brought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the petition of Edward Lees Coffey, as follows:—

Sir, I think it is due to the House that I should take the earliest opportunity of communicating to it, that within the last hour Her Majesty's Government have received a despatch from the French Ambassador in answer to a similar document, which has been addressed to the French Government by the Secretary of State; and I have great pleasure in informing the House that those painful misconceptions which unhappily for a time subsisted between the Governments of the two countries have entirely terminated. They have been adjusted in a spirit both friendly and honourable, and in a manner which I believe will be satisfactory to the feelings, as I am sure it will be conducive to the interests and the happiness, of both nations. The moment, Sir, that we receive Her Majesty's permission it will be my duty to lay the whole i of the correspondence that has recently taken place on this subject upon the table of the House. I will also take this opportunity, with the permission of the House, to indicate the course we propose to pursue in respect to public business. The requirements of the public service are at this moment so urgent that I shall have to appeal to the cordial assistance and co-operation of the House, in order that we may be able to carry before Easter those measures that are absolutely necessary to be passed for the public service of the country. There is, Sir, at this moment a Supply necessary fur the service both of the present and the impending financial year. With regard to the Supply necessary for the present year, the House will recollect that at the close of the last Session of Parliament, in the month of August, in consequence of the revolt in India, the House passed a Bill empowering Her Majesty to embody the militia, under circumstances different from those contemplated by the then existing law. By the law, as it then stood, Her Majesty could not embody the militia unless the country was in fear of foreign invasion, or was in an actual state of war. In the month of August, although we were not in apprehension of invasion, or in what could be called actual war, the House felt that, under the circumstances of the case, and in order to meet the drain upon our troops caused by the events in India, it was necessary, for one year at least, to give Her Majesty the power of embodying the militia without the existence of those conditions specified in the law. Now, the state of affairs in India is not such as, in our opinion, renders it prudent that that privilege, on the part of Her Majesty, should be allowed to expire; and, therefore, we propose to ask the House at once to continue it for another year. But in consequence of the Bill passed in August, a considerable expenditure was incurred for the embodiment of the militia, which was not contemplated when the Estimates were proposed, and when they received the approbation of the House. I think that for the embodiment of the militia a Vote of £200,000 only was taken. But the expenditure occasioned in consequence of the passing of this Bill in August has been, I should say, upwards of, or at least equal to, £700,000. It will, therefore, be necessary to pass a supplementary Vote in reference to this increased expenditure on account of the militia. That Estimate will, I believe, be presented to-night, and will come in due course under the consideration of a Committee of Supply. With regard to the Supplies to Her Majesty for the approaching financial year, which must be voted before the Mutiny Bill is introduced, we propose to take the course usually permitted to a Government under the extraordinary circumstances in which the House is placed. I ask the House, therefore, to permit us to take Votes on account of the public service. But without the utmost assistance and indulgence of the House it will, by a calculation I have made, be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pass the Ways and Means Bill, which must be the result of the Vote of Supply, and the Mutiny Bill, before Easter. Under such circumstances I trust that the House will permit us on Tuesday next to take the Orders of the day before the notices of Motions. I do not think without such an arrangement we can accomplish the results we desire; and I trust also that hon. Gentlemen will forbear at this moment from discussing those Estimates. Of course it is not our wish, and were it our wish, I trust it never will be in our power, to curtail in any degree the privilege of discussion which exists in this House; but if the House should consent to the course I propose, and which is one that has been before adopted under similar circumstances—if the House will permit us to take a Vote on account for the great services, my right hon. Friends will in that case postpone their exposition of the conditions of those services until the Estimates are regularly brought forward. Hon. Gentlemen will then have the opportunity of proposing their Motions which are on the paper, and which, of course, it will be their duty to bring forward. If the House will consent to those proposals on our part, I calculate that our Ways and Means Bill can be introduced on Wednesday next. But with the utmost forbearance of the House, and availing ourselves of every opportunity, we cannot hope to pass that measure and the Mutiny Bill until the end of the month. I hope that the suggestions I have made will be acceptable to the House, and that it will allow us in Supply to obtain a supplementary Vote for the militia, and also to take Votes on account for the Army and Navy. With the assistance and permission of the House to take on Tuesdays the Orders of the day before the notices of Motion, we shall be able to accomplish before Easter the passing of those measures that are absolutely necessary for the public service. I now, Sir, take the liberty of moving that the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday next.

Sir, I wish to make an appeal to the noble Lord the Member for London in reference to an important measure he has placed on the papers of the House for Wednesday next. Wednesday is the day fixed by Her Majesty for her levee, and it will be the first opportunity that many hon. Members of this House will have of paying their respects to their Sovereign. I find, also, that several other hon. and learned Members will be obliged to absent themselves in order to go on circuit. It will, therefore, be most inconvenient to have the question of the admission of Jews to Parliament discussed on that day. I am sure that the House will also feel that the elevations which have recently taken place in the persons of the present Lord Chancellor of England and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland will likewise render it most inconvenient to have such a discussion as that proposed by the noble Lord taken on Wednesday next. If, however, it should still be the determination of the noble Lord to persevere with his Motion on Wednesday next, I will certainly move the exclusion of the fifth and following clauses of the Bill, which propose to admit the members of the Jewish faith, and others not Christians, into this House, as it is my intention to take the same course which the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack proposed to take had he remained a Member of this House, and not been elevated to the other House, which he is so well calculated to adorn. I hope the noble Lord will be induced to accede to my appeal, and that he will excuse me giving him this notice.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he considered that the proposition for taking the Orders of the Day before the Notices of Motion on Tuesday next would have the effect of preventing those Notices of Motion from being brought forward on that day.

The object of my right hon. Friend in proposing to give the Orders of the Day precedence on Tuesday next, is merely to facilitate the course of public business. The proceedings in relation to the Orders of the Day will probably be very short, so that the Notices of Motion may afterwards come on.

said, the House had heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the termination of the unpleasantness between this country and our great Ally the Emperor of the French; but, at the same time, he thought that it would have been more satisfactory, both to that House and to the country, and in accordance with the usages of Parliament, if the right hon. Gentleman had availed himself of the opportunity to have made some statement of the general principle upon which the Administration, which had been formed under such peculiar circumstances, intended to carry on the Government. He had informed the House that he should ask for Votes of money on account, and that afterwards the heads of Departments would state their views upon the different services; but the country wanted something more than this —it had a right to know what general course of policy the Government intended to pursue. This position required no enforcement: and he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would thank him for having given him an opportunity of making such a statement.

said that, as a Member of a body not connected with either the past or present Government, he wished to elicit some explanation as to what was to be the policy of Her Majesty's present Administration. He was the more anxious for such an explanation from the addresses he had recently read of various Members of Her Majesty's Government. Different statements had been made at Stamford and in East Suffolk; and before giving the Government money to enable it to tide over until next February, he thought that those hon. Members who were not looking for the loaves and fishes had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman which of those statements represented the views of the Government, and whether, indeed, the Ministry had got a policy at all. He had more than once heard the right hon. Gentleman say of previous Ministries— "They are a miserable Government; they have no connecting link; they are endeavouring to drivel on from day to day, and they have done so without a policy." He wished to know what was to be the policy of the present Government with regard to the question of Reform; whether it was to be that of the Attorney General, who would disfranchise all the boroughs in England, and place all power in the hands of the territorial aristocracy. The present Ministry came in upon the grand cry of opposition to the Conspiracy Bill; and they had heard some of the Members of the Government, when opposing the measures of the late Ministry, express their opinions strongly in one direction; but afterwards they found the noble Earl, the British lion now at the head of the Cabinet, expressing himself in such a manner as almost to identify himself with the French army, while taking exceptions to the language of a few of their colonels, He wished to be informed whether the right hon. Gentleman who had been placed at the head of the Department of Public Education concurred in opinion with the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Pakington), or with the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley). He should also like to know whether there had been an)' change in the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had been made Judge Advocate, and who, in the division upon the Conspiracy Bill, had voted in the minority. What were the views of the Government on the subject of church rates, and how far the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) would support his colleagues in a measure for their abolition? Again, there was the question of National Education in Ireland; it was there confidently expected that the day was come when that system established by the Earl of Derby was to be abolished. He also desired to ask the Government what they intended to do with respect to the question of tenant-right. Did they mean to accept what the Earl of Derby had called the Communist Bill of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland? It was all very well for individual Members of the Government to make different, and even contradictory statements to their constituents, for one to say one tiling in Norfolk or Suffolk, and another to say something else in Buckinghamshire—where, perhaps, Jewish influence had been used for the return of an influential Member of the Administration; but the Members of that House and the country at large were entitled to know upon what principles the management of affairs was to be conducted. In Ireland, when a man said one thing and meant another, the people exclaimed, "Oh, it is policy." He did not know whether that was the kind of policy which the Government intended to pursue; but, at all events, they were bound, before asking the House to vote their money, to make a full and complete statement of their intentions.

rose to call the attention of the House and of Her Majesty's Government to the facts which have now transpired respecting the capture of the Cagliari on the High Seas by Neapolitan Cruisers, and to the continued imprisonment of the English Engineers, Park and Watt; and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there are any further Papers on the subject which without detriment to the Public Service can be laid on the table of the House. And although he should have to speak of a long and cruel imprisonment unjustly suffered by two of his fellow countrymen, he trusted that in his observation he should abstain from complicating the difficulty by the use of any expressions which could be regarded as disrespectful to the King of Naples, for he thought it very unadvisable that discourteous language towards foreign Sovereigns should be used in that House. The right he was endeavouring to assert on the part of these men was one that might be justly asserted by the humblest state in Europe. He did not assert any privilege on behalf of Englishmen as distinguished from the subjects of other countries, but merely claimed for them that justice which was due to a subject of the humblest state. He proposed to show by a simple statement of facts and by a very short appeal to well known principles of international law, that these two men had been long detained in prison at Salerno, not because they were guilty of any offence against Neapolitan law, nor even because they had had the misfortune to be so circumstanced that the tribunals of that country were the lawful means of testing their innocence, but because, having been captured on the high seas, they had no authority to whom they could appeal for protection except that of the British Government, and, because, from circumstances which were yet unexplained, that protection had been withheld. The House might ask why it was, the circumstances having occurred so long ago as June last, that the rights of these men had been so long infringed. He would first give a simple narrative of the facts. The Cagliari was a mail boat plying regularly between Genoa. Cagliari in Sardinia, and Tunis, and belonging to a steamboat company in Genoa. She was advertised to sail on the 25th June last. Her crew consisted of thirty-two persons, and there were thirty-three passengers on board. Her papers were regular, and the names of her crew were entered in the books in the usual manner. She left Genoa at seven o'clock in the evening. After being under steam for about an hour and a half the captain, whilst standing near the bow, was suddenly seized by a number of armed men, who told him that they had obtained possession of the ship, and that he was no longer her master, and who requested him not to attempt any useless resistance, but to give way to superior force. He was compelled to comply with their demand, and they then, by placing a pistol at his head, and threatening his life, compelled another person on board, who was skilled in navigation, to take the direction and guidance of the vessel, and she was steered for the island of Ponza. This seizure and appropriation of the steam packet was effected by twenty-five persons, who went on board in the character of passengers, but who were in reality conspirators. On the following day, the 26th, a circumstance occurred, which showed the innocence of the crew of the Cagliari, and still more clearly that of the two English engineers who were in charge of the vessel. About half-past eleven in the morning the steamer came in sight of an English squadron, consisting of five sail of the line and two steamboats. Thereupon the conspirators ordered all the crew to go down below, not allowing a single man to show himself on deck, and so fearful wore they that the English engineers would make a signal to the squadron that they firmly closed the portholes of the engine house, in order to prevent the waving of a handkerchief or the adoption of any other means for attracting attention. The vessel at length arrived at Ponza. On that island were a number of Neapolitan prisoners. They consisted of three classes — ordinary criminals, military prisoners, and persons detained for political offences. The insurgents broke open the prison, released the prisoners, and brought them on board to the number of 391. The vessel then sailed for the mainland of Italy, and late at night on the 28th arrived off the coast near the village of Sapri. The conspirators and the prisoners released from Ponza immediately disembarked, and then, for the first time since the rising against him, the captain found himself a free man. He immediately determined to sail for Naples to inform the Consul and the Neapolitan authorities of the disaster, and on the morning of the 29th, while the Cagliari was on the high seas, at the distance, certainly, of not less than six miles from any land, she was sighted by a Neapolitan squadron of two steam frigates under the command of a Neapolitan Rear Admiral. It was important to remark that the Neapolitan steamers approached from a direction opposite to that in which the Cagliari was going, and consequently not in a direction which would imply pursuit. In point of fact, this was the first minute the officers of the Neapolitan squadron ever set eyes on the Cagliari. So late as the 5th of March last, Lord Clarendon, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, had stated that the captain of the Cagliari had surrendered to the Neapolitan officers, but from the log of the vessel and from the statement of the Attorney General of the Neapolitan Government it appeared that this was not so. The truth of the matter was that, when the steamer was sighted by the cruisers, one of them the Tancredi, fired a shot across her bows. Both the Neapolitan frigates then cleared for action; the drums beat to arms, and then a signal was made for the captain of the Cagliari to come on board with his papers. He was at once treated as a prisoner; he was subjected to an inquisition, and an officer was sent on board the Cagliari to search for arms. When he had returned with two cases which he had found on board, one of the Neapolitan frigates — the Ettore Fieramosca—took the Cagliari in tow, and carried her, not to Naples, or to Salerno, but to a spot near Sapri, the place where she had come from, and that was how it had at first been made to appear that she had been captured near the shore. It was clear that at the time the Cagliari was captured there could be no right in Neapolitan frigates to seize her upon the high seas, because no sort of crime bearing the complexion of international crime was committed from first to last. When the insurgents rose against the captain they were committing an offence against the municipal law of Sardinia. When they disembarked in the island of Ponza, and again on the coast near Sapri, they were clearly committing au offence against the Neapolitan Government; but on neither occasion was there an offence of such a kind as to justify a capture on the high seas. It being impracticable for the Neapolitan Government to treat this as a case of piracy, they had endeavoured to establish it as a case of war—not a war between the Neapolitan Government and the Sardinian Government, but between the King of the Two Sicilies and this small body of insurgents. And from this fanciful supposition of a private war they educed the consequence that they had a right of capture on the high seas, and they actually constituted a Prize Court—an institution belonging exclusively to a state of war—and the Cagliari was condemned as a good and lawful prize taken in war. And the Neapolitan Government asserted this right not only as against the insurgents, but as against all neutrals in this great war. They said that, finding this hostile force on the high seas, in the time of war, they were entitled to take the Englishmen found on board into custody, to bring them back, and to have their innocence tested by a Neapolitan tribunal, and in the meantime to subject them to those long and dreadful sufferings which are inflicted upon men awaiting their trials in Neapolitan Courts. Accordingly these two Englishmen had been imprisoned ever since the 20th of June; and from that hour to this nothing had been done by the Government of this country towards their liberation. The statement drawn up by Mr. Acting Consul Barber, who had acted throughout with great zeal and ability, showed the treatment to which these men had been subjected. He said: —

