said, be wished to inquire from Her Majesty's Government, whether it is intended to lay papers on the table at this period on the subject of the Union of the Danubian Principalities, in conformity with the declaration of the First British Plenipotentiary at the Conferences of Paris in 1856.

stated, in reply, that the results of the investigation of the Commission upon the Danubian Principalities would be submitted to the Conference at Paris now pending, but it would not be in the power of Her Majesty's Government, previously to the meeting of that Conference, to lay the papers on the table.

said, he would beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this Session to abolish the privilege of Freedom from Arrest at present enjoyed by official debtors in Ireland, in accordance with the recommendation of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce?

, in reply, said, that the subject was undoubtedly one of great importance, but it was obvious that the privilege of freedom from arrest for debt could not be abolished in one case without being abolished in all cases, including that of Members of Parliament.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether the scientific results of the North Australian Expedition will be published, and in what form?

said, the narrative of the proceedings of the North Australian Expedition had already been printed. The geographical notes had been communicated to the Geographical Society, by whom he believed they had been published. The notes on botany had been sent to Sir William Hooker; those on geology to Sir Roderick Murchison, and those on the other portions of natural history to the Natural History Department of the British Museum; but he was not aware that any arrangement had been made for their publication.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War whether it is his intention to proceed to-night with the Militia Estimates?

said, the Militia Estimates had already been voted, but that if the noble Lord wished to obtain information on any subject connected with the Militia, the most convenient period for doing so would be when the hon. and gallant Member for York (Colonel Smyth) brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, now that he had laid upon the table the Resolutions that it is his intention to bring before the House, it is still his intention to pursue the course which he stated in answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) a few nights ago, and not to withdraw the Government of India Bill, which stands this night for second reading, though he has at the same time proposed his Resolutions to the House.

I think it will be more convenient upon the whole that the original understanding should not be departed from, and that the Bill should remain suspended till the discussion upon the Resolutions which I shall have the honour to introduce on Monday next be disposed of. For myself, I see no reason to depart from our first intention in that respect.

Sir, after that answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to give notice of my intention, when the light hon. Gentleman proposes his Resolutions on Monday next, to oppose the Motion, and to take the sense of the House upon it.

Sir, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer can only speak once on the question of the adjournment, I beg leave to call his attention, and that of the House, to the answer which has just been given to the noble Lord (Viscount Goderich) with respect to the Government of India. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he does not think it right to depart from the understanding that his Bill should be suspended until the Resolutions have been discussed. Now, I do not believe there was any understanding of the kind. It was my impression that the right hon. Gentleman the other night, at the end of the short conversation or debate which took place on this subject, stated, in answer to the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), that he did not mean to withdraw his Bill, but that he intended to keep it in suspense until the Resolutions had been discussed. I confess I heard that declaration with great regret, but I regarded it as a declaration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and not as a subject with respect to which any understanding was entered into on the part of the House. Now, I bog to submit to the right hon. Gentleman, and to those who act with him as his colleagues, that, although it certainly is my opinion—in which the light hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) has concurred—that this very important question could be most conveniently discussed in the form of Resolutions; and although that course has been repeatedly adopted by the House, and is sanctioned by usage, I think that to maintain in suspense a Bill introduced by the Government which submits such Resolutions to the House would be a very unusual proceeding. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not pursue that course. I cannot imagine that the Resolutions which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed will be adopted by this House in any form that can at all justify the House in proceeding with the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman in its present shape. In my opinion, the most important principle of the Bill—a principle entirely new, and which I consider utterly objectionable—was the proposal that members of an Executive Council should be elected by the Parliamentary constituencies. That proposal is quite new, and it is excluded from the Resolutions which the right hon. Gentleman intends to submit to the House. I hold, therefore, that even if the Resolutions were passed verbatim et literatim as the right hon. Gentleman proposes them, they would be inconsistent with the Bill he has laid before the House. I don't wish to take any course which might appear hostile to Her Majesty's Government on the order of the day for the second reading of the Government of India Bill; but I trust that before Monday the Government will reconsider the propriety of keeping the Bill in suspense. I should certainly be very sorry to support any interruption to our going into Committee upon the Resolutions; but I conceive that the Government ought to take one course or the other. They ought cither to submit Resolutions in a Committee of the whole House, which is the course they propose to pursue, or they ought to revert to their Bill, and proceed with it. I trust they will adopt the former course, and act in accordance with the usual practice of the House. But I do not think the House can countenance the Ministry in keeping in suspense the Bill with regard to the government of India which they have introduced, and at the same time asking the House to go into Committee upon these Resolutions.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question of church rates had been before the House for several years, and now one Member of the Cabinet had given his decided opinion in favour of the abolition of church rates, while he believed that they were all in favour of its settlement. On the last occasion, they were prevented from coming to a decision on the question; though, for his part, he was determined to wait there till three o'clock every morning to make progress with the measure, and thus obtain a settlement of the question, He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to give them a day when the subject might be fully discussed. It would save the House a great deal of trouble if the right hon. Gentleman would take that course.

I rise only to ask Her Majesty's Government not to afford any such facility to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) to press forward his proposition on church rates as would prevent this House from giving full consideration to the proposition that has been made to-night by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) to convert the church rate into a rent charge. The hon. Member made that proposition before, but he was precluded from pressing it by the forms of the House; and I now venture to express the hope that the House will not preclude the hon. Member from bringing forward that proposition in a form in which it can be fully discussed, as it seems, in my judgment, to offer a reasonable mode of solving some of the difficulties of the question.

said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether instructions have been sent to India that terms of amnesty, including protection to life and property and full toleration in matters of religion, should be held out to the inhabitants of Oude, excepting in gross cases of heinous crimes; and if no such instructions have been sent, whether in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it is not expedient to do so? In framing this question he disclaimed the intention of offering any suggestions as to the course of policy which Viscount Canning ought to adopt. He had no personal acquaintance with that nobleman, but on looking back at his public conduct, there seemed every reason to believe that he was animated by the soundest and most statesmanlike views on this particular question; and the very greatest praise was due to him for the mode in which he had resisted pressure from all quarters as to the line of conduct he had pursued. He had lately seen the letter of a distinguished writer from India, in which he described the angry British civilians prompting the execution of vengeance in every direction, and a few weeks ago he had noticed a passage from a newspaper (the organ, too, of a religious party), in which the writer said—"We are not sanguinary—we are not men of blood; but we gravely state that justice can never be satisfied without the expenditure of 200,000 lives at least in Bengal" — Bengal being only one-fourth of India. Now, he had formed a strong opinion from the unhappy events of the last twelve months that our tenure of British India was not threatened by insurrection so much as by two other causes; one of them being the spirit of vengeance breathed so generally by our fellow-countrymen in the East, and the other, the attempts made by an honest but mistaken party in this country to propagate their religion in India by the most intolerant methods. His firm belief was, that if these two principles of action were given way to and sanctioned by the authorities of this country, our tenure of India was not worth six months' purchase. A remarkable document had, within the last few days, appeared in The Times— the proclamation of the Hindoos rebels. These Hindoos declared that the four great things which a man valued—his religion, his honour, his life, and his property— were safer under native States than under British rule. If that doctrine were generally entertained throughout India, we need not look upon that dependency any longer as our own, and it was incumbent on the Government to take steps to put an end to such a belief, and to assure the Natives that in all these important respects they might rest perfectly safe under our sway. It was time, therefore, now that our arms had been successful, that the Government should act on what he was sure all the statesmen of the country believed the sound doctrine, and try to rule by beneficence and mercy, as well as by strength. If this was true as to the rest of India, much more forcibly did it apply to the kingdom of Oude. He did not wish to revive the controversy on the annexation of that country in 1856, but he contended that Oude must now be looked on as a conquered province. Even its original acquisition was based not on the ground of right, but on the broad ground of expediency, and was so put by the Marquess of Dalhousie himself in his able paper. If that were true, then, the people were enemies and not rebels, and the inhabitants who had risen in arms against us were entitled to all the protection which international law and the rights of war afforded to persons in such a position. He hoped, therefore, the Government would now open the widest door to these men, who had fought for what they believed to be their rights, and that they would be assured of the utmost protection to life, property, the enjoyment of their | religion, and what they called their honour, He believed that Viscount Canning was pursuing such a policy, and an expression of opinion by this House on the subject would tend very much to strengthen his hands and increase his power for the establishment of good government in that country.

said, he rose to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is his intention to take any further steps in the prosecution of Mr. Conway and Mr. Ryan. It would be remembered that the Attorney General had received the orders of the House to proceed against those gentlemen, and that he obtained a change of venue from Mayo to Dublin. In February last Father Conway was accordingly tried in Dublin, but the jury could not agree in their verdict. He thought it would assume the appearance of persecution to renew this prosecution again, and he could further assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he tried Mr. Conway twenty times over, he would have exactly the same result. In common with many others he regretted that the trial had ever been commenced, but it had been attended with one good result, that the law of the case, which had never before been properly understood, was very clearly laid down by the Lord Chief Justice, and no man who now transgressed it could say that he was not aware of its penalties. He could state that there did not exist in all Ireland a kinder hearted or more charitable man than Mr. Conway, or one more attentive to his religious duties. He would not trouble the House by entering upon Mr. Ryan's case, because he believed that the charge was weaker against him than against Mr. Conway, and therefore if the first case were dropped, the second could hardly be proceeded with. But what he wished to impress upon the Government and the House was, that Ireland was now in a quiet state—that there was an absence both of political and religious excitement —that agitation was dead, so that when the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried Mr. Rarey's process upon the Irish Members the other night, and attempted to mesmerise them, while he laid a burden of an additional half million on the taxation of the country, he met with little or no opposition. Now, would it be wise in them to disturb this happy state of things, and rouse up again the bitter feelings of religious animosity? Should they not rather let her rest in peace, and preserve that course undisturbed which by developing her industry made her people happy, contented, and loyal? He hoped the Government would show the same forbearance towards those priests that they had done towards Dr. Bernard. He had noticed the subject in the hope that other hon. Members would offer their opinion upon it. In the meantime he would ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he meant to take any further steps in the matter?

said, the late Government had, in obedience to an order of that House, instituted prosecutions against the two reverend gentlemen to whom the question of the noble Lord referred. The venue, as the noble Lord had stated, had been very properly changed from Mayo to Dublin, and the jury had been equally divided in the conclusion at which they had arrived. The late Government had, he might add, very properly proceeded against Mr. Conway in the first instance, because in his case there had not been merely words spoken but acts done upon which to found a prosecution, whereas in the case of Mr. Ryan there had been simply certain paragraphs extracted from a speech or a sermon of his upon which to proceed. Now, in dealing with the question, he (Mr. Whiteside) could not help thinking that as a public prosecutor he was in a position to exercise any discretion on the matter, but he was entirely of opinion with the noble Lord that evidence taken before a Committee, and evidence adduced in a court of justice, where the witnesses were examined upon the responsibilities of an oath, were completely different things. He was not aware whether there were any shorthand notes of the proceedings at Mr. Conway's trial in existence or not, but he should make inquiry upon the subject, and if there were such notes he should procure them, and compare the evidence which had been taken before the Committee with that which had been adduced upon the trial. If he were then asked by the noble Lord, or any other hon. Member of that House, to give his opinion upon the matter, he should be prepared to state it frankly, and it would be for the House to determine whether it would order any further proceedings to be taken or not. The argument drawn from Dr. Bernard's case was, he should contend, not applicable to that of Mr. Con-way, inasmuch as in the latter instance the jury could not agree as to the verdict which they should give. Whatever might be the expediency of instituting a further prosecution against Mr. Conway, he did not feel at liberty to enter into the political considerations to which the noble Lord had adverted, and to say that there should not be a new trial. He had, however, given instructions to the Crown solicitor that no proceedings should be taken before the after-term sittings in June, and he should before that time be in a position to place the House in possession of the exact facts of the case.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the House of Commons had any authority to interfere in reference to the institution of further proceedings against the two rev. gentlemen in question. The House had, it was true, upon the recommendation of a Committee, issued an order that those gentlemen should be prosecuted; and the late Attorney General had, in obedience to that order, performed that duty in reference to Mr. Conway. The result had been that the prosecution had not been successful; but he was of opinion that the House, having made the order to which he had referred, and having placed the matter in the hands of the Attorney General, ought not to be asked whether a new trial should be instituted, but that the question should be left entirely in the hands of the Executive, which should decide for itself whether the facts of the case and the general expediency of directing a new trial for the game offence—for that, he admitted, was a point entitled to consideration—rendered it desirable that it should again be submitted to the notice of a jury.

