Mr. Speaker, with your permission I hope the House will allow me to correct an erroneous statement which was made by me on Tuesday last, when the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) brought forward his Motion. On that occasion I enumerated several distinguished Members of this House who, as I believed, had filled the position of Colonial Agents, receiving payment for their services. Among others I mentioned the name of the late Sir James Mackintosh. I have reason to believe that that statement was erroneous. To the best of my knowledge, one of the Canadian Chambers, shortly before the year 1830, did come to a vote offering the agency in question to Sir James Mackintosh. The other Chamber, however, did not concur in that vote. The offer was never made and never accepted; consequently, the late Sir James Mackintosh was never the paid Agent of the colony. I very much regret that I made a statement which was erroneous: not that I conceive that it detracts in the least degree from the character of that eminent man, whose reputation for disinterested virtue was of the purest and most exalted nature. I made the statement believing it to be correct. I am sorry that it was erroneous; and I make this correction at the earliest opportunity I could avail myself of, with the utmost pleasure.

said, that although the answer to the question of which he had given notice had to some extent been anticipated by what occurred in the House of Lords last night, he would nevertheless ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether any definite arrangement has been made for securing to the public the benefit of improved communication between London and Dublin; and if not, whether there is any immediate prospect of any such arrangement being concluded?

said that, in consequence of the circumstances to which his hon. and learned Friend had referred, he should state in as few words as possible what was the present position of this most important subject. The House was not aware that, for a considerable time past, the question of improved postal and general communication between London and Ireland had engaged a large share of public attention and interest, and that several Committees of that House had sat and inquired into the subject; but in order to effect this desirable result, the co-operation of three companies was rendered necessary, namely, the London and North Western Railway Company, the Chester and Holy-head Railway Company, and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, which latter company had an unexpired contract for the conveyance of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown. In the year 1855 an Act was passed, authorising the arrangements then proposed. That Act recited that it would greatly facilitate the postal service and the convenient transmission of passengers if those three companies were enabled to provide larger and more powerful steamers, and powers were given for that purpose, and clauses introduced for the protection of the public. After considerable negotiations, in the course of last year an arrangement was made between Her Majesty's Government and the three companies by which this important object was likely to he accomplished, and in the month of February last the draft of a contract for carrying out the arrangement was prepared by the Post Office and forwarded to the three companies. There being three parties concerned, and the draft of the contract being necessarily very long, inasmuch, as it had to be framed with reference to several Acts of Parliament, time was requisite in order that the companies should have sufficient opportunity of considering the details of the contract. The contract had not, therefore, as yet been received by the Post Office from the companies; but he had every reason to believe that it had passed the boards of the several companies, and that not many days would elapse before the draft, with the observations of the different parties thereon, would be returned. He was not at present aware that there was any serious difficulty in the way of accomplishing the object in view. It was true that there was a Bill before that House, the passing of which Would no doubt facilitate the amalgamation or arrangement between the London and North Western Company and the Chester and Holyhead Company; but the passing of that Bill was not absolutely essential to the accomplishment of the object; and he had every reason to believe that in a very short time decided steps would be taken for the purpose. In the meantime, he ought, perhaps, to state that the largo vessels required were actually in course of construction. Another point which had been referred to by an hon. Gentleman a few evenings ago, was the state of the pier at Kingstown. By the existing law that pier was under the control of the Board of Works in Ireland. He was aware of the inconvenience to which parties were subjected, and he would communicate with the Board and see if some temporary arrangement could not be made by which that grievance might in some degree be remedied.

said, he would bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has as yet received the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject of the Cagliari; and if so, whether he can state to the House what course the Government intends to pursue?

Sir, in the matter of the Cagliari there are two questions involved which are really distinct from each other. The one is, what I may call the national question, the other the international question. The first concerns the treatment to which our two countrymen, Park and Watt, have been subjected; and with respect to that question we have received the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, and their opinions on the subject are unanimous. They are of opinion that the detention and imprisonment of Park and Watt were illegal; and in consequence of having received that opinion, and after giving to it ourselves all that deliberation which so serious a matter required, we have addressed a despatch to the Minister of the King of Naples, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has demanded compensation for the grievances which have been experienced by our two countrymen, Park and Watt. With regard to the international question, that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well understands.; is a question quite distinct from the other—a separate one, in which England is only interested the same as all other maritime nations are. Upon that question we have not yet received the opinions of the Crown Officers; but, in explanation of what might otherwise appear to be an unaccountable delay, I may remind the House that I have already informed them that on Saturday last very important documents were received by Her Majesty's Government bearing upon that question. They were submitted to the Attorney General and his colleague, but the time of the Attorney General has been so completely absorbed, as the House is well aware, during the last few days, in the conduct of the State trial which is now going on, that it has not been possible for him to give to those documents all the consideration to which they are entitled.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to lay the documents to which he has alluded on the table of the House?

I think it would be very inconvenient at this moment to lay any of them upon the table, but on the right occasion they shall all be produced.

said, he would now beg to inquire whether the claims of the Proctors for compensation under the Acts of last Session, and which the light hon. Gentleman has stated amounted to £250,000, were £250,000 in gross or per annum?

replied, that the claims amounted to £250,000 per annum. A certain number of claims had been sent in, but the number was by no moans complete, and if a Return were made such as that for the production of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice, the result would be quite deceptive and fallacious. Of course the Treasury, upon the Returns already made, and the provisions contained in the new law, had been forced to form an estimate; and their estimate was that the claims of the Proctors would amount to the sum of £250,000 per annum for several years to come.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War, whether the Government have appointed a Committee to investigate the Report made by the Barrack and Hospital Commissioners upon Netley Hospital; and if so, whether they are prepared to present to the House the Report of this Committee at the same time as they lay the Report of the Barrack Commissioners upon the table of the House.

Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would state at the same time whether the works are suspended or not; and if there are any objections to placing in the library of this House the last plans upon which the erection of the Hospital was proceeding.

said, he was extremely sorry to say that there were contradictory Reports upon the subject. One Report condemned the site, the construction of the Hospital, and everything connected with it. That Report he had submitted to the Committee begging them to make what remarks they might think proper upon it, and they had formally reported accordingly. The first recommendation they made was that a Board of Medical Officers should be sent down for the purpose of giving an opinion with regard to the site, the construction, and the other matters connected with it; and in the absence of his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert), who had taken a deep interest in the question, he had thought proper to submit to him a list of eminent medical men to whom he proposed to entrust the duty. He had not, however, received an answer from his right hon. Friend; but the instant he did so, he should send down the Medical Board to investigate the matter and make a Report, In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tito), he begged to state that the works had for the present been suspended, and that there was no objection to supply the plans to the library.

moved that the House at rising adjourn till Monday.

rose to ask the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) if he would have any objection in the present position of the question of Parliamentary Reform, to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Bill for the amendment of the Laws relating to the Representation referred to in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the present Session? In his (Mr. Duncombe's) opinion the question of Parliamentary Reform was in a very unsatisfactory position. He did not remember any question with regard to which the House of Commons and past Governments, and even the Sovereign, had been placed in so false a position as that of Parliamentary Reform. In 1852, when the noble Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), who was then Prime Minister, abandoned the finality principle, he advised Her Majesty to say in Her gracious Speech from the Throne,—

"It appears to me that this is a fitting time for calmly considering whether it may not be advisable to make such amendments in the Act of the late reign, relating to the representation of the Commons in Parliament, as may be deemed calculated to carry into more complete effect the principles upon which that law is founded."

In pursuance of that pledge the noble Lord certainly introduced a Reform Bill, but after doing so he retired from office, and the Bill then disappeared. The loss did not appear to have been great, for the Bill was not very acceptable either to the country or to Reformers in that House. So matters remained until 1854, when, under the Earl of Aberdeen's Government, that House, in their Address to Her Majesty, in answer to the Speech from the Throne, used this language: —

"We humbly thank your Majesty for informing us that measures will be submitted to us for the amendment of the laws relating to the representation of the Commons in Parliament."

The war with Russia was then going on, and it was thought advisable that the measure of Parliamentary Reform introduced by the noble Member for the City of London, as the leader of that House, should remain in abeyance during the continuance of the war. He believed the House adopted a wise decision upon that occasion. The question remained in this position until the commencement of the present Session, although during the last Session of Parliament several independent Members brought forward measures for effecting reforms in the representation. His hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) proposed two Bills with that object; Lord Ebury, who then represented Middlesex, brought forward a Bill on the subject; and he (Mr. Duncombe) also submitted to the House a measure for the more frequent registration of voters and relieving them from the payment of assessed taxes as a condition of registration. The postponement of these measures was then urged on the ground that the Government were pledged to introduce a Bill which would comprehend all the objects they proposed to accomplish. At the opening of the Session in December last, the House of Commons, in replying to the Speech from the Throne, said,—

"We humbly thank your Majesty for informing us that our attention will be called to the laws which regulate the representation of the people in Parliament, with a view to consider what amendments may be safely and beneficially made therein."

Parliamentary Reform and the Indian question were then the two most prominent features in Her Majesty's Speech. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had redeemed his pledge with respect to the government of India, and laid a Bill upon the table of the House. The next question, therefore, that should have come before them was Parliamentary Reform, and he (Mr. Duncombe) had now to ask the noble Lord whether, assuming that a Bill for Parliamentary Reform was ready, or all but ready, he would lay such Bill before the House? If the noble Lord did so, or if he could give such an explanation as to its details as would satisfy the House it would be evident that his Government had been in earnest on the subject. If the measure was ready, let it be brought forward at once. He knew this was an unusual—and might be an unprecedented request. But the House was in a very unusual and unprecedented position. An Indian Bill had been introduced by the late Government, which stood for a second reading. The present Government opposed the introduction of that Bill, and voted to a man that it was inexpedient to legislate upon the subject during the present Session. But what had the present Government done? They had also introduced an Indian Bill, although they voted some six weeks ago that it was inexpedient to legislate with respect to the government of India at this moment. Now, if the noble Member for Tiverton, would lay upon the table the Reform Bill which the late Government had ready, in all probability they would have another Bill on the subject from Her Majesty's present Government. At all events, if the Bill of the noble Member for Tiverton proves unsatisfactory, no doubt the noble Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) would kindly step forward, and would spread a feather-bed before the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon which his Bill might safely drop. The noble Lord at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby) had, in another place, very justly found fault with the constant mention of Parliamentary Reform in the Queen's Speeches for the last five or six years, while nothing had been done on the subject. The noble Lord said that it was most inconvenient to keep this subject "perpetually dangling before the Legislature;" but he added that he and his colleagues would do the House the favour to "look into the question." The noble Lord said:—

" I have felt it my duty, in conjunction with my colleagues, to look into this important question.] will not pledge either myself or them to introduce, cither now or within any very short period, a Bill upon this subject."—[3 Hansard, cxlix. 43.]

Well, then, where were they to look for the Reform Bill? Nobody could blame the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), or the noble Lord at the head of the Government, if they did not introduce n Bill on this subject. They were not pledged to do so; and he believed that the more they looked into the question the less they would like it, and that there was therefore little chance that any measure for the reform of the representation would be introduced by them. But was it fit and proper that such an important question should be left in this state, especially as they were told that Reformers formed a large majority of that House? For his own part he thought it was not; and if they were to go on in the same manner, and suffer themselves to be cajoled year after year, of course the present Government would not bring in a Bill next year, and that House would just be in the same position in which it was at that moment. He would venture to give this advice to the Earl of Derby, that unless he was prepared to bring in a Bill that would be satisfactory to the people, that would provide for a wide extension of the franchise, that would give protection to the voter, and that would equalize the representation by a redistribution of seats, he had better leave the question untouched, for it was utterly impossible that any measure which did not include such provisions could satisfy the just wants and expecta- tions of the people. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Duncombe) hoped the noble Member for Tiverton would lay upon the table the Bill referred to in the Speech from the Throne. If that measure were satisfactory, let them proceed with it; for Reformers were in a majority in that House, and could do what they liked. If it were a bad one, it would at all events servo as an index for future Governments, and teach them to avoid its objectionable features, and to frame a Bill more in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the people. He begged, therefore, to ask the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, "whether he would have any objection, in the present position of Parliamentary Reform, to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the Bill for the amendment of the laws relating to the representation referred to in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the present Session?"

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in stating that, in the lust Session of Parliament, the then existing Government did pledge themselves, and more than once, upon the occasions to which he refers, to propose a measure of Parliamentary Reform during the present Session. My hon. Friend, however, is technically not quite correct in his description of the manner in which that question was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the present Session, because the passage which he has just read did not indicate that any Bill was actually prepared, but simply stated that the attention of Parliament would be called to the subject-matter in question. Sir, it was our intention to have redeemed, in the course of the present Session, the pledge which we had thus given. There were two subjects of great importance with which we had to deal. One was the government of India; the other Parliamentary Reform. In considering which of the two was the more pressing and urgent in its nature, it was our deliberate opinion — in which we may have been right or wrong—that, from the circumstances of the moment, the arrangements for the future government of India called most urgently for the consideration of Parliament. We therefore devoted our attention in the first place to the preparation of a Bill upon that subject. We did not, however, abstain from also devoting our attention to the question of Parliamentary Reform. But the urgency of the Indian affair, and the interposition of that financial crisis which rendered necessary a Session of Parliament before Christmas, so far interfered as to prevent us from actually embodying, in the technical shape of a Bill, the arrangements which we should have been prepared to submit to Parliament. We obtained leave to introduce, and laid before this House, a Bill upon the subject of India. We expected—short-sighted mortals!—that we should also have the opportunity of presenting to the House a measure upon Parliamentary Reform. A majority of this House, however, determined that that should not be; and, by cutting short our official existence, appeared of opinion that it was not for us to have an opportunity, during this Session at least, of submitting for their consideration a Bill upon this question. We, of course, bowed to their decision; and we now sit on this side of the House, instead of occupying a responsible position on the other side of the table. In the first place, then, my answer to my hon. Friend is, that we did not so far embody our arrangements in the shape of a Bill as to be able, even if we thought it expedient upon constitutional grounds to do so, to lay a Reform Bill on the table of the House. But even if we had prepared a Bill, I very much doubt whether it would be the opinion of this House that a measure of such importance, and bearing upon matters of such great national interest, should be introduced from any quarter except by the responsible Ministers of the Crown. My hon. Friend says there is nothing to expect from the present Government. Now, I certainly understand what passed, on the occasion to which he alluded, in rather a different sense from my hon. Friend. I rather infer, from many things which have come to my knowledge, that the present Government do intend, in the course of the next Session, not only to consider the subject of Parliamentary Reform, but to submit to the House the result of their consideration in the shape of a Bill; and judging, among other things, from the communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Attorney General and his constituents, I should be led to infer that even out of office they did turn their minds very practically to the subject, and have made such progress in it that there can be little doubt that, in the course of the recess, those arrangements to which the Attorney General recommended the attention of his constituents will be embodied by the Government in the shape of a Bill for presentation to this House. I think, therefore, that my hon. Friend need not be under the alarm which he has expressed upon this question. I think he may, upon that point at least, repose confidence in the Government, and wait with patience until the next Session, which is to produce the fruit of their deliberation.

said, that recollecting the manner in which the noble Lord had always treated this question, he was not surprised to find that the Bill was not prepared; but he confessed he was not a little curious to know what the plan would have been. He hoped, however, as there was now no prospect of any measure of Parliamentary Reform this Session, that the two Bills which he had introduced last year, but which were postponed—one for the Extension of the Franchise, and the other for the Abolition of the Property Qualification, would meet with the support of the whole Liberal party.

said, he rose to inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether advantage will be taken of the opportunity afforded by the negotiations with the Chinese Government at Pekin for opening a way for British and Indian commerce into Thibet and other countries under the Chinese dominions beyond the Himalaya Mountains? At the time of Warren Hastings we were pushing a considerable trade in woolens in Central Asia; but since that time it had wholly ceased. But there were several circumstances that rendered it desirable that trade should be reopened. Among others, he might mention the cultivation of tea, which was every year extending along the foot of the Himalaya Mountains on the British territory, and for which a market might be found in Central Asia, where the natives were great consumers of tea. There was also great reason to believe that gold would be found in great quantities in Thibet. For these and other reasons he ventured to press this question on the consideration of the Government.

