yeomanry system. It was simply one of the measures to which the Government had had recourse with the view to balance expenditure with income.

submitted that the case of the militia was not at all analogous with that of the yeomanry, because the militia was not composed of the same class of men, nor had they to provide themselves with horses. He thought in the case of the yeomanry, where the men had gone to considerable expense in providing themselves with horses, one of two things would happen if they were not called on to do some duty; either they would part with their horses altogether, or when called out on a subsequent year they would come with horses wholly unfitted for the service. His firm conviction was, after an experience of upwards of forty years in the yeomanry, that if the yeomanry were not to be called out regularly for training of some description the efficiency of the corps and the service would be materially deteriorated, and it had better be dispensed with altogether than be dealt with in such a manner. With respect to clothing, he (Mr. Deedes) was one of those commanding officers of yeomanry who laboured under heavy responsibility. In 1830 the regiment to which he originally belonged, and in which he served as major, was raised; in 1837 two troops of it were reduced; the lieutenant-colonel was reduced; and he (Mr. Deedes) then became the commander of the regiment. In 1837 it was in a very efficient state, but it never recovered the reduction which then took place. It dwindled down until, in 1853, only two troops remained, which he still commanded. He afterwards raised it again to six troops, and he became the commanding officer of it with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. On the recommendation of the late Lord Hardinge the regiment had been constituted a mounted rifle corps; and he (Mr. Deedes) had gone to a great expense in equipping 200 men for that service. When the regiment was augmented an advance of £3 per man a year for three years was made to him as the commanding officer to equip his men; but in many instances the £9 so advanced did not cover the expenses to which he was put. He was compelled to clothe the whole regiment, and the hardship of the case was that he had no advance made to him whatever in respect of the two troops which had belonged to the old establishment. The consequence was that he was left personally responsible for a considerable amount, and he asked whether this was a state of things which ought to be allowed to continue?

wished to draw attention to the small-arms factory at Enfield. He observed that it had been stated in evidence before the Committee that one consequence of incurring considerable expense in introducing machinery would ultimately be a great saving, because, in place of employing skilled artificers, labourers at 12s. 6d. a week would perform the work. Instead of that the men were now receiving 22s. a week, so that the contemplated saving had not been effected. The manufacturers of Birmingham complained that their best filers were bribed away. This was not a fair course, and might be avoided by machinery. They had laid out £106,000 in two years for machinery for the purpose of making guns; and as yet not a gun had been turned out. The Ordnance, he admitted, was now under better management. He had a more serious complaint to make. A manufacturing firm had supplied the Government with shells, of which during the war only 2½ per cent. were rejected, while now, from the same manufacturer, and without the slightest notice, the percentage of rejection was 8 per cent. These gentlemen had sent up a larger amount of shells than was ordered, merely to fill up the place of those which were rejected. The manufacturers could neither get their shells back nor get the money for them, and they were ultimately obliged to let the Government keep them at less than the contract price. This was unfair towards these gentlemen, and they ought to be remunerated. He hoped that a stop would be put to these proceedings, admitting, as he did, that the Ordnance was now far better managed than it had been.

said that it was not surprising that no completed muskets had been turned out by the establishment at Enfield, because the building was only commenced in the autumn of 1855, and of course some time was occupied in completing it and in fitting it with machinery. Although no complete muskets had yet been turned out, parts of the arm had been made in considerable quantities; and now that the machinery for making the barrels had been completed, there would be no difficulty in finishing them, and he believed that in the course of the present year as many as 40,000 rifles would be manufactured at Enfield. He was not informed with respect to the charge of enticing men away from private employers in the neighbourhood of Birmingham; but he would cause inquiry into the subject. With regard to the shells, he had been informed that on the first delivery they were passed, though not according to the specification, but that was no reason why they should pass the second delivery. It was quite right to reject the second lot, and wrong to accept the first lot, which ought to have been rejected. The parties delivered more than required, but at the request of the manufacturer the authorities at Woolwich felt disposed to keep them at a reduced price.