"Watt and Park wore landed from the steamer Cagliari at the end of June last, together with the captain of that ship, her crew and passengers. The captain, engineers, and passengers were at once conveyed to the Vicaria prison unbound, but the crew were handcuffed. As soon as they reached the prison, the engineers, as well as the others, were desired that if they had any papers they would give them up. Watt had none; Park gave up his pocket-book, wherein he had a copy of a note which the insurgents had forced upon him when they took possession of the steamer shortly after leaving Genoa; the original remained on board. This note was not signed by any person, nor addressed to any one, and was worded nearly as follows—namely: 'We have resolved to free our country from the yoke of slavery under which we have so long suffered, and we call upon all upright men to aid us. If you do your duty, no harm shall befall you; but if otherwise, your lives are sacrificed.' They—the engineers and others—on arriving at the prison, were stripped naked by the police or prison authorities, and in that position were jeered at by them. After allowing them to dress again, the two engineers, with the passengers, were conveyed to a prison on the ground floor, consisting of two small rooms, which were very damp, with one small iron-barred window which looked into the prison-yard. Through this window the sun never entered, and scarcely were they able to distinguish daylight through it. To the misery of damp and bad ventilation was added one greater—namely, that in lieu of a water closet, a wooden tub was placed in the middle of each room. These two tubs were emptied every evening, if the engineers paid some person to do so, but not otherwise. They were never washed, and the stench, especially at night, when the small barred window was closed, was very great; and their health soon began to suffer. These two men were kept in those rooms during the three hottest months in the year—namely, July, August, and September. They were taken out of them when required by the police authorities to submit them to an interrogatory. On such occasions they were handcuffed before leaving the room, and brought back in the same manner. Park mentions that on one occasion they conducted him through damp underground prisons before bringing him to be interrogated; and from the manner of the men who guarded him, he understood that the intention was to intimidate him. The allowance made to them by the Neapolitan Government is—black bread of a very bad quality, and soup of so nauseous a nature that they turned always from it in disgust, and four grain per day each (less than twopence) in money. Money was occasionally sent to them by myself and some English engineers resident at Naples, by which they were enabled to buy better food. Their beds consisted of boards supported on wooden trestles, with one mattress stuffed with bad tow, mixed with bits of straw. They suffered much from vermin. In the beginning of October they, with the captain and crew, were removed from the Vicaria prisons to those of Salerno. The manner this was effected was as follows:—The police handcuffed Park, and passed a leather strap besides through both arms; they attempted the same with Watt, but he resisted this indignity as long as be had strength; but being overpowered, he was handcuffed and strapped in the same manner as Park. They were then tied together, put into a carriage into which three gendarmes likewise entered. The windows of the carriage were all drawn up, and thus, suffering from the tightness with which they were bound, they were forced to perform at a slow pace a journey of about thirty miles by night, in a carriage hermetically closed. They begged repeatedly that a window might be let down, for the sake of air. Their request was not complied with. When they reached the prison of Salerno, the crow of the Cagliari were placed in two rooms— one a large airy room, the other smaller but well ventilated. The captain and the two engineers were put into a small room immediately under those occupied by the crew, which belonged to the gaoler. The room being situated very low, and the space occupied by their three beds leaving them little space to walk in, the captain commenced suffering from bowel complaint. Watt has threatened insanity; and Park, who enjoyed very good health before his imprisonment, now suffers from fits. A petition was sent by them to the Attorney General, begging that they might be placed in the same rooms with the crew, which was granted one day before our going to Salerno —namely, on the 24th November. They have now a certain space to walk in, in the larger room of the two. Since their arrival at Salerno, the engineers have frequently been conveyed from their prison to the tribunal to be examined by the Attorney General. On these occasions they have been paraded through the streets of Salerno, strongly guarded, and handcuffed. They have repeatedly begged that they might be spared the pain and humiliation of handcuffs, but their prayer has always been refused. The handcuffs are made pf iron. Park states that for several days after they reached Salerno the marks were still visible on their wrists and arms, from the tightness with which they were bound when they were taken from Naples to Salerno. The small sum of four grani per day, allowed to each man by the Neapolitan Government, enables them to pay for the hire of their beds. The bods are of a better description than those they had at Naples. The company to whom the Cagliari belongs allows about 12s. 2d. daily to assist the crow in their subsistence, but this small sum having to be divided amongst twenty-two persons, helps them but very little."

Such was the cruelty to which they had been subjected, that one of them had been Buffering from illness, and the other had been unfortunately reduced to a state of insanity. Under these circumstances, then, he had thought it his duty to put to the Government the question of which he had given notice, and after the production of the papers if the men were not in the meantime liberated he would certainly found a substantive Motion upon the materials which would he then in possession of the House.

Though I have already spoken in this debate, I will ask permission of the House to be allowed to do so again; for it would be an apparent want of courtesy to the hon. and learned Gentleman if I did not answer the statement which he has made. No doubt the case of these two engineers, to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, is one of a very distressing character, and one which must command the marked sympathy not only of every Member of this House, but of the country generally. That men from the north of England, in the peaceable pursuit of that ingenious industry for which that district is celebrated, should be suddenly thrown into a prison in the south of Europe, under the circumstances in which these individuals find themselves, is an incident which at once engages the attention of all. It may be that these individuals are morally innocent. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say, that I entertain a very strong impression that they are morally innocent. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that a person may be morally innocent, and yet may, by unfortunate causes, be placed in circumstances in which it is absolutely necessary that, to demonstrate that moral innocence, he must submit to judicial investigation. I do not clearly understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman what it is that he expects from Her Majesty's Government. Let us look at the facts of this case without prejudice. It happened about nine or ten months ago; and of course that alone is a reason which would render us most anxious to pay every attention to the position of these individuals. But the late Government gave their attention to those circumstances. They were submitted to the investigation and to the decision of the law officers of the Crown, and the course of the Government of that day was taken in accordance with the decision of the law officers. They have continued, during this long period, to act upon the opinion and by the advice of those high authorities. The opinion of those authorities was not a casual or cursory opinion. The attention of the law officers was drawn to every incident as it occurred in these transactions; and therefore it was the continuous and frequent opinion of the law officers that guided the late Government in the course they pursued. It is not, therefore, a matter of policy which can be affected by a change of Government; it is a matter of law. The Government of this country has acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the instructions which it has sent out, and has even been interfering in the regulation and management of the trial. They have, for example, demanded that these two English prisoners should have the privilege of receiving the visits of their relatives and legal advisers. The question, I repeat, is one of law, and not one of policy; and I have not heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman one reason why we should take it out of the class in which we found it. I cannot presume to give an opinion on this legal question. Some may think that the opinions which have guided the English Government ought to preponderate. There are other opinions which may be equally entitled to respect. But whatever opinions may be entertained, all will agree that it is a moot point of law, and therefore all that can be done by those who have the management of affairs is to be guided in their conduct by the decisions of the responsible law officers of the Crown. The proceedings having been in progress for some nine or ten months—the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies having been acknowledged from the first by the English Government — and they having interfered as far as the management of the trial of these Englishmen was concerned—it seems to us that we are foreclosed from opening this question. We have admitted the jurisdiction; and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is labouring under a false impression in supposing that this was a mere affair of policy which could be changed by a change of Government. I do not see that the present Government could do more, in the position in which this question finds itself, than to take the most efficient steps to obtain for our unfortunate countrymen prompt justice, and to take care that, while the investigation is going on, they should feel that they are not deserted by their country. Finding this state of affairs, I can assure the House that Her Majesty's present Government have not at all neglected these unfortunate men. It was the very first thing to which we gave our attention. My noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury communicated immediately with a gentleman of ability and influence who happened to be at Rome, and he was directed to repair instantly to Salerno, to investigate from the first the whole of the proceedings against these two unfortunate individuals. The Gentleman to whom I refer was instructed to take every precaution that their trial should be conducted with impartiality, and that they should want no means of assistance in conducting their defence; in short, "to do everything (I believe I quote the language of the instructions) to comfort and sustain them in the grievous trial to which they are subjected." I am reminded, too, by an hon. Friend near me that he was further directed to accompany all this with as strong a protest as possible against any delay whatever in coming to a decision on this case. I hope the House will believe that, in the difficult position in which we found this affair, we have done all — I do not say that could be done—but all that it was advisable to do for the advantage of these two men. And I must express more than a hope that these exertions will not be fruitless, that we shall see our countrymen restored to their homes in England, and that the end of this unhappy affair will not be so mortifying and so shameful as the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks. The hon. and learned Gentleman guarded himself against any expression which at this moment might produce excitement or arouse feelings—unamiable feelings—towards the Government of Naples. I am extremely glad that he spoke in that spirit. I do not think at this moment that the position of our unfortunate countrymen would be benefited by the use of violent or intemperate language, or by a departure from that courtesy which is usually shown to foreign Powers. After all, what is more important now than the question of law—and what more nearly touches the heart and feelings of this country—is, that we should obtain the release of those two men, and that we should obtain that release accompanied by a full and public recognition of their innocence. Such a result will be facilitated, no doubt, by temperate conduct and temperate language. I can assure the House that the subject anxiously occupies the attention of the Government, and that no means will be spared by which we can obtain for these individuals that justice to which they are entitled, and the vindication of their character from that charge of misconduct of which I believe them to be entirely innocent.

said, that one of the unhappy men, to whom the right hon. Gentleman had referred, was a native of New-castle-on-Tyne, and consequently in some respects a constituent of his own, and he might therefore be excused for making some remarks on the subject. He, of course, was ready to admit that, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, the mere change of Government did not necessarily include any change of policy, nor could it affect questions of law; but it was not his intention to direct any argument, or indeed to say anything to the present Government which he should not have said to their predecessors. He confessed he had listened with some dissatisfaction to the statement that the previous Government had admitted the jurisdiction of the kingdom of the two Sicilies, and that the present Government considered themselves bound to take the same course. He confessed he felt somewhat alarmed lest, between the two Governments, the lives and liberties of our countrymen should be endangered if not destroyed. He had for some time watched the case with attention, and taken a deep interest in the result, Like the late Government, for a long time he believed, upon the facts that were before the House and the country, that the strict letter of the law was with the Neapolitan Government. He had thought that the capture of the steamer was legal—that the Neapolitan Government had a right to try the English engineers, and, as an incident to that right, had a right to detain them in custody. Such being supposed to be the facts, the duty of the Government was limited to the course pursued by the late Administration, namely, a mere suggestion that the trial should be a speedy one —an endeavour to obtain justice when it did come on—and an endeavour, by remonstrance or other modes, to mitigate as far as possible the hardships to which these men were subjected in the intervening period. Now the facts appeared to be different, and the case assumed a totally different aspect. It now appeared that the Neapolitan Government had not the law with them, and that they were not justified in the capture of the Cagliari, and that, consequently, not only had we a right to complain of the cruelty to which these men had been subjected, and to say that they were entitled to an acquittal upon the merits, but far more, we were entitled to Say that they never ought to have been confined at all, and that they ought not to have been put upon their trial. If this view were correct, then every hour during which they continued in their state of illegal confinement a wrong was committed on these poor men, and an act of humiliation was done to this country. The legal question involved was based upon a few simple principles. It was an undoubted fact that this capture did take place not within waters of Neapolitan jurisdiction, but upon the high seas. Now this was the essence of the whole question. When the case was first made known to them there was reason to suppose that the capture was made within the Neapolitan waters, and not where it actually was made. The reason of the mistake was this, that immediately after the capture of the Cagliari she was taken in tow by a Neapolitan war steamer, and brought within a few miles of the Neapolitan shore. Consequently, when the vessel was first seen in custody it was within the waters of Naples, and therefore the impression arose that the capture was made within those waters. This was the first and most important fact of the case. The second was, that when the vessel was captured she was not then committing any act of violence or wrong. She was peace- ably navigating the Mediterranean sea, and nothing was being done by her which could at all be construed into an act of war or piracy, or an invasion of the municipal law of Naples or any other country. However, she was taken forcibly by two armed vessels. There was no doubt of the forcible nature of the capture. The two ships of war first fired a shotted gun over her. They cleared their decks for action, and despatched a launch full of armed men to board her, and bring the captain and crew on board the Neapolitan vessels. The question, under these circumstances, was one which any hon. Gentleman, learned or unlearned, could decide upon for himself. They knew of course that if any Englishman, however innocent, had been arrested in a street of Naples for an alleged breach of the peace they could not deny the right of the Neapolitan Government to try him even though they could bring the clearest proofs of his innocence. All they could do was to endeavour to mitigate the evils of his position and to get him a fair hearing. But if the Neapolitan Government arrested a British subject, even though undoubtedly guilty of a breach of the peace, or any other crime, on British territory, or on that of any other country, or even on the high seas, they were acting without the sanction of law, and beyond their right; and it would be the duty of this country to deny the right of the Neapolitan Government, and to seize the wrong-doer and demand his release. No dispute could arise as to the facts; and as to the matter of law he would undertake to say that, if the matter were argued, no doubt could exist as to the course which ought to be taken by this country. The case, however, did not rest here. This was the course taken by the Sardinian Government. The Sardinian Government contended that the Cagliari should be restored on the ground that the had been captured out of the Neapolitan jurisdiction, and he contended it was the duty of the present Government as it was the duty of the late Government, if they had known these facts, to support the same view, and to bring the matter, not before the Neapolitan tribunals, to whose jurisdiction he would not submit, but before the Neapolitan Government, for the purpose of insisting on the restitution of the subjects of this country. This was not the time, perhaps, to enter further upon the question, but he confessed, he felt very strongly upon he matter. He felt that these men were our fellow-subjects—men on whom great and grievous cruelty had been inflicted, and he for one was not satisfied with the course which Her Majesty's Government had pursued. He understood from the newspapers that Mr. Lyons had been directed to attend at the trial, and to see that justice was done. He doubted if that step was in truth a sufficient one, or adequate to the gravity of the occasion. He believed that the truest course to take for the honour and dignity of the country, and the best for those unhappy men who had been now subjected to ten months of grievous persecution, would be with firmness and dignity to deny the right of the Neapolitan tribunals to try them, and to claim, in conjunction with the Sardinian Government, that they should be restored to their liberty and their country.

If anything could astonish me in this House it would be the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—language wholly unworthy of a British Minister. Two Englishmen have been seized unjustly upon the high seas, and have been subjected to ten months of horrible imprisonment. The Government of this country were cognizant of these facts, though the right hon. Gentleman is not answerable for what occurred then. Sir, I do not care whether the men were taken in Neapolitan waters or out of them. I will enhance my case by saying that it appears that they were taken beyond the Neapolitan jurisdiction; but even if they were taken within it, I say that, being Englishmen, they ought to have been protected by the power of England, and to have had a fair and immediate trial. What, however, was the fact? They were not tried, but consigned to a dungeon. They were subjected to horrible privations; and we looked on — tamely looked on—while Naples committed this indignity on English subjects. But there the case does not rest. The men were taken out of Neapolitan waters, and then the Neapolitan Government attempts to say they were pirates. Sir, the piracy was on the part of the Neapolitan Government, and not on the part of these men. They were going from Genoa in the first place. They were seized, a pistol was held to their heads, and they were ordered to do certain things. They did them. When released they went back again, and were on their way to Naples to give information of what had occurred. Met by Neapolitan vessels, they were taken prisoners, were carried into port, and every man on board, though wholly innocent, was thrown into prison, and treated in a way that is a disgrace to a civilized country. All these facts came to the knowledge of the Government, now sitting on this (the Opposition) bench. Was anything done to vindicate the honour of England? Not at all. We had recalled our Minister. We had en-anted that farce. And what happened? Why, two Englishmen were subjected to this horrible imprisonment, and nobody was there to watch over their interests, What ought to have been done? Why, an immediate message ought to have been sent to the King of Naples; and, supposing they were taken in Neapolitan waters, he ought to have been told—" These men are to be tried immediately; they are not to be treated injuriously; their honour, their fortunes, their very lives, are not to be endangered, but they are to be tried fairly and immediately." And if this was not done, instead of sending "Mr." Lyons, I would have sent Lord Lyons to Naples. A three-decker in the Bay of Naples within cannon-shot of the Royal palace—that is what I would have sent. The right hon. Gentleman talks about using amiable language. Sir, the "amiable language" that I would have spoken would have been cannon shot. We are told of Britannia,

"Her march is on the mountain wave,

Her home is on the deep."