The fact is, that at present we, unfortunately, are engaged in no negotiations with the Court of Pekin. What may happen I cannot say; but we have as yet no means of carrying on any communication with the Chinese Government. The hon. Gentleman will remember, moreover, that when negotiations do take place they will be entered into in unison with three other Powers, and of course cur first endeavour will be to accomplish objects in which the three Powers are equally interested. I need not assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that as negotiations advance the Government, will be alive to the importance of the question which he has brought before the House, and that no opportunity will be lost by this or—I think I may say—by any British Government to assist the development of British commerce.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to put a question | to the Government respecting the effect of the New Passport Regulations in Belgium on British subjects, and to call the attention of the House to the inconveniences of the present system of the delivery of Passports by the Foreign Office. He understood it was the intention of the Government to make some communication to the House on the subject, and he wished, in the first place, to express his gratification at the great attention which the noble Lord the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs had given to this subject after the representations made by an independent Member of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Monckton Milnes) would be very glad to indulge in the anticipation that the reply to his present question would be altogether satisfactory, but he feared there would be no satisfactory solution of this question until the passport system was abolished altogether; but, if that could not be, he hoped the Foreign Office would not relax their efforts until the minimum of inconvenience and the least possible trouble resulted from them to the English traveller. Since he bad last addressed the House on the subject, the French Government had made a certain relaxation in the oppressive restrictions at first laid down. It appeared from the papers that a communication had been made to our Foreign Office, stating that competent authorities would be allowed for the future, as heretofore, to furnish to British subjects, resident in France, passports for travelling in the French territories, and also, in eases of great necessity, for their return to England. He might observe, however, that doubts existed in the minds of some persons as to what was meant by "competent authorities." Did these words refer to French authorities or to the English consuls resident in France? It was greatly to be regretted that the unwise policy which France had adopted on this question bad effected the conduct of another country with which we were most closely connected. He felt assured that the House would do him the justice to suppose that he did not wish to speak with the slightest disrespect of Belgium, but he must, nevertheless, say that it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that the Government of that country should have imposed restrictions with respect to the granting of passports quite as objectionable as those which had been laid down by the French Government. Until within the last few days nothing could be more free than was the intercourse between England and Belgium. An Englishman wishing to visit that country might have obtained a Foreign-office passport, and have it visé, by a Belgian consul here, and all those who happened to be summoned thither by any sudden emergency might procure a passport from the Belgian Consul for a very small fee, by means of which he would be enabled to proceed to his destination. Now, however, without even that shadow of provocation which the French Government could allege, the Belgian Government had thought proper to depart from the liberal system formerly existing, and no person was allowed to land in Belgium unless he happened to possess a Foreign-office passport; while no Englishman who was residing in that country, and who wished to go elsewhere, could do so without obtaining a Foreign-office passport from London. He regretted extremely to find that such obstacles had been thrown in the way of our intercourse in that country, in as much as it bad hitherto been of the most intimate and cordial character. A great number of English children were constantly sent to Belgium to school, while the English population in all its great towns was very considerable. It was under those circumstances he thought it extremely desirable that we should endeavour to remove the impediments which had been recently thrown in the way of the continuance of so desirable a state of things, while he entirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), that the best mode of seeking to bring about that result would be by making representations of the most respectful character to the Belgian Government upon the subject. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would not fail to take that course, and it might, he thought, do so in a tone somewhat different from that which it might use towards Franco, inasmuch as the latter country, owing to the attempt which had lately been made on the life of the Emperor, had political reasons to urge in defence of its policy with reference to the system of passports, which in the case of Belgium could have no place. With respect to the general question of passports between England and both those countries, it was his opinion that we ought not to be content until we had returned to the system which until a recent period prevailed. Since the year 1815, up to within the last few weeks, Englishmen might pass over to either France or Belgium without being subjected to any considerable inconvenience, and he trusted that state of things would soon be re-established, and that persons who happened to be called abroad upon a sudden emergency would, for as short a time as possible, be subjected to the annoyance to which the recent regulations in reference to passports exposed them. Those regulations contained no provision to meet the case of the shipowner whose vessel might be stranded on the French or Belgian coast, and to whom t might be of the utmost importance to proceed to the scene of the disaster, without delay; nor did they continue to the different English yacht clubs that privilege of entering a French port, untrammeled by passport regulations, which those clubs had hitherto enjoyed. He trusted Her Majesty's Ministers would not lose sight of those facts, but that they would exercise all their energies to place those passport regulations upon a more satisfactory footing. In his Sentimental Journey, Sterne made use of an expression, to the effect that, having been asked for his passport, and not finding one, he had then, for the first time, recollected that this country was at war with France, showing that up to a comparatively late period no such documents were required, except as safe-conducts during time of war. He wished he could see a reasonable prospect of our being able to return to so desirable a state of things, and he might add that he derived the utmost satisfaction from the statement which had been made by a noble Lord, in another place (the Earl of Malmesbury), the evening before, to the effect that the Emperor of the French was not favourable to the passport system, and maintained it solely in obedience to those official influences by which every Government was more or less hampered in the attempt to effect any great reform.

was understood to observe that he would reply to points touched by the hon. Gentleman, in the order in which he had put them. First, then, with reference to the complaint that nothing had been done by the Foreign Office, with respect to the granting of passports to meet those cases of sudden emergency which arose from time to time, and the hardships connected with which the hon. Gentleman had, upon a former occasion, so fully detailed to the House, he had to reply that the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman had called the attention of the Government did not really exist, inasmuch as if application were made, even at the present moment, by any person making a statement to the effect that a relative was upon the point of death, either in Franco or Belgium, or that any other circumstance of great emergency called him abroad, to the Foreign Office for a passport, that application would, without any recommendation whatsoever, at once be complied with. In reference to the case of the English yacht clubs, to which the hon. Member alluded, he could only say that a request had been made to the French Government to extend to these clubs the same privileges, in reference to passports, which they had for so many years continued to enjoy. To that request a refusal had, in the first instance, been returned; but the British ambassador at Paris had represented in so strong a manner the inconveniences which would be the result of that refusal, that Count Walewski had undertaken to reconsider the question, and had asked for those documents upon which the members of the yacht clubs founded their right to land in France, unrestricted by passport regulations. Those papers had accordingly been forwarded to him; and Her Majesty's Government were in expectation of an immediate reply from the French Government upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman also spoke with something like anger of the course which had been recently adopted by the Belgian Government. It was quite true that, within the last two or three days, Her Majesty's Ministers had received intimation that the Belgian consuls would not be allowed henceforth to issue passports to British subjects who were desirous of going abroad, but that circumstance would not be productive of so much inconvenience as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose. It was true, indeed, that British subjects, who merely intended to proceed to Belgium, would not have the facilities afforded them which they enjoyed under the old system; but, in the case of that numerous class who went to Belgium, intending to pass through to France, the hardship would not be felt, because, according to the recent regulations of the French Government, English subjects, provided only with Belgian passports, would not be allowed to cross the French frontier. The hardships of the case were, not, therefore, quite so great as the hon. Gentleman would lead the House to infer. Hon. Members were, he had no doubt, aware, by means of the ordinary channels of information, of the steps which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government to obviate the inconveniences which had been found to arise from the narrowness of the circle within which recommendations for passports could be obtained, and that the power of granting a recommendation for a passport had been extended to barristers, solicitors, physicians, surgeons, clergymen—in short, to almost everybody who happened to occupy a respectable position in society. All that the Government required, in order to grant a passport, was a certificate of the identity of the person who wished to obtain it; and he might add that passports would for the future be issued at a cost of 2s. each. He, for one, should be very glad that they could be furnished for a less sum; but, as it was important they should be issued upon stamped paper, in order to avoid fraud, he was afraid the expense could not well he diminished. He might also state that agents would be appointed, for the issue of passports, at Dovor, Folkestone, Southampton, Newhaven, and Liverpool; there were also to be agents at one or two points on the eastern coast, and, in fact, at any other of our ports at which it was found expedient that they should be established. The French Government, he might add, had, upon their side, appointed French agents to visé passports at some of the ports at which they were to be issued; and he trusted those arrangements would diminish, as much as possible, the inconveniences which the necessity of procuring these objectionable documents must always impose.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Home Depart- ment, whether there will be any objection to giving directions that a record should be kept of the Nations to which each Prisoner charged at the Metropolitan Police Courts belongs? The noble Lord said his reason for asking this question was, that some weeks ago he applied for a return of the nationality of prisoners who had been charged, and found that no records had been kept. He believed that the crimes committed by foreigners were increasing very rapidly, and probably the state of things on the Continent would, by driving destitute refugees to this country, create a necessity for special action in reference to this subject.

said, the noble Lord had correctly stated that there were at present no records like those which he desired to obtain, but he believed there would be no difficulty in securing such records in future, and he would take steps with a view to the attainment of the object.

said, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what steps, if any, have been taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works towards the formation of Finsbury Park. An Act of Parliament was passed last year authorizing the formation of a park, but nothing appeared to have been done, and, as the Board of Works had been originally opposed to the scheme, the inhabitants of Finsbury were apprehensive lest the Act should be allowed to remain a dead letter. It was true that money had been for a time difficult to raise, but it was plentiful and cheap at present, and it was desirable that the matter should be proceeded with at once, for the 250 acres which last year could have been bought for £150,000 were daily increasing in value. The noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) had been good enough to intimate that he would give an answer to this question when he replied to another which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) was about to put to him.

said, he rose to put a question to the First Commissioner of Works relative to the intended alterations ill the Green Park. In ordinary cases he should have postponed his question until the Estimates came before the House, but were he to do so in the present instance he would then probably find that the mischief which he was anxious to avoid had been effected. They had already a specimen of the so-called "improvements" of the Board of Works in the iron bridge across the ornamental water in St. James's Park. It would be remembered that two years ago his right hon. Friend who then presided over that Department (Sir B. Hall) proposed to make a carriage-road across that park. That proposition was rejected; but in the Committee, by the casting vote of the right hon. Baronet himself, it was agreed to form an iron bridge across the lake. That scheme met with considerable resistance, and it was only by a small majority that it received the sanction of that House, a result which was mainly owing to the influence of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, (Viscount Palmerston) who warmly supported the proposition by a speech made in his usual taking manner. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed his opinion that the projected improvement would convert one ornamental lake into two ugly ponds. On the other hand, the noble Lord opposite contended that the bridge would be a great improvement, observing that everybody knew that the line described by a flexible body suspended between two fixed points was very much admired, as the catenarian curve or line of beauty; and from that proposition the noble Lord proceeded to deduce the corollary that a suspension-bridge in St. James's Park must be an exceedingly handsome structure, and one which must give delight to every man of taste. He (Lord Elcho) was aware that the noble Lord, having already spoken upon the question of adjournment, could not again address the House, but it would be very desirable to know whether, having seen the result of his speech, the noble Lord was satisfied with the catenarian curve as exemplified in the bridge in St. James's Park, for no one else appeared to think that that catenarian curve was anything like the line of beauty. His (Lord Elcho's) own opinion was, that his right hon. Friend the late Chief Commissioner of Works (Sir B. Hall) might enjoy the satisfaction of having originated what was, without exception, the ugliest bridge ever made. He knew of nothing at all equal to it in ugliness, except, perhaps, the suspension-bridge which the Austrians had thrown across the Grand Canal at Venice, and which the natives of that city were careful to impress upon all beholders as the work of an Englishman. In the case of the bridge in St. James's Park he thought the name of the architect should be inscribed upon it, together with a statement that it was erected during the ædileship of his right hon. Friend. The history of that bridge showed how careful they should be not to allow any alteration to be commenced in the Parks without knowing what was really going to be done. The main argument in support of the construction of that bridge was the convenience it would afford to the public, and no doubt it was convenient, for it was strong enough to bear all the traffic of London; but he submitted that convenience was not the only thing to be considered. Now, with respect to the alterations which appeared to be contemplated in the Green Park, the inhabitants of that neighbourhood were surprised one morning to find two large circles marked out, one where the water formerly was, and the other nearer to Buckingham Palace. What those circles were intended for he could not tell. As the former decision of the House had been so much governed by a consideration of convenience, it had been thought that possibly those circles were intended to mark the sites of some buildings to be erected for the convenience of the public. Such an idea, however, was too monstrous to be entertained for a moment. The general belief was that it was intended to plant two shrubberies or clumps of trees on the spots which wore marked out, but he thought there could not be a greater mistake than to plant shrubberies in London. As a general rule they were complete failures, and it was the absence of shrubs which caused Berkeley Square to be so much more admired than other squares. If any objection could be taken to the administration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) it was his too great fondness for shrubberies. He thought these shrubberies in London ought to be carefully avoided; but if there was one place more than another where they ought to be avoided, it was the spot where it seemed to be intended to plant them, in the Green Park. The open space there was already sufficiently contracted. It formed a green slope of grass, intersected by numerous roads; and if, in addition to these, a portion of the ground was to be taken up with shrubbery, the park would be materially injured. He hoped, therefore, there was no authority for the statement that these shrubberies were to be planted there. They would interfere very much with the view from the houses there, and, what ought to be to them a matter of no small importance, they would interfere with the view from Buckingham Palace also. Before he sat down he must say that, though he had criticized what his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) had done with reference to the Bridge in St. James's Park, he was bound to say that in his opinion—and he believed it was the opinion of most Members of the House and of the public—his right hon. Friend had conducted the Department of which he was lately the head with great zeal and advantage to the community, and to the improvement, generally speaking, of the metropolis. He never rode along Rotten Row or drove round the park without hearing thanks expressed to his right hon. Friend for the improvements he had made and the liberal and enlarged views with which he had conducted the affairs of his department. With such an example before him, he hoped his noble Friend who was now at the head of that department would not inaugurate the commencement of his administration by giving his sanction to any alterations which would materially impair the appearance of the Green Park; and he had now to ask what were his intentions in the matter—whether any alterations wore proposed, and what the nature of those alterations was?

said, when the late change of Government took place, it was a matter of some surprise that the number of official legacies left by the late Ministry to their successors were so few; but he was bound to say that, in so far as the department over which he had the honour to preside was concerned, that remark did not apply. In that department the activity and energy of the right hon. Baronet opposite had left various matters for consideration, and among others that to which his noble Friend had referred. His attention having been drawn to the subject, he directed that certain stakes should be put up, in order that the public might more accurately see what would be the effect of the shrubberies if planted in these localities. He took an early opportunity to satisfy himself upon the subject, and he had no hesitation in stating that the result of his examination was that he had come to the same conclusion that his noble Friend had arrived fit. He had therefore no intention of asking the sanction of Parliament for the plantation of any such shrubberies. It was unnecessary for him to make any further comment on the amusing speech of his noble Friend, except to say that he concurred in the views he had expressed on the subject of the bridge in St. James's Park. With reference to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox), he had to inform him that in the business of his department he had very little to do with the Metropolitan Board of Works. On seeing, however, that the hon. Gentleman had given notice of this question, he communicated with the Chairman of the Board on the subject, and had received the following reply: —

" 1, Greek Street, Soho, April 15.

"Sir,—I am desired by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works to inform you, in reply to the inquiry in your letter of the 14th inst., that the Hoard have not yet taken any active steps for putting in force the provisions of the Finsbury Park Act. The Board have hitherto proceeded upon the principle of not subjecting themselves to the obligations attending the commencement of measures of public improvement until they have made definite arrangements with respect to the necessary funds. They are now engaged in negotiating a loan to be applied to the formation of two important lines of thoroughfare for which a portion of the funds had already been provided by Parliament, and which, therefore, take precedence of the measure referred to; and as soon as that negotiation is concluded, probably the Board will proceed to take the subject of the Finsbury Park Act into consideration.

"I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

" E. H. WOOLRYCH, Clerk to the Board.