said, that in the particular instance under discussion, the order which the House had made was of a general and somewhat embarrassing character, for it did not at all specify the offence for which the rev. gentlemen, to whom it referred, were to be placed upon their trial. He had, accordingly, in his capacity of Attorney General, been obliged to ascertain the nature of that offence, as disclosed by the evidence which had been laid before the Committee; and, having ascertained it, had ordered a prosecution to be instituted against Mr. Conway. The trial had taken place in Dublin, before a special jury, and he was enabled to inform the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) that there were a shorthand writer's notes of the proceedings in existence; but he quite agreed with the right" hon. and learned Gentleman, that the evidence given before a jury and the evidence given before a Committee of that House were different things. The result of those proceedings was, as the House had already been informed, the disagreement of the jury; and whether the matter should be left as it now stood, or a further prosecution should be instituted, was a question which he perfectly concurred with the right hon. Gentleman near him (Sir G. Grey) in thinking the Executive ought to determine. He might, however, be permitted to observe, that possessing as he did an intimate knowledge of the evidence which had been adduced against Mr. Conway, he should recommend that the prosecution against that rev. gentleman should not be further proceeded with. The prospect of obtaining a verdict one way or the other in that case was not very favourable, and he was therefore of opinion that no good result could ensue from the institution of a new trial. He might add, that Mr. Conway had entirely relied, in his defence, upon a negation of the offence which bad been laid to his charge, and not upon the ground that the acts imputed to him were in themselves justifiable. The question which the jury had to determine was, under these circumstances, a very simple one. They had been enabled to come, however, to no decisive conclusion with respect to it; and as he was of opinion that the object which the House sought to attain, by the order which it had made, was to vindicate the law in reference to that particular class of offences which came under the head of intimidation—and as that object had been to some extent, if not completely, attained—he thought it was advisable that no further proceedings against Mr. Conway should be taken. With respect to the case of Mr. Ryan, the right hon. and learned Gentleman possessed quite as much information as he did himself, and was therefore in an equally good position to come to a decision in its regard.

said, that the commission of the offence with which he had been charged had been denied by Mr. Conway before the Committee, as well as at the trial, and constituted an equally good reason for not proceeding against him then, as it did now. He hoped the Government would have no hesitation in abandoning these prosecutions.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) had given notice of his intention to bring forward a Motion with reference to the relations of our Government with Sardinia, on the question that the House go into a Committee of Supply. He wished to know, if the Navy Estimates were taken first, whether his hon. and learned Friend would be allowed to bring forward his Motion on going into the Army Estimates?

said, that he wished to make an addition to the question which had been addressed to the Government by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry). At present there were large bodies of armed mutinous Sepoys, who, having been defeated in the field, were roaming about India; and he thought, that all substantial resistance being at an end, it was incumbent on us to open some door to these unhappy men who had been drawn into this mutiny against their will. No doubt, it was right that the guilty should be brought to condign punishment; yet those who had been led by fear or by example to enter into the revolt should have a door opened to them, through which they might return to their allegiance. This held good more especially with regard to the inhabitants of Oude, whose case, in many respects, was different to that of other parties to the mutiny. If we attempted to hunt down and kill 50,000 or 60,000 Sepoys, we should not only cover ourselves with indelible disgrace, but we should convert those men into thieves, robbers, and pindarees, and thus give rise to a predatory warfare which would give us a world of trouble to extinguish. He hoped to hear that some proclamation would be issued, offering an asylum to such Sepoys as had laid down their arms, and were willing to make their submission. An indiscriminate vengeance would be alike contrary to every principle of policy and justice.

I cannot doubt that it is the general wish of the House we should now proceed to the Orders of the day; I have, however, a few observations to make in reply to questions which have been addressed to me. Upon the subject to which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last has referred, and also in reply to the question addressed to the Government by the hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry), I have to state that instructions have been sent out to India, the general tenour of which is that, consistently with a full regard to the claims of justice, there shall be that regard for property, and that full toleration which I am certain it is the wish of this House should exist. With regard to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) as to my giving him a day for continuing the debate upon church rates, I must say I fully agree with the hon. Baronet, that it is a subject which has great claims upon the attention of the House, and if I thought that by assisting the discussion of it, or by going into Committee upon the particular measure introduced by the hon. Baronet, I should at all facilitate the settlement of the general question, I should not be backward in attempting to meet his convenience. But I cannot bring myself to believe that our going into Committee upon this Bill holds out any hope of that desirable result. It is my belief that the predominant opinion of this House and the country is in favour of a settlement of that question, and there is also a belief that some settlement is practicable. I should have preferred, instead of giving a day for going into Committee upon the Bill of the hon. Baronet, that the Government should attempt itself to introduce a measure upon this subject, and if I do not at this moment pledge myself to take that course immediately, it is only in consequence of the pressure of public business, and my desire not to introduce any Bill of that kind without being able at once to proceed with it. But in the meantime the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) has given notice to-night of his intention of bringing forward the Resolution which he nearly succeeded in introducing last Wednesday, and which upon reflection, I cannot help thinking is one well worthy of the consideration of the House. I hope some means may be found, by which the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Herts, may be brought under the notice of the House. I must next apologize to the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich) for the somewhat abrupt answer I gave to his question; but I was not aware at the time that the India Bill was upon the Orders of the day for this evening. I thought it had been put off, as I intended, for a considerable period, and it certainly was my wish, before any steps were taken to put an end to that Order, that I should have had an opportunity of vindicating the general policy recommended in the Bill, because the House will recollect, that when I had the honour of introducing it, I confined myself strictly to exposition, and offered no arguments whatever in favour of any of the provisions which I attempted then to explain. I thought if the Resolutions of which I have given notice were carried, it was quite within my power to have changed the Bill I had introduced in accordance with the Resolutions which the House had sanctioned; but upon reflection, I feel that that is not a course which, upon the whole, is the most respectful to the House. It appears that the House is in favour of proceeding by Resolution. At all events, there is a possibility of those Resolutions being carried, and in that case I believe it would be more consistent with the forms of the House, and my duty if, after the Resolutions are carried, a new Bill be introduced, embodying the principles contained in them. I therefore shall not insist upon the course which I had wished to adopt—not from a vain desire to keep the Bill before the House, but he-cause I wished to have an opportunity of vindicating its policy, which has really never been defended, although it has often been incidentally attacked. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has attacked one of the provisions of the Bill to-night. It is not my intention now to defend it, but I beg the noble Lord to believe that it is merely in deference to the wish of the House that I abstain from doing so. I do not wish the noble Lord to understand that I at all agree with him in his views that the scheme was one hastily got up by us, or that we are not prepared, by reasons grave and weighty, to vindicate our plan. With these observations, I beg to say, that I shall not insist upon proceeding with the India Bill in the form in which it now appears, but I shall introduce Resolutions upon the day I have mentioned, and, should those Resolutions, or the spirit of them, be adopted by the House, I hope to have afterwards an opportunity of introducing a Bill embodying the principles which the House shall have agreed to.

Sir, I think the course which the right hon. Gentleman has now intimated to the House that it is his intention to pursue is the only course which, in consistency with the practice and usual forms of the House, was really open to him. I will not now enter upon a consideration whether it is better to introduce the Indian Government question by Resolutions preparatory to any Bill, or to proceed by Bill at once. The Government, after, we must suppose, full deliberation, preferred the latter course of bringing in a Bill without any preliminary Resolutions. They have seen reasons since then to change their original views, and now prefer to proceed by Resolutions. But those two courses appear to me—and I believe I am speaking in full accordance with the practice of the House—to be utterly incompatible, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman, when he states that he takes the course he has now announced in deference to the wishes of the House, might have put it upon a very different ground, and have told us that he took that course in deference to what, upon further information, he found to be the real practice of the House. I apprehend the course which must be followed in the event of the Resolutions being agreed to would be this—the House will instruct the Chairman of the Committee and other persons to bring in a Bill founded upon those Resolutions. It must be remembered the Resolutions of a Committee must be the foundation of a Bill, but Resolutions of the whole House need not have that necessary consequence, and therefore I apprehend the right hon. Gentleman has taken the only course that was open to the Government to follow in accordance with the usual practice and rules of the House. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will discharge the Order for the second reading when it comes on this evening, and we shall then be prepared, when the time comes for considering the Resolution, to deal with them as we may think best.

The course which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to take is clearly the most convenient one in the rather awkward position in which we are placed upon this question; because I understand when a Minister places Resolutions before this House he does so saying, in effect, "The subject is one about which a strange and inconvenient variety of opinions prevails, and we would rather, therefore, take the judgment of the House before proceeding to bring in a Bill than attempt to pass, by the influence of the Government, a measure completely framed in all its clauses." Having taken that course which, with a view to the production of a good measure for the future government of India, I believe to be the best, it appears to me we have a clearer track before us, and we shall avoid some of those unpleasant contests which might have arisen if any other course had been pursued. The Government is in this position upon this matter. They arc in a minority, as we know, and do not like to take a course upon which the majority of the House would be disposed to differ with them. Now, I want the Government to learn a lesson from the manner in which they had placed themselves in a difficulty on the India Bill, and apply that lesson to the question we were discussing on Wednesday last. It is not to be disputed that if we had divided on Wednesday upon the main question, notwithstanding that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) and the noble Lord for the City of London (Lord John Russell) with all their forces had supported the Government, they would have been defeated by a majority of upwards of seventy. The Government say they are in favour of a settlement of the chinch rate question; so has been every Government during the time I have sat in this House, but all of them have proposed settlements of a nature which it is impossible for the opponents of church rates to accept. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) gives us no expectation of doing better—for we are not children, to be deluded by his shadowy Church Rate Bill, to be introduced, no doubt, at the same time as the Government Reform Bill; but he invites us to consider the proposition of an hon. Member (Mr. Pullen) who seeks to establish a firm and permanent church rate upon a new basis. I merely rise to tell the right hon. Gentleman he is making another pitfall for himself by treating the question in that way. He has a right to oppose the abolition of church rates. I don't complain of that, But this is a measure which is of great importance to the public, as any one may know who sees the number of hon. Members who come down upon inconvenient days to support it, and it is a measure which the House has made up its mind to pass. Why, the whole reliance of the opponents of the Bill, as stated by the head of the Government, is not upon this House but upon "another place." If the Government had such a majority upon any Bill of their own they would pass it in a week, but because the forms of the House put us off from Wednesday to Wednesday, we may not have another opportunity of discussing the Bill for some weeks. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that by pushing us off in this manner he will weaken our strength or change our determination, he is mistaken. I do not make these remarks in a spirit hostile to the ministry. I and those about me don't want to see a change of Government; but we arc determined to have this Church Hate Bill passed. A very large majority of the House is in favour of the measure, and at this time, when there is not much business before the House, I don't see why we should not have an opportunity of proceeding with the Bill, and then, having passed it, to commit it to its fate "else- where." There are persons who believe it will be thrown out in "another place." I don't care about that; a great question like this may be stopped for awhile. We have heard that some people have been mad enough to fancy they could dam back the ocean; but the ocean still rolls on; and this question will still roll on, and gather strength as it advances from day to day, for it is not in the power of any Government to prevent its passing into a law. I think, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may with a very good grace give us a day in order that we may advance it through Committee. I have no hostility to the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) is a Member; but I have a much greater friendship for the Bill for the abolition of church rates than I have for any Government. We did not show any consideration for the Whig Government when this question was before the House in their time; the question was then carried; and it is not likely now that we shall let it re- main in abeyance. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will "reconsider" this subject:—I find "reconsideration" one of the best things in the world; and if he will only think again on this question, I am persuaded he will see the fairness and justice of affording us all proper opportunities of proceeding with, the Bill.

So many exciting topics have been introduced into this discussion that I am afraid an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has for the moment been forgotten. He stated that instructions have been sent out to India to Viscount Canning to pursue a system of toleration towards the natives. It might be supposed from that expression that the Governor General of India had hitherto acted on a different policy. The very contrary, however, is the fact, for that has always been the spirit in which he has acted. Under difficulties, perhaps, the most unexampled, he has never lost his head; and never for a single instant has he forgotten that it will be our duty hereafter to govern 150,000,000 of the Natives of India. He has kept that always in view, in spite of all the remonstrances of others; and I hope Her Majesty's Government will consent to lay on the table the instructions which have been sent out to India, and that they will be found to contain an expression of their approbation of the conduct and policy of my noble Friend the Governor General. I am the more anxious that this should be done, because, in my opinion, there can be nothing more discreditable to this country than the manner in which it dealt with Viscount Canning for some time. He was sent out in a time of peace to govern India, and to carry out a policy of peaceful progress; on a sudden there broke out the must marvellous revolt that ever afflicted a country; but, placed in the midst of an emergency the greatest and most trying, perhaps, in which any man was ever before called to act, he showed himself equal to the occasion. Instead, however, of being backed by the people of this country, he was assailed by every species of abuse, which was not confined to newspapers, but was indulged in by public men of rank and station in the kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) spoke of my noble Friend the Governor General as having shown nothing but vacillation during that trying crisis; and the Earl of Derby spoke of him in much the same tone in "another place." But since they have come into office they have found reason to alter their opinion of my noble Friend; and to the eternal honour of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford shire (Mr. Henley), they both declared that in their belief Viscount Canning had acted with the greatest amount of courage that could have been expected from any public man in such an emergency and in a distant and isolated position. There is not a more isolated position in the world as regards social sympathy than that of the Governor General of India; and, therefore, it is that I think it the duty of every public individual to stand by such a man. I am sure the more the conduct of Viscount Canning is known the more it will be admired by his grateful fellow-countrymen, and the more it will be felt that under the difficult and trying circumstances in which he was situated he acted in a way hardly to be expected of any public man.