said there must be some mistake, for he was strictly informed the shells were in accordance with the specification. He should be glad to know who was the judge in these cases? The Government agent was much engaged, and it would be right to appoint two parties, one on each side. He was assured that no fault could be found with the specification. Even admitting there was a deficiency in this respect, as they had been taken before, they ought to have been taken the second time, as no notice whatever had been given of any intention to refuse them.

said that the complaint seemed to him to be that the Government authorities marked the shells which had not been ordered; and then when the manufacturer asked to have them back, he was told he could not, but must take a certain price for them, which would be a loss to him. Now, the authorities, having marked them, they were bound in honour to pay for them. With regard to engaging men, he could only say the Government must have them; but the great objection was, that the Government should ever have commenced erecting a manufactory for firearms at all. They could not compete with private manufacturers, nor could they make as good an article. He should be glad to know whether the building was complete, when arms would be made there, and the cost of them?

said, he trusted the Committee would bear in mind that there had been a distinct pledge given that the details of the expenditure at the Enfield establishment should be furnished as soon as it was in working order. He now understood the manufactory to be in that state, and it was only fair that, as the establishment competed with the manufacturers at Birmingham, a comparison should be drawn between the relative cost of the weapons furnished by each, so that hon. Members should be enabled to judge from correct data whether the Government were supplied more cheaply from Enfield than by the trade. There was another point to which he wished to call the hon. Gentleman's attention. How long were the Government to continue the employment of three or four staffs of the best Birmingham workmen in instructing foreigners to make arms after the patterns adopted by this country? It was well known that he had been a decided advocate of protection, but surely it was something more than free trade to devote public money in instructing foreigners to compete in the manufacture of arms with the trade of this country.

said, that if the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) would move for a return of the entire expenditure at Enfield he should be quite ready to grant the fullest information on the subject. With regard to the manufacture of arms upon the Continent, it was the fact that during the war contracts to a considerable extent were entered into for the supply of rifles from Liege and other places. In the present Estimates no provision was made for entering into any new contracts on the Continent or in America, but only for payments arising out of contracts not yet expired.

called attention to the item of "lodging money for men quartered on the inhabitants of Scotland," from which he inferred that the system of billetting soldiers in Scotland, upon which the House had already pronounced a tolerably emphatic condemnation, was not yet at an end. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had assured him that a will and a way should be found to do away with this miserable practice, and he had also understood from the hon. Gentleman that an alteration in the Mutiny Act would be proposed. He should be glad to know what the people of Scotland were to expect on this subject? Money was voted for feeding and clothing our gallant troops, and he could not understand why they should not also be provided with comfortable quarters. He believed that I½d. per night was allowed for their lodging, but what kind of accommodation could be expected for that miserable pittance?

complained also of the billeting system in Scotland. People had no objection to troops on the march being billeted upon them, but it was hard that they should be saddled with troops permanently quartered upon them.

was understood to say that a provision would be introduced into the Mutiny Bill to remedy the existing system.

observed that there was an amount of £84,527 for officers of the Manufacturing Department, but he did not see any provision for the pay of the men.

explained that the salaries of officers in the Manufacturing department amounted to £19,195, and the remainder of the sum referred to by the gallant Admiral was for the Store department. The provision for the men would be found in another Vote.

stated that 25,000 rifles of the pattern of 1853 would be delivered from the Continent during the year, and while the existing contracts were being carried on the committee of officers to superintend them would be maintained; but there was no provision in the present estimate for entering into any new contract.

took occasion to ask for some explanation with reference to the sale of old stores which had taken place to a considerable extent during the last year. It was stated very generally that in effecting the sale to which he referred a great sacrifice had been made, inasmuch as a large amount of the stores which had been disposed of might have been turned to good account, while a portion of them, which had been sold as old stores, were articles which had been furnished under a new contract.

said, there would be no difficulty in laying before the House a return of the product of the sale. It was in his opinion extremely unlikely that any stores should have been sold immediately after their delivery to the War Department under a contract which had been but recently entered into.