"Brinsley Marley, Esq., Office of Works, &c."

said, that he was anxious, after what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) to say a few words on this subject, especially as he had made a mistake with reference to what had occurred in the case of St. James's Park. The House was aware that a strong desire existed on the part of the public to have a medium of communication between the two sides of the ornamental water in the park, and that a Committee of that House was appointed to consider the subject. Various plans were laid before that Committee, one of which was to have a carriage ride across the park, but this proposal was rejected. The idea of a carriage ride having been rejected, the next question was whether or not a foot bridge should be carried across the water. That proposal was submitted to the Committee, and, as his noble Friend had said, it was carried by his casting vote as Chairman. It was supposed by some members of the Committee that the bridge was not wanted; but, in order to show how fallacious that impression was, he might state that the numbers who passed over the bridge soon after its completion on a short winter's day, when the weather was exceedingly cold, had been counted, and they were found to amount to 37,300 persons. That fact sufficiently showed the necessity that existed for a bridge in that locality. With regard to the kind of bridge which had been erected, he begged to say that he was not in favour of a suspension bridge in the first instance. The House rejected the proposal which he made with reference to a bridge, because it was not a suspension bridge, and directed that the bridge to be made should be of that nature. After that vote he sent for one of the most eminent professional men in England, the late Mr. Rendall, and got from him the plan of a bridge of as light a description as was consistent with safety. The bridge which had been erected was, of course, not such a structure as gentlemen would put up in their own parks, but they must consider the traffic which this bridge had to bear. Supposing they had put up a light bridge, which could not have borne the traffic that went over it—amounting, as he had shown, to 37,000 persons in one day— and which would not have been strong enough for the great weight that came upon it, would they not have been justly blameable for having made fin insufficient structure? The bridge was found to suit the purpose for which it was intended, and was the design, as he had said, of that eminent engineer, the late Mr. Rendall. With respect to the shrubberies which he had formed—one from the Marble Arch to Victoria Gate; another, a narrow strip, beginning at Park Lane—both had been generally considered to be great improvements.

said, that having taken an interest in this subject in former times, he wished to say one or two words. He remembered when it was intended to plant a long line of shrubbery from the site of the old reservoir down to the Mall to prevent children playing before the great houses on the east side of the Green Park, and he had to get up almost an insurrection in the adjoining parishes before it was put a stop to. He agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) that every shrub, almost every tree planted in the Parks, so as to destroy one blade of grass, was a great nuisance; and though he was ready to pay his tribute to the great merit of the administration of his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall), he must say that there had been too much disposition to indulge in the taste of landscape gardening in the Parks. Nothing could be worse than the shrubbery planted in the Green Park, near Piccadilly last year, for they would intercept the view across the park; and he would say of trees and shrubs generally, in such positions, that so far from being desirable they only gathered the dust and smoke of the metropolis, and created damp, when what was wanted was pure fresh air. He wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) whether it would not be of advantage to remove the clump of laurels now planted in the centre of the park. The reason given for placing them there was that it was desirable to screen the houses from the view of the distinguished guests at the Palace: but there was not the slightest pretence for that assertion, which was only given to shelter the gentlemen, who indulged in these fancies, from the observations of the public.

said, he could corroborate the statements which had been made with respect to the effect of shrubberies in London, for the portion of Park Lane to the north of Stanhope Gate was dry when that to the south was wet, in consequence of the shrubbery being planted there. Nothing was of so much importance in the metropolis as plenty of fresh air and sun. The small plantation to which he alluded answered no purpose, except that of obstructing the air.

said, that having understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, upon a former occasion, that it was his intention to propose, on next Wednesday week, certain Resolutions relative to the government of India, he was anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman when Her Majesty's Government intend to lay upon the table of the House the promised Resolutions relative to the government of India. It was obviously desirable that they should be placed in the hands of hon. Members as soon as possible, in order to afford them an opportunity of considering them before they became the subject of discussion.

The Resolutions to which the hon. Member refers will certainly be laid on the table of the House at the latest on next Monday, and I trust they will be in the hands of hon. Members on the same day.

said, that he had been requested by the friends of some of the persons on board the transport ship Abeona to ask for an explanation of the circumstances under which that vessel was now at Kingstown.

said, he would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the course intended to be pursued with regard to the Army Estimates?

said, he also hoped that the Minister fur War would he able to tell the House what took the Abeona to Kingstown, where she was out of her course.

said, that the Abeona sailed from Gravesend on the 31st of March, with 750 men on board, for Calcutta. After her departure smallpox broke out on board. In consequence of this occurrence the vessel put back when ninety-six men were landed, and the remainder being free from the disease the vessel was ordered to put to sea again. In order to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of the malady, the vessel was ordered to Kingstown to be inspected by the medical officer there and the Commander in Chief, Lord Seaton. During the voyage to Kingstown two more cases broke out, but it might allay any alarm among the friends of those on board to state that since he had been in the House he had received a telegraphic measure from Dublin Castle, containing the certificate of the Medical Inspector General, who stated that he had inspected the transport ship Abeona, and had examined all on board. He found them all in good health, and free from any appearance of epidemic disease. He added that the vessel was now ready to proceed to sea. In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Captain, he had to state that, the House having voted the number of men for the army, he did not intend to make any general statement as to the Army Estimates that night, but should merely move a Vote for pay and allowances as a foundation for the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in bringing forward the Budget.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances connected with the failure of the Western. Bank of Scotland. He felt considerable diffidence in bringing before the House a question of such great importance to the commercial interests of the country, and he regretted that some hon. Member of commercial experience had not thought it his duty to bring forward this question, the more especially as no Scotch Member had taken it up. Indeed, he could only account for this apparent indifference to a subject so nearly affecting the interests of Scotland by attributing it to that strong feeling of nationality and implicit faith in the principles, upon which their banks were conducted, which characterised the representatives of that portion of the Kingdom. He earnestly trusted, however, that as there was a chance of the subject being now ventilated, those hon. Gentlemen would not abstain from taking a part in the discussion. The Western Bank of Scotland was established twenty-five years ago with a capital of £1,500,000. Soon, however, it had obtained deposits to the amount of £5,000,000. It had, moreover, the privilege of issuing bank notes to the amount of £337,000. By these means the company had at its command a sum amounting to £7,000,000. This sum was amply sufficient, but, notwithstanding these favourable auspices, it became obvious almost from the commencement of its proceedings, that its management was so badly conducted as to render ultimate success highly improbable, and this remark applied in an especial manner to the conduct of its affairs in the last ten years of its existence. He had received a document from one of the unfortunate victims of this bank—a gentleman of the highest respectability and social position in Scotland—setting forth the charges against the directors. The first charge was that, although the contract provided that as soon as one-fourth of the capital was lost, a meeting of the shareholders should be called, in order that the concern might be wound up, the bank was carried on for many years in defiance of this provision. The second charge was, that for many years bad and doubtful debts had been carried to credit as good assets, and balances struck on this footing; divi- dends had also been declared which had to be paid out of the capital. It was one of the gravest charges that could be made. The directors held out to the public that the bank was in a state of prosperity when they well knew it was insolvent, and to heighten the deception they declared a dividend of 9½ per cent., the consequence of which was that hundreds of people with small savings were tempted to invest, many of whom, since the bankruptcy, had become inmates of madhouses, and many more had been reduced to utter destitution. One gentleman had written to him stating that he had been induced by the directors' report to buy stock within a month of the collapse at a premium of 15 per cent., and had thereby been swindled out of £2,000, for he was told that he had no remedy. The third charge was, that the directors had sent £800,000 to the United States to be used in discounting bills, contrary to the terms of their contract, which limited their operations to banking in Scotland. The whole of that sum was lost to the bank. The fourth charge was, that they had rediscounted bills in London to a largo amount for the purpose of carrying on advances to firms in Glasgow, who were in many instances persons of little or no capital. He would trouble the House with but two instances. There was a creditor of the bank of the name of Monteith, who was engaged as a commission agent to a merchant named Smith. Smith informed Monteith that he was about to become a bankrupt. Monteith went to the manager of the bank, and detailed the case. The manager said that must not ho, as it would be a degradation to Smith's family, and the death of Smith's uncle, another Mr. Smith, and rather than Smith senior should die he would advance £6,000, although at that time the bankrupt Smith had overdrawn his account to the extent of £14,000. Monteith finding how easy it was to get advances from the bank, soon got advances on his own account on discount to the extent of £124,000. All this time the manager of the bank knew that Monteith was never worth £1,500. But there was a worse case. There was a man named Macdonald who never having had a commercial position, became bankrupt for £383,000 raised upon acceptances. There were seventy-five names to their bills, of which number only fifty-five had ever had business transactions with the Macdonalds, who got the names through agents in London, Liverpool, and Glasgow, and they were composed of tailors, milliners, and persons of that class. And yet this bank, in whose directors there was placed implicit reliance, advanced £200,000 to this firm on the security of the names of these persons, most of whom became bankrupt when the bank failed. With such facts before them they were surely bound to make some inquiry into the subject. It had been said that Mr. Taylor, who had been appointed the manager of the bank, contrary to the advice of the directors, had exercised absolute control over the business of the establishment, and that he was the author of all the calamities which had ensued in that case: but that statement would not justify the conduct of the directors, who should never have left to any manager such unchecked power. The directors were accountable for the acts of their subordinate, and he (Mr. Brady) hoped that they would be brought to the bar of justice to account for their misdeeds. The Lord Advocate had stated, in reply to a question he had put to him on a former evening, that no evidence had been brought before him which would justify him in taking criminal proceedings against those men. Now he (Mr. Brady) had seen it stated in the public press that either at the time the learned Lord had given that answer, or a short time previously, he had himself been the legal adviser of the directors of the bank, He (Mr. Brady) hoped that statement was not well founded; because, although he did not mean to charge the learned Lord with having been influenced in the slightest degree in the course he had taken by the position he had occupied outside these walls, it appeared to him that he ought not, if he had really filled the office of adviser to the directors, to have made the statement which had fallen from him in the House. At all events, he trusted they should hear the learned Lord declare that evening that he was prepared to institute a most searching inquiry into the proceedings of the bank, with a view to bring to the bar of justice any person whose criminal conduct might have led to that deplorable catastrophe. He (Mr. Brady) had discharged his duty by making the statement he had just put forward, and he would then leave the House to deal with the subject as they might think fit.

said, he could assure the House that, although rising immediately after the hon. Member for Leitrim, he had no intention of answering the speech of that hon. Member. He (the Lord Advocate) was not there for the purpose of defending the principles upon which the Western Bank of Scotland had been established, or the conduct of the directors of that institution. Neither was he there to offer any opinion as to the personal culpability of the directors; but he was glad to take the opportunity of removing an erroneous impression that prevailed in certain quarters out of doors, and which seemed to have taken possession of the mind of the hon. Member. With regard to himself personally, the insinuation of the hon. Member for Leitrim seemed hardly to require even a passing observation; but he might mention that both while the bank was carrying on its business and at the time the bank stopped payment and was winding up, he was in his professional capacity frequently consulted by the directors, the shareholders, the liquidators, the depositors, the creditors of that institution. In fact, all parties, who might in any way be supposed to need legal advice with respect to its affairs, had consulted him in turn, and he had endeavoured to do fairly what he believed to be his duty by them all. It might be supposed therefore that he had no prepossession in favour of one class over another. The matter, however, to which he wished then to refer concerned his office as public prosecutor in Scotland. The hon. Member for Leitrim had on a previous occasion asked him (the Lord Advocate) whether criminal proceedings would be instituted, and his answer in substance was, that he had not before him any information that would justify a prosecution. He begged now to repeat that statement, for such was his position down to the present moment. He would, however, add, that it did appear strange to him that the par-ties who had given the hon. Member the information which justified him in using such strong language as that in which he had indulged, should not have thought fit also to lay their information before the public authorities in Scotland. It seemed that a very great misapprehension existed in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and of many persons out of doors, as to the nature of the office which he had the honour to hold. A public prosecutor was not a minister of police. It was no part of the business of a public prosecutor to hunt out crime. On the contrary, he had always understood that the true, theory of the Lord Advocate's functions was, that he should prosecute only on the complaint of an injured party. This rule was liable to certain very important exceptions it was true. Still, as a general rule, a prosecution should not be set on foot except on the complaint of the injured party; and he must take leave to say that the rule was peculiarly applicable to the case of commercial frauds. In the first place, because it was almost impossible that the public officer should be able to possess himself of the materials even for making a preliminary inquiry without the aid of injured parties; and in the second place, because in the ordinary case it might fairly be presumed that if the supposed injured parties remained silent, there could be no very good grounds for undertaking a public prosecution. The rule was firmly established by the practice of the law of Scotland, and was at once expedient and salutary; but he did not go so far as to say that it was a rule which even in the cases of commercial frauds never could have an exception. On the contrary, had he been placed in the same situation with reference to the Western Bank of Scotland as had his hon. and learned Friend, the late Attorney General with reference to the Royal British Bank in England, he should have adopted a precisely similar course. But it was just because his position was entirely different, that he had been compelled to remain quiescent, and give to the hon. Gentleman that answer of which so much complaint had been made. Let the House recal for a single moment in what way the prosecution against the Royal British Bank came to be instituted. The whole of the frauds charged were disclosed in the course of examinations in the Bankruptcy Court, and, being thus made public and notorious, necessarily came in that way to the knowledge of the Attorney General, who had then no alternative in the administration of the duties of his office but to institute proceedings. On the other hand, what was the case with regard to the Western Bank? There had been but one proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court, and that was in the case of Mr. Taylor's sequestration. On that occasion, all that transpired was, that Taylor seemed disposed to assume to himself the entire responsibility of the conduct of the bank's affairs, and completely to exonerate the directors. It is true, the matter did not stop there; there had been various meetings of the shareholders since; but it must be recollected that throughout the whole of those proceedings, and up to the present time the published accounts given, were all a person in his (the Lord Adve- cate's) position could know anything about. The tone adopted at those meetings was, to charge the directors with great culpability and neglect of duty in not controlling their manager, but certainly to charge them with nothing which could be made the foundation of a criminal prosecution. He was anxious that this should be understood by the House, and that the hon. Member for Leitrim should not think he made the statement without foundation, and, therefore, begged further to state that, so early as December last—very soon after the occurrence of the calamity, there was a meeting of the shareholders of the bank in Glasgow, when a Committee was appointed to investigate the whole ease. That Committee did make an investigation and reported to a subsequent meeting—he did not mean to say this was a very complete investigation, for the inquiry occupied but a fortnight, and was merely preliminary—but still it was rather important to see how this Committee of shareholders, very indignant, and smarting under recent suffering, did express themselves as to the culpability of the directors. They said—

" The Committee are of opinion that, during the whole of Mr. Taylor's career, as well as during a portion of Mr. Smith's services, the Directors of the Bank have been much to blame in neglecting to perform the ordinary duties incumbent upon them on the acceptance of such a trust. They appear, without sufficient inquiry or examination, to have trusted to the statement of the managers with a simplicity which appears to the Committee almost incredible. While we acquit these gentlemen of any moral blame in their management as directors, and consider that their errors have been those of judgment, and not of intention, we are clearly of opinion that they have failed to perform those ordinary duties in the management of the company which it is well known they all practise with so much fidelity and success in the prosecution of their own private affairs, and their neglect of these duties has been, in part, the means of bringing both pecuniary and mental distress on hundreds of their fellow-countrymen."

Now, that being the opinion of the shareholders in the month of December, he put it to the House whether there was as yet any encouragement for the institution of proceedings by a public prosecutor. It was true that time had run on since then, and the shareholders might now entertain different views; but, as before stated, down to the present moment, not one single shareholder or person interested, had ever made a complaint to the authorities. But they had done what was much more becoming their position, and what he apprehended any sensible person would advise. They had organized themselves into an association, for the purpose of conducting a complete and searching investigation into the whole history and proceedings of this bank. That association was now in action, and he had that day received a letter from the chairman—purely voluntary on his part, and not in reply to any communication from him (the Lord Advocate)—of which he should take the liberty to read an extract to the House. The chairman said—

" As chairman of the shareholders associated for investigation, I am now enabled to state that our arrangements are completed. Funds have been subscribed and preliminary points have been settled. An accountant has been chosen, who will commence his investigation on the 19th. None of us anticipate such disclosures as would call for criminal procedure against the Directors, whatever their pecuniary liabilities may be. If anything of the sort occurs you will be informed."