Sir, I hope the House will permit me to refer for a moment to the reference which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made to certain expressions relative to Viscount Canning, which fell from me during the debate in this House on the Motion for a Vote of Thanks to the Indian Army. I did, on that occasion, express myself strongly with respect to Viscount Canning's conduct; but if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to what fell from me on that occasion he will find that I condemned the conduct of Viscount Canning hypothetically. [A laugh.] I think the House will find there is no ground for ridicule in what I have stated, if they will bear in mind that at that time there were certain serious allegations brought against Viscount Canning in a petition which had been sent homo from Calcutta. That petition had been sent back to Viscount Canning for his answer, and, if I remember right, what I said on that occasion was that great allowance was undoubtedly to be made for Viscount Canning in the difficult position in which he was placed; but, I added, if the allegations in that petition were well-founded, his conduct was greatly to be condemned, and that there were marks of vacillation in his policy and conduct which exposed him to grave censure. I also condemned the Government for calling on the House of Commons to pa3s a Vote of Thanks to Viscount Canning pending his answer to the petition to which I have adverted. Since then we have received the reply of Viscount Canning to that petition, and I am bound to say that his answer to the greater part of the allegations contained in it, if not to all of them, has been satisfactory, and I have not now to com- ment on his conduct with that severity and that censure which I should have done if the allegation? in that petition had all been substantiated.

said, there were two Bills before the House relating to the Government of India, and suggested that it would be the best, most straightforward, and convenient course that they should both be withdrawn previous to the discussion on the Resolutions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to submit to the House on Monday. He also thought it fairly open for consideration, whether further legislation on that subject ought to take place at the present moment.

said, before you leave the Chair, Sir, I hope the House will allow me to make an observation in reference to a remark that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith). In the observations which I made in respect to the instructions sent out to India I certainly had no intention whatever to convey to the House that any censure was implied on Viscount Canning. My observations were strictly in reply to the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry); I had in my mind his reference to the kingdom of Oude in particular, and I wished to convey to him that the instructions sent out to the Governor General of India indicated the observance of a spirit of toleration and respect for property, mentioning, as far as Oude was concerned, that a distinction should be drawn with reference to the revolt in that kingdom and that in other parts of India, and that we should consider it rather in the light of a war that had ceased than a rebellion which was raging.

moved the following Resolution—

"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, all Drafts or Orders for the payment of any sum of money to the bearer on demand, which being drawn upon any Banker, or any person or persons acting as a Banker, and residing or transacting the business of a Banker within fifteen miles of the place were such Drafts or Orders are issued, are now exempt from Stamp Duty, shall be chargeable with the Stamp Duty of One Penny for every such Draft or Order."

said, he felt bound to express his regret that as yet they had had no general statement from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for War on the subject of the Estimates. On a similar occasion to the present, in June, 1856, the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer called on the Clerk of the Ordnance not to proceed with the Estimates without such an explanation as the House and the country had a right to expect, and he protested against the responsible Minister of any department contenting himself with merely putting a piece of paper into the hands of the Chairman without deigning to give one word of explanation to the House. That remonstrance of the right hon. Gentleman applied with double force now, for the attention of the public had been drawn of late to a great many important matters connected with the army. There had been published, for example, the Report of a Commission as to the condition of the metropolitan barracks, which contained statements that startled the public, and there was an anxious desire to know who were responsible for the evils there complained of. If his right hon, and Gallant Friend made no statement regarding that and other military matters, the jealousy now prevalent in the public mind as to the reserve that was kept up on military questions would be much strengthened. There was one most important point on which the House and the country would like to hear something from his right hon. and gallant Friend; he meant the position of our national defences, with which many persons were not satisfied. The disembodiment of the militia was another matter which had attracted considerable attention, and in reference to which some statement from the Minister charged with the War Department was desirable. There was also the subject of admission to Woolwich, and he hoped, therefore, that before going into Committee the fullest explanation would be given on these subjects and of the nature of the Estimates generally.

(who was indistinctly heard) remarked, that this was the first time within his memory that the House had proceeded almost to the end of the Army Estimates without any statement having been made, by the responsible Minister, explanatory of the state of the national defences, or the ends and objects for which the force asked for was required. It was said the other day that this was the age of coups de main, and coups de main were much the same in one country as another. For example, on the 14th of last February, the country went to bed thinking they had the strongest Government and the ablest Minister that had existed since the time of Mr. Pitt, but woke up on the 15th and found they had no Government at all. Things changed fast in these days; and as, in the things which occurred amongst hon. Members opposite, he perceived at least a tendency on the part of the House to take upon itself the functions of the Executive, he thought it might not be out of place to ask, what was the amount of force by which we were to be defended, what was its destination, and what the general arrangements were for placing it in the most effective condition? He objected to standing armies, considering them to be the great curse of Europe at the present moment. They not only drained the strength and wealth of the country from the right direction to the wrong, but provoked the same evils in all neighbouring countries. That was not all: it re-acted upon us in another way. Every invention for the destruction of mankind, made or adopted in any one of those foreign countries, was in a manner forced upon us also. For instance, some years ago the Americans built a large class of ships, as large as our sixty-fours, which they called-frigates. When war broke out, taking thorn to be frigates, our Government very unwisely sent out frigates, which were not much more than half their size, to meet them. The consequence was that great loss and discredit betel our navy. We were therefore compelled to increase the size of our ships. Two or three years since, it was the same with the Mine rifle. Our neighbours adopted that weapon, and we were obliged to follow their lead. Now he was told that America was building war ships as large as the Leviathan; and for what? For the service of America? Certainly not. But did they suppose that there was no Power in Europe that would buy them? The other day he saw an ac- count of another new invention—a double-barreled rifle; of course we must have them too. An extraordinary gun had been invented at Newcastle, and we should, doubtless have to introduce that. Other States will not rest till they have done the same. There was another tiling: if these largo standing armies were kept up, you must give them occasions for fighting; since, like a pack of hounds, if you kept them shut up, and did not give them "blood" sometimes, they were not worth a farthing. Standing armies must have war, for it was the trade they lived by; and it was in their interest to do all they could to promote it. If there were a great many attorneys in a town, they were sure to set their neigh-bouts a-quarrelling. To illustrate what he meant in another way, he remembered a story of a party of gentlemen, who, dining at the Thatched House, and hearing a great noise in the room overhead, sent for the waiter and inquired what it was all about. The answer they received was— "Oh, it is only the College of Physicians who have been dining up stairs, and are now drinking 'a low fever' with three times three." The soldier, in the same way, was always ready to hail that which was the greatest curse to the rest of mankind as his best friend. There was, therefore, one large portion of the population of every continental nation that was ever anxious for war, and ready to do all in its power to provoke it. Every nation thought itself the one that ought to be the most popular and admired, and no people liked to be told homely truths; but, for all that, he could give them proof of what he believed a large class of persons but little suspected—namely, that of all people in the world the English wore the most hated on the Continent. What was the cause he would not attempt to explain, but the fact was so. Yet, knowing all this— knowing, as we ought to know, how we were hated, we were nevertheless going on from day to day irritating our nearest neighbours, and insulting them in public and in private. This was habitual with us; but did we suppose they would stand it? We kept a "den of assassins," who were let loose upon our neighbours as opportunity offered. Of course, we were entitled to have any amusements we liked, but it was well to remember what they cost; and a very good observation was made in The Times the other day, to the effect that every assassin costs us a million a year. But it was said foreign Govern- ments had no just cause of complaint against us in this matter. But was it so? We were, in this, like Nell Gwynne's footman, who did not mind what his mistress was, but was very much annoyed at being told of it. It must be recollected that this "den of assassins" we were thus upholding and protecting in this country was no new people. They were the hereditary descendants of those who first began the same game in 1793—those who began by declaring that they would make war upon every people in Europe who did not as they had done—kill their king. In 1839 a very remarkable French state paper was issued, in which it was stated:—

"The assassination of kings in general, and of him in particular whom France has placed upon the throne, is preached by those persons as a sacred duty. And the idea of the government which is reserved for France, and by which they went to redress the abuses of monarchy, is the Republic of 1793 and the Reign of Terror."

In the following year, there was found upon the unhappy man, who had just been executed, secret instructions, given to him from this country, which really meant nothing less than assassination; and it was said—" We know you can't get arms; they won't let you have arms; then let each man make use of his knife and assassinate a sentinel, and thus you will get arms." Let the country, however, continue to encourage this "den of assassins" if it pleased, only let them remember what they would have to pay for it in the end. In 1849 a body of these men went to Malta, and Mr. Hume wrote what he called a dispatch, in which he made a complaint to the Colonial Minister—Lord J. Russell he believed — of these people having been sent away from the island by the Governor. In his answer the noble Lord very properly called them it inerrant revolutionists, whom the Government would not allow to remain at Malta. For his (Mr. Drummond's) part, he could not understand how, consistently, the Government could allow them to remain anywhere else. But he was not a member of Her Majesty's Government. In 1855 one of these persons wrote a letter to the Queen so grossly insulting that there was hardly any passage fit to quote in an assembly like that House, and he referred to it merely to show that there was one uninterrupted course going on from year to year, and that in short these men were purely what might be called political Thugs. Did we suppose that the Emperor of the French would allow us to go on harbouring these people here? He was not standing up as the protector of the Emperor of the French, but he entreated the House to have the common sense to put this country in such a state of defence that we might at least be able to defy those we persisted in insulting. So far as he knew, the conduct of His Imperial Majesty towards this country had always been frank and open, and he knew several persons to whom the Emperor had said "it is neither my interest nor inclination to make war upon you; but this danger I see—you may irritate my people and my army to such an extent that they may be so strong that I cannot keep them back." (A laugh.) The hon. Gentleman opposite laughed—long might he laugh in ignorance — but, nevertheless, he hoped there were others present who took a calm and serious view of the question. He was not suggesting that a great standing army should be kept up—far from it; he thought that in all probability we had kept up too large a standing army—but he wished to show that we possessed within ourselves a most constitutional means of effectual defence. He would not weary the House by going into details of this power—but of course he meant the militia. He complained that if this force was not called out, and asked if the officers were not kept together, how was the staff to be kept in an effective state. The Lord Lieutenant of every county ought—and he had the means in his numerous deputies—to have full information of the force which at any time he could call into action, and of the number of waggons and horses available at a moment's notice for service. These arrangements should be made at once, and not left until it was too late. Whatever friends we might have, we could hardly hope to maintain them with other powers while we took no steps to put down those who preached the right of murdering kings in the abstract—for that was the defence the other day. While we kept people here to preach that doctrine, depend upon it, if the opportunity offered, all the Sovereigns of Europe would join against us—and serve us right. We had attacked a great people. Much had been said about the doctrine of Civis Romanus; but the doctrine we were now contending for, was a great deal worse—it was the doctrine of Lingua Romana—the right to preach doctrines utterly subversive of the governments of other countries, and utterly subversive of peace and order. But whatever we did in this respect, he would advise the House at all events to take care that our means of defence were effective. This could not be done without expense, and therefore, he hoped there would be no penuriousneas in what might concern the safety of the nation.

said, he could not see the necessity for his then trespassing on the indulgence of the House by entering into a lengthened statement with regard to the condition of the army. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Vivian) would recollect that he had already offered some explanations to the House upon that point before moving the Vote for the number of men required for the service of the year; and all the details of the question might be considered in the course of the discussions on the various Estimates.

observed, that, when Supply was asked for, it was usual for the head of each department to place before the House the condition of his department. The First Lord of the Admiralty adopted that course the other night, and he hoped the Secretary at War would favour the House with a sketch of the general condition of the army; that he would explain its force and condition, and that he would state what were the reasons which, in the opinion of the Government, might render it necessary to increase or to diminish our military strength. He thought it most desirable that the heads of departments should not merely communicate facts to the House, but that they should also explain the views and policy of the Government, in order that hon. Members might be enabled to express their opinions, not upon mere items of expenditure, but upon its general policy. He hoped there was no inclination on the part of Her Majesty's Government to depart from what had been the invariable practice, for he thought it especially desirable that, with regard to the army, a general summary of their views should be submitted to the House.