Now, I say that her home is no longer on the deep if these things are permitted. There was a time when Spain perpetrated atrocities on an Englishman who, after having described the horrors to which he had been subjected, said he believed his last hour was come, and that he committed his soul to God and his vengeance to his country. On the part of these men, I say that they, going abroad, ought to have gone with the broad ægis of England extended over them, and ought to have walked the waters as safely as they would have walked on the floor of this House. What is the worth of England's navy, what is the worth of England's name and of England's power, if protection is not afforded to English subjects wherever they go? These men were in the pursuit of peaceful objects; they were doing nothing contrary to any law of any country whatever; and yet we suffer them to be thus harassed, thus degraded, thus ruined. Why, one of those poor fellows has lost his reason from the severities of a Neapolitan imprisonment; and we have stood by and the House of Commons is now told not to use "unamiable language." "Unamiable language!" when I know that one of my countrymen has been rendered insane by the conduct of Naples! Sir, I should be unworthy of the position which I hold as an English representative if I did not raise my voice to say that, in whatever clime, by whatever Government, an Englishman is injured, it is the duty of England and of the English Government to defend him.

said, it appeared to him that the circumstances of this case had completely changed, for it was now clear that the Cagliari had been captured on the high seas, and not within the Neapolitan waters. It was upon that view of the case that Count Cavour, the noble Minister of Sardinia, had founded his able and dignified despatch. As soon as he had discovered the real facts relating to the capture, he lost no time in sending a declaration to that effect to the Neapolitan Government, and in taking his stand on the rights of nations. Now, he (Mr. Ewart) wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention having been called to this change in the circumstances of the case, they proposed to act with the vigour which characterized Count Cavour, and to send a corresponding memorial to Naples on the part of this country? As long as they were ignorant of the real facts they were warranted in acquiescing in a judicial investigation of the case by the Neapolitan tribunals; but as soon as these facts became known to the English Government he thought they were bound to lose not a moment in demanding the observance of international law, and in vindicating the rights of Englishmen and the claims of justice.

said, he fully concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Head-lam) in thinking that the question under discussion could not long remain in the position in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed disposed to leave it. Whether the present or the late Government were to be held culpable in reference to the matter, it was, in his opinion, high time that the House of Commons should take its consideration into its own hands and make itself acquainted with all the circumstances and all the facts of the case. After the facts which had been publicly stated, and which had, as far as he could see, continued uncontradicted in reference to the treatment of two of our fellow-countrymen, who had now been in prison for a period of ten months, the position of that House was, he could not help thinking, most humiliating; while the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had indicated it to be the intention of the Government to pursue was not, he thought, creditable to the Minister. It appeared from the public papers that a despatch had been sent by Count Cavour to the Neapolitan Government. That despatch had not been laid on the table of the House, but he presumed that that document had received an answer, and that a copy of the answer was in possession of Her Majesty's Government. Now, he wished, under these circumstances to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to state that in that answer the Neapolitan Government had admitted that the capture of the Cagliari had taken place in the open sea, and that the vessel herself was such as she had been described to he by the Sardinian Minister? If that were the case, then he should like to ascertain whether Her Majesty's late or present Attorney General, or any lawyer speaking with any authority upon the question, was prepared to contend that the capture of the Cagliari was other than an illegal act? If the capture were illegal, did it not follow that the detention of the two engineers, their imprisonment, trial, and every subsequent pro- ceeding taken against them, were also illegal and in direct violation of international law? If that was a true statement both of the facts and the law, could it be satisfactory to the House that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should tell them that the late Government having chosen to submit to a state of things, under which British subjects were imprisoned and tortured to such a degree that both lost their health and one his reason, therefore Her Majesty's present advisers, although they knew that these outrages had been perpetrated against their countrymen in violation of international law and every principle of justice, did not find themselves in a position to back the representations which had been made by Count Cavour, but must leave our Sardinian ally to fight the battle by himself? Did we admit the legality of the proceedings which had been adopted by the Neapolitan Government? Count Cavour, had disputed it. He had insisted upon the prisioners being delivered up, while we had refrained from taking any such decided course. The late Government were not perhaps much to blame for the line of conduct which they had pursued at the outset, when their knowledge of the transaction was neces- sarily imperfect; but when they became aware of the circumstances of the case, and especially of the statements made by Count Cavour, they became liable to censure for the policy which they adopted, as Her Majesty's present Ministers would undoubtedly become, if they persevered in a similar policy. He trusted the whole of the papers connected with the subject would be laid before Paliament—namely, the communications which took place between the late Government and the acting Consul at Naples; those between the acting Consul and the authorities there, as well as any correspondence which might have passed between the noble Lord lately at the head of the Foreign Department and the Neapolitan Minister. He thought the time was come when the House ought to have the fullest information upon the question, as indeed he thought it ought to have upon every other important transaction in connection with our relations with foreign States. It was, in his opinion, most desirable that that system of secrecy in dealing with such matters which had hitherto prevailed should be put an end to, inasmuch as it was a system which, although it might be well suited to despotic Governments, was altogether alien to the feelings of our people and to the principle of our constitution, and which had more than once led England into difficulties and disaster. If, however, the Government should decline from a sense of duty to lay upon the table of the House the papers to which he had referred, he deemed it but fair to warn them that the House of Commons would hold them quite as responsible, as if they had been in office six months ago, for every stop which they took now that they had a full knowledge of the circumstances of the case. He thought the House should insist on the production of all the papers without reservation, in order that they might be enabled to form their opinions on the whole matter.

I confess, Sir, I feel we are discussing, or rather half discussing, a question of great interest and immeasurable importance under disadvantages which almost preclude the hope of our making any practical progress towards its satisfactory solution. My principal object in rising upon this occasion is to express my earnest desire that Her Majesty's Government may be disposed to accede to the request which has just been made to them by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Horsman) for the production of the papers which he has mentioned. I do not understand that any negotiations are at present in progress; and, if such be the case, I think the aspect of the facts, which have been brought under our notice is such as to render it incumbent upon this House to take those facts into its careful consideration. I cannot join with those who are prepared in the present state of our information to pass sentence upon the hon. Gentlemen who now hold office, and I may add that we ought, in my opinion, to wait for the acquisition of a much more minute knowledge than we yet possess of the circumstances of this transaction before we come to a decision with respect either to the culpability or the blameless-ness in regard to it of any Government whatsoever. The point involved is one which turns very much on dates. It is one, with reference to the merits of which a complete misunderstanding seems originally to have prevailed; and I cannot help regretting that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) should, in our present state of ignorance, have entered into the hypothetical question as to what it would be the duty of the Government to do if the Cagliari had been captured in the Neapolitan waters. We are now aware that she was not captured in those waters, and also that when the circumstance of her being seized came to light she was supposed to have been captured within them. Well, if she was supposed to be captured within them, owing to whose fault did that error arise? So far as I can understand, it arose out of the proceedings of the Neapolitan Government; and therefore, if this essential and vital error arose out of the proceedings of the Neapolitan Government, it appears to me to clearly follow-that that Government can on no good ground be held entitled to take any benefit by its own wrong. If, upon the other hand, the admissions which were made by the late Government were made in consequence of their being misinformed as to the facts of the case, then they are not, I contend, binding on Her Majesty's present advisers, and still less on the House of Commons. But if—what I trust may not have been the case—what I trust I may be informed has not been the case, but what is the case for ought we know to the contrary—any further representations have been made by Her Majesty's late Government after the facts, as they now appear, were known to them for it is now a long time since I read in the newspapers the despatch of Count Cavour,—I confess it will be with pain, astonishment, and shame I shall find that the duty of vindicating the law of nations and the rights of Englishmen, even by accident, have fallen into the hands of feeble Sardinia, and has not been taken up by powerful England herself. I trust we shall have the whole of the circumstances connected with this transaction laid fully before us. It has now unfortunately reached a point when any expression of the wishes of this House may be too late, and may even seem ridiculous in the eyes of the world, inasmuch as that step may be taken when the trial of those two unfortunate engineers has been brought to a conclusion. At the same time, however, partly upon their account, but still more because of the principle of public right and of Ministerial responsibility which is involved, it is in my judgment of the utmost importance, unless public inconvenience could be shown to arise from the adoption of that course, that the House of Commons should be placed in full immediate possession of the facts. I may add that if there should be any reluctance on the part of the present Government to lay upon the table the papers which they have been asked to produce, that reluctance cannot certainly arise from any interested or selfish motives, inasmuch as they have but just assumed the reins of power. If they should, therefore, refuse to comply with the request of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, they will, I have no doubt, be able to justify that refusal upon the ground of the public convenience. I trust, however, that no such reason exists, and that they will find themselves in a position to accede to the request which has been so judiciously made by the right hon. Gentleman, and lay upon the table the documents in question.

Sir, the case which is now under discussion is one which occupied, for a considerable period, the anxious attention of the late Government, and I need hardly say that we should have been extremely glad if we could have found grounds which would justify us in making such demands upon the Neapolitan Government as would have tended to the liberation of the two Englishmen who have been confined in that country. Throughout the whole course of our proceedings in reference to the matter, however, we were guided by the opinions of persons more competent than ourselves to determine a question of international law. It certainly was, for a long time, our belief that the Cagliari had been captured within Neapolitan jurisdiction; but it at length turned out, from certain papers which were published by the Neapolitan Government in connection with the trial of the prisoners, that the capture took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Naples. Now, that was a circumstance which I should certainly have thought would materially alter the case as it had at first stood; but in that also we should have been guided by the opinion of those who, as I said before, were most competent to give an opinion. However, the question thus raised was one which was still under our consideration when we retired from office. With regard to the question of laying upon the table of the House any papers relating to this transaction, the House will permit me to remind them that some portion of those papers were laid upon the table during the last Session; and, speaking from a general recollection of what has passed since, I am bound to say, as far as we are concerned, there is no objection to the production of any other correspondence that had taken place up to the time of our retirement.

said, he thought the papers which had been referred to would not be sufficient, without the production of the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon questions which had not been answered at the period of the retirement of the late Government. Without the whole of the papers, the House would not be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had truly stated that this was a question which not only affected those unhappy engineers, but also involved the honour of the country. Even should it happen that, before the tardy attention of the House could be brought to bear upon this subject, those unfortunate engineers should be, as he did not doubt they would be, fully acquitted— even under Neapolitan laws, there would be the question of exacting from the Government of Naples a just and adequate compensation for those unhappy engineers, —a question which he trusted the Government would not be permitted to blink in any way.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone) had tittered nothing but truth when he stated that Her Majesty's present Government could have no reason on their own account to decline the production of any papers that would tend to give complete information to the House on this important subject. Since the Government had entered into office there had been, he believed, but two papers connected with these transactions, which had been received or sent by the Department with which he had the honour to be connected. One of those papers communicated the intelligence that one of the unfortunate engineers had been placed under the care of the British Consul, and had been discharged from prison. The other papers were instructions to Mr. Lyons from the noble Lord (the Earl of Malmesbury) at the head of the Foreign Department, Those were the only communications which had taken place since the present Government entered upon its duties, and there certainly could not be any disinclination to produce those papers from a fear on the part of the Government that the contents would not meet the approval of the House; but the difficulty they found in the production of the papers asked for was, that if nothing but mere statements of facts from the acting Consul at Naples to the Government were to be laid upon the table, it would be really giving the House no further information than was already possessed by every hon. Gentleman present, and. more than that, it would be giving official information in a very imperfect form. Besides those papers which might be produced there were the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. Now, he believed it was a known fact that when the opinions of the law officers of the Crown were requested for the guidance of Her Majesty's Government it was a settled rule that neither the papers laid before those officers, nor the opinions which they gave, founded upon them, should be communicated to Parliament. That was the settled rule which had always been sanctioned by the House, and therefore he submitted it would be an idle ceremony to lay upon the table a mere statement of circumstances that had occurred, without accompanying it with what is of much more importance — the documents showing the grounds on which the Government had acted. With reference to one statement of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) I think he was rather in error in supposing that there was anything pending before the law officers of the Crown at the time his Government quitted office, or waiting their decision whether the altered circumstances caused by the claims of Count Cavour could in any way change the action of the Government. In reference to that point he wished to make a short statement. The claim made by Count Cavour was put forward towards the end of December, or at least communicated to the British Government about that time. The whole matter was laid before the law officers of the Crown, and it was their deliberate opinion that, whatever might be the merits of the claim made by the Sardinian Government to have the ship and cargo restored on the ground that the ship was carrying the Sardinian flag and was protected by that flag, the British Government, even supposing the facts to be as stated by the Sardinian Government and that the vessel had been seized beyond the Neapolitan jurisdiction, would have no right to demand the liberation of British subjects taken on board, without their undergoing a formal trial. The hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Head-lam) had assumed that the fact of the vessel having been seized on the high seas made such an alteration in the case that It was perfectly clear the British Government had a right to demand the liberation of the engineers. He (Mr. S. FitzGerald) could only say the matter had been laid before the law advisers of the late Government who, no doubt, fully considered it, and the conclusion they arrived at was that such a right did not attach to them, and that even if the claim of the Sardinian Government should be fully established it would effect no change in their own conduct. There appeared to be a general impression on all sides that Her Majesty's present Government could not, under any circumstances, pursue a course different from their predecessors, who months ago by directing the engagement of counsel, seeking out witnesses, and taking other steps in the trial, had recognized the jurisdiction of the Neapolitan tribunals, and had, moreover, distinctly stated they were willing to abide the result of the trial, as if British subjects offended against Neapolitan laws they must be tried according to those laws. The only question was, whether the position of the present Government was not different from that of the late in consequence of the knowledge of the circumstances detailed in Count Cavour's claim. In answer to that, he would repeat that all those circumstances had been known to the late Government in December, who took the opinion of their law officers upon them, and it was not for the present Government to depart from the course which their predecessors, after deliberate consideration, had determined to adopt. It would be very difficult to make any selection of papers which would be at all satisfactory to the House, without embodying the opinions given by the law officers of the Crown, which it was a settled rule not to produce; and that being the case, he hoped the House would not press for the production of the papers at the present time. If, however, upon looking over the papers, it should be found that there were documents which would give any further information to the House without trenching upon the rule to which he had adverted he should be very happy to produce them.

I am sorry the statement of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is of so unsatisfactory a character. I concur in the opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, that it would not be satisfactory to discuss the question of the capture of the Cagliari, and the proceedings adopted by the Neapolitan Government in reference to those two British subjects, without being in possession of as full information as can be afforded to us on the matter; but I think we may discuss what is the best way of obtaining that information. The hon. Gentleman says, and says rightly, that according to invariable usage the opinions of the law officers of the Crown cannot be produced. That may be; but what can be produced are the letters or despatches of the Secretary of State or the Under Secretary founded upon those opinions and directing the agents of the British Government abroad to act accordingly. We have thousands of instances that when the opinion of the law officers of the Crown is taken for the purposes of guiding our agents abroad, the despatch of the Secretary of State follows as nearly as possible, not only the sense, but the words of the opinion so given. Although the Government may very properly and according to precedent object to produce the technical opinion or the case, it is possible for them to produce a despatch of the Secretary of State or of the Under Secretary or anything written recording the transaction, which will be of some service in aiding the House to come to some opinion upon the main question. There are two very important considerations involved in the detention of these engineers; one is as to the capture of the Cagliari, whether made in Neapolitan waters or on the high seas; and the other is as to the treatment of the engineers themselves. With respect to the first of these questions, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has given us additional information, for he says the opinion of the law Officers of the Crown was to the effect that, whether the Sardinian claim be well or ill founded, the British Government has no right to claim the liberation of the engineers. It seems to me that if the opinion of the law officers went to this— that the vessel, being a Sardinian vessel, and under the Sardinian flag, the British Government could not claim it, the House will generally assent to that proposition; but if it is meant to be said that the Sardinian Government, having according to the law of nations claimed that vessel, if that vessel contained two British subjects, whose capture in direct violation of the law had been followed by a long term of imprisonment before being brought to trial, nobody shall persuade me that the British Government ought not to support the Sardinian Government if they are satisfied that it is a just claim which is made, and to use the power and resources of their country, in the aid of the weaker State, in order to obtain a suitable measure of redress. But now comes the other question—namely, that of the treatment of those two British subjects. I must say, supposing the capture to have been justifiable, and that there were circumstances of suspicion attaching to the two engineers, the treatment of them went far beyond that which was necessary for their safe custody. The time was unnecessarily protracted, their treatment was needlessly harsh, severe, and cruel; and, even supposing the Neapolitan Government had a prima facie cause for their imprisonment, it was wholly uncalled for that that imprisonment should have been attended by circumstances resulting in the loss of health to one and the loss of reason to the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us to use "amiable language" towards the Government of Naples, and has expressed confidence in the result of the trial. Sir, I have no confidence either in the justice of that Government towards these unfortunate men before trial, or in the justice of the court before which they are brought. I know perfectly well, it has not been unusual for the Neapolitan Government, when they found that there was any independence in a judge or a regard for law, to change the judges appointed to try prisoners either previous to the trial or, it may he, during the course of trial; and I should not he surprised to hear, if the Neapolitan Government wish these men to be convicted and the judges are not likely to convict them, that they had recourse to changing those judges and that other more subservient instruments bad taken their place. My noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) in speaking of these transactions did not seek to defend the Neapolitan Government; hut said the House was aware that justice might be perverted in their courts of law. That is my own impression; but whatever course the Government may pursue on this subject, and whatever this House may think it essential to do hereafter in reference to it, I am not ready to make the admission that we are to consider everything that the Neapolitan Government has done has been according to justice, and that there is no need of enforcing on them the observance of those principles of equity on which other Governments act. I hope the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, from whom I should expect every fair consideration of this question, will feel it consistent with his duty to produce all the papers bearing upon it. I hope that those papers will include the despatches of Count Cavour and any communications that may have been received from Sir James Hudson, and that the House will be enabled to form a sound judgment on the matter. I will only say, before resuming my seat, in answer to the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), on the subject of the Oaths Bill, which stands for consideration on Wednesday next, that I shall certainly not postpone it. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to make his Motion in any other stage of the Bill that is in his power, I shall only say that I will go on with the Bill on Wednesday next.

said, if his memory served him rightly, when the Chinese papers were laid on the table the opinion of the Queen's Advocate in reference to the Chinese lorcha was among them. He thought, in order to enable the House to judge of the effect of (he change of circumstances upon the case under considera- tion, it was desirable to have the opinion of the Queen's Advocate upon it, and that that opinion, when given, should be included in any papers that might be laid upon the table.