Now, it was to be supposed that these gentlemen understood their own position much better than their representatives in that House, and could, if they chose, probe the matter to the bottom, and ascertain whether, in point of fact, there was any foundation for a criminal prosecution. He now left the matter in the hands of the House, having stated what the actual position of the case was, and he submitted that he should have been totally unjustified if with the information before him he had occupied the valuable time of public servants and expended a large sum of public money in conducting this investigation for the shareholders of the Western Bank of Scotland.

said, that he thought the House and the public was much indebted to the hon. Member who had brought this subject forward, and that it was quite impossible to allow it to pass in the way in which the learned Lord opposite had loft it. If Scotland were so unfortunately placed that no legal investigation into a subject of this nature could take place against persons who, at any rate, were under the appearance of having committed a great fraud, it became the duty of Members of the House to represent strongly to the Government that some change must be made in the state of the law. What was the actual state in the present case? He was not going into all the particulars which had been already detailed; but he took it this large establishment owed its origin to certain great speculating capitalists in Scotland, who gathered together from all parts of the country deposits for their own purposes. Having, then, also gathered to- gether the capital of the shareholders who had followed them in subscribing money to the undertaking, these gentlemen had never come to the office, had never inquired into the proceedings, but left the management to some person who was wholly unworthy of the confidence reposed in him. In the case of the Glasgow bank, he need only mention two circumstances to the House, which would at once show the necessity of further proceedings; whether in the shape of a prosecution against the directors, or taking some legislative measures for preventing such calamities in future, he would not say. These were the two circumstances. This bank had the largest circulation of bank notes in Scotland. They had tempted poor people all over the country with the offer of a greater rate of interest than was given by the savings banks; many had given way to the temptation, and deposited all their little savings with them, for there were no less than 10,000 depositors in the bank, with sums under £50. There was something very curious in the history of these transactions. It appeared that the shareholders, so late as in May last, were assured that, upon due examination of the accounts, the bank could divine 9 per cent profits after payment of capital in full. An individual case had come under his own notice of a poor lady who had been induced by these representations to invest her property in shares of the bank, and had thereby lost her little all, and had been reduced to absolute ruin. He said to her, "If you invest your money in a bank, you must expect to run some risk." She remarked, that when 9 per cent was offered by gentlemen in the position of these directors, some of the wealthiest capitalists in Scotland, who were well capable of managing their own affairs, how was she to distrust them? He thought the Lord Advocate was bound to ask whether that statement made in May last was honestly made by the directors, and that there must be some available means of ascertaining the fact. But, so far from taking any step of that kind, or even joining with the public in their expressions of indignation at such conduct, the Lord Advocate had actually appeared in the House that night as the humble apologist of these men. He had produced letters from Glasgow, in which it was stated that they were free from all real blame. Good God! no real blame attaching to men who having been appointed guardians of the savings of 10,000 poor persons, had entrusted the whole of their affairs to some worthless agent, without seeing into them themselves for a single day. Was the learned Lord aware that several of these unfortunate depositors had been driven by the misconduct of those directors into lunatic asylums? that some were banished the country? that others were famished and reduced to the lowest destitution? They were left to believe that such persons had no public protection —that no one of the shareholders was personally liable. He was told that the directors had taken care to insert a clause in the deed of settlement that no shareholder should be liable for any loss that might accrue to the funds of the company. If the public were left in this way without protection, he (Mr. Ellice) called upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) to look seriously into the question. He knew perfectly well the calamities that had resulted to the public from the failure of this bank. He had heard the whole misfortune unfolded upon investigation. The House ought to see at least, if they could not punish, whether they could not prevent the recurrence of such a calamity. If directors would neglect their duty in the way he had stated, after having induced people to invest in these banks, they should at least be liable to some penalty, personal or pecuniary. With respect to joint-stock hanks in England, some had failed in an equally disgraceful manner as the Glasgow bank. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that some regulation should be made, either that accounts should be laid before the shareholders, or that auditors should be appointed who might certify that the accounts laid before a public meeting of the shareholders were correct. A report had reached him (Mr. Ellice) which showed, at least, the shamelessness of these offenders at the present moment. He heard that they had made an application to be enabled to sell their privilege of raising money. Perhaps in one sense, however, they were justified in endeavouring to realise all the assets they could. But at any rate, if there were no means of proceeding criminally or pecuniarily against them, it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to see whether the law could not he altered on this subject.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) bad pursued a very inconvenient course in bringing this subject forward on going into Committee of Supply. It was impossible that the House could come to any practical conclusion, and the inconvenience had certainly not been lessened by the way in which the hon. Member had introduced the question. Nor had the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last done anything to clear up the confusion which previously existed. He had mixed up two questions which were totally distinct and separate— the question, namely, of the culpability of the directors of the Western Bank of Scotland, and the much larger question of the whole system of banking in Scotland. There could be no doubt that the hostility which some hon. Gentlemen entertained towards the Scotch system of banking had dictated many of the severe comments which they had made upon the proceedings of the Western Bank. The present was thought an excellent opportunity of attacking the Scotch system through the side of the Western directors; but, nevertheless, the two questions ought to be kept separate. As a Scotchman, he was ready at the proper time to defend the system of banking established north of the Tweed; but he could not help thinking that the subject now before the House—the misfortunes of a particular bank—had nothing whatever to do with the issue of notes, or the Scotch system of banking generally. There was one fallacy in the speech of the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) which he felt bound to notice. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the 10,000 depositors in the Western Bank were going to lose their hard-earned savings by their connection with that institution. That was an entire mistake—so complete a mistake that they would lose little or nothing. Indeed he himself was willing to purchase any claim which the right hon. Gentleman might have against the Western Bank at a very small discount. He believed, indeed, that many parties were ready to give 19s. in the pound for claims against the Western Bank, and there was not, therefore, the smallest ground for saying that the creditors of the bank, whether note-holders or depositors, would lose a single farthing. The hon. member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) in bringing forward the question had used very harsh language towards the Western directors, but for that language there was no foundation, except the statements of an anonymous correspondent; and he interpreted the remark of the hon. Member, that he regretted this subject had not been brought forward by a Scotchman, as an acknowledgment that he himself was ignorant of the circumstances of the case —an acknowledgment of which no one who had heard his speech could doubt the truth. But he did not stand there as an apologist for the conduct of the directors; he had no shares in the Western Bank himself, nor was he connected in any way with any of the directors; his only connection with the bank was as a depositor, and having a brother and other relatives shareholders. As far, therefore, as his own personal feelings were concerned, he was by no means in favour of those who had caused so much loss; but he knew many of the directors personally, and the whole of them by name and reputation, and he must say that their conduct had been misrepresented both in that House and elsewhere. Again, the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) had said that the largest capitalists in Scotland had used the Western Bank as a means of collecting money, which they appropriated to their own purposes. After making that statement, the right hon. Gentleman might as well have named the parties to whom he referred, for everybody in Scotland knew that the allusion could only be to Messrs. Baird.

I beg to say that I had no intention of alluding to the Messrs. Baird, or in fact to any particular individual.

said, he was glad to find he was mistaken on that point; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing his statement altogether. His disclaimer was satisfactory so far as it went, but still the allusion to the "largest capitalists" in Scotland was most unfortunate.

I did not say the "largest" capitalists, but large capitalists in Scotland.

thought it probable that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the Western Bank at all. At all events his statement, as now explained, seemed a mere general assertion, which meant anything or nothing as the case may be. With respect to the Messrs. Baird, however, he was glad to have elicited that denial from the right hon. Gentleman, for it ought to be known that they were large shareholders in the bank, and that their loss upon shares alone amounted to about a quarter of a million, exclusive of £120,000 in the shape of deposits. They were liable, indeed, to the extent of the whole of their fortune, and having identified themselves in every possible way with the rest of the shareholders and depositors, the charge of using the money of the bank for their own purposes was totally unfounded as far as they were concerned. So with the other directors. Nobody—not even the most discontented shareholder—had ever insinuated, in the most remote degree, that they had appropriated to their own use the funds of the bank. The whole of them were known to be perfectly free from any imputation of that kind, and they were all holders of shares in the bank, equally unfortunate with the other proprietors. That made the great distinction between their ease and the case of some other notorious banks, such as the Royal British, of which the world had recently heard so much. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) had used the word "swindling." That term was fairly applicable to the conduct of those directors who had used for their own purposes money intrusted to them by other parties; but in no sense described the conduct of the Western directors, who had derived no personal advantage from the funds of their depositors, but, on the contrary, had themselves been the severest sufferers by the failure of the bank. He could not understand why the Western Bank should be singled out for condemnation while so many banks and large houses which had failed in the late crisis were allowed to escape. The Borough Bank of Liverpool failed for as large a sum as the Western Bank, and yet nobody thought of blaming its management. He suspected that the misfortunes of the Western Bank were to be used as an argument against a system of banking which was disliked by certain influential parties. That was not a fair course of proceeding, and he hoped it would not succeed. He believed that the whole circumstances of the Western Bank would be explained before the Committee now sitting on banking; at all events the directors, although they might not think it necessary to reply to the statements of anonymous writers in newspapers, were anxious that the fullest publicity should be given to all their proceedings, and they were ready to present themselves for examination before a proper tribunal. He did not say they were free from blame—far from it; but he denied that their conduct deserved the epithet of "criminal" which had been applied to it both in that House and elsewhere.

said, he was bound to say that the answer of the hon. and learned Lord did not seem to be at all satisfactory; that the statements made by the hon. Member for Leitrim in introducing this subject to the House had been fully justified by the admissions of the Lord Advocate. He (Mr. FitzGerald) knew nothing of this ease beyond what appeared in the Report produced by the learned Lord; but he thought that nothing in the speech of his hon. Friend went beyond that Report. That Report, as he understood, had emanated from a committee of the shareholders or the creditors—he was not certain which —of the Western Bank appointed to investigate the affairs of the establishment as far back as December last. It appeared, then, that the liabilities of the bank, at the time that it stopped, might be stated in round numbers at £9,000,000, and that the ascertained deficiency in December amounted to £2,200,000. Subject to considerable increase on the occurrence of certain eventualities. The flattering prospect held out to the public at that time was, that the private fortunes of the shareholders were amply sufficient to meet all deficiencies. That he presumed, was what the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) referred to when he said that nobody would lose by the bank, for surely he did not mean that the shareholders would not be losers to the extent stated. How was this deficiency of £2,200,000 created? He did not find anything in the Report produced by the Lord Advocate which would justify a charge of moral turpitude against the directors; but there was abundant evidence to prove that the directors had grossly neglected their duty to the public and the shareholders, and had not bestowed upon the business of the bank the same care which they would have given to their own private concerns. The directors seem to have intrusted everything to the hands of Mr. Taylor, the manager, thus exhibiting negligence so great that it could with difficulty be distinguished from criminality. He did not charge any party with fraud; that was a question to be determined elsewhere; but he recognised in the Report of the committee of shareholders elements which rendered an inquiry absolutely indispensable. Such an inquiry must somehow or other be made. The Lord Advocate had told them that it was not his duty, as public prosecutor, to institute an investigation of this kind, where no injured party made any complaint to him. That, no doubt, was true as a general rule. The Lord Advocate was public prosecutor in Scotland, and for certain purposes, such as the institution of inquiries and the carrying on of prosecutions, he was armed with a large staff which the Attorney General in England did not possess. But, while assenting to the general rule, he would respectfully suggest to the learned Lord that there were exceptional cases which required a departure from the ordinary routine, and one of these cases was to be found in the affair of the Western Bank. Enormous losses had been sustained, and the public interests, as well as the interests of private individuals, had suffered serious damage, and perhaps great fraud had been committed. What was the course pursued by the late Attorney General in the case of the Royal British Bank? The Attorney General was not a public prosecutor in the same sense as the Lord Advocate in Scotland; he had no solicitor to assist him and no special counsel; but nevertheless the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bethell) no sooner became aware of the nature of the depositions in the Royal British Bank bankruptcy than he put himself in communication with Mr. Linklater, the able agent of the injured shareholders, and requested that gentleman to furnish him with copies of all the depositions. The result was, that the case was investigated, and the Attorney General having informed the House that he had received sufficient information to warrant the institution of a prosecution, Mr. Linklater was employed with an able staff of counsel to conduct it. They all knew the result. The trial was had. The Lord Chief Justice gave an admirable exposition of the law. Those who were guilty were convicted, and punished according to the degree of their guilt. But what happened in the present case? He found that there was a sequestration against Mr. Taylor, that person whom the directors trusted to such an extent that they received his statements and accounts without any question. He recollected seeing, in December last, that there were sequestrations against other parties—against the firms, for instance, of Monteith and Co., and Macdonald and Co. Now, the firm of Monteith and Co. was one of those establishments which failed at the same time, or rather whose failure brought down the Western Bank; for at the time of the failure they owed the hank nearly £500,000 on paper in the hands of the bank. The firm of Macdonald and Co. owed nearly as much, and with respect to them it appeared that the accommodation paper on which Taylor had advanced the property of the shareholders was actually drawn on accommodation acceptances of seventy-five persons in London, many of whom were paid a commission for signing them. Had any investigation taken place into those cases. Now, the directors, who had undertaken a certain trust, yet, "with a simplicity not to be believed," as the Report stated, left the whole affairs in the hands of Taylor until he had disposed of £2,500,000. It had also been publicly staled, without contradiction at a meeting in Scotland, that the directors at the last annual meeting had allowed and supported a dividend of 9 per cent, paid not out of profits, but out of capital. All these circumstances appeared to constitute a case of such magnitude and gravity, that not only the individual creditors and shareholders of the bank, but the public at large had an interest in its investigation, and it should be probed to the bottom. He had the highest respect for the learned Lord as a distinguished lawyer, but if it were the practice in Scotland that the public prosecutor could not take proceedings against those parties without being set in motion by some one behind, the time had arrived when that system of procedure should be altered. It was remarkable that whenever a Bill making changes in the law, whether commercial, criminal, or municipal, was introduced into Parliament, there was always a provision put in it that it should not extend to Scotland. The jealousy of the Scotch Members in this respect was most remarkable, although, as far as he could judge, the Scotch laws and the institutions of Scotland were not so good as the laws in the other parts of the United Kingdom. An Act was passed last year to repress fraudulent breaches of trust, and in that Act would be found the usual provision that "it should not extend to Scotland." He thought that the hon. Member who had brought forward this subject had not been treated with very great fairness, and not being satisfied with the answer of the Lord Advocate, he had ventured to address those observations to the House.

said that, having filled the office of Lord Advocate when the failure of the Western Bank occurred, and having had for some time the responsibility of any steps that might be taken in consequence, he thought it right not to allow the discussion to close without making one or two observations. He should not enter into a discussion as to the comparative merits of the Scotch and English laws; but, having been accustomed to a state of things in which every crime was investigated by public authority, and any person having a knowledge of crime had only to give information to the public prosecutor in order to have the matter investigated, he should be rather jealous of prosecutions arising out of popular discussion, newspaper articles, or speeches in that House, or upon any other ground than information having been given in the regular course to those officers by whom the matter would be immediately investigated. No question, if the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this subject had laid before the learned Lord opposite (the Lord Advocate) the facts on which his statement was founded, instead of making-it publicly in that House, an investigation would have followed immediately. No doubt, in England it was sometimes necessary to set the Executive in motion, and a prosecution by the Attorney General was an expensive and laborious proceeding; but in Scotland, if there were any real charge to make, the office of the Lord Advocate was open, and there the charge would be investigated as a matter of course. He understood the learned Lord to say no more than this, that with respect to the directors of the Western Bank of Scotland no such charge had as yet been made; he did not say that he had resolved that there should be no prosecution, but that he thought it wise to wait, before instituting a prosecution, to sec how the affairs of the bank would ultimately stand, and how the civil responsibility of the parties concerned might be worked out. That was the course pursued in the case of the Royal British Bank; for no steps were taken by the Attorney General until the proceedings in bankruptcy were completed. But if hon. Members supposed that the proceedings of the Western Bank had escaped the attention of the legal authorities in Scotland, they were entirely mistaken. While it was the duty of the public prosecutor to see that crime did not go unpunished, it was not less his duty to guard against unjust prosecutions being instituted from unpopular prejudice or from the emergency of some public event, and to take care that parties were not exposed to the shame and disgrace of a public prosecution without the utmost caution. The question where criminality began was a delicate matter to decide, and was not to be determined by popular discussion, but by the judgment of those who were responsible for the manner in which they discharged their duties, and who were bound to consider the matter with a judicial mind. He repeated, that if there were grounds for charging the late directors of the Western Bank of Scotland with criminal acts, the proper course was for the informants to lay their case before the proper legal officers, who, acting with calmness and judgment, would determine whether a prosecution ought or ought not to be entered into against the persons charged. And surely it was better that the public prosecutor should proceed on judicial considerations rather than institute a prosecution founded only on popular clamour.

said, he must express his surprise at hearing it laid down, as a sound legal axiom that a public prosecutor was bound to wait and see the effects of the crime which had been committed, and the extent of the injury inflicted by the criminal, before directing a prosecution. They could not estimate crime in any such manner, and he conceived that such a doctrine was utterly inconsistent with morality. Still from what had fallen from the learned Lord Advocate it appeared that he was waiting to see whether assets were forthcoming sufficient to release the manager from the consequences of his acts. Public prosecutors were not slow to prosecute the press without previous investigation, when the press happened to be at fault, and why should the Lord Advocate be so indisposed to take the initiative in this case, where the great principle of commercial morality was involved? Believing, as he did, that the conduct of the managers of the Western Bank of Scotland was of such a character that the directors were bound to have inquired into it, he thought that the House ought to convince the people that there should be no immunity for crime, whether committed in England by the directors of the Royal British Bank, in Ireland by the directors of the Temporary Bank, or in Scotland by the directors of the Western Bank of Scotland. They ought to show their determination to maintain intact the commercial morality of this country, and in his opinion his hon. Friend deserved the thanks of the House for having brought forward this Motion.