Mr. Speaker, I have to acquaint the House that their Address of Tuesday, the 10th of March, to Her Majesty, praying "That Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her Royal favour upon the Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre, Speaker of this House, for the great and eminent services which he has performed to his Country during the long and important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and integrity presided in the Chair of this House; and to assure Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think proper to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same," has been presented to Her Majesty; and that Her Majesty has been pleased to receive the same very graciously; and has commanded me to acquaint this House that Her Majesty is desirous, in compliance with the wishes of Her faithful Commons to confer upon the said Right Honourable Charles Shaw Lefevre some signal mark of Her Royal Favour; but, as the same cannot be effectually granted and secured without the concurrence of Parliament, Her Majesty recommends to the House of Commons the adoption of such measures as may be necessary for the accomplishment of this purpose. [Loud cheers.] I move that this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider Her Majesty's most gracious Message.

said, that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Pellatt) had on a previous evening, in making some remarks upon the pressure of the income tax on persons of small income, mentioned a case in which he thought the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had acted with some harshness. As these very meritorious functionaries had very delicate, difficult, and not very popular duties to discharge, he hoped the House would listen to an explanation which he had received from Mr. Pressley, the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and which he would read. That statement was as follows:—

"On the 4th of February last Mrs. Smith attended at this office, and stated that a levy had been made upon her goods for £1 1s. due from her late husband for income tax. She represented herself to be in great distress, and, without waiting even for a report of the facts from the surveyor of the district, I gave a written direction to that officer that the levy should be immediately withdrawn without any expense to the party. To avoid any delay, this order was delivered into Mrs. Smith's own hands, with directions to carry it immediately to the surveyor of the district, and 1s. was given to her to pay her omnibus fare. The order was accordingly delivered to the surveyor, and he on the same day (the 4th of February) reported to me that he had instructed the collector to withdraw the levy; and it appears from Mrs. Smith's own letter to Mr. Apsley Pellatt, dated the 12th of February, that this was done. The surveyor, in his report on the case, stated that he believed the levy had been made with a view to the broker's own profit, and that he would take care and make a fitting representation of the facts to the Commissioners of the district. I may mention that the arrear in question arose from a return of profits made by the husband of Mrs. Smith before he died as a dealer in hats; and, as he held the situation of a letter sorter in the General Post Office up to the time of his death, at a salary of £90 a year, making, with profits of trade, upwards of £100 a year, the arrear was clearly due from him. At the same time, having died, leaving his widow in great distress, we should, upon a representation of the facts, have abstained from enforcing the tax, and we did all we could do the very moment the case was brought before us. The woman's complaint is that she was put to some expense for the man's keep while in possession. I have taken the necessary steps for ascertaining this amount, and will do my best to compel the collector, under the circumstances, to reimburse Mrs. Smith. I may mention that the collector is not an officer of this department, but appointed by the District Commissioners. "CHARLES PRESSLY." "Inland Revenue Board, March 12."

He thought that after that statement the House would be of opinion that no unnecessary severity had been exercised by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; but that, on the contrary, when the circumstances were brought to their notice they behaved towards this unfortunate widow with great consideration. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the third reading of the Bill.

said that, having had to represent the circumstances of a case somewhat similar to this at Somerset House, he could bear testimony to the courteous, zealous, and kindly disposition of Mr. Pressly, who did honour to the Government under which he served. If his example were imitated by the Commissioners for the various counties who were not under his control, there would not be nearly so many complaints of the oppressive nature of the income tax. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would devise some mode of controlling the behaviour of these Commissioners to the persons who appealed to them, many of whom were bundled out of the room without even being heard.