said, he was anxious, in pursuance of the notice he had placed upon the paper, to draw the attention of the House to the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government relative to the disembodiment of sixteen regiments of militia. At the termination of the last war the militia regiments which had been doing-garrison duty in England, Ireland, and Scotland were disembodied, but the men received three months' notice of their discharge. At that time, however, a great blunder was committed, the effects of which were yet perceptible. At the time the regiments were disembodied an order was issued that each man should receive a gratuity of 15s. for his maintenance until he was able to obtain work, but by a subsequent order this gratuity was diminished from 15s. to 5s., 10s. being retained as a guarantee for the appearance of the men when they were again required to assemble for duty. The consequence of this measure was exactly the reverse of what was contemplated; it was considered a breach of faith by the men, so that some regiments when next assembled were deficient by one-fourth or one-fifth of their proper complement. In the autumn of last year directions wore issued for the embodiment of certain regiments of militia. The commanding officers were at great pains to get their men together, and officers, non commissioned officers, and men worked most assiduously during the winter to raise their respective regiments to as high a state of efficiency and discipline as possible, supposing that they would be embodied for the year, and that—as in the case of the last war—due notice would be given of an intention to disembody them. He did not know what were the intentions of the late Government, but he could tell the House what the present Government had done, so far as his own regiment was concerned. About a week ago he received an order, and at the same time a letter, from Major General Sir James Scarlett, commanding at Portsmouth and in the South-western district, staling that the Government had determined immediately to disembody sixteen regiments of militia, and among them the Roscommon Militia and 2nd West York, and that the men were to be sent home by the 1st of May. He might add that the gallant general expressed his regret at this sudden determination. He (Colonel Smyth) came to London to ascertain upon what principle the Government had selected regiments for disembodiment, and he found they had determined that every regiment which had not furnished the quota of seventeen per cent of its effective strength as volunteers to the line by the end of March should be disembodied. He believed that a worse principle could not have been adopted, for it would lead to the disembodiment of some of the most effective regiments. The proceeding was also in direct violation of the volunteering instructions which had been sent to commanding officers, and which left the arrangements for volunteering entirely with them. In the case of his own regiment, volunteers were called for about the beginning of January, but the men had not then settled down to a soldier's life, and few came forward. Every succeeding fortnight from that time the men who desired to enter the regular army sent in their names, and his regiment gave more than its quota by the 10th of April, without any drunkenness or disorder. He believed the same system had been adopted in other regiments, and that it had effected a rapid transfer of men from the militia to the line. He was sorry to tell the House that he feared that not even the principle upon which the Government professed to act had been adhered to, but that there were regiments of militia still embodied which had not given their quota of volunteers to the regular army. He complained of the short notice which had been given to the regiments to be disembodied. The orders, he believed, were not given until the 14th or 15th of April, and the men were to be sent home by the 1st of May, so that only a fortnight's notice was given, and it was almost impossible for the men to communicate with friends in the localities from which they had been drawn with the view of obtaining employment on their discharge. He could scarcely think it had been intended to send some 10,000 men to the right-about in so summary a manner, and could assure the House that both officers and men considered they bad been subjected to an abrupt and uncourteous dismissal. He would earnestly press upon the Government the propriety of reconsidering their determination; for, if such a course as he had described were pursued, it would he found that not one fourth of the men would be forthcoming when their services were again required.

was understood to remark that the militiamen were very much annoyed at that abrupt dismissal. He hoped the Government would be prepared to re-consider their resolution in the matter, and that some plan may be discovered by which so large a body of effective officers and men might be retained in the service.

said, he would remind the House that the right hon. and gallant General at the head of the War Department had really had nothing to do with the embodiment of the militia. The onus of this disembodiment really lay with the preceding Government who had embodied a greater number than they were authorized to do. Afterwards, under the pressure of circumstances, they retained them in the hope that they would be absorbed into the regular army. That result, however, had not taken place, and the country now found itself saddled with a greater number of men than had been provided for, and hence arose the necessity for the present measure. He should, however, very much regret if the militia force should be disbanded, and sent to their homes dissatisfied and discontented, for he had always felt that good faith had not been kept with the militia who were embodied during the last war, who had come forward in the most patriotic manner for the service of the country, but whose claims were disregarded when there was no further occasion for their assistance. What he would suggest was, that a general order should be issued and circulated among all the militia regiments, allowing all those men, who had a prospect of obtaining work, to return to their homes. Such an order would at once relieve the force of a large number of men, but with respect to the still greater number who might be expected to remain, he thought it would be a gross act of injustice to disembody them at a short notice, when, if that step had been taken two months ago, they would have been able to find employment. Such a proceeding could not fail to lead to the greatest dissatisfaction, and be did not think that the country was in a position to evince any want of good feeling or good faith towards a force which had rendered such important services to the country as the militia. In reply to the observation of the right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) he could not help observing that any explanations with respect to the present efficiency of the War Department ought to be demanded rather of the hon. Baronet the Secretary of the late Government than of the hon. and gallant General.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had quite misapprehended him. He had had asked for no explanation as to the efficiency of the War Department; all he did was to express a hope that the Secretary for War would make the usual statement submitted to the House by the head of the department, and which, he presumed, would have been made in the ordinary course here, had there been no change of Ministry.

observed, he hoped that the Government would be induced to take some measures to retain these men for the present. He was one of those who had highly disapproved of the very abrupt manner in which the militia was disbanded after the late war. Many regiments nobly volunteered to serve two years abroad; their offer was accepted, and yet the moment they came home their past services were accounted as nothing, and they were disbanded. They must bear in mind that a soldier was not merely a man in a red coat; he required to be drilled, and it was utterly impossible to discipline a body of men and make them effective in a very short time. He thought the country would be very much benefited if, instead of reducing the sixteen regiments which had been named, the strength of those regiments only were reduced, and they were suffered to remain as a neucleus which could be added to at any moment. He was confident that the idea of disembodying the militia had created the greatest feeling of discontent in the country, and he hoped that the Government would reconsider the matter and retain the force in a modified form.

hoped that the hon. and gallant General would enter into some explanation of the expectations which could or not be reasonably entertained of the men who formed the militia regiments entering the line on emergencies. He was perfectly aware of the great services rendered by the militia, but the Returns before them did not show that, as far as the supply of men from militia regiments was concerned, the expectations which had been indulged in, that it would prove a faithful nursery for our line regiments, had been realized. With respect to the force itself, he regretted to say that the Returns showed that the desertions from militia regiments were very great, and that there were strong indications of the prevalence of a system amounting to almost a sort of trade of repeated desertion and re-entering militia regiments for the purpose of obtaining the bounty. Of course this observation applied only to the worst description of men; but at the same time they found that the best men—those who made really good soldiers —preferred sticking by their own regiment rather than entering the line. If the militia could be called out permanently, he granted it would be an invaluable force, capable of repelling an invasion or performing any other service; but as that could not be, he thought it was not possible that they could remain an effective force under the present system. If men who enlisted for twenty years were allowed to leave the army at the end of ten or twelve years, receiving a sum of 6d. a day as a sort of retaining fee on condition of being called out during a short period every year, and being immediately embodied on an emergency, such a force would be far more valuable than the militia. The men themselves would be in the full vigour of life, about thirty years of age, capable of entering, to a considerable extent, into the ordinary classes of citizenship, they would form a most efficient reserve force, and capable at any moment of acting together as tried and experienced soldiers. Such a system would at the same time give employment to a largo class of deserving officers reduced to half-pay, who might be attached at an advance to these reserve battalions, while the militia itself would be far more advantageous as a local than as a general force for the defence of the country. Called out as the militia were only at intervals, it could not be expected that they should prove a competent force to rely upon in the case of such an invasion as was sometimes anticipated. They could not depend upon them to face some of perhaps the best trained and most efficient soldiers which Europe could produce. In conclusion, he would again express a hope that either the Secretary for War would consider the whole question, or else that a Committee should be appointed to ascertain how far the militia served as a cradle for the regular army, and whether other means might not be found for obtaining a reserve force more reliable and efficient than that at present existing.

thought, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, that the militia had furnished a considerable proportion of volunteers to the line, and their services during the late war afforded ample proof of what might be expected from them if a similar emergency were to arise. The hon. Gentleman seemed alarmed at the idea of our counting in the least upon the militia in case of invasion. Now, on this point he totally differed from the hon. Gentleman, and, though he had never served in the militia, he should depend with the greatest confidence upon their conduct in the field. In the old Peninsular war three or four militia regiments actually took the field, and a number of regiments volunteered for active service during the war in the Crimea. Besides this, it was a constitutional force, He was decidedly of opinion, therefore, that no cause of dissatisfaction ought to be given to the militiamen, and regretted very much that the Government had not taken warning by the loud complaints made in so many quarters as to the conduct of the late Ministry at the end of the last war. The manner in which the Government acted towards the militia upon that occasion formed a just cause of regret and indignation in that House, and there was even a mutiny in Ireland occasioned by the disbandment of some men, who were absolutely sent homo without their clothes. The present Government alleged that the militia was called out not by them but by the late Government, hut he maintained that the present Government was bound legally and morally, as well as by policy, to act in the same way towards that force as if they had raised it themselves. He was not particularly well acquainted with the grievances of individual militia regiments, but he thought a great hardship would be inflicted upon many of them if the men should he sent hack to their homes after a fortnight's notice, and this, too, naturally pressed with severity on the subaltern officers, who had been put to great expense six months ago in equipping themselves. It was, he contended, most impolitic, upon grounds connected with the general safety of the country, that the militia force should be neglected, and he should not charge the right hon. and gallant General now at the head of the army with a desire to deal with it in that spirit. Indeed, he believed no military functionary would be disposed to treat our militia regiments with neglect; but it was the misfortune of all military arrangements to be dependent to a great extent upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he had no doubt that the cheese-paring budget of the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled that office exercised some influence upon the destinies of those sixteen regiments which were about to be disembodied. It would, however, have been better had the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make both ends meet by placing an additional tax of a penny upon some article of consumption than by subjecting the country to the inconvenience of being left, as she would be left, without an efficient militia.

I have had much pleasure in listening to the testimony which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has borne to the efficiency of the militia force. It cannot but be satisfactory to the country, as well as to the force itself, that the opinion of so high an authority should be recorded in its favour. I must, however, protest against the doctrine so current in this House and the country, that the chief object for which the militia is maintained is to supply troops to the line. That doctrine I hold to be a mistaken one, and one which, if acted upon, would lead to a complete perversion of the real purpose for which the militia was established. It is, no doubt, a circumstance highly creditable to a militia regiment that it should furnish the line with troops; and we ought to be grateful in those instances in which such is the case, not alone to the men but to the officers, who sacrifice that feeling of honourable pride which they take in the efficiency of their regiments when they encourage their men to volunteer into the regular army. It is obvious that it is the best men who volunteer on such occasions, and therefore it must be a sacrifice of feeling on the part of the officers to give that encouragement. It is also highly useful to the country, as well as creditable to the force itself, that at a moment of national emergency such men should be ready to lend their aid in her defence. We ought, however, to bear in mind that the great object for which the militia was established is, that we should have a dormant force, numerically large, capable of being called out to supply the place of the regular army whenever any sudden emergency might arise for calling for the services of that army abroad. We cannot expect to have a force of more than 50,000, or at the utmost 60,000, men available in this country. We may be attacked by forces very much larger in amount. It is therefore of the highest importance that we should have 80,000, 90,000, 100,000 men, or a larger number, organized, officered, equipped, trained, to a certain extent disciplined, and capable of being called out under arms within the shortest possible period—say a fortnight; and, when called out, able to take an efficient part in the defence of the country. I would, therefore, earnestly impress on the House that we ought not, in my opinion, to estimate the value of the militia force by the number of troops with which it may furnish the line; while I, at the same time, am ready to admit that, since it has been called out, it has done the country good service in that respect. With regard to the question more imme- diately under discussion, the state of the case is simply this. Last year we were under the necessity of sending a very largo force to India—the greater portion of the regular force then in the country. We were then told in this House—and we felt the force of the observation—that it was not consistent with the public security, or with the interests of the country, to leave the United Kingdom stripped of an armed force. Well, the simplest mode of supplying the place of those troops which had been sent out to India was by calling out the militia. We were urged to call out the whole, but we deemed it expedient to call out only a portion of that force, and that portion was embodied upon the distinct understanding that it was intended to fill up the vacuum which had been created by the cause to which I have just adverted. Well, when owing to the rapid progress of recruiting—a progress which is most honourable to the spirit of the country, and which exceeded our most sanguine expectations—the regular army was filled up to the point which we deemed necessary, it, of course, became the duty of the present Government—as it was undoubtedly the intention of Her Majesty's late advisers— to disembody those regiments of the embodied militia whose services were no longer required. When it is said that it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who forces this measure upon the illustrious and gallant Officer at the head of the army, it ought to be borne in mind that there is no choice in the matter. You have a much larger number of men under arms than your revenue enables you to pay. You must then adopt one of two courses. You must either increase your revenue by means of additional taxation—which I think would not be a proposal very agreeable to Parliament or to the country—or you must reduce the number of men in your military service. I, for my part, am of opinion that, if the alternative lies between your having a larger number of men under arms, and the construction of works —such, for instance, as the fortification of the coasts and dockyards, and the erection of barracks, to afford proper accommodation to your shipping and your troops—as these are things which would contribute to the permanent security of the country, there can be no question but that the latter alternative is the one which both prudence and policy call upon you to adopt.