said, an attempt had been made to establish a parallel between the case of the Royal British Bank and that of the Western Bank, but he thought there was a wide difference between the two cases. The directors of the Western Bank were not accused of any fraud. At the time of the bankruptcy most of these gentlemen had large deposits in the bank, and they had not helped themselves to the funds of the establishment, as had been done in the case of the Royal British Bank. The charge against the directors of the Royal British Bank was of conspiracy to defraud; they were accused of deceiving the public and the shareholders of the bank in regard to its real position; but he did not think such a charge could be maintained against the directors of the Western Bank. If they were conspirators, they were, at all events, most innocent and self-deceiving conspirators, for within throe or four months of the bankruptcy they might have gone into the market and realized £70 or £80 for their £50 shares. If those gentlemen were really engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the public as to the condition of the bank and to secure a profit to themselves, why had they not sold their shares? If they had put forth false accounts, or had realized profits, by their acts as directors, there would have been a colourable case against them; but no such allegation was made. On the contrary, when the failure took place all the Directors continued to hold their shares, and most of them bad considerable sums to their credit with the bank. The conduct of these gentlemen had been strongly impugned, but he would say to their credit that when the bank became involved in difficulties, they evinced the most laudable desire to assist the shareholders in every possible way. Not one of them deserted the sinking wreck, but they laboured to do all in their power to alleviate the lamentable consequence of the catastrophe. He did not mean to be their apologist. He frankly admitted that there had been great negligence; he believed that for many years a vicious system had existed with regard to the management of the bank; that it had been the practice to bring forward balances which ought to have been written off the books; that the securities bad depreciated without sufficient allowance being made for such depreciation, and that the system pursued had been unjustifiable. It must be remembered, however, that some of the directors had only recently been elected, and he believed that all of them had acted with perfect bona fides, and without any view to their private interests. From his own knowledge he could say that it would not be easy to select a body of directors who were less likely to be guilty of dishonourable conduct, and in the west of Scotland they bore the highest character for honour and integrity. As it had been said that a criminal prosecution might still be instituted, he had, thought it right to make this statement, for nothing could be more painful to men of sensitive minds than a suggestion that they might be called upon to answer for their conduct at a criminal bar.

said, he thought some misapprehension existed as to the circumstances under which the prosecution of the Directors of the Royal British Bank took place. It had been assumed that the charge against the seven directors of that bank who had been placed upon their trial was, that they had unfairly dealt with the funds intrusted to their care as trustees, for their own personal benefit or aggrandisement. He had assisted in the conduct of that prosecution, and he could state that, with the exception of two of the seven persons prosecuted, there was no ground whatever for any such suggestion: it formed no element in the case, it was not a point to which the prosecution was addressed, nor did the guilt or innocence of the parties turn upon it. When it was urged, on the part of the gentlemen engaged in this most unfortunate bank in Scotland, that they stuck by the sinking ship, that their fortunes had been embarked in the undertaking, and had perished with the fortunes of those who trusted to their care, it should be remembered that the same remark applied to several of the directors of the Royal British Bank, five out of seven of whom had no charge against them of having abused their trust to their personal benefit; indeed, several of them had invited their friends and relatives to invest in the bank as shareholders not very long before the stoppage. It was important to have this matter well understood, and he would endeavour briefly to state the circumstances of the last mentioned case. The charge against the six directors of the Royal British Bank was, that they had combined together to make untrue statements to the public of the pecuniary condition of the bank; the untruth of the statements had been most satisfactorily proved, inasmuch as in the last year of their proceedings a balance-sheet was presented, from which it was made to appear that a dividend was to be declared at the rate of G per cent on an apparent surplus, to the extent of £30,000, of assets over liabilities, and this was arrived at by taking credit for £150,000 as available assets, which consisted of hopeless debts. In fact, however, if the truth had been told, the liabilities then exceeded the assets to the extent of £120,000. False statements of the accounts had been made from year to year, and the bank was hopelessly insolvent; the imposture was discovered, and ruin came upon all the directors, and on the whole body of shareholders. It was necessary to prove the misrepresentations by the directors, and that they were aware of there being misrepresentations; and it was on the fact of misrepresentation that the late Attorney General proceeded, while it remained for the jury to decide whether the persons on trial knew the untruth of what they had put their hands to. Certainly, when untruth was put forward to lure people to mischief and ruin, there was sufficient ground for investigation and careful inquiry, with the view of punishing those who had been the authors of the fraud if it could be shown they were aware of it. He was not minutely acquainted with the affairs of the Western Bank of Scotland, but he heard it admitted on all sides that when that bank declared a dividend of 9 per cent, it was hopelessly insolvent; certainly, in any event, not in a condition to declare a dividend to that amount. Such a declaration, made or sanctioned by the directors of the bank, unless circumstances warranted it, was the declaration of falsehood, and was calculated to produce very disastrous consequences to those who, not knowing it to be false, had put faith in it. The learned Lord Advocate had told them that the public prosecutor in Scotland must be put in motion by some individual who had a grievance, but admitted, at the same time, that it would be extraordinary if there were no exceptions, though he failed to enumerate any of them. However, he would put it to the learned Lord, if a case like the present should not constitute one of those exceptions which be had adverted to, but did not describe. The learned Lord admitted that the late Attorney General proceeded iu the matter of the Royal British Bank with the most perfect propriety, and that, in acting as he had done, he had rightly discharged the duties of his office. On what data did he proceed? Upon the fact of a proved hopeless insolvency, and upon the fact of declarations at that time by the directors of the flourishing state of the bank. There was proof here also that the Western Bank of Scotland proclaimed a dividend upon false returns, that its true condition was misrepresented, and that instead of being a flourishing concern it was an insolvent one. If so, the only addition needed to parallel the case of the Royal British Bank was the knowledge of this by those who put forward the untruth. Ho, therefore, thought the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Brady) had only discharged a duty in bringing the case forward. He hoped that after the discussion which had taken place the learned Lord Advocate would reconsider the matter, and reflect if he was not called upon to follow the example of the late Attorney General in a case of a very similar character.

said, that with reference to the observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow, he must protest against the statement that the public had not been misled with regard to the position of the Western Bank. On the contrary, it was his belief that, up to the last moment, a system of deception had been kept up, which had been the ruin of many. A person connected with the bank, in the district in which he resided, told him that those who were concerned in the conduct of the business of the bank made representations to him, within a few weeks, nay, within a few days, of the time at which it stopped, which led him to believe that it was in a perfectly solvent state. Upon the faith of those representations, he not only induced depositors to allow their money to remain in the bank, but he himself, and some of his friends, purchased shares in the bank within ten days of the closing of the transfer books. Some of these persons bad, in consequence of the failure of the bank, been reduced almost to a state of beggary. This was a subject which required early investigation; and he was glad to hear that it was likely to be inquired into by a Committee on the Bank Act, which was now sitting. Without some such inquiry, he was convinced that the people of Scotland would not rest satisfied.

said, he thought that, in discussing what ought to be done in a particular case, the House was too apt to forget that its proper function was to learn from experience, and to provide a remedy against its recurrence. It had, accordingly, been his intention, before Christmas, to move that the whole subject of the management of joint-stock banks should be referred to a Select Committee, and he gave notice to make a Motion to that effect, as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam), for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the principle of limited liability to joint-stock banks. He was told, however, that such an Amendment would be informal, and he did not persevere with it. He thought, however, the causes of the calamities which had recently afflicted the nation were sufficiently apparent, and it was the duty of the House to suggest a remedy. A very unworthy prejudice existed in this country against the Scotch banking system, and it was supposed that one great reason of the bad state of things which existed was the privilege granted to the Scotch banks, of issuing £1 notes. That was quite a mistake. The real evil, he thought, was the reckless way in which bills of exchange were negotiated. Taking the case of one of the firms engaged in this very bank, the facts were sufficient to startle everybody. The firm of Macdonald and Co. were, probably, considered the best customers of this bank. What was the amount of accommodation they required? In 1849 they had accommodation to the amount of £16,000. Not to mention the amount of intervening years, he would pass to 1854, when that amount had arisen to £80,000; in 1856 it was no less than £188,000; and, in 1857, when the crash came, it had reached the gigantic sum of £383,000, not one fraction of which would reach the unfortunate depositors or shareholders in the bank. In 1849 the interest on the amount advanced was £2,800; in 1854 it was £14,000; in 1856, £19,000; and in 1857, £40,000. How was it possible, he asked, for any firm to stand such an amount of interest as that? There could be only one result, and that result ought clearly to have been foreseen by the bank directors, and guarded against. A bill of exchange, provided it was genuine, was a most valuable instrument to commerce—indeed, it was essential to commercial life; but, if this paper could be created and discounted at random, there would be an end to its value. He was sorry to say, the issue of fictitious paper was not confined to Scotland, for he could mention a case in London, which failed some time ago, and in which every servant, every clerk, even the very porters, were employed to put their names to the back of accommodation bills for a gratuity sometimes as low as 5s., or even 2s. 6d. Those fictitious bills were thrown into the market, and contributed to swell the amount of negotiable paper. He did not wish to prevent one individual from becoming security for another; but he did say, that the placing of such bills in the same category as bonâ fide bills of exchange was totally subversive of every principle of commercial morality, and ought to be put a stop to.

said, that the charge against certain individuals for alleged malversation, and the complaints made on behalf of persons who had been shame-fully wronged, were but small parts of this question. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowan) said that there were houses in Scotland, and in England too, where certain persons, employed in the establishments, by giving their names as security, could obtain for themselves or their friends immediate advances of money. Those observations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) went to the root of this matter, which concerned the whole system of Scotch banking. Under that system, A, who had not a farthing, went to a bank to ask for an advance, and, upon giving the security of B and C, neither of whom had any farthings, he received a sum of money. That was a system of fraud and delusion. If a stop were not put to it, as well as to the plan of limited liability, by which men could no longer be called upon for every penny they possessed, in satisfaction of their debts, you would aggravate and increase the number of these panics, which had developed themselves every ten years, but which would now be likely to occur every five years. With regard to the suggested prosecution, he should like, if any such proceedings were taken, to prosecute the Duke of Hamilton, the Duke of Argyll, my Lord Belhaven, and all those men who had lent the influence of their names and reputations to deceive the poor throughout Scotland. These persons were as much concerned in the result as any others. No doubt, they found it very profitable to announce that they would receive the Western Bank notes from their tenantry; but, then, it should be remembered that they could not have received their rents in any other way. He believed there was not a gentleman connected with Scotland who could not give most heartrending accounts of the ruin which had taken place. "Oh," it was said, "but these are individual exceptions." That was not so. The exceptions wore to be found among the rich men of Glasgow, who saved their own necks, and allowed the poor people of Scotland to be the sufferers.

said, that as one of those who attended the meeting referred to by the hon. Gentleman, he did not think it necessary to apologize, either for himself or for the noble Lords who were present, further than to say that he attended it, in common with others, for the purpose of mitigating, as far as possible, the shock which had at that time been given to the public credit.

observed, that he would willingly have left the question as it rested, after the full discussion that had taken place, if it had not been for the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Drummond). That hon. Gentleman had thought proper to pass a severe censure on some of his noble Friends, for the part they had taken at the meeting held in Glasgow, in relation to the Western Bank of Scotland. He (Sir E. Colebrooke) had the honour of taking part in the proceedings of that meeting, and of proposing a resolution. That resolution was, however, of a formal character. Now, he challenged the hon. Member for Surrey, or any other hon. Member, to point out one word in the resolutions agreed to at that meeting that could justify the charges that he had made against his noble Friends. There were only two resolutions passed; the one contained a general expression of confidence in the system of Scotch banking; and the other, to which he (Sir E. Colebrooke) gave his cordial assent, expressed the belief of those present at the unreasonableness of the panic that had arisen, and their confidence in the power of the banks to pay all their liabilities. They further pledged themselves, one and all, at that meeting, to take the notes of the bank in exchange, without other security. Now, he was content to be judged, either by the event that resulted, or by the determination they had formed at the time. If by the event, they would come out of the matter triumphantly; for the notes had never been discredited subsequent to the meeting, and had never failed to circulate from hand to hand; while not merely the proprietors of the bank, not merely the 300 firms of Glasgow, but even the agents of Her Majesty's Government, agreed to take the notes. With regard to the liabilities of the bank, he could not say that they were all paid; but there was little doubt of the probability of their being paid; and, within the last few days, notice had been given that half of them would be paid in a month's time. All that was done at that meeting was done with a view to restore confidence, and he did not think they were to be blamed for what they did.

said, he would not have taken any part in this discussion but for the observations of the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Drummond). The hon. Gentleman had mentioned the names of two or three Dukes, and blamed their conduct at the time of the failure of the Western Bank. One of those Dukes, however, was not present. He (Sir M. S. Stewart) was not ashamed to say that he took part in that meeting; and he would say that the gentlemen of Scotland were as scrupulous with regard to their honour as the gentlemen of any other part of the country. It was all very well for writers in newspapers to abuse those gentlemen who did what they could to alleviate the distress which prevailed; but he regretted that an hon. Gentleman whom the House was accustomed to respect should have spoken as he had done. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to be aware for what purpose the meeting at Glasgow took place. The Western Bank failed on the 9th of November, and, as hon. Gentlemen acquainted with Scotland knew, the 11th of November was a day on which a great many payments were made. The meeting at Glasgow was not called to uphold the Western Bank, but to see what steps could be taken to alleviate the panic. Gentlemen in London might not be aware what that panic was. The whole west of Scotland was in a state of confusion, for the Western Bank had 100 branches—almost all of them situated in that district, and hon. Members might imagine the excitement which arose when such a bank suddenly stopped payment. The panic was so great, that all the other banks in the West of Scotland were run upon, and the City of Glasgow Bank had to close its doors. It was to alleviate this critical state of things that the meeting held in Glasgow was called. The resolutions moved on that occasion were such as might, under the like circumstances, be very properly moved over again. Though he had himself been called upon unexpectedly to take part in the proceedings of that meeting, he could safely say on his honour, that if he had to speak again on the same subject to-morrow, he would not shrink from repeating every word that he had then spoken. When he heard in the House of Commons—ho did not care about the newspapers—gentlemen held up to contempt for doing what it was only their duty to do, he felt hound to express his regret; and, especially, he regretted that an hon. Gentleman should hold up certain noble Dukes to opprobrium for doing what he (Sir M. S. Stewart) thought was their duty.

said that he was grateful to those gentlemen who came forward with the hope of restoring confidence in the west of Scotland during the panic. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan), that there could not be more honourable gentlemen than the directors of the Western Bank, who had themselves severely suffered for a neglect of duty, for which he did not mean to offer any apology.

explained that he had brought forward no special allegation against the directors, but he spoke of the officials.

said he wished to express his strong opinion, that on the clays fixed for public business of great importance, the time of the House should not be occupied hour after hour by discussions which led to no practical results.

said he begged to thank the hon. Member for Leitrim for originating a debate of the most valuable character, and which was likely to have an effect on the country; and he believed that many of the observations which had been made would be valuable in relation to commercial communities such as he represented. The country had recently passed through a severe crisis from which they had all suffered, and one of the difficulties of which was caused by the withdrawal of gold to meet the wants of Scotland. It was no justification of the directors of the Western Bank to say that all the notes and deposits would be ultimately paid, for it ought not to be forgotten how much misery had been suffered during the period of suspense, when it was not known whether they would be paid or not. The banks in question had locked up money which had been collected in small sums from the frugal people of Scotland till it reached millions in a hundred branch banks, and it had been used in the way to interfere with the legitimate trader, by lending hundreds of thousands to men of straw; thus causing great loss to those who traded on their own capital, by depreciating their trade. He rejoiced that it had been pressed on the Lord Advocate to make some inquiry into this matter; and he (Mr. Turner), as a director and chairman of a joint-stock bank, was of opinion that all such concerns were liable to injury if they were not conducted with the same care as the affairs of private bankers. He was of opinion that they were amenable to the public, and ought to answer for their conduct. Whenever anything of this kind happened, he hoped that the directors of joint-stock banks would be considered amenable to justice, and that it would be administered to them.