Sir, I do not wish to stand more than a few moments between the House and the Motion for adjournment to Monday next on its rising. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, if he will allow me so to call him, that until those papers are produced we are not in a situation to discuss this question; still less to blame Her Majesty's present Government. But I must be allowed to express at once my regret and surprise that the two questions which were put at an earlier period of the sitting by the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) and the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. P. O'Brien) have not been treated with that courtesy which I think they deserve, and which has been vouchsafed to that of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Kinglake). I think it is not unnatural when a Government has come into power—or rather, I should say, into office under such peculiar circumstances, to expect that some account should be given to this House of the policy which they intend to pursue. I believe that this has always been the case whenever a Government has succeeded to another Government, and still more so, I believe it has been the cose when the head of that Government sits in what is called "another place," because any exposition of a course of policy given in "another place" is not constitutionally before this House. Therefore it was with surprise that I saw the right hon. Gentleman resume his seat, and not give any answer, even in the "amiable language" he so much insists on, to the questions which had been asked him by the two hon. Members, and which certainly call as much for a reply from the Government as this question of the Cagliari. I must take leave to say that these are very important questions. The right hon. Gentleman has told us tonight that it is his intention to call for large votes of money on credit, and he asks for the utmost forbearance of this House. So far as I, an individual Member, am concerned, I shall give him every assistance that I can conscientiously tender; but at the same time I think it would have been but respectful to this House, and still more to the country, if he had given us some programme of his intended measures before calling on us to vote money. I do not on the present occasion press this subject, because, the right hon. Gentleman having already spoken on the Motion for adjournment, it is not competent for him to do so again, and he may perhaps have yet to make up his mind as to the policy he means to pursue. At all events you, the House of Commons, know nothing whatever as to what the policy of the Government is to be. We have heard to-night that they have succeeded to the noble Lord's foreign policy with regard to Naples. I do not know whether the House will be satisfied with that; but from what I have been able to see, I think it is probable some "painful misconceptions" are likely to arise with Naples. With regard to France, with which it was said "painful misconceptions" had arisen, when the right hon. Gentleman takes credit for putting an end to those "painful misconceptions"—which I shall only take leave to say originated in his own fertile imagination—I must confess I was not aware, before he went down to Aylesbury to address his constituents, that there were such "painful misconceptions," except those which the right hon. Gentleman and his party had chosen to create. When he asks a vote in Supply, I trust he will be prepared to give the House some programme of his intended measures, and that the House will not grant any supplies until he does so. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for the forbearance of the House, my intention is to use the utmost forbearance and the most "amiable language" towards the Government of which he is a Member. I believe, and have long believed, that the right hon. Gentleman who represents Buckinghamshire, if permitted to have his own way, is as good a Reformer and as advanced a Liberal as any in this House; and if he can only get rid of three or four of his colleagues, the bead of the Ministry included, and be allowed a little of his own way, he will meet with some considerable support from the Liberal party. But I tell him he must weed his own party. I repeat that when the right hon. Gentleman calls on this House for any grant of money on credit, I trust that he or some one of his colleagues—say the right hon. Gentleman near him whom he has converted to the admission of Jews to Parliament, and who is supposed to be more immediately in his confidence—will be prepared to make some statement of how the Government of the country is to be con- ducted. If he does so I shall be prepared to listen to that proposition for a grant of money; but if he does not, when he comes down to the House to ask for that vote, I shall feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which he has acceded to power, and ask how far they are ready to repose their confidence in the right hon. Gentleman. I shall be sorry to put the right hon. Gentleman in that position. It will be a much more graceful act on his part to make the exposition which I have suggested. I can make every allowance for the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I can imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, coming into power in the way he has done, has had to make up his mind as to the course he meant to adopt. An hon. Gentleman who sits next him said before his constituents that it was not humanly possible that the Government could make up their minds to a policy in so short a time. I am ready to admit, to some extent, the truth of that proposition; but will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when it is humanly possible? I am ready to wait any reasonable time; but before resuming my seat I must repeat that, unless the right hon. Gentleman does make up his mind, I will call for a direct vote of this House, or after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. M. Gibson) who knows so well how to draw Amendments, I will enter into some arrangement by which this House shall be favoured with a statement from the right hon. Gentleman, for I do not think a statement made by a noble Lord in "another place" is or ought to be sufficient either for this House or the country at large.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners on the Sanitary State of the Army, especially to the portion that refers to the Foot Guards quartered in the Metropolis. When that Report reached him he could not help exclaiming—

" Can such things be,

" And overcome us like a summer's cloud

" Without our special wonder?'

He had certainly been astonished at the high rate of mortality among the household troops brought to light by the Report of the Commissioners, and especially among that portion of the Foot Guards stationed in the Metropolis. There were several reasons expressed, but no doubt, the principal one was the state of the barracks occupied by the troops. Since reading the Report he had himself visited one of the barracks—those in Portman Street —to judge for himself. There in a small apartment without ventilation, without drainage, and surcharged with vitiated air, he found not less than twenty men huddled together; and the commanding officer informed him that that apartment was preferable to many other of the dormitories which were in use in the barracks, and that the great mortality existing was entirely attributable to want of exercise and the crowding of the men. The subject was one demanding their most serious attention, but as he understood an hon. and gallant Member intended to make a Motion regarding it, he would not now press the matter upon the House. We had an illustrious Duke at the Horse Guards who took a deep interest in the British soldier, and we had now for Minister of War a gallant General who, he was sure, had not allowed one day to elapse without turning his attention to the propriety of having sufficient and comfortable barracks for the brave men who had devoted their lives to the service of their country. He, therefore, would not further trespass on the House than to express his conviction that no parsimony would be allowed to stand in the way, but that they would cheerfully vote any sum that might be required to secure the comfort of the soldiers.

said, he could not but acknowledge the importance of the subject which had been brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Member. He could, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman that the first act he did in his official capacity as Minister for War was to ascertain what had been done by his predecessor in respect to this Report. he found that as far back as August last, Lord Panmure had appointed four different Commissions or Committees to inquire into the various subjects alluded to in the Report of the Commission presided over by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), and he had the authority of the Government for saying that they would not hesitate to call on the House to vote such a sum of money as might be considered necessary to carry out the requisite improvements.

said, a Motion which had been given early in the Session, stood in his name for referring the Army and Navy Estimates to a Select Committee. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was only intended on the present occasion to move for certain sums on account, and had asked the House not to enter upon the general discussion, he would not bring forward his Motion at this time. He wished to state, however, that the Estimates for the Army and Navy were the largest by many millions that had ever been submitted to Parliament since the termination of the French war, with the exception of the two or three years of the Crimean war.

said, he wished to express a hope that something would be done to raise the compensation given to the staff officers for the deprivation of servants. the sum of 1s. a day in England and 1s. 6d. in the Colonies allowed by the late Government, was utterly inadequate to provide the labour necessary to take care of the horses. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War would take the matter into consideration and raise the amount, and also give the option of employing soldier servants when civilians could not be found.

Sir, I rise to move the first Vote on the Navy Estimates, but before doing so I beg to express my acknowledgments to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) for the courteous manner in which in deference to the urgent position of public business, he has waived the Motion of which he had given notice, and which he had a perfect right to bring forward. I hope also that the urgency of the occasion will induce the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Osborne) to waive the course which he indicated in his speech he would take on going into Supply, unless some statement was given of the policy of the Government. The hon. Gentleman has been of late years so little in the habit of addressing the House that now he has recovered his liberty he seems to have forgotten what is the usual mode of designating the hon. Members to whom he wishes to allude, and therefore I had some difficulty in making out who the gentleman was to whom he referred a short time ago. I am inclined to believe, however, that he did me the honour to refer to myself, and to some observations which I made elsewhere; but the fact of the speech to which the hon. Gentleman alluded having been made should, I think, hare shown him that he had little ground for the complaint that the present Ministry had made no statement whatever of their policy. Sir, a statement of our intended course has been made most distinctly in another place by the noble Earl at the head of the Government. A very full statement has also been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli.) I availed myself of a similar opportunity likewise to make a statement, and other members of the Government have done the same thing. I really think, therefore, that if my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) had now given us a repetition of what has already been so fully made known, the hon. Member for Dovor would have been the first to rise in his place and complain of so great a waste of the time of the House. Sir, the state of the public business renders it desirable that we should have every assistance in obtaining some grant of money on account. The House has already been made aware of the necessity for doing so, and I accordingly rise to move the first of a series of Votes connected with the Estimates for the Navy. I have to state, in the first place, that the Votes on account, with which I shall conclude, are founded entirely on the Estimates of the late Government. My right hon. Friend stated the reason why it is essential that we should ask the House for this Vote immediately; but I hope the House will bear in mind that I have succeeded too recently to the arduous and important office which I have the honour to hold, to be able to come forward at once on the part of the Government with a distinct and definite opinion with regard to the Estimates of our predecessors for the maintenance of the Navy. I am bound to admit that I have received every possible courtesy from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), my immediate predecessor in office, and that my right hon. Friend has given me every explanation that was necessary to enable me to proceed with the duties the discharge of which I have undertaken. But, notwith- standing that assistance I think it will be admitted that if on the present occasion I should attempt to make a full statement on the subject of those Estimates and announce distinctly the policy of the Government—in regard to them, instead of fulfilling the duty which it is incumbent upon me to discharge, I should be guilty of an act of folly and presumption which could not fail to deserve and to receive the censure of the House, considering how elaborate and important they are. Undoubtedly, it would be in my power to come down to this House and declare that we had adopted the Estimates of the late Government for the whole year, and to shelter myself and the Government under the course which the late Government adopted. But we do not think that this would be either an advisable or proper course. Considering the present state of public affairs, and the demand upon the resources of the navy which the state of affairs in China and India has created;— considering, too, what all parties in this House must admit, the necessity on every ground of prudence and propriety that the navy at home and in the home ports should be maintained in an effective state, the House will think that the Government are only taking a proper course when we announce our intention to take Votes on account for four months, founded upon the Estimates of the late Government. At a later period of the Session I shall move the remaining Estimates, and I will then state distinctly the views of Her Majesty's Ministers, and move those Estimates upon the responsibility of the existing Government. This is the course which we think it our duty to take, and which we are more inclined to follow on account of the very large Estimates that we find were prepared by the late Government. It would be inconsistent with the announcement I now make to go into details, but I will state the leading points which justify the course which I propose to take on the part of the Government. In the first place, then, if the Committee will permit me, it is not unnatural to point out the difference between the amount of the Navy Estimates for 1858–9, prepared by the late Government, and the amount of the same Estimates in 1852–3, when my colleagues and myself were in office during the Government of the Earl of Derby. In the year 1852–3 the gross amount of the Estimates for the service of the Navy was £6,7 05,746. I find that the gross amount of the Navy Estimates for 1858–9, including the packet service, is £10,128,615, the difference between the two years being £3,422,869, or in round figures not less than 50 per cent. I am quite aware that there are many circumstances which explain this large difference between the Navy Estimates of 1852–3 and those of 1858–9. In the first place the war with Russia led to an enormous increase of the Navy Estimates. I am bound next to refer to the war with China, or—to use a more appropriate expression—I might rather call it our quarrel with Commissioner Yeh, which has also led to a great increase in these Estimates. The House will also bear in mind the increase of steam ships, the great expenses incurred in the dockyards in consequence of that increase, and the recent transfer of the Coastguard service from the Customs to the Admiralty. All these are circumstances which, I readily admit, go in a great degree to account for this enormous difference between the Estimates of 1852–3 and 1858–9. If, however, I compare the Estimates now upon the table for 1858–9 with the Estimates for the present year of 1857–8; here again I find a very large increase, which I think imposes upon the present Government the duty of carefully investigating its causes. I will first take the difference in the number of men. The number of men voted for the current year, 1857–8, was,—officers, seamen, and boys for the fleet, 31,000; officers and men for surveying, troop, and store ships, 2,000; for the coastguard service, 5,700 making a total of 38,700 men. To these may be added 15,000 marines;—and thus we find that the Estimates submitted to the House by the late Government this time twelvemonth amounted to a gross total of 53,700 men. At a later period of the Session, however, in the month of July, the late Government came down and proposed a supplementary Estimate of 2,000 men, which made a gross total of 55,700 men for the year. In the Estimates now on the table for 1858–9 the number of men is very considerably in increase of that Estimate. The number of officers, seamen and boys, for the fleet is put down at 35,000 instead of 31,000; for surveying, troop, and store a hips the number is the same as last year—namely, 2,000; but for coastguard service the number is increased from 5,700 to 7,380. The number of marines is the same— namely, 15,000, for both years: but the general result of the number of men pro- posed by the late Government to be voted for next year is 59,380 men. the difference in men between the original Estimate of the two years therefore stands thus:— There is an increase of 4,000 in the vote for officers, seamen and boys, for the fleet, and an addition to the coastguard of 1,680, being a gross increase of 5,680 men for next year as compared with the. original Estimate for the current year. If, however, we take into account the men voted in July last, the difference between the two years will be 3,680 men. I am bound to add that as we stand at the present moment this increase of men is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary, [Sir C. NAPIER: Hear!] and I will show it to the House in this way:—The total number of men and boys voted last year for the service of the navy, including the supplementary Vote of July, amounted to 35,000. The number of men and boys borne on the books of men-of-war and vessels in commission by the return of last February was 35,915. So that the number of men in commissioned ships was 915 in excess of the number voted by Parliament during the year. The marines, however, fell short of the number voted by Parliament by 55, and the general result is that, including seamen and marines, the number of men last February exceeded by 860 the number voted by Parliament for the year. If, however, the numbers were raised to the full complement, so that all the ships in commission were fully manned, in addition to the present excess of 860 men, we should still require 1,356 men; showing a total excess above the men and boys voted in 1857–8 of 2,216. Well, Sir, the Estimates on the table prepared by the late Government for next year show an excess of only 2,000 men, and therefore if these Estimates should be agreed to, and if the ships now in commission were fully manned, we should still require 216 men more than are mentioned in the Estimate of the late Government for 1858–9. I mention this to show that the number of men is not in excess, but somewhat short of the requirements of the navy. With regard to the amount of money proposed to be voted, I find that the total estimated expenditure of the present year, 1857–8, including the packet service, is £9,172,509. The gross total Estimates on the table exceed this very greatly, amounting to, for 1858–9 £10,128,615, being an excess over the present year, 1857–8, of 956,106. I shall not trouble the House with further details, but I have mentioned these figures to show that Her Majesty's present Government are only taking a proper course when, under pressure of our position, we only ask the House to vote supply for four months upon the Estimates of Her Majesty's late Government. I will once more appeal to my own personal position. In consequence of the forms in making out the patents of the new Board of Admiralty the present Board did not commence their sittings until Tuesday last, and it would be idle to suppose that any Board of Admiralty could in three days make themselves masters of all the complicated details of these Estimates in such a manner as to justify their pretending to deliver opinions upon them. Before the four months have expired we shall be prepared, upon our own responsibility, to state what we think those Estimates ought to be. But, in making this statement, I wish to guard myself against two possible misapprehensions. I do not wish it to be understood that I at all intend to hold out to the House that there is now on the part of Her Majesty's Government any deliberate intention or any fixed opinion that it was likely when the time comes for a more elaborate statement, they will be able to propose any reduction in these Estimates. I wish to reserve to the Government the most unfettered discretion, that they may investigate these Estimates and then come down to the House and state what they think ought to be done. I deem it equally due to the late Government to disavow the least intention of implying, from having mentioned these figures, any censure on them, or of leading the House to suppose from the limited experience I have as yet had, that there is the least reason to think that either with regard to the amount of force or the amount of votes the late Government have been negligent of the interests of the country. With this brief statement, I beg to submit to the Committee the first Vote, which, is the number of men for the Navy. I shall therefore conclude by moving that 59,380 men and boys be employed in the sea and Coastguard service for four months ending the 31st of July, including 15,000 Royal Marines.