said he rose to complain not so much that certain regi- ments of militia were about to be disembodied as it was always understood that such a step would be taken when the temporary purpose for which they were called had been answered, but what he did complain of was of the manner in which it was proposed to carry the disembodiment into effect. The regiment with which he was connected, for instance—the Dumfries Militia—had come forward most willingly and most cheerfully when its services were required, and what return had it received? It had been announced that it was the intention of the Government to disembody it, but that announcement had not been made until subsequently to the 25th of March, when the time for hiring labourers in Scotland had just expired, and the men were at once to be sent back to their homes, where they could get no employment whatever until harvest, which, he might remind the House, was usually one month later in the season in Scotland than it was in this country. If financial considerations rendered it expedient that a certain portion of the Militia force should be dispensed with, then he should contend that that object might be attained by means of some more satisfactory arrangement than that which the Government had proposed. He had ascertained, for instance, by a very simple calculation, that a reduction of 10,000 men could be made in the force by sending the married men to their homes, and by diminishing the number of men in certain regiments to 500. It was extremely desirable, he thought, that some such step should be taken in order to obviate, as far as possible, the great inconveniences which would arise if the present intentions of the Government with respect to the disembodiment of the militia were carried into effect. In reference to his own regiment, he would only say that it was very peculiarly situated, and that to disembody it, at the present moment would be to inflict upon it the greatest hardship. He might add that when he had explained to his right hon. and gallant friend the Secretary for War, some time ago, the position in which it was placed, he had assured him on his word that it would not be disembodied, but to his astonishment he found it one of the very first regiments upon which that hardship was to be inflicted. Was it fair, he would ask, or just or right, thus to send these poor men back to Scotland to starve? The disembodiment of the regiment could not at all events be defended upon the ground of its want of efficiency for the highest military authorities had borne testimony to the fact that it was one of the most efficient regiments in the service, and he might add that it only wanted 20 men to complete its quota. It behoved the Government, he thought, well to weigh the step which it was about to take with respect to these Militia regiments, and to consider if it were to act towards them as it proposed whether men would, when a future emergency arose, be found as willing to come forward in defence of their country as in the present instance was the case.

After the appeal made to me from so many parts of the House, I am bound, I think, to give such explanations on this matter as I can, the noble Lord the head of the late Government having fully stated the absolute necessity which existed for disbanding the militia. It is quite true that in September a large number of the militia—no less than 25,000 men—were called out to fill up the gap occasioned by the despatch of so large a force as it was necessary to send to India. The number of rank and file at that time in the Kingdom was only about 49,000; but when the present Government fame into office it had increased to over 70,000 — with a militia force of 30,000 men; and inasmuch as the whole sum for the embodied militia was only £150,000, unless the late Government intended to ask for a supplementary vote, it is clear that the only result could be the disembodiment of a portion at least of the militia. We came to a resolution to disembody 10,000 men, and the principle which we adopted was to retain such regiments as had furnished their quota of volunteers for the line in the first place, and in the next those who had nearly completed it, and were enabled to do so before the disembodiment of the regiment. Well, Sir, the policy of disembodying a portion of the militia, which was about to he adopted by the late Government, we considered sound, and were prepared to carry out; and, notwithstanding what has been so candidly stated by the noble Lord, I am willing to take upon myself the whole responsibility of doing so. With respect to individual regiments I can only say that I informed every one of the colonels who applied to me that it was with deep pain that I looked upon their cases. I had but one principle to guide me. At the appointed time I requested the Horse Guards to furnish me with a list of regiments which had completed their quota, and without considering the appeals which had been made—for it was impossible to consider them all—I directed that that list should be acted upon. With respect to the time at which the disembodiment took place, I may observe, that the regiments are paid up to the 1st of the month, and if they are not disembodied before the 1st of May, the greatest inconvenience with respect to the accounts must result; and to maintain them during the whole month of May would consume the greater portion of the £150,000 voted by Parliament. With respect to the disbandment, indeed, I think I am liable to be accused of being too liberal, for although the militia was embodied on the former occasion for a much longer period of time, exactly the same gratuities will be allowed as formerly. Both the non-commissioned officers and men will receive fourteen days' pay, so that the men will not only have their slop-clothing but money in their pockets. With respect to the officers I must express my regret than an additional expense has been cast upon them, in consequence of the shortness of the time during which the regiments were embodied, but I trust they will see that that is unavoidable, and that the disbandment is, as the noble Lord has said, a measure of necessity. It is possible that any commendation of mine may be lightly regarded, but I must beg leave to add my most cordial approbation of the militia force of the country to that of the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster. It is an admirable force, and I recently saw evolutions and military exercises of the militia at Aldershot equal to any that I have ever seen in the line. And since the order for disembodiment has been promulgated, I have received from one regiment, the Royal Down Light Infantry, an offer to form a second battalion of some regiment of the Line, provided their officers were guaranteed their ranks, the latter undertaking to increase the strength of the battalion to 1,000 men. I was, however, unable to entertain this patriotic proposition, as the number of men and the battalions of the line were already fixed; but the offer shows the excellent spirit with which the militia is animated. I am sure the House will agree with me that I could have taken no other course than that which I have adopted; and that it was not possible for us to have continued the embodiment of a larger number of the force than that which the amount voted in the Estimates was calculated to maintain. I quite agree that it is possible that the establishment of the militia might be a most effective means of recruiting for the line, but I am bound to add that in my view of the case the present state of the law with respect to the militia requires revision. I am very much of opinion that some means should be adopted for making the permanent staff of the militia much more efficient than it is at present. It would be equally for the benefit of the Militia and for the interests of the public service. Under the present circumstances it is possible that the militia may not be called out even for a short period during one or two years. What is the consequence? The permanent staff naturally becomes inefficient, and it has been stated with some degree of truth that the sergeants, instead of being able to drill the men, very often require to be drilled themselves. It may, however, be a question whether at the present moment it is desirable to add to the expense of the permanent staff of the militia; but there is one way in which in my view it might be made extremely useful to the country—it ought to be employed for the purpose of drilling recruits. At present the great complaint is that the recruits come in so fast, that a want of officers is experienced for the purpose of drilling them. On the other hand, we have a permanent staff of the militia doing absolutely nothing; and I think, therefore, that whoever may be the Secretary of State for War, he would do well to turn his attention as soon as practicable to the consideration of whether some such means as I have pointed out ought not to be adopted, which would at once render the permanent staff of the militia more serviceable than at present to the country, and more conducive to their own efficiency.

I hope I am not usually over sensitive in respect to unjust imputations; but there are some charges which, even for a moment, cannot be passed over in silence, and one of this character has been made against me this evening, by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), which appears to me to be one of the most unjustifiable and unauthorized that was ever made in Parliament. I understood the hon. and gallant General to say that this disembodiment of the militia was occasioned, he was sure, not by the advice of my gallant Colleague the Secretary for War, or any Member of the Government connected with the military service; but he had no doubt it was recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to secure the success of a cheeseparing Budget. Now, Sir, whether my Budget deserves that epithet I leave the House to decide. I do not desire to vindicate it in that respect; but this I can assure the House—that nothing can he more unjust or unfounded than the charge which the gallant General has made against me. The decision as to the disembodiment was arrived at, not with regard to any specific measure of finance, but with reference to the general requirements of the country. If the gallant General had only taken the trouble, before making so unqualified and reckless a charge, of reflecting upon what has passed, and which ought to be within his own knowledge, he must have felt how unjustifiable was his statement. He must have remembered that, in the Estimates which were placed upon the table by our predecessors, the item for the embodied militia amounted to but £150,000, which would be sufficient to maintain 30,000 men for two months only. He would have remembered, moreover, that before those Estimates were laid upon the table, the late Secretary for War gave notice of the intention of the then Government to disembody a portion of the militia. Surely, the gallant General, remembering those circumstances, will see how unjust is his attack upon mo. In taking the course we did respecting the disembodiment of the militia, we took a course which, I can assure the House, occasioned the greatest pain to every Member of the Government. No one appreciates more than I do the character and services of the Militia of the United Kingdom. I have on several occasions endeavoured to do justice to their conduct, and to express a sense of the value of their inestimable services. I believe it is of high importance that the militia should be called out every year for training; and I have always agreed with the noble Lord who has addressed us with such generous warmth and candour upon the subject, that the militia is not a more nursery for the regular army, but that it is a great constitutional force—a great national institution. It may please some hon. Gentlemen, like the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, who, when on the hustings, are fond of dilating on the necessity of a wise reduction in the national expenditure, to come here and make a complaint of cheeseparing arrangements; but I would ask the House calmly to consider how it is possible to carry into effect a wise reduction of expenditure—how it is possible to maintain a prudent economy in the administration of the national resources, if we are not to take a general view of what our powers are in that respect. The gallant Gentleman, without the slightest consideration of other claims on the national resources, and not taking a general view of the subject, on occasions like the present, comes forward as the chief advocate of the militia, identifying himself for a moment with its interests, but at the same time recommending a policy totally inconsistent with the general economical professions he is at all times making. I hope my gallant Friends the colonels of militia will at least acquit me of any want of feeling for the service with which they are connected, and any want of appreciation of their inestimable services.

said, he wished to express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had felt hurt at what he had stated. He did not mean to say anything disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman, or anything disparaging to his Budget; he merely meant to say that the Army Estimates were more governed by financial considerations than by circumstances of national importance.

said his right hon. and gallant friend, the Secretary for War, having already spoken on the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, could not address the House again, but he understood from his right hon. and gallant Friend that he had no objection to grant the Committee asked for by his noble Friend. If the Motion were to be agreed to now, however, it would be as an Amendment upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. He would put it to the noble Lord, therefore, whether he had not better withdraw his Amendment, upon the understanding that the Committee should be granted on a future evening, and thus avoid the inconvenience of preventing the House now going into Committee of Supply.

said he wished to express his concurrence in the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord, and he was sure that the House must feel that gratitude was due to a class of persons who had shown themselves to be second to none in devotion to their country and loyalty to their Queen.

observed that, as this case occurred during the time when he had the honour to represent the War Department in that House, he felt that he was more responsible for the treatment which these officers met with than the right hon. and gallant General opposite, and as the noble Lord seemed to have fallen into some misconception on the subject, he trusted he might be allowed to say a few words as to the manner in which these officers had been treated. In doing so he wished to echo every word that had fallen from the noble Lord in their praise, as they had been of the greatest service to the country at the time when their long experience as non-commissioned officers was peculiarly valuable, and he was sure that neither this House nor the late Government would have consented to any course that would bear the aspect of treating them in a manner different from that to which their services entitled them. There were two classes of these officers, hut the majority of them were non-commissioned officers, promoted from the ranks of the army. It was in 1854 that the Land Transport Corps was raised, and at the close of the war they were disbanded, there being no further occasion for their services. They had then performed scarcely two years' service as commissioned officers, and by the War-office regulations were not entitled to anything beyond a temporary pension. He might also add that the Secretary for War, as the interpreter of those regulations, had no power by his own authority to alter them in the least degree. His noble Friend, the late Secretary for War, finding that he could not do more for these officers than grant them temporary half pay at the ordinary rate for two or three years, thought that their long services entitled them to greater consideration, and consequently submitted the case to the Lords of the Treasury, who could grant permission to any Department of Government to give a higher rate of pay, under certain circumstances, than was allowed by the established regulations. The Lords of the Treasury considered the case, and consented, on the very strong and urgent representations of the late Secretary for War, to allow these officers to commute their temporary half-pay for a permanent half-pay at a slightly diminished rate. The noble Lord seemed to complain that these officers were not well-used, because they were not treated in the same way as other non-commissioned officers promoted from the ranks. How, then, would the latter have been treated? Why, they would have received a rather higher rate of half-pay, but it would have been temporary, and at the end of three years, at most, it would have ceased, and the officers would have been turned adrift without a claim to one shilling. If the gallant officer, the present Secretary for War consented to the Committee, it was not for him (Sir J. Ramsden) to object, and the Committee would see that the late Secretary, in the manner in which he dealt with these officers, was actuated by a desire to afford them the very best treatment in his power to obtain.