Sir, there are times when parsimony on the part of a Government is a cause of national shame and reprehension. In the very heart of this great city — the central square through which its population and every visitor from the country and every foreigner had to pass—London had for years presented the humiliating spectacle of a memorial to our greatest naval hero left incomplete. It is unnecessary to remind the House that when first I went to sea, the name of Nelson made our Navy the pride and hope of this country. On it depended the very existence of this island and her colonies. With the command of the sea they stood or fell. While Europe saw her armies melt away before the ambition of a general hitherto irresistible, Nelson transferred, one by one, the successive fleets of our enemies to the harbours of Portsmouth and Plymouth, or otherwise crushed their power. At Copenhagen, as at the Nile, he obtained, in his own emphatic words, "not a victory but a conquest." The man who had subjugated a continent declared that the fates decreed to France the empire of the land, but to England the sovereignty of the sea; and Talleyrand assigned, as the limits of British supremacy, wherever a frigate could find water to float her. The crippled, maimed body, and indomitable spirit of a Nelson preserved these shores from the horrors of invasion, and by a martyr's death at Trafalgar laid open the road to Waterloo. I speak, Sir, in no spirit of braggart. I trust that the sword is sheathed for ever in amity with those once, our most formidable enemies and now our firmest allies, and that the mingled blood shed before Sebastopol has consecrated a perpetual friendship between us. But I am quite sure that chivalric nation, which had never been wanting in offering tributes of honour to its own fallen worthies, must observe, with feelings which I do not care to describe, our lamentable display of indifference to a man of whom, if one of themselves, they would have considered the noblest and most costly monument too unworthy. A very moderate grant would provide the accessories of the Nelson column. A foreign King had been a subscriber to its completion; but I hope we may be spared any such significant censures for the future. I trust that the Government will not allow any further delay to occur before they redress a signal wrong to the inestimable services rendered by the heroic Nelson, and remove a standing reproach to English gratitude. I may ob-serve that the Nelson Monument was designed by Mr. Railton. The statue, by E. H. Bailey, R. A., was set up Nov. 4, 1843; £20,483 lls. 2d.having been the amount of the private subscription, of which the late Czar of Russia contributed £500. It—at that period—was computed that £12,000 more would suffice to pay for its completion. On reference to Hansard, I find, on the 22nd of July, 1844, on the question, this House in Committee of Supply —

" That the sum of £800 he granted to defray the cost of completing the Nelson Monument, in Trafalgar Square."

An hon. Member (Mr. Wyse) wished to know—

" Whether the Government had not received an offer from an artist of the name of Park to complete the monument at his own expense if he were suffered to undertake and finish it in conformity with his own taste and judgment?"

To this question Sir Robert Peel made reply—

" It was true that the Government had received such an offer, but had not thought proper to accept it, as a monument like that erected to Nelson ought to he the subject of competition to artists, and it would be establishing a bad principle if such a proposition as that referred to by the hon. Member were to be accepted. The best way was for the Government to pay the expense attendant on completing the monument upon such a plan as might be deemed proper, and not to accept the money of private individuals in such a matter."

Again, I find in Hansard, of date January 23, 1846, in reply to a question put by an hon. Member (Mr. Collett) —

"As to whether, seeing that the Nelson Monument had been so long delayed, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to complete it."

The Earl of Lincoln made reply, that—

"The House would recollect that the Monument was originally intended to be raised and completed by private subscription—at the expense of a number of individuals who subscribed this money for the purpose. The funds raised subsequently proving to be utterly inadequate for the purposes intended, the monument remained unfinished, and about a year and a half ago Her Majesty's Government undertook the work; and the hon. Gentleman would recollect that in the Session before the last a supplementary Vote was proposed and granted for this purpose, and contracts had been entered into for the completion of the design with Messrs. Cubitt, but the material being granite, there had been a difficulty in finishing the work in the required time. With regard to the intended works of art on the base of the pillar, he had, with the consent of his right hon. Friend Sir Robert Peel placed the matter in the hands of several eminent artists for their consideration. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that since the Government had taken up the matter there had been no time lost."

On the 31st of May, 1847, a Vote was agreed to, in a further sum, as follows—

"Estimate of the sum required to be voted in the year 1847–8, towards defraying the expense of completing the monument erected in Trafalgar Square to the memory of Lord Nelson—£2,000."

This vote was agreed to. Since that date no further grant has been made by Parliament. In order to complete the memorial according to Mr. Railton's design, a further sum of four or five thousand pounds may be required to place around the base four colossal couching lions, of which, said Sir Robert Peel, in a speech on the 22nd July, 1814, the size should be "an open question." I trust, Sir, I may have succeeded in laying the subject before the House in a manner likely to conciliate its co-operation; and, therefore, now with confidence appeal to its support when I urge the completion of this memorial upon the immediate consideration of the Government.

said, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the observations which had fallen from the hon. and gallant Admiral, as he had always thought that it was a disgrace to the country that the monument to one who rendered more service to his country than any man that had ever lived, and that at a time of great difficulty, should have been left so long incomplete, and this, too, when we were spending thousands upon things of no value. He wished, however, to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the system which now prevailed of allowing Motions to be made on going into Committee of Supply. He did not wish to interfere with the right of hon. Members to the enjoyment of a privilege which was intended to enable them to bring forward Motions connected with public grievances; but he thought, by a different arrangement on the days which were devoted to Government business, this species of delay might be prevented, and he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the matter into consideration.

It is not for me to restrict the privileges of the House of Commons. I have, in the course of my experience in Parliament, known many attempts made with that object, and with the purest motives, all of which proved to be fruitless; and I feel convinced, Sir, that the best policy for any Government to adopt in reference to the subject is to trust to the good sense and good temper of the House in the conduct of public business, and not to attempt to influence its proceedings by effecting any change in those rules to which we have so long been accustomed, and which we all regard and venerate. I can, however, assure the hon. Member who has just spoken that I shall be ready to take into consideration any suggestions which he may think proper to make on this subject, though my own impression certainly is, that the wisest plan for one holding the position which I have the honour to occupy is to place reliance upon the kind assistance of the House, and not to endeavour to control its action by artificial regulations. In reply to the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, I can only say that I am not surprised he should have brought under our notice a subject upon which I myself have always felt strongly, and in which he—a distinguished ornament of that gallant profession to which Nelson belonged—may naturally be supposed to take even a still deeper interest. I entirely concur with my hon. and gallant Friend in the opinion that the name of Nelson is the glory of this country, as I think that his monument is its shame. It is, I think, a great national mistake that monuments to the memory of British worthies of the class to which Nelson belonged should not be erected until so long after their death, and that even then the erection of those monuments should be entrusted to the hands of private persons. I am aware of no single instance in which individual efforts have been successful in such objects. Then the private subscribers appeal to the public authorities for aid, and the unsatisfactory result is what naturally might be expected from that double government which is no longer in fashion. There ought, in my opinion, to exist upon the part of a nation a stronger sense of the recognition due to the merits of its heroes than I regret to think prevails in this country. A want of public spirit and of public feeling in the case of Nelson cannot indeed be laid to our charge; but we certainly are open to the imputation of a want of taste and of an absence of the habit of coming forward at the right time to recognise as we ought to do the services of our illustrious men. To the supereminent merits of the individual whose name my hon. and gallant Friend has this evening brought under our notice, I could not presume even to attempt to do justice. I may, however, remark of Nelson, that he stands alone as the greatest man in his profession. Our great men in every other department of human action find their equals. Our illustrious Wellington is compared with our famous Marlborough. But when we consider the achievements of Nelson we find that he has no rival — no parallel. It might really be said of him, as Cardinal de Retz said of the Marquess of Montrose, that he was the only man of modern times who reminded one of the heroes of Plutarch. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is a disgrace to this country that his monument should not long since have been completed; and, although our finances are not in a flourishing condition, I feel, after the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Williams) ashamed to throw any difficulty in carrying into effect the object for which this Motion was introduced. I shall, therefore, take upon myself the responsibility of providing for the completion of a monument which is so intimately associated with the glory and the reputation of this country.

said, he rose to move for a return of the number of Continuous Service Men who accepted their discharge and then crossed the quarterdeck and entered for five years.

said, he doubted if the Motion of the lion, and gallant Gentleman could be complied with, but if it was possible to be complied with, he should have no objection. He hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press the Motion now, because it would be in the position of an Amendment to the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would withdraw the Motion, he would inquire how far it could be complied with, and it might be then brought on as an unopposed Motion.

said, that in calling attention to this subject, he would take occasion to state that he had hoard about ten days ago that 10,000 of the embodied militia were about to be disembodied, and that he had consequently felt it his duty to wait upon the light hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, to represent to him the peculiar position in which the Dumfries Regiment of Militia was placed. He had also called upon the Under Secretary for War, and had mentioned to him that the regiment in question had been ordered last November from Scotland to Aldershot, where it was stationed at the present moment. He had added that agricultural labourers were hired in Dumfriesshire only twice a year—namely, in the months of November and March, and that, as a consequence, the men who composed the regiment had just missed the time when they could hope to be employed. The Secretary for War had informed him that the principle which was to be adopted in the case of the militia was to continue the enlistment of those regiments which had contributed the greatest number of volunteers to the line, and which were, moreover, in the highest state of efficiency. He (Mr. Johnstone) had stated in reply that his regiment required only twenty men to complete its quota, while in point of efficiency it was second to none in the service. They had been the first to volunteer for foreign service during the war, and he thought it would be neither generous nor just to the men of his regiment to send them back to Scotland at a time when it would be impossible for them to obtain employment, the only periods at which agricultural labourers were hired in that country being March and November. In order to show the efficiency of the officers of the regiment, he might mention that one of the captains had taken a first-class certificate at Hythe. He thought the circumstances of the case were so peculiar as to justify him in bringing them under the notice of the House, and hoped, therefore, he had stated sufficient grounds for the Government to reconsider this case.

said, he perfectly appreciated the kindly motives that induced the hon. Gentleman to bring forward this subject, but thought that when he had heard the explanation of the reasons for the step of which he complained, the hon. Gentleman would be convinced of its necessity. The circumstances under which the militia were called out were these:— In consequence of the drain of troops from this country to India, it was determined to embody 25,000 militia. At that time the number of rank and file of the regular army in England was 45,998. When he came into office he found on the 1st of April the number of embodied militia amounted to 29,915, and the rank and file of the regular army to 71,581, being an increase of 25,000 men. The only vote which had been taken on account of the militia was one of £150,000. That sum would only maintain 10,000 men for six months; and, of course, with 30,000 it would only suffice for two months. Unless, therefore, an additional vote was taken, it became necessary—though they did it most reluctantly—to reduce the number of embodied militia regiments. The principle upon which the reduction was effected by His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, was to dismiss first those regiments which had not contributed their full quota of volunteers to the line, and thus it was that the regiment in question had been selected for disembodiment.

said, he could confirm the statements of the hon. Member for Canterbury as to the peculiar hardship of discharging the Dumfriesshire regiment at this time. Had they been disembodied before the 25th of last month no objection would have been made.

said, he had often before found fault with the constitution of the Admiralty, but he thought this vote so extravagant, that he could not allow the opportunity to pass without again calling the attention of the House to the subject. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle was at the head of the Navy, he effected very great changes. He established the offices of Surveyor of the Navy, Controller of the Victualling Department, the heads of the Medical Department, the Accountant's General Department) and the Storekeeper General's Department. That arrangement, he confessed, had appeared to him (Sir C. Napier) to be and the time the best that could be devised for securing departmental responsibility, but now he was obliged to say that in consequence of the number of the Lords of the Admiralty, a Lord had been nominally placed over each department, by which the duties of the several Lords had become almost a sinecure, the business being transacted almost entirely by the inferior officers, and thus the responsibility of those naval Lords had been very much weakened. At a time when we were doing away with double governments it was desirable to abolish that which now existed at the Admiralty. And he believed that it would have a most beneficial effect to reduce the number of Lords of the Admiralty from six to three. He believed that we had now five as good officers at the head of the several departments of the Admiralty as could be found And it would be far better that each of them should have the entire responsibility for his department than that it should be weakened by the nominal control of a Lord of the Admiralty who did not exercise any efficient control over the business. The great defect of the Admiralty administration was the division of the business between Whitehall and Somerset House, which rendered communication and control difficult. The Surveyor of the Navy had no fewer than six masters, according to the nature of the business he had to transact. To a certain degree this inconvenience was remedied by his being brought to the Board of Admiralty. But still he was always under some one. Neither he nor the Comptroller of the Navy had the power to do anything without the assent of the Board of Admiralty, which involved much correspondence and considerable delay. He would give the whole power of the Navy in these departments to those officers, who should be responsible for their conduct. There should be at the head of the Navy a Minister of Marine, and a Vice and Hear Admiral of Great Britain, who should not be changed with each Ministry. The two latter should act as counsellors of the first, who should be at liberty to take their advice or reject it, as he thought fit, but should bear the whole responsibility. It was impossible that there should be any efficient responsibility when power and the control over the various departments of the Navy were divided amongst six Lords. Another serious defect in the present administration of the Navy was that the different Lords of the Admiralty who were placed at the head of the several departments worked in different rooms, and the result of this was that the most contradictory orders were given to officers in command of fleets. He recollected, when he was in command of the Channel fleet, some years ago, having an order one day to take the Queen, three-decker, out for the purpose of exercise, and another immediately afterwards to send her home. Again, he had one order one day to take the lower deck guns out of the St. Vincent and try her without them, and a second communication, immediately afterwards, blaming him for doing so. When he commanded the fleet in the Baltic also, he received the most contradictory orders from the Admiralty. It was clearly impossible that officers could execute their duties satisfactorily if they received different orders from different Lords. He hoped that the present First Lord would grant a Commission to inquire into the working of the present Admiralty system, and he would then find that the entire system was one in which a change was loudly demanded. There were Lords of the Admiralty present who would probably rise and say he was all in the wrong, but if a Commission was appointed, he believed there was not a clerk at the Admiralty who would not give evidence against them. If, however, the Government would not consent to a Commission, he (Sir C. Napier) must move as an Amendment that the present Vote should be reduced by a sum of £3,000.

said, that he thought it would be better that the constitution of the Board of Admiralty should be defended either by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) or the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) who had each presided over the department with great ability for some time, than by himself, who had been only a few weeks in office. At the same time he must say, that so far as his experience enabled him to form an opinion, he could not concur in the greater part of what had fallen from the gallant Admiral. He regretted, however, that the hon. and gallant Admiral had given no notice whatever of the proposal he was about to make, as until he rose, he (Sir J. Pakington) had no idea of the nature of that proposal. The hon. and gallant Admiral complained that there should be a civil Lord at the Admiralty. [Sir C. NAPIER was understood to dissent.] At all events it appeared to him that the duties appertaining to finance and to the superintendence of the buildings going on in the different dockyards might be as well attended to by a civilian as by a professional man. Then the hon. and gallant Admiral said that the Admiralty was a system of double government. He must say, that he could see nothing of the nature of a double government about it. [Sir C. NAPIER: Somerset House and Whitehall.] There were double offices certainly, but that was a different thing from a double government, and no doubt great inconvenience rose from the division of the business of the Admiralty between these establishments; but it was impossible for any vole of that House to correct that evil. Certainly it could not be done by such a reduction of the Vote as the hon. and gallant Admiral had proposed. The division of the offices arose from the great amount of business transacted by the Admiralty. That business required the services of 200 clerks, a number the Admiralty buildings at Whitehall were not adequate to accommodate. It was, therefore, necessary that all the business of the several departments, except that of the Surveyor General, should be conducted at Somerset House. The attention of Parliament had been drawn during the last few years to the necessity of constructing new Government Offices, and he hoped that, when the arrangements contemplated were carried out, the whole of the Admiralty business might be conducted under one roof. He understood the gallant Admiral to say that the officers of the several departments might carry on the business of those departments without the superintendence of the naval Lords. But although his experience was sufficient to enable him to agree with the gallant Admiral, that it was impossible to speak too highly of the ability with which the gentlemen referred to performed their duties, he did not think it followed that they were not to be superintended and aided by the Lords of the Admiralty. The Admiralty business was of a very peculiar kind, in which civil and professional matters were mingled together; and he must, for his own part, say that he thought the public advantage was promoted by naval men acting as junior Lords, and exercising a superintendence over the various departments. The practical effect of the proposition of the hon. and gallant Admiral would be to reduce the naval counsellors of the First Lord from four to two—the Vice and Hear Admiral. He could not sanction that. He believed that the advice, counsel, and experience of which the First Lord gained the advantage from having four professional gentlemen to advise him were not only an assistance to himself, but highly beneficial to the interests of the country. Under these circumstances he could not assent to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Admiral, and he trusted that it would not be pressed to a division.

said that, having bad the opportunity given to him by Commodore Eden of inspecting the coastguard, he thought that the present condition of that body was highly satisfactory. The principle of a naval militia, as embodied in the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, was a, suggestion of his own, made so long ago as 1819, and repeated by him half-a-dozen times since. The plan had not yet been carried out far enough, for the term of twenty-eight days was not sufficient for exercising the men. At present, a man having entered the coastguard service, might remain there for ten years without seeing any active service afloat, and thus lose his serviceableness as a seaman. There was another point to which he wished to draw attention. The coastguard obtained their pensions too easily, and it would be better to call upon them to serve a longer period afloat before they became entitled to a pension. At present the privileges given to the coastguard were calculated to cause great discontent among the seamen, who had to serve twenty years afloat before they got a pension, while the coastguard obtained theirs after five years' service. The great object of the Admiralty should be to hold out more encouragement to seamen to enter the Royal Navy. Faith had been so often broken with the sailors that they did not believe in the promises of the Government, and if the Government wanted to man their ships with facility, they must consult the feelings of the sailors a little more than they had done. It was no wonder, under such circumstances, that ships were now four, five, and even six months before they could be manned. Why should not the Government give both a bounty and a kit to the sailor as well as to the soldier? The Admiralty ought to have, during the summer, a fleet of ten sail-of-the-line exercising at Spithead and in the Channel, and that from time to time the block-ships at the different ports on the coast should be telegraphed to join the exercising squadron at the shortest notice, in order to test their efficiency.