said he could assure the right hon. Baronet that he would throw no obstacles in the way of his administration of the affairs of the Navy. He was happy to observe that the late Government appeared to have come to their senses, and had agreed to increase the number of men in the Navy. Last year the Government, or rather the Parliament, had reduced the Navy to a very low figure, both with regard to the number of ships and men; but he was glad to find that what he had proposed last year, but which was then pooh-poohed, was now about to be adopted—namely, to put the block-ships in an efficient state, and send them as guard ships to different points of the coast. He would suggest some changes with regard to the Coast Volunteers, who were not to be confounded with the Coast Guard. There was a sum of money taken for the Coast Volunteers, but it was done in perfect ignorance of what their numbers might be. These men received a small sum for enrolling their names as ready to come forward when they were wanted. But it must not for a moment be supposed that they alone were fit to man our ships. They would be valuable as assistants no doubt, but it was absurd to suppose, as he had seen it stated in speeches and in the newspapers, that we were now able to blockade the whole of an enemy's coast at a week's notice. It was all very well to talk about; they might depend upon it they were not in a condition to do anything of the sort; and the best proof of that was the difficulties they had had in finding men for the Renown, which had been lying at Spithead for four months, and even now she was very imperfectly manned. So it was with the Marlborough, which was under orders for the Mediterranean. He did not say that if a war were to break out men would not be found to enter more freely than they did at present; but then they must remember that it was not men only that were wanted, but discipline. On former occasions he had proposed an increase in the number of Royal Marines. They were at present in want of soldiers. He did not say that numbers of recruits were not coming forward, but for the most part they were more children—lads of fifteen and sixteen. Now, the marines was a more popular service than the army, though he did not know why. His plan would there fore be to increase considerably the marine force, and to hand over to them the garrisoning of all the sea ports in time of peace, which would at once set free a number of line regiments for India; and if a sudden war broke out the marines would be ready to go on board ship, and the militia regiments could take their place. He had made this suggestion to Lord Panmure before he left office, who told him he had no objection to hand over the garrisoning of our sea-ports to the marines, if the House of Commons would consent to increase their number. He could not support the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) to send the estimates to a Select Committee, for he believed that a Committee of this House was a very unfit tribunal to inquire into those matters; but he would strongly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the management of the Navy from first to last. It was not the men or the provisions that cost the money; it was the increased wear and tear caused by paying off the ships; and until they gave up the system of increasing the number of ships in one year, and then paying them off in the year following, it was impossible they could ever have a thorough and efficient navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty was yet, perhaps, hardly aware that a ship was commissioned only for three years, when she might just as well be commissioned for five. The ships on the Chinese coast had been out for five or six years; if it had not been for the war they would all have been home by this time—the men would have been turned adrift, the stores taken out or sold as old stores, the ships pulled to pieces, and all sorts of alterations made to no purpose, and then they would have been commissioned again. But in consequence of the cry for economy which was raised last year a number of ships were paid off which were now all commissioned again; and he was sure that this system would be found to have been more expensive than if the services of the officers and men had been retained all through. There was another point he would recommend to the First Lord's notice. He had at present ten councillors; five of them were at Somerset House, and five at the Admiralty. Those gentlemen, whether from jealousy or some other cause, seldom agreed; and if the number were reduced the work would be done a great deal better and at a less expense. He would not throw any obstacle in the way of the Estimates being voted; but, on the contrary, would do everything possible to keep the Navy in proper strength, because he did not think that affairs at the present moment were in a state to justify any negligence.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was making too largo a demand upon the House, in asking a Vote for so long a period as four months; and as he certainly did not agree in the amount of the Vote, he wished it to be distinctly understood that, in allowing the Government to take this amount without opposition, that course would not be held as binding him to support the Estimate when it came before the House at the end of the four months; and that when he came to propose to refer the Estimates to a Select Committee he did not expect to be met by the argument that the House had already voted a third part of them. The right hon. Gentleman had carefully guarded himself against being thought to hold out any expectation that the Estimates would be reduced. He had confined himself entirely to the number of men. Now, he (Mr. Williams) had always been an advocate for the efficiency of the navy; and though it had not been a fighting navy for a great number of years, still the gallant exploits of Captain Sir William Peel and his comrades showed that the men and the lower class of officers were at the present day, as they had always been capable of performing daring and glorious deeds. He would not, however, appeal to the right hon. Baronet, but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had a general superintendence over the expenditure both of the Navy and Army, and who would not have forgotten the difficulties he had in providing for the expenditure in 1852. The expenditure for the two services was upwards of £6,000,000 more now than it was in 1852, when the present Government were last in office. There were some other legacies which the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman had left him; and, therefore, it behaved him, for his own sake, to reduce the expenditure as much as possible. He did not complain of the increase of men, but in the officers, who had of late years increased out of all proportion. For instance, in 1846, there were only 153 admirals; in 1851 there were 235; last year there were 316; and in the present Estimate provision was made for 341—about an admiral and a half for every ship in commission. He thought this was monstrous. By the new arrangements of 1846 it was proposed gradually to reduce the number of admirals to 150, but instead of that there were now 341, while only fourteen were employed in active service, and of these half were port admirals, or superintending dockyards. The right hon. Baronet had spoken of the increase required for China, but the fact was that only a few additional small steamers had been employed. The city of Canton had been taken by one regiment and a few marines; in fact, the French claimed to have had the most important share in it. With regard to the dockyards, the waste there was perfectly astounding, showing that there must be either gross corruption or mismanagement. He had letters from persons who were in a position to know, though he was not at liberty to give the names of the writers, showing that the system of waste that went on was perfectly disgraceful, and that no control was exercised on the part of the public. A million and a half was now asked for, on account of timber and other stores, though it was a fact that, since the termination of the war with Prance, scarcely one of our ships had been damaged in action. Our ships had not been called upon to fight at all, and yet £77,000,000 had been spent upon them in a period of profound peace. If the right hon. Baronet would look well to the dockyards, he would render the most essential service to the country. He must say, to the credit of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, that his Estimates were put forward in a very clear and intelligible shape—there was no difficulty in understanding them; though how the right hon. and gallant General opposite was to understand the War Estimates of his predecessor passed his comprehension—for a greater mass of confusion he had never seen.

said, he would express his thanks to the hon. Gentleman for the compliment—though he could not take to himself the credit for the undoubtedly clear and intelligible shape in which the Estimates had been laid on the table, as they had always been presented in the game form for the last few years. He rose, however, to say that he quite approved the course which the Government proposed to take with regard to the Estimates. Of course, it was quite impossible that the right hon. Gentleman opposite could have had time to make himself acquainted with all the details of the Estimates, or even to form an opinion on his own responsibility of what they ought to be. The Estimates for the year ought certainly to be brought forward on the full and clear responsibility of the Government, and under the circumstances they had done quite right in proposing only a Vote on account at the present moment. For the Estimates, as they at present stood, he held himself responsible, and when the Estimates for the whole year were brought forward he should be happy to give the Government all the assistance in his power to pass them—always supposing that they were such as the knowledge which he had acquired told him were necessary for the public service. As, however, the voting of the Army and Navy Estimates would form almost the most important business of the Session, he hoped that they would be brought forward at the earliest possible period after Easter.

Sir, I have heard with great satisfaction the proposal now made to augment, by 5,600, the present number of seamen and boys; nor can I doubt the ready acquiescence of this House, which has always been willingly granted on occasions when the country demanded a similar increase. At this moment our force at sea is unworthy of our pretensions to be the first maritime Power in Europe. Without doubt, our docks and harbours present an imposing array, and we had stages with gunboats jostling each other, a magnificent fleet, comprising sailing and steam ships of unrivalled strength, capabilities and speed; yet we lately paraded to the world the humiliating dearth of transports adequate for the conveyance of a few thousand troops, and were compelled to press into the service, as one only resource, the merchant navy. It was only last year that I recommended, as indispensable, the maintenance at sea of not less than twelve sail of the line, fully manned and ably officered, in the highest state of efficiency and preparation, because it would afford the immediate means, on the most sudden emergency, of supplying twice that number of ships for the service of the country, independently of frigates and smaller vessels. At a period when science is making fresh advances, hitherto unexampled, and other maritime Powers are strengthening their navies in proportion, no caution can be too great in a timely consideration of the construction of our ships before they are commenced. The position—one of the highest importance and responsibility—of the Surveyor of the Navy demanding, as it does, the display of great ability and a judicious expenditure of the public money, requires that he should be accompanied by a seat in the Board of Admiralty, by which opportunity and authority would be afforded to him to represent his opinions with freedom and cogency. The Navy requires, from its peculiar character, a far-seeing policy and a generous system of rewards. Encourage those officers who exhibit zeal in acquiring the knowledge of their profession and in the discharge of its arduous duties. Let merit constitute the only claim to promotion. To ensure fidelity in the seaman you must show a scrupulous adherence to every promise, and discrimination with liberality of reward. Economy and retrenchment must be employed in careful forethought before incurring expense, and only as they are compatible with the integrity of the national defences. The Navy of England can never be reduced with impunity. Neither gunnery nor navigation are the acquirements of a few months; the landsman is only by long experience ripened into the practical seaman. The fleet undermanned can scarcely be called a questionable defence; there must be risk, and if there be ignorance of the profession on the part of the officers there might be a sad reverse. Here I might remind the Committee, that in order to fit out the Baltic fleet it was necessary to strip the coastguard service of men, and then, when the landsmen had been turned into good sailors, they had been sent adrift on the sands at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Chatham, to carry their energy, their zeal, and their vigour, it might be, into the service of any other nation which would find them employment, We wanted not ships, but the living hearts of oak—the gallant Tars—to quicken the mighty mass; but poor Jack was disregarded when be was no longer wanted, and he was discouraged when he should have been bidden hearty welcome in the name of England. I warn you, then, to be wise in time, and to show a more generous consideration, a wiser policy, and n more far-seeing system as regards the Navy. Justice requires imperatively one reform. May I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty's attention whilst I press it? I allude to the disheartening impression prevalent in the Navy, that no officer, unless possessed of family influence, or able to command official favour, can ever entertain a reasonable hope of attaining the object of an honourable ambition—the rank of Admiral on the active list. At present it is confined to the case of those who have held command as captain during four years in war time, five years at a period of war and peace, and of six years while there is peace. I am at a loss to reconcile the restriction with the dictates of wisdom or justice. Small as the residue of the required time may be, whatever the amount of his courage or 2eal, his energy or capacity, he has neither appeal nor redress. The reserved list is his destination, and that of too many instances of a similar exclusion, which excite universal regret and enlist the widest public sympathy. The hardship is increased by the frequent reappointment of the same officers to commands. By their death the country is debarred the advantages it expects from their experience, while it is deprived of the services of their survivors, who have been unduly and capriciously denied the opportunity of that employment for which they have iri vain reiterated the most earnest desire. The easy and obvious redress, if the present system continues in force, is to allow the time spent by a Commander in actual service to qualify for the Flag on the Active List. The Navy List is surcharged with the names of officers who despair of promotion. In the Royal Marines, or in the corps of Engineers and Artillery, as well as in regiments of the Cavalry and the Line, the officers destitute of patronage and means of purchase, by perseverance in the service, can obtain the highest rank, while the grey-headed lieutenant in the Navy is a proverb of neglect and hopelessness, and a standing reproach to the administration of a national profession. I can assure the Committee, that in offering these observations I am actuated by no party spirit or personal motive; but so long as I may possess a seat in this House, and on whatever side I may sit—and I have had a very comfortable seat on the Opposition side for about five years and a half—I shall do my utmost to maintain the welfare of the naval profession, because I believe the prosperity of the country to be inseparably bound up with it. The hon. Member for Lambeth has, as usual, remarked on the number of Admirals on the list; but those gallant men have deserved well of their country. During the war which extended from 1792 to 1815, with but slight intermission, near a thousand men-of-war were in continual employment and necessitated the services of a considerable number of officers. To hostilities which lasted over twenty years succeeded a peace, in which the happiness of England entailed a death-blow to the aspirations of these officers. During a term of twice that extent they were not required, their most earnest offers of service were denied opportunity; but they had fought the battles in time of war, and surely no generous mind would grudge them that rank which had been so well earned. If it would be any satisfaction, however, to the hon. Member for Lambeth, I can tell him that these brave men are being fast removed from amongst us, and that not many of them will much longer need their country's bounty. They demand only this moderate requital in their age and compulsory retirement from service, for activity, energy, and fidelity, the aggregate of which rendered their country secure, and ennobled its national history.

said, he had given notice of his intention, on the Navy Estimates being brought under the consideration of the House, to press upon the Government that a sufficient additional sum should be granted to Her Majesty, in order that the wages of the dockyard labourers might be increased from 13s. to 16s. per week. His notice applied more particularly to Vote No. 8; but as he understood that there might be a long delay before that Vote would come on, he trusted that he might be allowed to bring before the Committee the claims of the dockyard labourers upon the present occasion.

said, that it would be quite irregular to discuss an item in Vote No. 8 in the present stage of the Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman was therefore out of order.

said, that as the Committee had come to an agreement to waive all discussion upon the present occasion, it was not his intention to raise one; but he gave notice that on a future occasion he should call attention to a mode of proceeding by which, as it appeared to him, the voting of Estimates was rendered of no avail whatever. In the years 1856–1857 the grant, including the Supplementary Estimates for No. 10, naval stores, for the building of ships, &c, had been exceeded by £516,452, and that a sum of that amount had been applied to the purposes he had mentioned, without any authority from Parliament. That was a subject to which, on a future occasion, he should call attention; but in the meantime he wished to elicit an assurance from his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty that all moneys voted for a special service should be applied to that service, and to that service alone.

said, that the circumstance to which the hon. Baronet referred had occurred when he (Sir C. Wood) was at the Admiralty, and it would be his duty, therefore, to explain it when the hon. Baronet should direct attention to it more in detail. He would only now observe that the course which was then taken was in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and he had no doubt that he should he able to satisfy the House that there had been no irregularity in the proceeding.

said, that the particular subject to which his hon. Friend referred was one entirely between his hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In answer to the appeal of his hon. Friend, he bad no hesitation in saying that he entirely concurred in the principle that money ought to be strictly applied to the purposes for which it was voted. Under the terms of the Appropriation Act, considerable latitude was allowed with respect to the appropriation of grants; but how far it might be desirable to amend the terms of that Act he was not prepared to say.

said that a clause had been introduced into the Appropriation Act of last Session,— clause 26,—by whose authority he knew not, which entirely upset the whole system of appropriation, That clause had passed unnoticed in this House, and was not discovered until the Bill reached the House of Lords, where they took the precaution of printing their Bills before they passed them, At any rate he trusted the House would never agree to such a proposition again.

said, the hon. Baronet was entirely mistaken about the clause to which he referred, and which was numbered 27 and not 26, in the Appropriation Act. That clause was originally inserted in the Act long before either the hon. Baronet or himself had a seat in Parliament. The Act was discussed clause by clause, and the clause alluded to was unanimously adopted. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that last year's Estimates were taken in two separate Sessions, part before and part after the dissolution. The same tiling occurred in 1841, and as it was doubted whether the Estimates granted previously to the dissolution could be applied to the service of that year, a short Act was passed in the Christmas Session, declaring that the Votes of the two Sessions should be treated as applicable to the service of the entire year. The clause to which the hon. Baronet re- ferred was inserted in the Appropriation Act of last Session, to avoid the inconvenience experienced in 1841.

believed that the clause was a very mischievous one, He opposed it last Session, and would have insisted on a division if he had had any hope of success. He wished to see laid on the table a statement of every deviation from the Votes as they passed that House.

was anxious to prevent a false impression being made on the public mind by this discussion. In old times the whole of the naval vote was considered by the Government of the clay to be applicable to any purpose. That however was put an end to in 1S30 by Sir James Graham, who was First Lord of the Admiralty, who brought the subject before the House and induced them to effect a change. Hon. Gentlemen, however, must know perfectly well that it was altogether impossible to estimate accurately the expenditure under each head. If the House desired to prevent any surplus being applied to any purpose but that for which it was voted, it would be necessary for them to vote much larger sums under each head than the Government thought requisite at the time of proposing the Estimates. That would be a very inconvenient course; moreover, it was rendered unnecessary by the change effected by Sir James Graham, for by the Bill which he then brought in, the Board of Audit could revise the accounts under each head, and if any particular head fell short, then the Board was authorised by Act of Parliament to apply the surplus upon one Vote to the deficiency upon another, so that the whole sum should not exceed the whole sum voted for the naval service. As to the largo expenditure which had been complained of by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williams) he did not propose to enter into that question now, but would be prepared to do so on a future occasion, when the House would find it was entirely justified by the extraordinary circumstances under which it was incurred.

said, that the clause to which he referred was much wider in its scope than the principle enunciated by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet appeared to suppose that he had referred to the 27th clause, whereas he had directed his observations to the 26th clause of the Appropriation Act, under which any Vote of last year might be applied to such purposes as the Government might direct.

said, he must express his concurrence in the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott) as to the false economy pursued by this country for some years past, by which millions of money had been wasted. He contended that the naval department could never be efficiently conducted until the system of placing civilians in positions with which they could not possibly be conversant was done away with— until the Navy was, like the Army, administered by men of competent professional knowledge. He also contended that the principle of responsibility was not enforced against the Board of Admiralty. There was a total want of system in that department, and the responsibility was so divided that it was merely nominal. Another objection to the present system was the constant changing of the Lords of the Admiralty, occasioned by a change of Ministry; for no sooner had the civilians placed there begun to get conversant with the nature of their duties, than they had to go out to make room for fresh and inexperienced hands. he hoped the time would soon arrive when all these absurdities of the system would be abolished; and it would be a matter of astonishment that they were ever allowed to exist.