said, that no doubt Mrs. Smith deserved the consideration which she had received from the Board of Inland Revenue; but, from the fact of several letters in a lawyer's handwriting having been sent to him about her case, he was disposed to think that she had fallen into the hands of some person who wished to make capital out of her grievance.

said, that in his opinion an income and property tax was the most just and least injurious to the best interests of the country that could be devised, and he was in favour of continuing it as an important branch of direct taxation. It was true that schedule D was objectionable, but it must be remembered that the portion of the tax raised under that schedule was only as £4,000,000 to to £16,000,000. Of those £4,000,000, £2,000,000 were taken from the profits of joint-stock companies, railways, &c., in the case of which there could be no deception and no inequality, while of the remaining £2,000,000, £1,000,000 was equally protected from those evils by being levied upon the incomes of various officers whose salaries were well ascertained and well known. Surely the Government could make such arrangements with regard to the remaining £1,000,000 as to render the tax acceptable to all parties. He would earnestly request the House not to lose sight of this important mode of taxation. He regretted that the war 9d. should have been taken off, because had it been continued they might have taken off £12,000,000 of indirect taxes, and thus have relieved our trade to an extent which would have made the whole country flourishing and prosperous. If it were objected that by the abolition of indirect taxes and the substitution of an income tax the working classes would escape all taxation, his reply was that we might continue the taxes upon spirits and tobacco, the duty upon which, amounting to £10,000,000 per annum, was paid principally by the working classes, and was quite a sufficient sum to be contributed to the revenue by that portion of the community.

wished to say, as it was just possible that that might be the last time he should have the honour of addressing the House, that he did not object to an income tax per se. On the contrary, he believed that such a tax, if well regulated, was the best that could be imposed. Anybody who thought this tax would be abolished, according to the plan of 1853, at the end of three years, was hugging a pleasant delusion that would be rudely dispelled; for when 1860 came round, if they had not previously re-adjusted the impost, they would have no alternative but either to re-enact it in its present most vexatious shape, or revert to the system of taxing the necessaries of life. There could be no difficulty in mending the tax and making it equitable, and even agreeable; and nothing could be more absurd than to fold their arms and say the thing was impossible. In Boston (United States) the system prevailed of assessing every man according to his means, and if the taxpayer objected to the amount placed against his name he was put upon his oath, and the income to which he positively swore was the one for which he was charged. That system entailed no difficulty, injustice, or dissatisfaction.

said, he had expressed on a former occasion his willingness to throw on extra-parochial places those burdens which all property ought to bear. He quite agreed with Mr. Bouverie in what he believed to be the principle of this Bill, that no property, on the ground of its being extra-parochial, ought to escape those burdens and charges to which in this country all property was liable. He had no doubt that there had been in many parts of England cases of extreme hardship arising from the want of power to levy rates for the maintenance of the poor in extra-parochial places. He had no objection to a Bill which placed extra-parochial places in the same position in this respect as other places, and as he understood that that was the scope of this 'Bill, he gave his consent to it.

said, his right hon. Friend was perfectly right in his statement of the principle of this Bill. The Bill that was proposed last year went a great deal further; and upon representations made to him, and upon reflection, he thought it would inflict injustice on certain classes, and he had modified the Bill to prevent that injustice being done. The effect of the Bill as it now stood would be simply to make property in extra-parochial places liable to rates to relieve cases of destitution; but it would not be liable to any other burden, and so long as property of this description had no poverty within it, it would not be liable to any burden whatever. If the pauper were sent to a union it would have to bear its fair share of the burdens of the union, but not till that event had arisen.

said, this was a fair specimen of the impropriety of allowing Bills to be read a second time pro formâ—the right hon. Member for Droitwich had to ask what was the scope of the Bill now that it had arrived at the third reading. If parties living in extra-parochial places had only to bear the expense of any pauper sent to the neighbouring union, he did not think there was any great objection to it, but they were afraid of being liable to all the expenses of the union.