I wish once more to impress upon the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty, a, suggestion which I made on a late occasion, when these Estimates were before the House. It is of the utmost importance that a training brig should be attached to every line-of-battle block-ship, in order to provide adequate opportunities to the petty officers and seamen of the coastguard to be constantly and practically employed in the knowledge of their duties at sea. The vessel should be thus manned in successive reliefs, and kept on a cruize extending over a period of one month or six weeks.

said, he wished to express the pleasure with which he received suggestions on those points from naval men. He would, however, remind his hon. and gallant Friend that under the regulations of his predecessor at the Admiralty one or two gunboats were attached to each of the coastguard ships. He felt the force of what the gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) had said upon the danger that the coastguard men, however good and valuable in the first instance, would become less efficient as they remained on shore, unless some steps were taken to keep up their sea-going experience. He would not lose sight of this subject, but he did not deem it necessary then to enter into the general question of the coastguard men and naval volunteers after the manner in which he had referred at length to these points in his general statement in moving the Naval Estimates on the Monday evening previously.

The First Lord of the Admiralty will pardon me if I remind him, that gunboats not being square-rigged vessels, would be unavailable for the purpose which I recommend; their only use when afloat (for I regret to find that at present they are staged with such extraordinary caution as to be launched with considerable difficulty and delay) and whilst attached to these ships would be for the service of the coastguard volunteers, to inure them to the blue-water by correcting a disposition to sea-sickness, and to teach them the management of fore-and-aft-rigged vessels.

said, that when they wanted to increase the number of coastguards it was necessary, as an inducement, to reduce the number of years' service; but having filled up the numbers it was no longer necessary to spread their net so widely.

said, that as this Vote was connected with the Victualling Department at Deptford, he wished to put some questions to the right hon. Gentle- man the Late First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to a letter he then held in his hand. In consequence of his being Chairman of the Committee on contracts which sat last year, a letter had come to him, dated the 4th of April, 1857, in these terms: —

"My dear Sir, — After all the assurances which we have received that the Government never give out important orders hut by contract, and always accept the lowest tender for stores, you will be surprised to hear that a very large private order for prepared meats, upwards of half-a-million pounds weight, has been given to Messrs. So-and-so for the service in China, without any public notice of the requirement, and consequently Messrs. So-and-so have had an unrestricted price. Besides this being an act of injustice to the trade, the public service will be injured by the inferiority of the articles arising out of the haste and the unseasonable period at which they are preserved, particularly should meat form a portion; whereas, if the contract had been thrown open to competition, the Government would have found themselves amply provided with meats in a state ready for immediate shipment, and which had been put up at a proper season in good order. On the contrary, an unfair preference has been given, to the detriment of the public service. This is sad jobbing, and I am not at all surprised at the general expression of discontent whenever public contracts are mentioned."

[Cries of "Name!"] He would rather not give the name of the 'writer, but he would show the letter to the late and the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and when he had done so he was sure they would both admit the respectability of the authority, and that it was such as could not for a moment be supposed to give information not founded on fact. The Admiralty invariably obtained their supplies by open tender, and they accepted the lowest tender, provided the contractor was proved to be a man of substance. It was also the system of the East India Company. It was not the system of the Army. They had three courses by which to obtain supplies—by open tender, by an office list, or by purchasing on the spur of the moment. The questions arising out of this letter which he wished to ask were— whether the supply referred to was delivered, and, if so, was it received or rejected? What was the money value? In what part of the Estimates the transaction appeared? And why it was not an open tender?

said, he was afraid he could not answer the questions which referred to last year's Estimates. The hon. and gallant Officer was rather behind time. This was an order given in April, 1857, in reference to preserved meats, which must have been sent out to China twelve months ago. Why, on earth, did not the hon. and gallant Member put his questions last year when the Estimates were before the House. [Colonel BOLDERO said the letter was not in his possession.] He had certainly understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that it was received a year ago. It was impossible to remember the details of a transaction which occurred a year ago, or to answer questions on those details, especially when put without notice. With regard to the general statement, the hon. and gallant Member was entirely mistaken. It was not the invariable rule of the Admiralty to obtain all the supplies which they might require by open contract, and as invariably to take the lowest tender. The practice which he pursued, and which was pursued twenty years ago, when he had the honour to be Secretary to the Admiralty, as a general rule was to take the lowest tender. That was the object, indeed, of calling for tenders and putting the matter up to public competition; hut he had never held himself bound, under all circumstances, to take the lowest tender, if he did not consider it to be most advantageous for the public service. With regard to preserved meats, it was one of those items on which they were bound to be most careful. It was quite impossible to be certain that the meats were properly preserved. A quantity bad been sent to the Crimea, and some was bad before it got there, and some was good when it came back. Of meats preserved by the same person sometimes a portion would fail at the end of three months, and a portion not fail at the end of three years. It would be, therefore, exceedingly unwise to throw a contract of that kind open to public competition, as the only security was to go to a person whom they had reason to trust, and upon whom they could rely.

said that, to show the inequality of the supply, he had lately tasted some of Mr. Goldner's preserved meat, the contractor of whose supplies so much complaint had been made, which had been six years in store, and very good it was.

said that, so far from its being the rule at the Admiralty to accept the lowest tender, when the Arctic expedition was fitted out, an order for the preserved meat was given to a contractor, in whom confidence was felt, to furnish the quantity required entirely without reference to price.

said, he was not at all sorry that he had mooted the question, his solo object being that the food supplied to the Navy and Army should be of the best quality. So long as it proved to be good, he cared not a straw whether they paid a penny, twopence, or three-pence a pound more for it than they would have done had they taken a low contract. All he wished to learn from the late First Lord was, that the contract was fairly entered into, and that the food was of good quality, and was now being consumed without detriment to the health of the service.

said, that two questions had to be considered in looking at this matter of preserved meats; one was the accuracy with which the chemical preparation was conducted; the other the quality of the meat preserved. And he believed that neither of these points had ever yet received proper attention. Good meat, preserved in a proper manner, would maintain its strength and purity for many years, provided these two conditions were properly regarded. But it was of no use to preserve bad meat. The animal preserved must be a well-fed animal. It must be good meat. They must not attempt to preserve coarse and inferior; if they did, the juices and fats were entirely lost, and it was like eating rope-yarn. He grounded what he had now stated upon his own personal experience, having commanded a troop-ship, and had occasion to servo out those meats; and it was his belief that when men had been kept for any considerable time upon salt provisions it was very necessary that they should have at least two days in the week preserved meats supplied to them. The attention of the Admiralty might very advantageously be turned to this matter, for if proper chemical anti-scorbutics were administered to the sailors, many more years' work might be got out of them.

said, that before this vote was discussed, he felt bound, although he did so with reluctance, to call attention to an error in the Estimates as prepared by the late Government. He did not mean to impute any blame to the right hon. Gentleman his predecessor in office, nor to those who had assisted him in drawing up the Estimates; but, of course, it was of the greatest importance that accounts of this kind should be stated with accuracy. If the items of expenditure printed in the estimate did not correspond with the real amounts to be defrayed, the result was that both the Members of the Government and the House of Commons were misled. The Committee would recollect that he objected on Monday night to adopt the number of men intended to be proposed by the late Government for the dockyards—namely, 12,190; but proposed to take a vote of £50,000 for hired labour to meet the existing pressure in the dockyards, that being half of the apparent difference between the establishments of the last and the present years. the Committee would perceive by the Estimates that the proposed establishment of 12,190 men was estimated at £737,751, while the smaller establishment of 10,850 of last year, was estimated at £637,751, showing a difference of £100,000. It was on that ground that he proposed on Monday to take a vote of £50,000, to carry on the works in the dockyards for the next six months. On Tuesday he requested the Surveyor of the Navy to draw up a programme of those works on which that sum could be must beneficially expended. The answer he received from that gentleman surprised him very much; for he said, "You have not got £50,000; you have only gut £20,000." He asked for an explanation and received an answer to the effect that £30,000 of the £50,000 that he had obtained on Monday would be required to make up a deficiency which by accident occurred in the Estimates for the preceding year. He (Sir J. Pakington) believed that the error had arisen entirely by an accident. He ought to have explained that £10,000, or thereabouts, of this deficiency arose from an increase in the wages paid to the labourers in the dockyards last year. The remainder of the deficiency arose from asking for less than the establishment of last year required. That error he believed was owing to the haste with which the Estimates were cut down last year. The original Estimate for 10,850 men last year stood correctly at £659,761, being exactly £22,000 more than the Estimate actually submitted to Parliament. The Vote for Deptford dockyard, for instance, was £30,573, but the original Estimate was £40,472; for Woolwich dockyard the vote was £75,27, but the original estimate was £79,771, and so on. So that it seemed as if some one had gone through the entire Estimate of the dockyards, and reduced the money items by a small amount, but had forgotten to make a corresponding reduction in the number of men employed, 10,850. The result was that instead of £100,000 being proposed by the late Government for increased dockyard expenditure, not more than £70,000 had been so proposed. He did not mention this matter to cast blame upon any one. It was in fact a business affair, and the error must be corrected. Of course the officer of the Admiralty upon whom the blame might be supposed to rest was the Accountant General; but he thought it due to that able financier, who was deservedly mentioned in terms of great praise on Monday night, to state that by a most objectionable arrangement made in 1850, this particular Vote was taken out of his control and placed in that of the Surveyor of the Navy and the Board of Admiralty. Since that time all that the Accountant General had to do was to place in the Estimates the sum which they thought necessary to the dockyard establishments. He had no power to subject their proposals to the revision to which he subjected all the other amounts proposed to be inserted in the Estimates. That system led to great inaccuracies and incon- veniences— for example, the Committee would observe that in the Estimates for one year, there was a vote for 319 men in a particular department, and for 538 men in another; but there was no entry in either case of the amount of money required for their wages. He could not understand why the particular Vote in which the error which he had first mentioned had occurred, should not be inserted like any of the other navy Votes in the Estimates. He had now but one course to take—namely, to ask the Committee to grant £30,000 more than he asked for on Monday night, in order that the deficiency might be covered.

said that, to a certain extent he understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but he could not see the error in the estimates of which he complained. He did not know on what authority the right hon. Gentleman asserted that the late Government made reductions in the Navy Estimates so carelessly as to ask for less money than was necessary to maintain the number of workmen agreed to by the House as the establishment of the dockyards. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was altogether unexpected, and he was, therefore, not prepared with documents to answer it. The inadequacy of the Estimate for the present year must depend upon whether £737,751, which the late Government proposed to Vote, was too little for an establishment of 12,190 men. To a certain extent it would have been impossible, even if the House had agreed to give the whole of the additional men requested by the Government, to obtain the entire number in the course of the first few months of the year, and, therefore, a sum less than the whole amount of the wages of the whole number of the men for the whole year would not have been an inadequate Estimate. He believed, however, that the sum taken was the full amount for the year. The statement of the sum voted last year was perfectly true. There might have been an excess of expenditure for wages in the dockyards; he did not know whether the fact was so or not; but there could be no doubt that the sum voted was £637,751. The late Government were, therefore, bound to put that sum in the Estimates, and hence the only question could be whether the sum proposed to be voted for the present year was adequate for the establishment which could by possibility be obtained within the year. He concluded, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet meant to say that £737,751 would not pay the wages of 12,190 men. [Sir J. PAKINGTON: I have not said anything of the kind.] He could not see, then, where the alleged inaccuracy lay. It could not be in the Estimate of last year, because the late Government were bound to state the actual sum voted, and then they proposed to add £100,000 more for the present year, in order to provide for as many additional men as the Surveyor might think right, thus raising the Estimate for wages to the amount of £737,751. The object of that increase was to get rid of payment for extra hours and of hired men. The right hon. Baronet had charged him with departing from the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Lord Seymour. Now, the recommendation of that Committee was that, if an increase were necessary it should be done by an addition to the permanent establishment and not by the employment of extra men. During the Russian war, finding that job and task work and hired labour was the most available means of increasing the work done in the dockyards, the late Government had recourse to it; but he repeated now what he had stated before, that a worse system could not be adopted during peace. He believed that £737,751 was an adequate sum for paying the establishment for the present year, and therefore, unless the right hon. Baronet told him that those persons who were answerable for the details had miscalculated the amount of wages necessary for the payment of 12,190 men, he could not admit that there was any inaccuracy in the Estimates.

observed that he did not impugn the Estimates for the present year. What he stated was that the Estimates for last year, as it appeared in the papers before the Committee, was incorrect. The Government last year took £22,000 off their Estimate, but made no reduction in the establishment, and the result was that instead of having £100,000 for extra labour in the present year he had only in round numbers £70,000

stated that £637,751 was more than enough to pay the establishment of workmen in the dockyards.

said, that gentlemen in office possessed peculiar advantages when commenting upon the conduct of their predecessors. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had been kind enough to inform the House that certain alterations, of which he did not approve, were made in 1850; but, fail- ing in that courtesy which was usually shown by one official man to another, he had not given the slightest notice of his intention to make that statement to anybody who was connected with the Admiralty at that time. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet had obtained his information from Mr. Bromley, but that gentleman was not at the Admiralty when the alteration in question was made; and although the change itself might appear wrong to the right hon. Baronet, who had been only a short time in office, the Committee should know that it was effected under the sanction of a most intelligent officer who was Accountant General to the Admiralty in 1850. For his own part he was still of opinion that the Surveyor of the Navy was better able to frame an estimate than the Accountant General, who merely kept the accounts; and at all events, when the right hon. Baronet next travelled out of his way to attack the conduct of his predecessor in 1850, he would take it as a favour—or rather as an act of justice—if he would have the kindness to give him some previous notice of his intention. He confessed that he could not understand the explanatory statement of the right hon. Baronet. The result of it, however, was the very uncomfortable one that the House would have to vote an additional sum of £30,000. He might be permitted to say, that the discrepancy which the right hon. Baronet had pointed out was not so remarkable or uncommon as he seemed to imagine. When an establishment was reduced, it did not follow that the reduction in the expense would be equal to the reduction in the number of the men, because, as the right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) had pointed out, the whole number of men was not likely to be employed throughout the year.

said, he could not too strongly express his regret at finding that, most unconsciously and unintentionally, he had given offence to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Baring). The best proof he could give of the innocence of his intention was, that, at the moment he spoke, he did not recollect that the right hon. Baronet was the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1850. If he had recollected that circumstance, he might have given him notice; but still he was not quite certain that he would have done so, inasmuch as he did not attack the right hon. Baronet or anybody else. He simply stated a fact which the right hon. Baronet had now confirmed, that in 1850 a change was made with respect to the management of these Votes. The right hon. Baronet thought the alteration a good one; but that it was bad the Committee had a practical proof in the errors which had crept into the Estimates. His own opinion was, that those errors would not have occurred if the Votes had been brought under the supervision of the Accountant General. The right hon. Baronet had stated that 630,000 was wanted to cover a deficiency of last year. There was a deficiency to that amount to be covered, but he understood it was partly met by a surplus of £20,000 in another Vote, and therefore no larger sum than £10,000 would have to be provided in some other way.