observed, that he had formerly thought that a naval man ought to be at the head of the Board; but experience had shown him that the important position of First Lord of the Admiralty was better filled by a civilian than it would be by a naval man, because the former would probably be able, as having no professional predilections, to take larger views than the latter. He by no means wished to decry professional experience, but the First Lord of the Admiralty at present was assisted by naval lords of great experience. There was one thing in the management of late Boards of the Admiralty which had frequently astonished him, and that was the non-employment of the magnificent screw-ships which formed part of the naval force of the country as guard-ships, instead of the inferior class of ships at present so employed. At Sheerness, Portsmouth, Plymouth, and other ports, the custom had been to have a flagship, but not a flagship of the first class; so that it often occurred that our finest vessels, the moment they were launched, were laid up in ordinary. Now, every practical man was aware that a ship deteriorated more when laid up in ordinary than when employed on active service; and, independently even of that consideration, he believed that the finest ships in the service ought to be employed as flagships at the various ports, to be prepared in case of any sudden emergency either for defensive operations or to go to sea. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would take into consideration the suggestion which he had thrown out.

remarked, that he quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, in reference to employing a better class of ships as guard-ships; but he could not help saying that, in his opinion, that branch of the naval administration of the country which related to the construction of ships was in a most anomalous condition. Ships for the Royal Navy were constructed without any reference to those principles of shipbuilding which obtained in the merchant service, and which were proved to be the sound principles for obtaining speed combined with safety. A class of frigates had only lately been constructed, of which he would take the Diadem as an example: that ship had cost an enormous sum of money in the endeavours to force her through the water, a thing which, from the appearance of her bows, it appeared almost impossible to effect; but at last, after an enormous expenditure of power, she was forced through the water at the rate of thirteen knots an hour. He considered that the plans of ships to be built ought to be submitted to a committee of practical men, and, even if they were laid before that House, there was enough practical experience in that House to prevent such blunders recurring as had already been committed. He believed that in the United States, where many a fine ship was built, the lines of all ships of war were laid on the table of Congress. He understood that a new frigate, the Orlando, was expected to prove much superior to her predecessors; but the experiment which had been required to arrive at her model, lengthening ships four or five feet at a time instead of fifty feet, had been most costly. For his own part, he did not think that the Board of Admiralty would ever be properly managed by a civilian, for no civilian could be expected to know anything about the matter, and under the guidance of civilians a sum of money had been wasted which would have sufficed to construct two navies.

said, he would beg to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty the propriety of giving to the artificers employed higher wages, as it was impossible to secure the services of the most efficient men without giving them an adequate remuneration.

observed, that he desired to impress the same view upon the right hon. Gentleman, and that riggers should be paid at the same rate as the ropemakers.

said, he wished to press upon the attention of the Government and of the Committee the propriety of raising the pay of the labourers in our dockyards from 13s. to 16s. per week. The pittance now paid to dockyard men was so miserably small, that they were utterly unable to support themselves and their families. Many of these men received but 13s. a week, whilst the rate of payment of artificers in several firms with respect to which he had made inquiries, was never lower than 18s. He had himself been in the habit of employing many men, and he never paid them less than 18s. a week. He would remind the House that large sums had been yearly voted for luxuries. A sum had been given for a park in Finsbury. Other large sums had been voted for pictures. He was as fond of pictures as any man in England; but he thought that before we spent money upon them, we ought adequately to remunerate our working men. Then, again, the House had given £40,000 to the Princess of Prussia. Surely, if they could afford to do that, they could afford to give a body of poor men whose services were so essential in maintaining the national honour "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work." He had reason to believe that, had there lately been no change of Government an additional 3s. per week would have been granted to these hard working operatives; and he therefore appealed to the present Ministry, whether they would not fitly inaugurate their advent to power by doing an act of justice to an humble but deserving class? The men complained that they had been deprived of a superannuation pension of £15 per annum which they formerly enjoyed; and they asked why it was that they were the only class of Government employes to whom this advantage was denied? At present one or two Lords of the Admiralty walked round Woolwich Dockyard periodically, and picked out annually five or six, or at the most seven poor labourers broken down with ago and infirmities, and recommended them for a pension of £12 a year. But this was an entirely voluntary and spontaneous act, there being no regular system of superannuation on which the men could depend. It might he said that the measure he recommended would cost the nation £20,000 per annum; but he confidently believed that the public would not grudge such a sure to maintain those poor won and their families in comparative decency and comfort. Let them be just before they were generous. He had received letters from many working men, urging upon his attention the necessity for some measures being taken for ameliorating their condition. To whom were these poor fellows to appeal hut to the Government, and in their default to the House of Commons? He had put a notice of Motion on this subject upon the paper, and he regretted that owing to his Motion not being in order, it was not competent for him to divide the House on this subject; but he trusted that the appeal which he now made would be generously responded to.

said, he; doubted whether he should be able to give to the appeal addressed to him by the hon. Member for Greenwich an answer which the hon. Gentleman would regard as perfectly satisfactory. He could not, on the part of the Government, offer any distinct pledge that they would grant that application; and, as far as he could judge, the Members of the late Board of Admiralty were not less indisposed to make the proposed concession. He could only state that, from a sense of justice, he should be prepared to take the subject fairly into his consideration, and to do all that he could do in the matter consistently with a due regard for the public interest. But the question could be more fully discussed when the Estimates should be brought for- ward for detailed consideration, and he would remind the Committee that it was absolutely necessary they should that evening pass the Votes which had been submitted for their approval.

said, that the question raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich was merely a question of demand and supply, and it ought not to be settled either at the Admiralty or anywhere else on any other principles than those of sound political economy. The late Board had no intention even of considering the subject, and he hoped that a similar course would be followed by the present one. If the right hon. Baronet held out any hopes of an increase of wages, he would be overwhelmed with petitions from all the duck-yards. Indeed, he (Mr. Osborne) did not know, but he should then trouble the right hon. Gentleman with a representation of the claims of his own constituents at Dovor.

said, he could assure the hon. Member for Dovor that he had not intended to hold out any false hopes. His promise of consideration referred rather to the question of superannuation than to that of wages, and he had carefully guarded himself by intimating that in whatever he did, he must have regard to the interests of the public service. Now, he was afraid that if men could be obtained for 13s., it would he rather hard to prove that it was for the interest of the public service to pay them 16s.

said, he was quite ready to accept the inexorable law of supply and demand as laid down by the hon. Member for Dovor, if they were applied in all cases; but without disparaging the labours of the late Secretary of the Admiralty, he had no doubt that a person could have been found who would discharge the duties of that office, he would not say as well as they were discharged by the hon. Member for Dovor, but certainly for much lower wages. If the strict rules of political economy were not applied in the higher branches of Her Majesty's service, he did not see why they should be so rigidly enforced in the lower ones. He, however, believed there prevailed among the labourers in the national dockyards an amount of discontent which was not creditable to the country, and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Admiralty would earn a well-de-served popularity by honestly endeavouring to remove that evil.

said, the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. B. Osborne) was mistaken in supposing that the late Board of Admiralty had refused to take any step in that matter, for the fact was that they had last year raised the wages of the Dockyard labourers from 12s. to 13s. a week. The rate of those wages, when they had been fixed some years ago, had been higher than the average amount of wages in the agricultural districts; hut the price of labour had since risen considerably in those districts, and it appeared to him to be desirable that a corresponding rise should take place in the payments made in our Dockyards.

remarked, that he thought that a great principle was involved in the question now before the House, for labour was to all intents and purposes a marketable commodity like everything else, and therefore this was essentially a question of demand and supply. He certainly regretted to hear that so much distress existed in the Dockyards; but how did it happen, he would ask, if there existed so great an amount of dissatisfaction, that persons were so anxious to get into the Dockyards? The effect of the Government raising the wages of labour in the Dockyards would be to raise them in private establishments in the same proportion; and the Government had no more right to entertain such representations than he would have to ask the House to fix the rate of wages for labour in the building-yards of the town which he represented.

said, there was no doubt but the payment of labour in the public departments ought in general to he regarded as a question of supply and demand. But under the present low scale of remuneration in the Dockyards, labourers entered those establishments for their own mere temporary accommodation; and it was for the Government to consider whether, under the constant changes which were thus taking place, they could expect to get their work performed in the most satisfactory manner. At present the Government Dockyards were considered only as the receptacle for inferior men when things were good outside; but, in his opinion, what the Government ought to consider was the rate of wages which would yield them a continual supply of the best labour.

said, he would admit that the Government could get plenty of men to enter their service for 13s. a week, but he feared, from their not acting as a good master would to a good servant, their workmen were not such as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lindsay) would employ in his yard. In addition to their low rate of wages, it should be recollected that the families of the Dockyard labourers were tied to certain spots where the local burdens, in consequence of the Government not contributing to the support of the poor, were excessively high. He would take another opportunity of referring to the subject.

said he should support the Vote, as his experience was in direct opposition to what had been stated by some hon. Members. The rate of wages had fallen considerably during the last few months; and if 13s. a week was deemed sufficient a year ago there was no reason for increasing it now.

said, he hoped the Committee would look with jealousy upon applications from the representatives of particular towns for an increase of wages among their constituents. It had been said that the Government paid 13s. a week, and did not get good work for it. Were they quite sure that they could improve the quality of the work merely by raising the rate of wages? It seemed to him that the difficulty lay deep in the nature of Government establishments. A labourer was apt to go into one of those establishments with very different sentiments and feelings from those with which he entered into the service of a private owner. When he went to serve a private individual he knew that he must stand upon his own merits, and that his work would fetch its real value, but no more. On the other hand, he obtained admission to a Government establishment generally by solicitation; the whole course of his ideas was dislocated, so to speak, by the manner in which he got there, and it was wrong to suppose that by merely raising the rate of wages we could secure a supply of good labour. How that difficulty was to be overcome he would not undertake to say; but he believed the wise and practical conclusion would be to have no Government establishments whatever for manufactures, except in cases where they were absolutely necessary. No Government could carry on manufactures except at a great disadvantage, and he trusted, without meaning the slightest reproach to hon. Members, whose duty it was to stand up manfully for the interests of their constituents, the House would receive with a jealousy proportioned to their fidelity and zeal the representations which they made in favour of increasing the wages of their local friends.

remarked, that he was also a representative of a dockyard borough, and he was sorry to say that he had often incurred no small degree of unpopularity by telling his constituents that the Members for dockyard towns did more harm than good by pressing for an increase of wages. He was not surprised that an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the demand for such an increase by saying, "Dismiss all your dockyard labourers, and get the work done by private contract." Such, he was convinced, would be the result if the expense of the dockyards were very considerably augmented. At the same time he could not but enter his protest against what had fallen from those hon. Gentlemen who said that the work done in the Dockyards was badly done. He believed that the labourers in those establishments performed their duties as fairly as other labourers; and he would appeal to all the officers employed in them, whether they had not during the late war received the fullest support from the men under their charge?

said, he believed that we were at present building the finest navy in the world; and he considered that the improvements which had of late years been introduced into that branch of the public service were beyond all praise; but there was one point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Government. It was a fact—a fact which the present Emperor of the French was one of the first to discover—that an iron-lined ship would resist shells, but a shell would blow a hole in the bottom of a wooden ship through which a man might drive a wheelbarrow. He wished the Government would make an experiment; but he believed it would be found that an iron-lined frigate of twenty guns, within musket-shot of a wooden three-decker, would totally destroy the three-decker, let her fire on the frigate how she might. He admitted that they had not yet got the means of preventing iron ships from fouling, but he hoped the Government would offer a reward for some invention that would enable them to send such a ship to sea without being obliged to dock her immediately on her return.

expressed his surprise that after the enormous sums of money, no less than £6,700,000 voted for barracks since the year 1834, the accommodation in them should be exceedingly defective. If the money had been expended honestly all the barracks which were required to accommodate the army during the last war ought now to be in an efficient state.

said it was, he believed, generally understood that the East India Company supplied bedding and clothing gratuitously to the Queen's troops employed in India, but he had been informed by a relative that in some cases the only clothing supplied consisted of two linen caps, while the soldiers were required to pay half the cost of their bedding.

said, he wished to observe that although the force demanded appeared to be moderate enough, yet they did not seem to make the best use of that which they had. It was a subject of complaint that the brigade of Guards, which was a very strong force, was entirely exempted from colonial duty. It was suspected that the reason of this exemption was that the officers of the Guards were more or less connected with the aristocracy, and were appointed by the colonels of the regiments of Guards, and not upon the responsibility of the War Department. He thought it desirable that battalions of the Guards should be sent to Madras, Calcutta, and Bombay, as the young officers of the brigade would then have an opportunity of seeing something of the world, and of acquainting themselves with their professional duties. He thought, also, that such a change would be beneficial to the health of the men, for he believed that from long residence in London they contracted bad habits, which might in some measure account for the ill health that was attributed to the state of the barracks. He saw no reason why the aristocratic officers of the Guards, brave and intelligent as they undoubtedly were, should be placed in a position which gave them more rapid promotion than could be attained by persons of a lower grade in society. A captain in the Guards at once became a lieutenant-colonel, and he (Sir J. Trelawny) was informed that the pay and allowance of an officer of that rank amounted to nearly £500 a year. Independently of the advantages in respect to pay, the officers of the Guards obtained rapid promotion; and during the war in the Crimea many of the higher military appointments were held by Guardsmen. No doubt these men understood their duty, and had conducted themselves well in the field, but he thought it was high time that the aristocracy gave up this sort of patronage. He hoped the gallant General at the head of the War Department would bring the appointment of officers of the Guards under his own authority, and would not countenance a system which was prejudicial to the interests of the service.

said, he thought that as it was necessary to raise a special corps about the person of the Sovereign, it was most desirable to retain in London such a corps as the Guards, which was specially suited to the performance of military duties in the metropolis. He knew that, in several cases, officers of regiments of the line had been very glad to withdraw their men from the temptations by which they were beset in London, and which rendered the maintenance of discipline most difficult.

said, that the clothing of Her Majesty's troops in India was supplied by the East India Government, and was not under the control of the War Department.

had spoken to three or four gentlemen who were acquainted with Indian affairs, and among others to the Chairman of the East India Company (Mr. Mangles), but he could not obtain from them the slightest information on this subject. He hoped the Minister for War would institute some inquiry as to the clothing of European troops in India, as he thought it would be attended with great advantage if these matters were brought under the more immediate supervision of the Government.

said, he had told the hon. Gentleman that the expenses of Her Majesty's forces in India were defrayed by the East India Company, but he could not inform his hon. Friend what amount was deducted from the pay of the men for any portion of their dress. Those details were not within his cognizance, but he supposed the system adopted in this country was also in force in India.

said, the extra clothing suitable to the climate of India was supplied to the troops by the East India Company, but he would cause inquiry to be made on the subject to which the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock) had called attention.

observed, that there was a great contrast between the treatment of the Native and European troops in this respect. The Native soldiers in the East India Company's service had not only to pay for their kits, but for every ornament of their dress, out of I4s. a month, while from such charges the European soldiers wore altogether exempt.

remarked, that he had found that applications were made to young men who wore studying for the military profession by parties who stated that they were authorized to give them commissions, provided they raised a certain number of men. Such an application had been made to a relation of his own, and it struck him as very odd that while the applications of young gentlemen of fortune and station on condition of raising men were uniformly refused by the autho- rities, persons who represented themselves as army agents should say that a certain sum might be lodged in a bank, which should not be drawn until a commission was granted. It would seem, certainly, from this circumstance that there was no attempt at fraud; but it was stated that if some fifty men were raised a commission might be obtained without purchase. He thought that such a proceeding was very strange and irregular, and he wished to know whether the Secretary for War could give any explanation on this subject.

said, at present he could give no explanation, and could not understand how such an occurrence could have taken place. The hon. Gentleman had made the statement from his own personal knowledge, and he (General Peel) would have the matter inquired into.

said, he wished to ask what had been the result of the important change which had taken place respecting the army clothing, which was now supplied by the Government, instead of by the colonels of regiments. The Estimates were so confused that he found it impossible to ascertain the comparative cost generally; but he found that the cost of the Guards' clothing was now 40 per cent. more than it was when the Duke of Wellington was Commander in Chief and Colonel of two regiments. He thought this most extraordinary and most unwarrantable extravagance. The present Government could not make themselves more popular than by effecting retrenchments, especially in matters of this kind, and this was a subject to which he trusted the right hon. and gallant General would turn his attention. From what had transpired before the Committee on Contracts there seemed to be an immense amount of unfair dealing in connection with these, and unless the system was amended, and the receipt of perquisites put a stop to, especially in army contracts, no respectable man would offer to supply them.