said he thought that these officers bad more than a mere financial objection to make to the mode in which they had been treated; for, he, understood, from documents furnished to him, that when the Land Transport Corps was abolished and the Military Train established, the officers of the former, instead of being transferred to the latter, by which the half pay would have been saved, were set aside, and Commissions in the Military Train were given to officers from the Turkish Contingent, and even to Commissariat clerks.

said he thought the case was one which should rather be left to the Secretary for War to dispose of than to a Committee of that House. He did not desire to do injustice to any officer or soldier who had rendered service to his country, but he trusted the Secretary for War would not be influenced by continual demands for money. He would do the officers of the Navy the justice to say that they never came forward with these demands for money, but were satisfied with the established regulations.

said that, relying on the assurance of the light hon. Gentleman that the Committee would be granted, he should, for the present withdraw his Amendment.

said, he must complain of the expenditure upon Keyham Harbour, consequent upon the numerous alterations which had been made in the works. The expense seemed interminable, and he believed it was generally admitted to be inefficiently laid out.

said, he wished to press upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the importance of increasing the capabilities of Cork Harbour for the accommodation and repair of the larger class of vessels. The importance of that harbour was evident from the circumstance that between the months of May and December, 1854, during the Crimean war, the tonnage of sailing ships which left that port with troops and stores was 23,662 tons, and of steam vessels 23,019 tons, making a total of 46,681 tons. He also thought it desirable that vessels should have the means of repair in Cork Harbour, without having to go round to Portsmouth or Chatham.

replied, that he had no doubt of the great importance of the port of Cork, but he could not, without further information on the subject, give any promise with regard to the improvement of the harbour. When he came into office he found very extensive works of this kind in progress, entailing a heavy public expenditure, and he felt it to be his duty to reduce, rather than to extend them. At the same time he did not say that additional works might not be required at Cork, but he would make inquiries on the subject.

I must reiterate that regret, which I recently expressed, on learning that the Government had decided on effecting the following changes in their proposed works and purchases. To purchase ground for the enlargement of Deptford and Keyham Dockyards, £29,484. For extension of docks at Portsmouth and Sheerness, £6,314. For new machinery at Portsmouth and Sheerness, £4,614. For land and erection and repairs of houses for the Coastguard, £10,000. On the first and second heads, I must observe, that as the land must be eventually purchased, the temporary saving will, in all probability, necessitate a proportionate additional cost hereafter: while the increased dimensions of our ships demand an immediate enlargement of our present docks. I cannot but hold the delay in the provision of new machinery which modern improvements in science render indispensable, is a short-sighted policy and fatal error which at such a period might prove irreparable. The distribution of the Coastguard in scattered lodgings through villages is much to be deprecated as eminently prejudicial to a high state of discipline. I will now content myself with expressing an earnest hope, that when the First Lord of the Admiralty shall have completed his inspection of the yards of Portsmouth, Devonport, Woolwich, Chatham, and Sheerness (as at Portsmouth as yet he has only devoted two days), if he shall find on consideration the proposed reductions are mistimed and disadvantageous to the efficiency of the Naval Service, the right hon. Baronet will not fail to submit a supplemental vote to supply the deficiencies to the notice of this House.

said, he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that he would not hesitate to submit to the House any Vote which he thought might be required by the exigencies of the public service. He might observe, however, that sonic misapprehension seemed to prevail as to the importance of several of the items connected with the dockyards upon which reductions were proposed. It was, for instance, proposed to strike off a sum of £4,000 which appeared in the Estimates of the late Government for the Deptford Dockyard, but that item had been required, not for the extension of the yard, hut for the enclosure and drainage of land, which was already bought and paid for, and he was assured by the Directors of Works that the postponement of that Vote would be attended with no inconvenience. With regard to the Chatham Dockyard, last year the Vote taken for the service of that yard was larger than had proved necessary, and consequently an amount equal to the surplus had been struck off the old Estimate, the Director of Works having assured him it would be a superfluous Vote. [Viscount PALMERSTON: "Malta?"] The amount proposed by the late Government for the purchase of land at Malta had been omitted from the Estimate, because he was told it was very doubtful whether the land was in such a situation as to be a desirable purchase, and that no inconvenience could result from the postponement of the Vote. He (Sir J. Pakington) might refer, for the information of the noble Lord, to two other items upon which reductions had been made, and which appeared to be intended for extending dockyards. The first was the Vote for Forton Barracks, at Portsmouth, and the other for the yard at Key-ham, in Plymouth. He did not know whether the noble Lord was aware that the barracks at Forton had nothing whatever to do with the dockyard. The item for those barracks referred to the purchase of land in the neighbourhood of the marine barracks, at a considerable distance from the dockyard, while there was a large extent of land in the vicinity of these barracks which the Government had already purchased, but had not used; and, having visited the place, he (Sir J. Pakington) agreed entirely in opinion with the Director of Works that the acquisition of the land proposed to be purchased by the Government was not at this moment a matter of any national importance. It had also been proposed to expend £25,000 in the purchase of land at Keyham, but he had been informed by the Director of Works that in his judgment this purchase was unnecessary. He (Sir J. Pakington) had not yet been able to visit Plymouth, but he had no doubt that had the noble Lord been in his position he would have exercised a similar discretion under similar circumstances by omitting the item from the Estimate. He was informed that the greater part of the land near Keyham which it had been proposed to purchase was a mud flat unfit for the purposes of building, and it was desirable that only a small portion should be brought to facilitate access by railway into Cornwall. After such a statement be thought he was bound to hesitate before he invested £25,000 in the purchase of a mud flat, especially as he was told there were from ten to twenty acres of land attached to the Keyham yard which had not yet been rendered available. He hoped he had satisfied the House that he had not lightly adopted the revised Estimates.

My observations were given to the purchase of land at Deptford and Keyham. I was sensible the land for the extension of the docks at Portsmouth and Sheerness as held by the Crown.

observed that the Vote for the purchase of land at Keyham was not a new Vote, but had been sanctioned by the House last year, and the late Board of Admiralty had made some arrangements for effecting the purchase. In the opinion of the late Board of Admiralty it was of great national importance that whenever an opportunity occurred of pur- chasing land in the neighbourhood of our dockyards, on advantageous terms, it should not be lost. These establishments naturally had the effect of increasing the price of land about them, and the public service had often been greatly inconvenienced, to say nothing of the additional expense incurred, because means had not been taken to buy land at the proper moment. So far from this piece of land being a mud flat, there was a considerable portion of rising ground upon it which might be made useful for the purpose of building barracks for the seamen, if the suggestions which had been made the other night were carried into effect, a mud flat however was not useless, for a great part of the present dockyard at Keyham had originally been a mud flat. The extension of the Cornwall Railway to the dockyard was of great importance, as it would lead to considerable economy of labour, and the only reason why the late Board of Admiralty had delayed the purchase of this land was that they might ascertain at what point the junction could be best made. As the Cornwall Railway would soon be finished it was of importance that this purchase should be made at the earliest possible moment. He was glad to find that the right hon. Baronet intended to retain the Vote for the purchase of land at the Corradino, Malta, but he regretted the omission of the Vote for the extension of the Malta dockyard. At present the space there was very confined, and great difficulty had been experienced there in the construction of machinery for the new dock. The reduction of £4,000 in the Vote relating to the arrangements at the Cape of Good Hope was certainly not a wise reduction, and the same might be said of the reduction of £10,000 for providing lodgings for the men of the Coastguard. Commodore Eden, he knew, was of opinion that £30,000 was not too much, and if the Committee could only see in what boles and corners some of these men had to live this item of expenditure, he was sure, would not be grudged. With regard to the piece of land at Forton, it was of great importance that it should belong to the Government, and he was sorry to hear that the purchase was postponed. The reductions in the Portsmouth and Chatham dockyards, too, were injudicious, for it was always most economical when once works had been determined on to carry them out as quickly as possible.

said, he had listened to the hon. Gentleman with sincere pleasure, perhaps the more so because he differed from him very little in his premises, although he rather differed in his conclusions. He had himself conveyed an erroneous impression with regard to the deductions, in speaking of Chatham Dockyard when he ought to have spoken of the Docks at Chatham. The money was more than was wanted, and the Docks would be completed with the reduced amount. Very much the same state of things existed with regard to the Docks at Portsmouth. He quite agreed in the importance of finishing these docks, and he was happy to say there would be no delay in consequence of the deductions, as the reduced estimate would be enough to carry out the works during the present year. With regard to the subject of providing lodgings for the coastguard men, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that public service required that it should be done as speedily as possible; but on investigating the Estimates, he was assured that the vote of £30,000 was entirely an arbitrary sum— a mere guess; and this was corroborated by the fact that last year, although a vote of £25,000 was taken for the same purpose, only £4,900 was expended within the year. Commodore Eden had assured him that £20,000 would be amply sufficient for the present year, and he had, therefore, taken off £10,000, and asked only for a Vote of £20,000. With regard to the projected jetties at Portsmouth, be begged to say, that having visited the spot, he now regretted their omission; but as the amount required was so small, he hoped there would be sufficient surplus funds to enable him to carry out the object.

said, there was one item in this vote to which he could not refrain from calling attention, and perhaps the late First Lord (Sir C. Wood) would be able to furnish him with a statement of the facts. He referred to the gunboat slips at Haslar. The total sum estimated was £70,000. The sum voted last year was £40,000, and the amount expended was £51,270. The subject had already been brought before the Committee by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone), and therefore he need not apologise for doing so. He believed he might say that the question whether gunboats should be left afloat, or laid up in slips, was a moot question, but his impression was that the majority of the authorities was in favour of leaving them afloat. He had been invited by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) to visit the locality, and he had done so. He found that two or three acres of land were excavated to within fifty yards of the edge of the creek; a slip was then made, and the gunboats were hauled up the slips and housed under the sheds. The opinion of the naval authorities on the spot was that, using the utmost diligence, it would be utterly impossible to launch the gunboats at greater speed than five in a fortnight. Thus it would seem that £70,000 had been expended in housing boats which were entirely unavailable in case of an emergency. The tramways upon the slips were made to fit the present gunboats; but if it should hereafter be requisite to build larger gunboats, the money would be wasted, as other slips would be required. He mentioned this to show that if hon. Gentlemen were placed in positions who had no antecedent knowledge of the duties they were to discharge, the result must he a great sacrifice of the public money.

observed, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there was great difference of opinion between builders whether these gunboats ought to be afloat or not. There was a mud flat in front of Haslar Hospital which might have been cleared out, and the gunboats might either have been placed afloat or slips might have been built to receive them, so that they might all have been floated at one tide. The sum already voted was £40,000, and he understood that it was in contemplation to construct slips for another range of gunboats opposite to the present slips, which were half a mile from the water. [Several MEMBERS: "No, not a quarter of a mile."] Well, then, a quarter of a mile. If it took six weeks to launch forty of these boats, it would take six weeks more to launch eighty. No one but an Admiralty engineer and a First Lord could have conceived such a plan. There were so many other plans that would have been preferable, that the people who advised this scheme deserved the censure of the House of Commons. He believed that the Surveyor of the Navy disapproved such a mode of disposing of the gunboats, that neither the Admiral at Portsmouth nor the officer at Haslar Hospital approved it, and that the superintending Lord of the Admiralty did not give it his sanction. The late First Lord and the Engineer of the Admiralty were, he had no doubt, the au- thors of the plan. If these slips were to be made useful, there must be a basin dug, and locks and gates must be constructed to keep the water in the basin, so as to allow the gunboats to be launched. He did not believe it would be possible to make these additions for less than £150,000. He would suggest that competent engineers, not connected with the Admiralty, should be sent down to examine the slips, so that some means might be devised of having the vessels ready as soon as they wore wanted.