said, that such an arrangement might have been made in 1850 as that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not recollect it.

said, that if there were a mistake it was quite of the right hon. Gentleman's own making. The right hon. Gentleman said that he (Sir Charles Wood) improperly reduced the Estimate last year without regard to the establishment to be maintained, and that the Estimate was below the requisite amount to the extent of £22,000. Now, he found that the whole sum voted for the year 1855–56 —the last year of the war—was £801,000. That sum included £250,000 for additional wages for extra work to be performed by task and job, and for the pay of hired men. Deducting £250,000 from £864,000, there remained £614,000 as the sum required for the regular establishment. For the next year the sum voted was £839,000, which included £225,000 for extra work by task and job, and for the pay of hired men. Taking £225,000 from £839,000 there remained £614,000 as the sum due for wages for the establishment. Now, the sum voted last year was £637,000, which exceeded the sum shown on the two preceding Estimates as due to the establishment by £23,000; being £1,000 more than the sum which the right hon. Gentleman said he (Sir Charles Wood) had improperly dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had made something like a charge that the Estimates had been misstated, but all that was done was according to practice to put down in the Estimates for the present year the Vote of last year, and he did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman denied that the Estimate the late Government had pro- posed for the present year was adequate for the men proposed to be employed. Therefore the Vote of last year was correctly stated, and the Estimate for the present Tear was also correct in reference to the services to be performed. When an end was put to task-work, a sum of £23,000 was provided for any occasional labour that might be required in the course of the year, and therefore the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman was totally unjustifiable. The fact was obvious. The right hon. Gentleman was determined to make a reduction from what had been proposed, and somehow or other took off £50,000, not knowing why or wherefore, and in order to justify himself made an attack against him (Sir Charles Wood.)

said, he could not too strongly express his regret at the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. As a matter of business he could not avoid mentioning the circumstance, and now the right hon. Gentleman charged him with making an utterly unjustifiable attack. He did not like these criminations and recriminations, and had not intended to indulge in them in the present instance. He said at first that he thought it was an accidental error; but let him tell the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) since he held such language, that he had got the right hon. Gentleman's letters in his hand, though he did not wish to make use of them. He had got the old Estimates and the new Estimates and the changes—two changes — of the figures in red ink. He had got, too, the right hon. Gentleman's letters directing those changes. The fact was incontrovertible that, the Government last 3"ear prepared an Estimate for 10,850 men, and the sum put down to meet that establishment was £659,751. At the last moment, however, they knocked off £22,000, without making a corresponding reduction in the establishment. The result was that the Estimates presented to the House gave an erroneous view of the expenditure in last year. He had made no charge against the right hon. Gentleman, supposing that the error arose from the precipitation with which the Estimates were produced last year, and he regretted the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he was sorry if he had said anything to annoy the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought an attack had been made on him. He was speaking to a great disadvantage, because he could not refer to official documents and to letters, which, under ordinary circumstances, would be in his possession. He proposed last year an establishment of 10,850 men, for which £614,000 were taken as an adequate payment; and he also proposed a sufficient sum, as he believed, beyond that to provide for hired artificers and extra labour, because it was not till the present year he proposed to put the whole on the establishment. If the right hon. Baronet told him that £637,000 was not enough to pay for 10,850 men, then he (Sir Charles Wood) was wrong; but if it was sufficient, then he (Sir Charles Wood) had not fallen into any error. No doubt, in the first instance, the Government had entertained thoughts of taking a larger sum than they afterwards resolved to ask Parliament for; and they did not propose any reduction in the number of men until they heard the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty He (Sir Charles Wood's) belief still was that £637,000 would be sufficient for 10,850 men.

said, he had been concerned all his life in making estimates, and he thought it would be very hard, indeed, if the First Lord of the Admiralty were to be held responsible for every item of the Navy Estimates. He rose, however, for the purpose of referring to the amount of wages given in the dockyards, as he thought that the men were very much underpaid. The expense of house rent in such places as Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devon port, was very high, and it could not be expected that men in the receipt of 13s. 6d. a week, who had to pay 3s. or 3s. 6d. a week for rent, could support their wives and families adequately upon the remaining 10s. a week. The consequence was, that these underpaid labourers, although honest, could not be zealous in the discharge of their duties, but they husbanded their energies during the day, in order that, by working in the evenings, they might make some addition to their miserable wages. He was informed that bricklayers in London earned from 3s. to 3s. 6d. a day, while the artisans in the dockyard boroughs only received 2s. 2d. a day. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would direct his attention to this subject, as he believed that the rate of wages in dockyard towns did not depend upon the question of supply and demand.

observed, that workmen in private ship-building yards received 5s. or 5s. 6d. a day, and he thought it was a mistaken economy to give so low a rate of wages to the artisans on the public establishments. It was the opinion of Mr. Stephenson, Sir S. Peto, and other competent authorities, that men employed in such labour as was performed in the dockyards ought to have a good meal of meat daily; but many a time during his can-vass—[Hear]—he found the working men employed in the dockyard making their dinner on bread, cheese, and potatoes. He believed that the saving effected by underpaying these labourers was fully counterbalanced by the inefficiency of their work, and he could corroborate the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Smith), that many of the labourers had to work till late hours at night, in order to make up the amount necessary for the support of their families. He regretted that the Motion made last year by the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth, did not extend to civil servants paid by the week, for the consequence was, that while these civil servants who were paid by the year had been relieved from the superannuation tax, the shipwrights, blacksmiths, and joiners, who received weekly wages, were subjected to a superannuation tax of 20 per cent.

thought the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and the two right hon. Gentlemen who formerly held that office, had occupied the time of the House very unnecessarily about a small amount of £30,000, for any one who looked to the reports of the Board of Audit would find that some of these Estimates were formed upon mere guesses, and under one head in a former year £516,000 more than was voted by the House according to the Estimate had been expended, while under another head £300,000 less than was voted by the House had been disbursed. Since the termination of the French war, not less than £77,000,000 had been expended upon our navy. What had become of it? It had been spent, to a great extent, upon rubbish, and also in waste and jobbery. There was no remedy for this state of things, except the adoption of the American system, under which an account was given each Session of the manner in which the money voted during the preceding year had been expended.

said, he was fully aware of the placid, he might almost say contemptuous, indifference, with which the House received the representations made by hon. Members who represented ports at which there were dockyards, and therefore he was not surprised at the derisive cheers which greeted the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin) when he spoke of what he saw during his canvass. For his own part he had never canvassed a single dockyard voter, and therefore in saying a few words in support of the claim to consideration which had been advanced on the part of the dockyard labourers, he did so without reference to any political interest. There was now no dockyard at the borough for which he sat, but he had visited that of the neighbouring borough of Devonport, which had the advantage of being represented by the late Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson). He would not say how gratified the electors of that borough were at having for their representative a gentleman so nearly connected with the Treasury, or what he had promised them; but he was informed that, by some occult influence which he could not explain, the wages of some of the artisans at Devonport had been advanced, while the wages of others, who did not belong to the same class, were allowed to remain as they had been. The wages of some of the labourers had been reduced 2s. a week, while those of the ropemakers and some other classes, had been raised 3s. a week. This was a distinction which they could not understand. When he looked at the state of the representation, and thought how very little the House did for the class to whom he referred, he thought it would be no waste of the public time to inquire a little into their condition; and he assured the right hon. Baronet who presided so efficiently at the Admiralty, that if he would pay a little attention to the wants and wishes of those poor people, he would reap a rich harvest of popularity. He looked to the First Lord of the Admiralty to set matters on a right and proper footing.

said, that no doubt the House smiled when canvassing was alluded to, because they knew that there were various modes in which canvassing was carried on. The hon. Member was, however, mistaken in supposing that any feeling of contemptuous indifference existed in that House towards the representatives of the working classes. Against any such construction he strenuously protested. It was most essential for the general prosperity of the country, that the working classes should be contented and happy; and when any hon. Member brought forward facts to show that they were treated with injustice, it was the duty of that House to pay every attention to his statement. He was quite prepared to admit the possibility that the wages of labour might be unduly depressed by competition. With regard to the wages paid in the dockyards, he could only say that he looked upon that subject as one well worthy of attention; and when he visited the dockyards, as he pro-posed to do in the course of the summer, he should investigate the whole circumstances.

said, that he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. White) for the interest which he manifested in his constituents; but so far as he was concerned, he should never feel it to be his duty to urge upon the Executive any increase of expenditure beyond that which in their judgment was necessary. With regard to the alterations made last year in the wages of the workmen at Devonport, and referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. White) he was not aware of those eases, but his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood) would probably be able to explain them. The inference which the hon. Member apparently sought to draw from the facts he had mentioned ought to be pretty well rebutted by the course which he (Mr. Wilson) had pursued last year in opposing the repeal of the superannuation allowance abatements. That course was naturally in opposition to the feelings of a large number of his constituents. By the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) the wages of our most highly paid public servants were increased immediately to the extent of £70,000, and ultimately of £100,000 a year. This was in the face of the fact that hundreds of men in Government employ were dragging out a miserable existence upon 13s. a week, out of which he knew they had to pay 5s. or 6s. per week for their lodgings in consequence of the high rents in the towns where they were compelled to reside. This was the class of persons to whom he had referred last year as being most underpaid and as most demanding the attention of the Government, and who, while those he had mentioned had received a lavish grant of £70,000 a year, had not their pay increased by one farthing. In pleading the cause of these men, the representatives of dockyard towns were pleading the cause of non-voters against those who possessed the suffrage, and they could not therefore be accused of interested motives.

said, the Government possessed the larger part of the property in the town which he represented (Portsmouth), and consequently the poor rates fell very heavy upon the dockyard labourers there. These latter were 6,000 in number, many of whom were in a most depressed condition. It would be a disgrace to any country gentleman if his labourers were in no better state. He was glad to hear that the First Lord of the Admiralty meant to take these circumstances into consideration. It was urged some time ago in that House that if the rate of labour rose much higher, Government would have their ships repaired at merchants' yards, and he thought any such plan as that would be most injudicious, as be felt certain the Government would not get labourers at a private yard at 13s. a week.

said, he would suggest to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Board of Admiralty, and to the House generally, that many of these complaints would be obviated if they left to private enterprise a great portion of the work at present done in the Government dockyards. He was convinced that the men would then be more highly paid, while the work would be performed better and more cheaply.

said, he thought it extremely desirable that the Government should, by a distinct announcement of their intentions, put an end to the agitation which at present prevailed in the dockyards in reference to the question of the wages of the labourers. He could state that, although hon. Members had disclaimed the imputation of allowing themselves to be influenced by canvassing in that matter, such canvassing was going on, and expectations were excited on the part of these poor men which were not likely to be realized. He, therefore, entreated the Government, if they had not already made up their minds on this subject, to do so as soon as possible, in order that the agitation which now existed might be set at rest. With regard to the question of Superannuation, together with the deductions to which the Civil Service was subjected, the Committee had recommended that it should be referred to two impartial actuaries. If the actuaries had made their report, perhaps the Government would say whether they had any objection to lay it on the table.

said, he was glad to hear a promise of inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman. He might observe that there was a great difference between the wages paid in the arsenal at Woolwich and those paid in the dockyard. The dockyard received the inferior labourers, and a constant change of hands took place, which was detrimental to the proper execution of the work.

observed, that in the payment of salaries to the Civil Service the remuneration ought strictly to correspond with the amount and quality of the work done. They ought not to complicate the question by having to calculate what deduction should be made on account of the superannuation pension.

said, that the late Government had regulated the wages they paid according to the principle of supply and demand. They had raised the rate of pay of that class of artificers whose services they could not secure at the previous scale of remuneration. With regard to the wages of the labourers, the rate was the same in all the Government dockyards, and it would he difficult to make it otherwise; whereas the wages paid by private employers in the various neighbourhoods often differed considerably. If varying rates were adopted by the Government they would create a good deal of heartburning. At Plymouth the wages of the established labourers had been raised, but those of the class of labourers who were not permanently employed, and who could come and go whenever they pleased, had not been increased. The opinion that he had previously expressed as to the Estimate for wages, &c, was confirmed by the memorandum which the First Lord of the Admiralty had handed him for perusal.

, in rising to move that a sum not exceeding £2,454,027 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses for pay and allowances to Her Majesty's land forces abroad, said that if the Committee would refer to page 2 of the Estimates, containing the abstract of those Estimates, it would find that they were divided into six parts. He should, however, submit to the consideration of the Committee upon that occasion only that portion of the Estimates which related to the effective department of the army. It was desirable to obtain votes for that department previous to the introduction of the Budget, and he trusted, therefore, that the Committee would excuse him if he refrained from entering that evening into any detailed observations upon the subject of the various items contained in the Estimates. If the Committee were to enter upon that occasion into a general discussion of such points as barrack accommodation, the clothing of the troops, and things of a cognate nature, he was afraid that not only would no progress be made in taking the votes, but that no satisfactory decision with respect to the several items of which the}' were composed could be arrived at. It was customary in moving the Estimates, to institute a comparison between their present amount and that of the preceding year, in older that the House might be afforded an opportunity of forming an opinion in reference to the expediency of any changes in the amount which might be proposed, He had simply to state upon that point, that while the difference in the gross amount of the Army Estimates for this and the preceding year was but slight, there was a considerable variation in some of the items for the two periods—a variation, the reasons of which he should explain when he brought forward those Estimates more in detail. There was, however, but one great comparison to be drawn in such cases—namely, that between the proposed amount of expenditure and the absolute wants of the service. The proper system to adopt was to combine together, as far as possible, economy and efficiency, and he felt bound in justice to the noble Lord who had preceded him in office to say, that he appeared to have framed his estimates upon the combination of those two important principles. Indeed, so thoroughly had that policy been carried out by the noble Lord, that when he (General Peel) had examined the Estimates with a view of discovering what reductions in them might be effected, he had come to the conclusion that he would be justified in diminishing them only by a sum of £10,000, by postponing some Votes which might be brought forward upon a future occasion, should the exigencies of the service require it, but the postponement of which would be productive of no public inconvenience. He should, upon that occasion, particularize only one Vote in the Estimates, and that was the sum of £10,000 which he had added, in order to secure 100 68-pounders to Malta. It would be recollected that when the Estimates had been framed last year, a great reduction had unfortunately been made in the army. In some points those reductions were unfortunate; for whatever objections might have been urged in former times to maintaining a large standing army, it was absolutely necessary at the present day that the army should be kept up in the most efficient state, especially when they took into consideration the necessity of employing a large additional European force in India. That circumstance, however, would cause no additional expense to this country, the whole of the increase being borne by the East India Company. He trusted the House would excuse him from entering further into detail, and he begged to conclude by placing the Vote which he had risen to move in the Chairman's hands.

said, he hoped that, when the right hon. and gallant General entered into the general statement to which he had adverted, he would be prepared to give the Committee some explanation in reference to the reduction which he had made in the Votes for the purchase of land for the erection of new barracks, a subject to which the attention of the public had been of late much directed.

said, the Government had postponed the Vote for the purchases of land at Windsor and Glasgow, as they had come to the conclusion that no possible inconvenience could result from that postponement. He would give an explanation when the Vote for the purchase of land was before the House.

asked, if any determination had been arrived at respecting the allowances to staff officers in lieu of servants?

was afraid the answer he had to give would not be a very satisfactory one. The matter had been referred to the Commander in Chief, and, although no actual decision had been come to as yet, he was afraid that eventually they would have to return to the old system.

said, that for the last two years the House had been continually impressing upon the Government the necessity of having placed before them the Estimates in a clear and distinct form; and although he admitted that some improvements had been effected in that respect, yet he did not consider that the details were rendered sufficiently explicit. This Vote was not properly defined. In former Votes the items were given in detail. They ought to have an account of the number of regiments embodied, and also the number called out. This Vote was really not a reduction from that of last year, but actually an increase of £450,000.

said, that, considering the large reductions made from the Estimates of the late Government, he thought it would be much more satisfactory that the Committee should have some statement from the Secretary for War explaining those reductions.

said, he should explain the reasons for the reduction upon each Vote as it was taken.

asked why the Bill was extended to four years' duration?

said, that the object was to prevent the necessity of bringing in a precisely identical Bill each Session.