said, he wished to ask whether the present Government intended to adhere to the principle of competitive examination in reference to the engineers and artillery. The principle bad worked satisfactorily, and the feeling of the country was decidedly in favour of competition, especially with respect to a service in which a knowledge of mathematics was essential. Some change, however, appeared to be in contemplation, for it seemed that only on two more occasions was this principle to be recognized at Woolwich.

said, he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving him this opportunity of stating what, so far as he was concerned, had taken place on this subject. It had been recommended by the Council of Education that all candidates for the military service should pass through the college at Sandhurst. If that course were adopted, not only would they as heretofore be subjected to competitive examination, but as far as the Engineers and Artillery were concerned the candidates for these services would in future have to undergo a double competitive examination. It was, however, pointed out to him that under the new arrangement great hardship would be inflicted on several gentlemen who had been preparing themselves for examination at Woolwich, because they would be past the ago at which they would be admitted to Sandhurst. This was also represented to the Commander in Chief, and the result was that in conjunction with the Royal Duke he had determined that two more competitive examinations were to take place at Woolwich in order to allow those gentlemen to undergo examination there who would have been too old for Sandhurst. The principle of competitive examination, he repeated, was not at all given up; but, on the contrary, so far as the Engineers and Artillery were concerned, they would be subjected to two examinations, one on entering the college; and candidates would have no more difficulty in entering Sandhurst than in presenting themselves at Woolwich.

said, he must assert his right as the representative of a popular constituency—as one of the people and no aristocrat—to know the reason why a change had taken place after the success which had attended the new system. The House and the country had a right to be told this, and to know why an admission to Sandhurst was to be made necessary.

said, it was refreshing to hear an hon. Gentleman assert the light of the House to institute inquiries, and as a Member of the House he begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for his care of its privileges. The question which the hon. Member had raised was one of great importance, but he did not seem to have caught accurately what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant General the Secretary for War in reference to the subject. If he (Mr. Gladstone) understood his right hon. and gallant Friend correctly, he had stated that the interposition of the preliminary course at Sandhurst had been recommended merely as a measure of practical utility by the Council of Education, and was not intended in any way to bear upon or to restrict the principle of competition, upon which, if it had any influence at all, its effect would be to substitute a double for a single competition. If that were so then the statement of the gallant General could, he thought, be unsatisfactory neither to the hon. Gentleman opposite nor to the Committee. There was also another statement made by his right hon. and gallant Friend which he had heard with much pleasure—namely, that the competitive entrance to Sandhurst under the new system would be practically as free for all Her Majesty's subjects as the public competition at Woolwich.

said, that any person seeking to be placed on their list of candidates for admission to Sandhurst had merely to apply to his guardian or some other person who could bear testimony to his respectability—and he thought it was desirable that some such reference should be required; but beyond that there would be no limitation whatsoever.

I have now, Sir, to move the further consideration of the East India Loan Bill, and upon the present occasion I would ask the House to avoid all unnecessary discussion upon this Bill. I am convinced that, next to the necessities of the State, there is really no subject which is more important or which requires more urgently to be dealt with, than that to which this Bill relates. If, however, we enter upon any discussion upon the principles upon which this Bill is based, and seek to connect this Bill with any measure which may be brought forward to regulate the government of India, we shall be led into very protracted discussions. The practical fact before us is, that the East India Company are in the same state from want of supplies as Her Majesty's Ministers. It is quite impossible this question can be longer postponed, and, under the circumstances, I hope the House will pursue the same course as Her Majesty's Government, and take a practical view of the matter, and not connect this Bill with any measure that has been or may hereafter be brought forward relating to the construction of the Government of India. There are pressing engagements which must be kept, there are liabilities which cannot be avoided, and obligations which must be answered and fulfilled, whatever changes may take place in the government of India; and these are questions not of days, but almost of hours. Since the Bill has been introduced there has been a discussion, at which, not having the honour of a seat in the House at the time, I was not present, but I am acquainted with the bearing of that discussion. I believe that the original amount of £10,000,000 was, in accordance with the prevailing opinion of the House, reduced to £8,000,000. The Government is willing to bow to the decision of the House in that respect, but we do not think it would be expedient to reduce the sum any further, and I trust the House will not entertain any such suggestion, as the sum of £8,000,000 is really necessary for the service of the East India Company. There was also a question about the 11th clause—the controverted clause. In my opinion it is not at all necessary to insist upon the retention of that clause. I therefore shall not ask the House to sanction it. The amount being reduced from the sum originally proposed, which might have been larger than was absolutely necessary —but on that I give no opinion—and having proposed to omit the 11th clause, I hope and trust the House will be of opinion that in the present state of affairs it is necessary we should pass this Bill, and, if that be so, it will also see that it is of the utmost importance that we should pass it without any unnecessary delay. I hope, therefore, we shall advance it a stage tonight, and afterwards proceed with it, so that it may speedily become law.

said, on former occasions when the Bill was under consideration, two objections had been taken to its progress. One was to the 11th clause, which he rejoiced to hear from the right hon. Gentleman would no longer form part of the Bill. It must have been obvious that the labours of that House would be futile in limiting the amount of the loan to £8,000,000 if in the same Bill there remained a clause giving power to the same parties to borrow continuously, without limit of time or amount. The other objection had also now fallen to the ground, but while it existed it was a serious one. An idea prevailed that when the Bill passed through Committee in a House of scarcely forty Members, the Minister who was then responsible for the affairs of India made a statement which materially affected the obligations of this country in respect of debts contracted upon the revenues of India. Upon the last occasion the Bill was before the House the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) had had an opportunity of showing that the prevailing impression was unfounded. The House, however, knowing that no delay could occur beyond one day, preferred that the present stage, upon which alone Amendments could now be introduced, should not be passed until an opportunity was afforded to the Minister now responsible for the finances of this country, of stating his opinion in regard to it. That opportunity had been given, and as they had now guarded against any misunderstanding which might affect the Consolidated Fund of this country, and as the controversial clause was to be omitted, he had the greatest pleasure in concurring with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that every facility should be afforded for the passing of the Bill, which was required to enable the East India Company to raise the money which they so much needed. He cordially agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that any discussion upon the large questions of Indian finance and other portions of Indian Government, which, no doubt, they were about to consider, would with advantage be deferred until they were called upon to deal with the general measure affecting the government of India.

said, that he wished he could agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the reduction of the amount and the omission of a clause would remove all the objectionable features of the Bill. He did not wish to thwart the desire of the Government to raise money for the service of the East India Company, but he thought they could do so much more speedily by a simple Resolution of the House. There had been no previous opportunity for discussing the principles of the Bill, but he believed it was based upon two assumptions; first, that the finances of India were only lightly burdened with debt, and the other, that the course now proposed by the East India Company to meet their difficulties, was in accordance with Parliamentary practice. He denied both propositions. On the lost occasion, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who appeared to have hold a brief on behalf of the East India Company, notwithstanding his slashing speech against them on a former occasion, had quoted some figures which to his mind, were very unsatisfactory. He (Sir E. Perry) would call the attention of the House to the finances of India. It was certain that for the last four years there had been a chronic deficit, that deficit in the year before the outbreak of the mutiny being £2,000,000. They were now told upon authority that the deficit for the year ending April, 1859, would be £7,500,000. Therefore they began with a total deficit of £14,000,000 or £15,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, told them the total debt of the East India Company was £68,000,000. To that must be added the £14,000,000 of deficit which he had mentioned, and £20,000,000 more would probably be required to meet the expenses of the mutiny. Those sums made a total of more than £100,000,000. To this must be added an item for guarantees upon railways amounting to £20,000,000, so that altogether the real amount of the debt reached £120,000,000. On the other hand, it was said that the debt was small as compared with the revenue of India which was stated to be £23,000,000, whereas it was only £22,000,000 and a fraction. The revenue of India, however, which was derived from the taxes on land, opium, and salt, could not be raised by any additional taxation. Thus there was increasing debt and a fixed revenue. The course which had been adopted by the East India Company was to open a standing loan in India to meet every deficit, the inevitable result of which, unless Parliament interposed, must be the bankruptcy of India. It was now for the first time proposed to raise a standing loan in this country, for although the 11th clause was to be omitted, such was still the character of the Bill. And supposing the bankruptcy of the Indian Government, how would the finances of England be affected? He did not wish to raise the question of how far British credit was pledged to meet Indian loans, but it would he unwise to deny the fact that capitalists lent their money on the faith of the English connection. There was certainly no intrinsic security in Indian finance unless guaranteed by British credit, and if the references of India should be insufficient, the army and navy and other services would remain unpaid, and then would arise the question whether the revenues of England were not to he resorted to in order to retain India as a British dependency. The revenue of India was a fixed revenue, and the expenditure was greater than the revenue. These were facts, with respect to which be challenged contradiction, and taken together they must lead to national bankruptcy. Well, if this was the true state of the question, he contended that it was raised precisely and positively by the present Bill, because they were seeking to perpetuate here a system of borrowing to supply the deficit of the Indian revenue. It was true that the East India Company had power to raise £7,000,000 in this country, and that that power was now exhausted; but he denied that Parliament had ever given to the East India Company, since they had been a political body, the power of borrowing in England. That power to borrow £7,000,000 was granted under peculiar circumstances. The last time it was given was in 1811, when they wore a trading Company with large assets, and it was supposed therefore that there was abundant security. In point of fact, the East India Company during the eighteenth century were insolvent, but it suited their purpose from time to time to represent their affairs to Parliament as in a flourishing condition, and when they wanted their monopolies perpetuated they offered Parliament money as a kind of bribe to pass the Bill. He used the word "bribe" because that was the term used by the historian Mill. Having got their now charter on those terms, they came immediately to that House for a new Bill, giving them borrowing powers, and those were the precedents on which the East India Company now came to Parliament and asked for borrowing powers. As capitalists undoubtedly looked to English credit, and as it was only Indian credit that was a security for these loans, the result would probably be that that security would be very much depreciated, and that we should have to open the national purse. He believed the money actually required by the East India Company at present was only £3,000,000. If that was so, he contended that the course proposed by several hon. Members of that House of high financial authority, by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) and others, was a simple course, namely, for that House to lend the credit of the country directly to the East India Company, and to secure the interest on the revenues of India. This would be the most economical course, as by that means India would be enabled to take advantage of the great benefit of getting the money at a lower rate, and a stop would be at once put to that indiscriminate system of borrowing which had been the opprobrium of Indian Ministers, for it would have the good effect of inducing constituencies to pay more attention to Indian affairs, when they found that Indian expenditure might possibly become a burden upon the Imperial exchequer. Adverting to the statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that India: brought little or no material advantage to this country, he contended, on the contrary, that, looking to the magnitude of our trade with India and its capacity for development, the benefits arising and to arise to us from our connection with it on commercial grounds could scarcely be exaggerated. The trade with India was already greater than with any other of our colonies or dependencies; indeed, it was greater than with any other country except the United States. But, beside the advantage we derived from commerce with India, we received in actual money from that country three or four millions a year. Upwards of two mil- lions a year came into the pockets of individuals in England, bondholders, stockholders, and pensioners, which undoubtedly was a clear addition to the national wealth. He thought also that the army of India might he made ancillary to our military strength in this country. As Algeria was to France, so India ought to be made the nursery and training ground for our soldiers. We had lent our money and our credit to every other country, and he thought, if we could enable the East India Company to borrow the money they required on easier terms, by lending them the credit of this country, it was our bounden duty to do it.

said, it was not his intention on the present occasion to enter into a general discussion on the state and condition of Indian finance, because that would be done much better and more appropriately when the whole subject wa3 brought before the House in the shape of an Indian budget. But, disagreeing as he did entirely with the figures stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Perry) he was nevertheless prepared so far to agree with him that the finances of India were in a somewhat dilapidated condition. That, however, could not be said to be the fault of the present Government. They had not been in office for the last fourteen years, except for a few months, and they had not allowed the East India Company, year after year, to exceed their revenues by a large expenditure, and to increase their national debt. Nor had they forced the Company into wars of which they disapproved. All that had been done by pre-ceding Governments, and all those Governments had received the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who was therefore the last man in the House who had any right to complain of the state of the Indian finances. He (Mr. Baillie) thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was the more responsible because he had great experience and knowledge of Indian affairs, and ought, therefore, to have been among the first to warn the House of the dangers of the policy they were pursuing. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had completely mistaken the present state of the Indian debt. He had fallen into the blunder of adding to the £68,483,000 stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Indian debt, the deficit of the last four years, whereas the deficit for the fourth year was not yet ascertained. Then he had adverted to the state of the East India railway stock, but for that the East India Company were in no way responsible. Besides, as soon as the railways came into operation, they paid the interest themselves; indeed, some of them paid as much as 6 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was the duty of the Government to take the matter into their own hands, and virtually to make the people of England responsible for this debt. He did not know the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents on this point, but the mass of the people of this country would be, he thought, disappointed at the change of Government if the first act of the new Ministry were to introduce a Bill to make this country responsible for the debt of India. On a former occasion a misunderstanding had taken place on this subject. It was then believed by some that there must be some moral responsibility on the part of the Government for the debt of India if this Bill passed. They thought that, in the event of the Indian revenue failing, the Government might be made responsible; but there was not the slightest foundation for such apprehensions. This bad been clearly explained by the late President of the Board of Control, and the whole of this argument might at once fall to the ground. The question was very simple, The permission of the House was now asked to enable the East India Company to raise the sum of £8,000,000 on the credit of the revenue of India. There was no doubt the revenue of India would be perfectly able to provide for the debt. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Perry) declared that the revenue of India was a fixed revenue, which he denied. It was liable to change, like all other revenues; but it was perfectly competent to bear this charge. The House was asked to give the East India Company permission to raise money in England for the very obvious reason, that the money could be obtained with much greater facility at pre- sent in England than in India. The East India Company already possessed the power of borrowing money on loan in India, and in ordinary times they were able to raise money there to any extent without coming to Parliament. Under these circumstances, and considering the great exigency of the public service, he trusted that no further obstacles would be made to the passing of this Bill.

said, he trusted that there would be no objection on the part of the Government to the insertion of a clause securing that returns should be made to Parliament of the sums raised under this Bill. He would not go into the question whether the British Ex. chequer ought to be liable for Indian expenditure, but we had one foot in the water, and whenever it was brought out, he was afraid we should slip into these liabilities. The debt of India rested on promissory notes, the security for which was the property of the East India Company, and if Parliament took the Government of India upon itself and with it the property of the Company, they must put something in its stead, he should move the insertion of the following clause after Clause 10.

" Provided always and he it enacted, that on or before the 1st of February in each year, the Court of Directors of the East India Company, under such direction and control as aforesaid, shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a return of all moneys raised on loan under the provisions of this Act, and of the expenditure thereof; also, a return of all stocks, loans, debts, and liabilities, then chargeable on the East India revenues at homo and abroad, up to the latest period of time to which such return can be made out. That all such returns shall be presented to both Houses of Parliament on or before the 1st day of February in each year, if Parliament is then sitting; and if Parliament is not sitting, then such returns shall be presented within ten days of the first meeting of Parliament after the 1st day of February in each year."