said, of course he was responsible for the plan which had been adopted, and he thought he could show that it had not been adopted without sufficient reason. It had been admitted that great difference of opinion existed whether a vessel was preserved better in or out of the water. One thing was quite clear, however, that ships ought not to be kept in any place where they were alternately wet or dry; that they ought to be kept entirely in or entirely out of the water. A vessel which had not been launched would last for an indefinitely long period, with hardly any appearance of deterioration or decay after any known lapse of years. It was doubtful whether, when a vessel was once launched, she would keep as long when in the water as when drawn up on land. On the whole, however, it was thought that these gunboats, if thus drawn up and kept perfectly dry, were likely to remain sounder than if they remained afloat. These vessels were built originally, it would be remembered, for service in the Baltic, and were thought not to be calculated for acting except in shoal water near the shore. In the event of any hostilities with this country, it was considered, also, that they would prove most valuable coast defences. At the same time the Committee were aware that they had been sent abroad, and with great success. With reference to the gunboats despatched from this country to China, an hon. Gentleman stated the other night that he thought it unadvisable to bring those vessels back, in consequence of the risks to which they were exposed in the voyage out. Now, he denied that they had been exposed to any risk at all. He would read an extract from a letter written by an officer who commanded a gunboat of forty horse power (one of the smallest class), which had performed the voyage to China. This officer's account of the behaviour of his vessel was, that they had had very heavy gales, with a great rolling sea; but, he added, "I have no hesitation in saying that I would as soon be at sea in the heaviest gale in a gunboat as in any ship that ever was built." He was sorry to hear the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman to whom he was referring, because it might be exceedingly distressing to the families of officers employed in these boats; and he thought, therefore, he should be doing a kind action in making this statement. As regarded their return home, however, he had never contemplated that. Ample employment would be found for them in the shallow waters of China or our Australian colonies, and in the narrow channels about the Straits; and in sending them out, therefore, he had never thought of bringing them back. As he had said, there was every reason to suppose that the gunboats would keep for a longer period when drawn up than when left in the water. There was not the slightest appearance of dry rot in the vessels which had thus been drawn up, whereas, in two which had been employed in the Mediterranean, dry rot had developed itself to a very considerable extent. Another consideration had operated in inducing them to draw up these gunboats—namely, the clearance of Portsmouth Harbour from the impediments which they presented to the navigation. With this object, a piece of land was taken near Haslar Lake, which belonged to the Admiralty, and which was very conveniently situated for the purpose. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir C. Napier) first said the boats in this position were half a mile, and then a quarter of a mile, from the water. Now, he (Sir C. Wood) did not believe that they were a quarter of a quarter of a mile from the water, and he thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do well to be a little more accurate in his statements. As to the question of launching, that was not very material, because he did not believe it would be difficult to launch these boats quite as rapidly as they would be wanted. About thirty gunboats could be launched in a month, even with the present means; but means had been suggested by which the process of launching could be very much accelerated. What the ultimate decision might be with respect to the best mode of launching these gunboats he could not say, but it was absurd to contend that a skilful engineer could not move them over the surplus space of twenty-two yards. A similar experiment had been tried successfully at the Isle of Wight and other places, and he saw no reason why it should not turn out to be successful in the present instance.

There is no water to launch them into.

remarked that he had asked his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) and the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) to come down and look at these ships, because he thought the invention which had been resorted to for launching these boats was one of the most extraordinary which had ever entered into the mind of man to conceive. It had been attended with very great labour and expense and by the inconvenience resulting from the curtailment of the area of Haslar and the cutting off the water from its wells. If the Committee would bear in mind that £70,000 had to be laid out in digging new wells and constructing a new-cemetery in lieu of that portion of the old one which was taken up by those railway slips, as well as a sum of £1,400 a year for the purpose of watching them, it could not, he thought, fail to come to the conclusion that a very considerable outlay had been incurred for no adequate object. Nor should the Committee lose sight of the fact that the entire scheme had its stability based upon a screw, which was longer than any that had ever been previously constructed, and that if that screw happened to break—a circumstance not unlikely—the whole of those gunboats would be, as it were hermetically sealed, and could not be got into the water in anything like three months without the necessity of cutting away the intervening ground, and heaving them into the water by means of a capstan. After all he really doubted whether these gunboats were worth preserving, as he thought they were not the description of vessels which we require. The ships of which we stood most in need were light vessels that would require only a light draught of water, having an auxiliary screw, sailing well, and fit for service with a small number of men in any part of the world. It was said that those who sailed in the gunboats approved of them, but he did not attach much importance to that circumstance. A man's ship was like his wife, and if he were put on board the greatest "tub" in the world he would give a good report of her. From what he had heard of those gunboats which had gone out to China he could infer that they were scarcely ever dry from the moment they came within the influence of anything like strong winds; that they rolled about from side to side, and that when they got to China they were never out of the hands of the carpenter.

said, that as the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) seemed determined to maintain that the distance to which reference had so often been made was only twenty-two yards, while he contended it was a quarter of a mile, he should go down to Portsmouth and measure it, and thus see who was the nearer the mark. There had never, in his opinion, been so wild a scheme set on foot as that connected with the gunboats at Haslar Hospital, and he should very much like to know whether the Surveyor of the Navy, or Sir G. Seymour, or Admiral Berkeley, had been consulted on the matter? The whole plan seemed as if it were the work of some engineer who wished to exercise his ingenuity at the public expense.

remarked, that the original estimate for the works at Haslar was £70,000. A large portion of that sum — £40,000 — had been voted, but £51,270 bad actually been expended. The Government, therefore, ought to have asked for £11,270, but the Vote which they now proposed amounted to only £5,000. He hoped some explanation would be afforded upon that point. I3ut, after what the Committee had heard from gallant Officers on both sides, he thought the Vote should be postponed for further consideration, and he would accordingly move that it be postponed.

said, the hon. Member could not move the suspension; he should move the omission of the Vote.

said, he would in that case move that the Vole be struck out.

seconded the Motion.

said, nothing had been expended but what had been voted.

said, he could assure the Committee that £5,000 was all that was required to meet the expenditure at Haslar, and that if this Vote did not pass, the Committee would place the country in debt.

said, there was great difference of opinion as to this system of drawing up the gunboats. The late Marquess of Anglesey's yacht was always considered one of the best in the Royal Yacht Squadron, yet she was hauled up every winter. It was necessary to take some means to preserve these vessels. The Admiralty was utterly at a loss what to do with them, and it was there this plan was devised. He had suggested last year that a number should be sent to Cuba to act against the slavers, but he was told by the late Admiralty that they were utterly unfitted for such service; yet it now appeared that they had proved most efficient in a similar service in China. He thought they ought to be told on whose authority this plan at Haslar had been selected, and he should be perfectly satisfied if he were told that that stop had been taken upon the authority of Sir Baldwin Walker, than whom a more capable or more deserving officer was not to be found in the service.

thought that, if the intention of hon. Gentlemen was to secure better arrangements for launching at Haslar, they would not attain that object by reducing or postponing the present Vote of £5,000, inasmuch as the only purpose of the Vote was the one in question. It had been stated that no more than eight gunboats could be launched at Haslar in a fortnight. Now, he had been informed by Captain Dacres that of the GO-horse power gunboats, thirty could be launched in a month without working at night, and that of the lighter description of vessels, the whole could be launched within the same time.

asked, if there were only forty boats on the slips now, where the money to prepare a place for the other forty was to come from. He thought the Vote ought to be postponed for inquiry; the whole plan was wrong.

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Briscoe) would not persevere with his Motion. He had himself had nothing to do with this gunboat apparatus. It was all constructed under the late Government. Having visited Portsmouth, he found that there was there great difference of opinion as to the merits of the invention, and the facilities for launching. He was informed that for eight days of each fortnight two of these gunboats could be launched each tide; and that if the £5,000 now asked for were judiciously expended, that could be done on every day at neap tides as well as springs. It was true that the original Estimate for this work was £70,000; but all that had already been expended was £51,200; and with the sum now asked for the total to complete the work would be £56,000. The erection of additional sheds was an entirely separate question, and one upon which the present Board of Admiralty would not decide without careful consideration. Every Member of the Committee must agree that the Government was bound to take proper care of these gunboats, which were applied for from all parts of the world; and the question was whether they would be better in the water or hauled up high and dry. On that he did not presume to give an opinion, nor would he say whether or not there had been an extravagant expenditure upon this launching apparatus. Both at Portsmouth and in that House some of the best judges differed upon that question.

said, that if the expenditure of this £5,000 would remedy the defects existing in this apparatus the Committee ought to grant it. If, however, there was any doubt as to the attainment of that result, or any probability that next year they would be called on for the remaining £14,000, he should recommend the postponement of the vote until the right hon. Baronet was better informed upon the subject.

said, he must decline to give an opinion upon the details of an engineering and scientific question; but he was told that a smaller sum than £5,000 would remove the impediments to the launching of these boats. He had reason to believe, and did believe, that the expenditure of this £5,000 was needed to make the work complete, and he, therefore, thought, that it was undesirable that the Committee should refuse the grant of so small a sum.

said, that before these vessels could he launched at all tides it would be necessary either to deepen the creek, or to construct a basin into which they might be launched. The only way to ascertain how quickly the gunboats could be got into the water would be for the First Lord of the Admiralty to give the signal that they should be launched. It might be that there were demands from all quarters for these vessels, but that only showed the necessity for providing small vessels. He thought, however, that these gunboats would not answer, for they were utterly unfit for sea—the officers and men were worse off than in the old 10-gun brigs, and in hot climates the want of accommodation on board was such as to endanger life.

said, that there appeared to have been a sum of £11,270 expended beyond the £40,000 voted, and he wished to know from what source it had been obtained.

said, he had expected that the late First Lord of the Admiralty would have answered this question, because the transaction to which it referred happened in his time. He believed, however, that the answer was that the Treasury authorized the expenditure of the money before it was voted by Parliament.

said, the greater part of the money had been spent in providing means of hauling up the gunboats. He was glad to find that upon the whole the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty agreed with him. The gunboats were better preserved when hauled up than when left in the water. The only question appeared to be as to the means of launching, and he thought there could be little doubt that the engineers of the present day would find little difficulty in providing for that proceeding. They had all been drawn up by the help of this machinery, and to say that they could not be drawn down again in the same way did seem to him to be an extraordinary notion. Captain Dacres assured him that with the present means thirty boats could be launched per month, and that with an outlay of £8,000 that number could be increased to forty. The question was whether, after the money which had been spent, and, as he believed, was admitted, usefully spent, the Committee were prepared to vote £5,000 more to effect further improvements in the launching. He also wished to refer to one or two points upon which observation had been made. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had asked for the production of the order for the discharge of the continuous-service men, and stated that he (Sir C. Wood) had said there was no such order. He could not have been so absurd as to say such a thing, because he issued the order; but what he did say was that there was no order issued cancelling the first order, as none was required. Another hon. Member (Sir G. Pechell) had referred to the expediency of sending gunboats to Cuba, and be (Sir C. Wood) had said there were objections; but, in fact, he had sent four, and he had received a letter from the commodore on the station, regretting that they had not yet succeeded in capturing any slavers. With respect to what had been said about doing away with gunboats altogether, he could not agree with that view; but, as the First Lord had said, a class of small cruisers was much required, and a short time since he had ordered the construction of some vessels which he hoped were now nearly completed.

thought they ought to be satisfied of' the effectiveness of these boats before they spent this £5,000 in providing facilities for hauling them up.

explained, that he had asked for the production of the order for the discharge of the continuous-service men, and also for the order cancelling the first order; to which the right hon. Baronet replied, there were no such orders. It was said, the gunboats were better kept hauled up; if so, why were not the mortar-boats also hauled up?

said, orders had been given that the mortar boats should be hauled up.

said, he must express his regret that, notwithstanding the appeal which had been made to him to withdraw his Motion, he felt that he could not, consistently with his duty, comply with that request; for the further the discussion proceeded, the greater reason, he felt, existed for dividing the Committee upon the question.

said, he rose to explain that his statement with regard to the gunboats had been misunderstood by an hon. Gentleman opposite. What he said was, that it would take a fortnight to launch eight of them; and, in making that observation, he rested his opinion upon the first professional authority. The right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) seemed to think that the money expended for hauling up the gunboats had been wisely spent. The discussion that had taken place hardly bore out that assertion. In order to be useful, gunboats should be available upon an emergency; but, then, why was £70,000 spent in order to make them unavailable? He (Mr. Bentinck) had not said that engineers would be unable to launch the gunboats; but he did complain that vessels, whose greatest merit was represented to he in their being readily available, should he placed in such a position as to call for the exercise of engineering ability before they could he rendered available. Then, as to the relief of Portsmouth Harbour, be was certain that 500 gunboats might be easily berthed there. He thought the Committee were entitled to know who was responsible for the arrangement, be it good or bad; and he trusted that they would receive information on that subject from the late First Lord of the Admiralty. If it was to be understood that no further sum than the £5,000 would be asked for the purpose stated in the Estimates, he should vote for that amount; but if there was to be no such understanding, he should vole against it.

said, he thought the prudent course for the Committee, as the guardians of the public purse, when they heard such contrary opinions on this subject, was to refuse to pass the Vote at present, and insist on its being postponed till they had further information.