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) as he understood him, wished to persuade the House to lend the Imperial credit to the Government of India, in addition to the security afforded by the territorial revenues of that country, in order to enable the Court of Directors to borrow the money of which they stand in need on the most favourable terms. But he took a very odd course to induce the House to adopt that stop; for he proceeded to show that the Government of India was entirely insol- vent, that its revenue could not possibly be increased beyond its present point, that that was a chronic! deficiency, and that that Government could only exist by a continual system of borrowing. Those assertions, if true, were not calculated to persuade the House to agree to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal to make the English Exchequer responsible for the Indian debt. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman's figures presented the appearance of the insolvency he asserted, but it so happened that those figures were not correct. The hon. and learned Gentleman asserted, that the total debt of India amounted to £120,000,000. The fact was, that in round numbers the Indian debt, including all that was known of the receipts of the loan now open in India up to last December, amounted to £53,842,000. Then there was the capital stock of the Company, amounting to £12,000,000, but against that there was a guarantee fund of £4,500,000, which would go on accumulating until 1874, when the debt would be paid, at which time the sum of £7,700,000 would be available towards meeting that debt. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had made no rebate on that account. The bond debt of the Company in this country was only £5,885,000, so that the whole debt of India, except the £12,000,000, was under £60,000,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman then estimated the deficiency of the present financial year in India at £7,500,000, to which he had added £20,000,000 as the expenditure of the war. But surely the £7,500,000 ought to be deducted from that sum, of which it is, in fact, a constituent part. Then he had added £20,000,000 to the debt on the ground of railway guarantees. But he must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the small portion of the Calcutta Railway now open paid 6 per cent, which was 1 per cent over the guarantee. That portion of the Bombay Rail way now open paid 4½ per cent, which was within half per cent of the guarantee. Those best acquainted with the facts of the case, who knew how cheaply Indian railroads were made — at an expense of £6,000 per mile, for instance as compared with an average of some £40,000 or £50,000 per mile in England—were convinced that, instead of proving a burden on the State, the railways could greatly increase its resources. His hon. and learned Friend said, that the revenue of India was so utterly unelastic that it was quite im- possible to look for any increase; and in the same breath be referred to the greatly increased and still increasing trade of the country, as if that would not produce any increase of revenue. His bon. and- learned Friend spoke of what he termed the chronic deficiency; but the fact was, that with the exception of £200,000 or £300,000, the deficiency, during the last three or four years before the mutiny, was entirely caused by the expenditure on public works, many of which were of a reproductive character; and even those public works which did not seem to partake of that description, such as the barracks, would indirectly save future expenditure by preserving the valuable lives of European soldiers. His hon. and learned Friend had defied contradiction, but he thought he had shown that in facts and figures the hon. and learned Gentleman had laid an erroneous estimate before the House. He would not enter into what had been called the controversial clause, because it appeared to be the general opinion that it should be struck out; but he bad very high legal authority for stating that there was nothing now to prevent the Indian Government, if they pleased, opening a loan in the European markets; and that such a course could not be prevented except by passing an Act positively prohibiting it. It was nothing more than what the Government of Canada and other colonies were continually doing. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken as if the Home Government had no expenses of their own to bear, and no need of money at present except to repay Her Majesty's Government. They had usually received large remittances from India to pay the half-pay and retired allowances in this country and many other charges; but those remittances, amounting to £4,000,000 a year had ceased under existing circumstances in India, and the expenses, not merely the expenses of the troops, but all the ordinary home charges must be defrayed out of the proceeds of the loan which this Bill would enable the Company to raise.

said, it was true that the proprietors of Indian railways had the power of throwing the undertakings upon the East India Company, and receiving back their capital at any time, although they were not likely to do so, as he could confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) that the railway Companies were generally earning a dividend in excess of the guarantees.

thought it ought to be placed on record that the reason why the East India Company was compelled to resort to this country for a loan, was not owing to the mutiny, but because it had lost the confidence of the Native and other resident capitalists, by its utter want of good faith on a former occasion. A few years ago it was proclaimed in Parliament that the East India Company could obtain any amount of money they might require in India itself, and on quite as good terms as in the London market, and such was the case. But in 1853, under the administration of Lord Dalhousie, the fundholders were induced to assent to a conversion of the 5 per cent loan into a 4 per cent under the false pretence, which was officially circulated in the Government organ, the Friend of India, that the Company had superabundant funds in hand to any off all dissident fundholders. He said, this conversion was effected under false pretences advisedly, because the Government organ proclaimed that the treasure actually in hand amounted to £17,000,000 sterling, and that the annual revenue was more than one million in excess of the expenditure. It was also alleged that the normal interest of the Indian debt could never be more than 4 percent, and most likely would soon be 3½ per cent. This went on throughout 1854, and Sir Charles Wood (the then President of the Board of Control) confirmed and triumphantly referred to the saving which had been effected of £330,000; per annum by this conversion, in his speech on the presentation of the Indian Budget, on the 8th of August in that year. Sir Charles Wood said—

"I am happy to think that this is a satisfactory operation in the face of one war (Burmese) just terminated, and a general war just commencing. These facts prove the stability of the Indian finances."

Incredible as it may appear, yet it is not the less true, that in the following year— six months only after this glowing panegyric on Indian finance—and without any unforeseen event or catastrophe, the Company was reduced to such straits that it was compelled to become a borrower, and at the rate of 5 per cent. To mask the bad faith it had shown in the previous con- version, and, if possible, to conceal its poverty, the new 5 per cent loan was announced as a public works' loan for £2,750,000. The dismay and astonishment this announcement created, may be understood when it is said that the 4 per cent loan fell immediately to 20 per cent discount. This was an actual loss to the fundholders of the converted 4 per cent loan of £7,000,000 sterling. But the worst part of this extraordinary transaction is yet to be named. It was subsequently admitted that the finances of India were never in the condition to justify the conversion, and, moreover, the published Minutes of the Supreme Council of the 12th March, 1855, demonstrated that the public works' loan was necessitated (not for the object it professed to be raised), but to provide for the most urgent exigencies of the general public service. After such a wholesale spoliation could it be surprising that Native capitalists had so small a faith in the Company's financial integrity? Native and English holders of East India funds implicitly relied on the official statements of superabundant assets in the Government treasuries, and assented to the original conversion. But it afterwards turned out that so far from the Company having such superabundant treasure and annual surplus, as alleged, they were really wanting ways and means, and hence were so soon after driven to open a fresh loan at 5 per cent, under the discreditable disguise of a "public works' loan." Thus this conversion of the 5 per cent stock to 4 per cent, under such circumstances, amounted virtually to a confiscation of £7,000,000 sterling, on the ground that the Company were perfectly able to pay off the debt which it was so soon after proved they were not then in a condition to do. He might cite many cases of great individual hardships to both Native and English holders of Indian Stock. He might refer to the privations which many widows and orphans had been exposed to by this despicable fiscal oppression. In former times the Native community much distrusted the Company's financial faith, hut this feeling was fast wearing away. For instance, he found that out of £23,000,000 of Indian debt, in 1834, only £7,000,000 was held by Natives, whilst in 1847, of the same amount of debt, as much as £13,000,000 was so held. The hardship of this trans-action was much aggravated to the Native mind, when it is remembered that allied, or rather dependent Princes are, as it were, coerced into being large holders of the Government Stocks. the late King of Oude was a holder to the extent of two millions sterling, many other Native Princes and Princesses of proportionately large amounts. To come nearer home he might refer to a case of a Life Insurance Company at Calcutta, (for the behoof of Europeans), and presided over by an honourable Friend, whom he did not then see in his place. This institution, in a very praiseworthy care for its constituents, had invested only in Government securities, and by this financial trickery of the Company were losers by the depreciation of their funds to the extent of £75,000 in one year. To show with what hot haste —despite the delays of the double Government—a bad measure could be carried out, the proposition of Lord Dalhousie to reduce the interest of the Indian debt was acceded to instanter by both the Court of Directors and the Board of Control here; and yet no agreement had yet been come to to carry out an imperial necessity—to wit—an electric telegraph communication with India. He (Mr. White) had only now to thank the House for its patient attention to the detail of an act of bad faith, such as people would sometimes be guilty of in their corporate, though they would shrink in horror from doing it in their private capacity.

I cannot assent to the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member that the financial question to which he alludes was an act of perfidy and spoliation. It was simply a conversion of a five per cent into a four per cent stock, it took place with the consent of the stockholders, who were offered the choice of receiving their money or a 4 per cent stock in lieu of it, so that nothing was done which, by the most perverse construction of the conduct of the Indian Government, can be described as an act of confiscation. Whether it was a successful financial operation is an entirely different question. It may not have turned out advantageously to the credit of the Indian Government, and, as often happens in such cases, the turn of the market may have been unfavourable to the conversion, and the reasonable expectations of those who designed it may have been disappointed. That may have occurred in the present case, but there has certainly been nothing in the affair to justify the very harsh manner in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken of it. I have no wish to prolong the discussion on this Bill, but I must protest against the doctrine of granting the Imperial guarantee in the case of India, of any of the colonies, or any public works without absolute necessity being proved with regard to the particular loan. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer listens to the claims which may be made upon him from all quarters for a Government guarantee to diminish the interest on the capital to be raised, — if he gives a guarantee for £10,000,000 one day to India, another day to a colony, and a third day to a project, say for cutting a great sewer through London, he will find that the national credit, which I am happy to say has been far superior to any private credit, and which during the late monetary crisis never underwent the smallest diminution, will not maintain its superiority. If the Imperial credit is given on all occasions without proof of absolute necessity, we shall no longer see the three per cents sticking at ninety-six and ninety-seven. In this case the absolute necessity has not been shown. The Indian bonds which bear interest at 4 per cent are now at a premium of from 25s. to 30s. and it is absurd, therefore, to say that the credit of India is so low as to require a national guarantee. There are very few of the continental Governments which could borrow money now at that rate. With regard to the hon. Baronet's clause, I see no objection to the first four lines, but this Bill is only intended to continue in force one year, so that it is scarcely necessary to call on the Directors to make a return year after year of their proceedings under it. As to the return of the manner in which the loan is expended, I do not believe it to be possible. The money will be paid into the Home Treasury, and it will be perfectly impossible to discriminate between the expenditure of the loan and of the other moneys arising from the usual sources of revenue, which are also paid into the homo Treasury. As to the last return, I believe if the hon. Baronet will look into the documents on the table of the House he will find that it has already been given in them.

said, that he (Colonel Sykes) had not anticipated the attack of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. White), and he must therefore speak from recollection instead of from actual documents; but when the conversion alluded to was made, there was £16,000,000 in the Indian treasury to meet £8,000,000, so that there was an actual disposable balance of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. Money was to be had in the Calcutta market at 4 per cent., and the 5 per cents. had risen to par, consequently it was an act of duty on the part of the Government to reduce the interest on the debt. The plan they had adopted was in accordance with the precedents in this country. It was perfectly optional with the stockholders whether they would take their money in full, or accept a lower rate of interest, and a considerable amount was actually paid off. The operation was legitimate, equitable, and necessary. But then the House of Commons interfered, calling for more public works, although £1,000,000 a year was actually spent on them, and the Government of India, without any surplus revenue, had to undertake an expenditure of £2,500,000, for public works. Then the Burmese War breaking out a loan became necessary, and this could not be raised at a less rate than 5 per cent.

said, that he considered that the House had departed in this discussion from the original object of the Motion before them. The wants of the East India Company at present could not exceed £3,000,000, and he thought that the House would exercise a wise discretion in now assenting to a grant to such an extent as was absolutely necessary. If this were done, he had no doubt that when the new Government of India should be settled they would be enabled to borrow on better terms than they could do at present, for the announcement of the intention of the Government to assume the powers of the East India Company had already caused a rise in their paper of 5 or 6 per cent.

observed, that he thought that his right hon. Friend had fallen into an error in stating that the Act would only remain in force for one year; because the fact was that it remained in force for perpetuity, and operations might take place under it from year to year. He hoped that before long the Estimates for India would be brought before the House every Session in the same way as the other Estimates, for he was satisfied that that would be the only effectual mode of cheeking the gross mismanagement which at present pervaded the whole system of Indian finance.

said, that the Bill as regarded its borrowing powers was only to last one year—until the 30th of April, 1859, and there was no power of borrowing an additional sum after that date. It was true that Bills issued before that time could be re-issued; but that was merely keeping the same instruments in force, and was incurring no new debt. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would consent to omit from his clause the words "and of the expenditure thereof."

observed that, he looked upon those words as very important, and felt inclined to adhere to them.

said, that the Indian Government would render an account of the expenditure generally; but there would be no distinction between payments which were made out of loans and payments out of other revenues. That was not the way in which the accounts were kept, and it would be utterly impossible that the wish of the hon. Baronet in this respect, could be complied with. It was then agreed to omit the words in question, and the Clause, as amended; was added to the Bill.

said, he concluded that the Government intended to bring in a Bill of their own upon this subject. He was unwilling, however, to drop the present measure until the House should be able to see the Bill which the Government intended to introduce. He should therefore propose to postpone this Motion to an early day after Easter, by which time he presumed that the Government would have matured their plan, and have laid it before the House. He moved, therefore, that the second reading be postponed till Thursday, the 22nd April.

seconded the Motion.

said, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill, but to express his obligation to the noble Lord for the great pains which he had bestowed upon the subject. He, however, could not pledge his support to all the details of the Bill. He was not opposed to road reform, but thought that much improvement might be effected by the consolidation of trusts and other measures tending to obviate unnecessary expense. He feared, moreover, that however objectionable might be the system of levying tolls, very great difficulty would be experienced when they came to the question of assessments.

expressed his satisfaction that the noble Lord (Elcho) had given so much attention to this important subject. The system of tolls levied on roads was a very great evil, and he thought that in this matter England was far behind Ireland.

said the Government would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he must refuse to pledge himself to support it at a future stage.

said, he rose to move that the petition of John I Joseph Scully presented to that House on the 18th day of August last, complaining that general and extensive bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Cashel, together with the recognizances entered into in respect of the same petition, and the report of the examiner of recognizances in respect of that recognizance, be referred to the General Committee of Elections. He brought the question forward unconnected with any party. The case was one of a petition presented just before the prorogation of Parliament, in which the proceedings were suspended by the prorogation. By 5 & 6 Vict., c. 102, petitions alleging general bribery were to be referred to the General Committee of Elections, and by the 5th section if Parliament was prorogued before any Election Committee was appointed, then the General Committee in the following Session, and within two days after the meeting of Parliament, were to appoint a Committee to try the petition. In this case the petition was presented on the 18th of August, and the recognizances were entered into on the 25th. On the 28th of August Parliament was prorogued. On the 10th of December the recognizances were reported to be unobjectionable, but the petition had not been referred to the General Committee. The General Committee was unaware of the existence of this petition, and it now became a question whether it could be referred to the General Committee, in order that they should appoint a Committee to try it. The lapse had not arisen from any fault of the petitioners, but from the laches of the House itself. Though the Act required the General Committee within two days after the meeting of Parliament to appoint a Committee, yet it provided no time within which the House should refer such a petition to the General Committee of Elections, so that it was reduced to the question whether there was a power in the House of remedying its own laches. He mentioned the matter to the late Attorney General, who stated it as his opinion that the House did possess such a power. He knew nothing of the merits of the case.

said, there was a strong objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The petitioner had not complied with the 10th Section of 5 & 6 Vict., c. 102. By that section it was provided that on the recognizances being completed certain notices should be given to the parties, but these notices had been omitted to be given in the present case. Besides, there was no fair ground on which the petition could be proceeded with, and no injustice would be done to the petitioner. Under all the circumstances of the case he did not think it advisable that the House should take on itself a power never exercised before, and make a new law for a particular case.

contended that under the 4th section of the Act, the petition when presented to the House should have been referred to the General Committee of Elections; it was now too late to do so. Another objection was, that the parties had been deprived of the opportunity of objecting to the recognizances.

suggested, that as the House had been taken by surprise, and then made acquainted for the first time with the facts of the case, the matter had better be referred to the General Committee of Elections to inquire and report on the facts.

said, that on behalf of his relative, the Member for Cashel (Sir T. O'Brien) he had no objection to that course. He was prepared to give a complete answer to the allegation of the petitioner.

consented to withdraw his Motion.

then moved, "that it be referred to the General Committee of Elections to inquire into the facts connected with the petition of J. J. Scully, presented on the 18th of August last, and report thereon to the House."

said, he rose to move for a copy of the instructions given by the Comptroller of the Stationery Office for the compilation and publication of a map of the Probate Districts of England. He should also be glad if he could obtain a copy of any correspondence which may have passed between the Comptroller of the Stationery Office and the Judge of the Probate Court, as to the alteration of the boundaries of the Probate Districts defined by the Act 20 & 21 Vict, c. 77, and the authority for the alteration in the bounda- ries of the Probate Districts in the map said to be compiled by order of the Stationery Office.

said, no such instructions had ever been issued, and no such correspondence as was referred to had taken place. The alteration referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been made by the publisher on his own authority, without any reference to the Stationery Office.

said, that in the maps issued to the different courts the boundaries were wrongly laid down. When the vote for the Stationery Office came before the House he would call attention to the case.

said, he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, more especially as he understood its operation was to be confined to ascertaining the amount of acreage. That was the information there would be the least objection to give. He should, however, reserve to himself the right to oppose the measure at a future stage, if he did not approve of its provisions.

said, the Bill of last Session contained a clause authorizing certain official persons, in case of refusal to make a return, to enter upon the land of occupiers in the month of June, and if this Bill contained any similar clause he should give it his most determined opposition.

said, the Hill of last Session was so objectionable that any Bill emau- ating from the same quarter would naturally be looked upon by agriculturists gene- rally with suspicion; but as he understood that the most objectionable parts of the former Bill were omitted in the present one, he was prepared to give the measure his best consideration.

said, he also objected in the strongest manner to the clause alluded to by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. He could imagine nothing more compulsory than that clause, and unless it was expunged he should give his uncompromising opposition. Indeed, he considered it a complete waste of time to discuss such a Bill at all, and regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had assented to its introduction.