said, the orders were given on a Report of the Board of Admiralty; and when he went down to the spot to make inquiries, no objection was made to the matter.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that additional slips were to be made. It was intended to make the existing slips available. He understood that an expenditure of about £3,000 would effect that object, and the remaining sum would be expended on removing mud from the creek, so that boats might be launched any day. He could not give any positive information on the point; but he had every reason to suppose that £5,000 would complete whatever was to be done.

said, that as the question stood, the Committee had got into a queer position, for they were told that forty gunboats were hauled up, and that if they did not grant this sum, those boats could not be launched. Hon. Members who were now going into details on the subject of this £5,000, had made no objection whatever when the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty come down and asked for a round sum of £2,000,000.

begged to inform the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty that it was quite a mistake to suppose that, for a sum of £2,000, the creek could be so cleared as to admit of boats being launched every day. To put the creek in such a position, it should be cleared from end to end, and to do that £50,000 would b required.

said, he was inclined to think that the hon. Member for Surrey ought not to divide on this question, though, when naval authorities were so unanimous in objecting to the Estimate, it was difficult for the Committee to assent to it. They were told that nothing could be more efficient than the manner in which these boats had been housed. It appeared, indeed, that they had been housed only too efficiently. The late Admiralty had housed them so well that the present Admiralty could not unhouse them. The present Board was engaged undoing what the late Board had done so extremely well, and for this purpose it required a further sum of money. What he objected to principally was, that they had no guarantee that next year they would not be called upon for a still larger amount than was now asked for this purpose.

said, he must express his regret that no answer had been given to his question by the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Admiralty.

said, he wished to bring under the notice of the First Lord the situation of the Medical Department of the Navy. He had felt it his duty on several former occasions to advocate the cause of the assistant surgeons in the Navy, and he could not have succeeded in his efforts but for the powerful co-operation of the right hon. Member for Halifax, the late First Lord. To that right hon. Gentleman the assistant surgeons of the Navy were solely indebted for the improved position they now held on board-ship—a position to which they were entitled alike by rank and education. That valuable branch of the service had, however, other claims on the country. Their pay was inadequate. Formerly an assistant surgeon in the army received 7s. 6d. a day, while an assistant surgeon in the navy received 8s. a day, by which a slight preference was given to the Navy. Now, however, the pay of the same class of officers in the army had been raised to 10s. a day, while that of the navy assistant surgeons remained as before, which threw the preference on the side of the army. He thought it was important that the navy should be in a position to draw to its service the best qualified men, because, being sent on long voyages, they were more left to themselves than the army surgeons wore. And he wished to remind the Committee that the army was not the only competitor for the service of surgeons. The East India Company were extremely liberal to the surgeons they employed, and allowed them to take private practice, from which they often realised large sums. In the merchant service, also, there were many large ships almost equal to men-of-war, which carried numerous first-class passengers, and the surgeons engaged for them received remarkably good pay, and were treated as gentlemen. Unless, therefore, the assistant surgeons of the navy were paid as well as their brethren of the army, there was a danger of an insufficiency of duly qualified practitioners for the service. Another grievance which this class laboured under was that on being made full surgeons they were put upon half-pay; and from this cause they spent on an average ten years of their life ashore, which did not count in their applications for a retiring pension, while the service of the military surgeon was continuous, and he could therefore retire ten years sooner. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would take this matter into his serious consideration, for it was a matter of deep importance to the interests of the navy.

said, he entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the importance of appointing duly qualified medical men to the navy, and he would consider the alteration suggested by him.

observed, that this Vote contained an item of £12,066 for compensation for damage done by Her Majesty's ships to private ships, and a large item for compensation for damage to ships in the Baltic, the Black, and the Azoph Seas, which he presumed was occasioned by the illegal capture of ships during the Russian war. If so, deductions ought to be made from the prize money of those officers who had captured vessels illegally to compensate the aggrieved parties. He wished to have an explanation of these items.

said, that with regard to the first item, it was to afford compensation for damage done unavoidably by Her Majesty's ships to private ships; and with regard to the second, that the capture of certain vessels on the seas mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, gave rise to questions of law. The legality of their capture being questionable, it would not be just to make the capturers responsible for the damage.

said, the Vote contained an item for Sailors Homes, and he should like to know on what principle the money was distributed, because nothing was contributed by the Government for the support of the Sailors Home at Cork, whore many seamen of Her Majesty's Navy were received.

said, that as Ireland had now to pay the same taxes as England, it was not fair that millions should be expended in fortifying the coasts of England and Scotland, while not a farthing was laid out on the Irish coast. Even for imperial purposes such a harbour as that of Cork, which at any water could be entered by the Leviathan itself, ought to be made a naval station. It presented the greatest facilities for repairing even the largest ships in the navy.

said, that as a resident at Queenstown, could corroborate what had been said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). Every First Lord of the Admiralty for the last twenty-five years had promised to consider the case of Cork harbour, but nothing had been done. One improvement had certainly been made, and that was the erection of a pier, and so great was the advantage derived from it that he might state that he himself saw one of the largest steamers lying alongside of it, and a regiment of cavalry was marched down there to embark for the Crimea, and they actually walked their horses on board. The harbour of Cork was the great western harbour of the United Kingdom.

said, that he must remind the hon. Member that he was speaking to a Vote which had already passed.

said, he would strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to go to Cork harbour, which was one of the most beautiful in the world. He wished to explain the grounds of the restriction in the charitable contributions of the Admiralty complained of by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Fagan). There had been such a number of demands made on the sum in question from places which had ostensibly a right to apply, that it was thought best to confine the contributions to places where there were actually naval stations.

said, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman did not tally with the statement of the hon. Member for Cork, who said that a considerable part of the sum in question was unappropriated. He was not acquainted with the condition of the fund, and he did not know whether the arrangement mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was not a judicious one, but he would take care to inform himself on the subject, and if he found any injustice existing he would endeavour to remedy it.

said, he had observed with great pleasure the manner in which the First Lord of the Admiralty had commenced the performance of the duties of his office, and particularly he would express his gratification at the right hon. Gentleman's having taken measures to inquire into the case of a very deserving class of men, the worn-out officers of Greenwich Hospital, and for having given them their half-pay, of which they had been for so many years deprived. This step had given so much satisfaction, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give their half-pay to others on the list who were in the same position. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would not m the distribution of patronage with reference to this Vote, confine it to a small clique and to particular families. It was a subject of remark, that out of the small number of rear-admirals now employed, two of them bore the same name, and were connected with each other. If there was one class of officers who deserved more consideration than others, it was that of retired officers with the rank of captain, who had seen active service. He had never asked for additional relief for these officers without stating where the fund was to conic from to pay them; and he thought a saving might be made in coal on board steam-ships, not only in vessels on service but in the ports. He had also suggested before, that the money paid for shipping-bullion to this country from foreign ports, to the admirals on their stations, was a great abuse. He hoped the First Lord would enable these half-pay officers to enjoy the additional privileges to which he bad alluded.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to two gallant Friends of his who were now employed; and he would venture to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, though the number of rear admirals employed was so limited, and unfortunately two of them bore the same name, they were among the most scientific and able officers in the service; and when he stated that they bore the name of Grey, it would be a proof that they were not officers who had thrown away their time. They devoted their whole time to the service, and no more energetic or scientific officers were to be found.

At first sight a Vote of £694,148 for half-pay and retirement to officers of the Royal Navy and Marines may appear a considerable charge upon the revenues of the country. I need not, however, remind the House that it is the inevitable entail of a war, which between the years 1792 and 1815 was carried on against France, Spain, Russia, Denmark, Turkey, and the United States of America, and at times against combined nations. At one period we had upwards of 1,000 sail in commission to furnish blockading fleets off Toulon, Cadiz, Ferrol. Brest, Texel, and in the Baltic, and on the sea board of America, as well as for the protection of our scattered colonies, and for the convoy of a vast commerce. The officers, who then devoted their youth and prime of their life to the service of this country, cannot be deprived of their frugal maintenance in their age, or on this involuntary and compulsory retirement from the active duties of this profession. It is a debt of honour contracted by the nation. Every day it is in course of being lessened, and within a few years will be largely cancelled by the hand of death.

said, he wished to draw attention to the extraordinary system of promotion to the rank of admiral. In 1840, there were only 143, and now they numbered 349. The Committee ought to express its disapprobation of this reckless system of promotion. When in 1846, 200 old captains were placed on the list of retired admirals, it was understood that the number of admirals would gradually be decreased; but, instead of that, it had gradually increased. There had, within a very short time, been recently added to the list no less than twenty-nine admirals. He believed that there was about an admiral and a half to every vessel in the navy.

said, that what the hon. Gentleman called reckless promotion, since 1846, had been productive of more good to the service than anything that had ever been done. There were 343 admirals on the list, but they were not meant to be for active service. There were only 100 on the active service list; and the retired list was introduced for the purpose of obtaining younger men in the rank of admiral. At present, the number of years' service of the senior captain was only eighteen years, while in 1846 it was thirty-eight; so that supposing a man to have the good fortune to become a captain at thirty years of age, he could not become an admiral until seventy. In fact, a man might become an admiral at forty-eight. The result was, that we had now admirals in the prime of life, and in the full enjoyment of health and activity. The whole cost attendant on obtaining such an advantage was £22,000, and the whole expense of the half-pay lift in the last ten years had been diminished by £38,000.

complained that the reduced list of admirals had exceeded the prescribed number of 350. He objected to their limiting the admirals to certain families. If only five rear-admirals were required, two ought not to belong to one family. He wanted to see a little more fair play in the appointment of officers. When a new First Lord came into office he always professed to look only at merit; but they all knew that that was all humbug. A gallant Admiral opposite, and there was no more efficient officer, had almost gone on his knees to the Board for employment—[Admiral WALCOTT: I did.] —but it was of no use; he had no Parliamentary influence.

said, no measure had been more beneficial to the efficiency of the navy than that relating to the reserved list, which was begun in 1846 and completed in 1851. If we were to have young admirals, there must be some means of disposing of the old ones, and the expense of a reserved list was trifling in comparison with the advantage gained. As to the reserved list of captains, provision had been made some years ago that the list should be reduced to 350, and it was now in course of gradual reduction to that point. At present it was 356. With regard to the two gallant officers whose names had been mentioned, he certainly had given them appointments, but only in their regular order. Sir Michael Seymour's services in the Baltic fully entitled him to his promotion, and Sir George Seymour's services were equally meritorious. With respect to his relatives, their promotion took place upon a principle which he was ready to explain to the Committee. He promoted according to seniority those officers who distinguished themselves in the Crimean war. During that time Sir Frederick Grey commanded the Hannibal, and both his and Admiral George Grey's services, in taking care of the transport of troops, had greatly contributed to the success of our operations against Sebastopol; and he had in his hand a letter from Lord Lyons, thanking Admiral George Grey for his services at Gibraltar.

said, he had not questioned the appointment of Sir Michael Seymour; indeed he (Sir C. Napier) would have been the first to recommend that gallant officer to the command in the Chinese seas; but what he objected to was family influence. He referred to the two Admirals Grey; he did not believe that they would have been appointed but for the fact that they were brothers-in-law to the late First Lord.

said, that he was answerable in some degree for the creation of the retired list of admirals, and he thought it had worked well. It was he who had appointed Admiral Sir George Seymour to the American station, and he had done so solely on account of his services. He would remind the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) that the proposition for putting officers upon the retired list came originally from the late Mr. Hume, who would not have sanctioned anything prodigal.

moved, that the Chairman report progress.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would allow the Committee to go on with the Vote.

said, he must persist in his Amendment, as it was nearly twelve o'clock.

said, that the House had sat so late during the week, that he would recommend his right hon. Friend (General Peel) not to press another Vote. The House seemed, indeed, quite in the humour to adjourn.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish franchise prisons, said, there was in this country certain prisons in which debtors were liable to be confined if arrested. They were prisons which the feudal lord was compelled by his tenure to provide, but in which prisoners were liable to be incarcerated without food, fuel, or beds, unless they had the means of obtaining those necessaries for themselves. He trusted that the House would, by agreeing to this Bill, affirm the principle that there ought to be no prisoners in this country except in the Queen's prisons. In one of these franchise prisons —that at Swansea—the hardships suffered by the debtors were so great, that Mr. Hill, Recorder of Birmingham, recently felt himself called upon to suffer a fraudulent debtor to escape with a more lenient judgment than he would otherwise have passed, on account of the sufferings he had undergone in the Swansea Gaol. This was a scandal which ought not to exist in any civilized country.

thanked the hon. Gentleman for the introduction of a Bill to abolish this remnant of feudal times.