said, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Governor General of India has sent home a copy of the Proclamation addressed to the Chiefs and Inhabitants of Oude, which was actually issued after the taking of Lucknow, and whether it differs in any respect from the proposed Proclamation, a copy of which has been laid before the House; and whether the Governor General of India has given to the Government of England, or to the India Board, any other explanation of such Proclamation, or the reasons which have led to or justify its issue, than such as are contained in the letter addressed by Mr. Edmonstone to the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Oude, dated 3rd March, and which has been laid before the House?

Sir, in answer to the hon. Baronet, whose question I have now seen for the first time, I beg to inform him that we have not received a copy of the Proclamation addressed to the Chiefs and Inhabitants of Oude by the Governor General, and which was actually issued after the taking of Lucknow; and therefore, officially, I cannot say whether there is any difference between that and the proposed Proclamation—a copy of which has been laid before the House. But with regard to the second, and more important part of the question—whether the Governor General of India has given to the Government of England or to the India Board any other explanation of such Proclamation, or the reasons which have led to or justify its issue, than such as are contained in the letter addressed by Mr. Edmonstone to the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner of Oude, dated the 3rd March, and which has been laid before the House—I beg to inform the hon. Baronet that we received, on Saturday last, three private letters from Viscount Canning, which have been referred to in the course of the Debate; that there are references in those letters to the Proclamation, but that the previous letters in which the Governor General gave the explanations which he promised, and which probably there were some other statements that seem to have been referred to in these letters, which are consequently in some points obscure, have never reached us.

May I ask one more question? Have the Government received any positive information from the Governor General that the Proclamation has been really issued?

We have not received information from the Governor General; but from other sources we have positive information that it has been issued.

I wish, Sir, to make an observation with reference to the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Mallow, which seems to contain an insinuation which some Members of the House accepted in the sense it was probably intended to convey. The right hon. Gentleman said that three letters had been received from Lord Canning on Saturday, containing references to previous letters that had not reached the Board of Control, but which he supposed contained explanations of the Proclamation. I have only to say that my right hon. Friend who was lately President of the Board of Control has received no explanations from Viscount Canning, in any private letter, with reference to the Proclamation in Oude. Consequently, if these letters have not reached the present Government, neither have they reached my right hon. Friend who was formerly at the head of the Indian Government.

I feel, Sir, I am quite justified in rising again, in consequence of what has fallen from the noble Viscount. Perhaps the House will allow me to observe that I did not make, nor did I intend to make, any insinuation of the kind to which the noble Lord has referred. There are Gentlemen who are ever ready to believe that insinuations are made with regard to their conduct. I repeat unequivocally that I made no insinuation. If I had a charge to make, I should make it not in the way of insinuation, but in language that could not be mistaken. The noble Lord has entirely misunderstood what I said. I said there were expressions in the letters received from Viscount Conning which seemed to refer to what had been stated in other letters; that there were observations in them which contained references to matters of which we had no account; that they were, therefore, necessarily involved in obscurity; and that in these circumstances I was unable to give the explanation which the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) asked.

I think, Sir, it is important that there should be no mistake upon this subject. I wish, therefore, to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have received any positive information of any Proclamation having been issued by the Governor General? Yes or no?

I have already stated that we are in possession of communications which speak to the fact of the Proclamation having been issued, but we have no official communication from Lord Canning to that effect.

It is in my power, Sir, to give an answer to the non. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley). I have, within the last few hours, seen a gallant officer who arrived from Lucknow last night, and who, before leaving Lucknow, had a conversation with Sir Colin Campbell. In that conversation Sir Colin Campbell expressed an opinion that the Proclamation had arrived.

said, he wished to know whether it was to be understood that the Proclamation had only arrived, or that it had been issued, at Lucknow?

said, that the information he had received was, that the Proclamation had been sent to Lucknow.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether he has any objection to produce those parts of the private letters he received from Viscount Canning at the Board of Control which refer to those subjects?

I have already stated the substance of the letter, and also that had I, to the best of my judgment and discretion, considered it important enough to be communicated to the Government, I would have done so. I did not think any part of the letter important, and therefore did not send it.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!"] I submit to the House that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I put to him. ["Order, order!"]

There is no Motion before the House. It is not, therefore, competent for the noble Lord to enter into any argument at present.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton whether he has any objection to lay before the House those parts of the letters he has received from Viscount Canning which referred to subjects relating to India?

I have already answered the question. I have an objection to produce the letters. I have stated the substance of them, and that is the only answer I have to make.

Sir, it has been stated that there is a gallant officer now in London who has recently arrived from Lucknow. [Cries of "Order, order!"] I beg, Sir, to move the adjournment of the House. I understand, Sir, there is a gallant officer now in London, who has recently held a high command in the province of Oude, where he has performed many most creditable deeds at the head of his regiment, which he has led in a most gallant manner. This gentleman, I understand, Sir, has stated publicly and on various occasions that he has had communications with officers high in command, and with men high in authority, since the publication of the Proclamation; and that he has also stated the impressions on the minds of those personages in regard to the Proclamation. I think, Sir, that the substance of that gallant officer's information should, if possible, be given to the House.

This is a most irregular proceeding. If the hon. and gallant Member knows what the officer referred to could communicate on the subject, he ought to state it at once to the House.

said, he wished to know whether, in the event of the Amendment, he had given notice of to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) being carried, and in effect becoming a substantive Motion, it would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government.

Sir, I wish to explain to the House the state of business. I understand we cannot hope to make any arrangement by which the adjourned debate on the Oude question can be resumed to-night at any reasonable hour. I do not think it would he just to the Government that this discussion should be recommenced at the fag-end of the evening. I understand that the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier), acting, no doubt, from a sense of duty, declines to give way, and one cannot consequently expect those hon. Gentlemen who precede him on the paper to make a sacrifice of their position. I think, therefore, that there is no probability of the adjourned debate occurring to-night at any reasonable hour, and I confess I am somewhat reconciled to the delay, because there is apparently no possibility of the House dividing to-night. But I must beg that, on every practice of courtesy and every principle of justice, hon. Members who have Motions on the paper for Thursday will consent to an arrangement by which the discussion on the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) will be resumed at the earliest possible moment on that day. Thursday is a day in the occupation of private Members, and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) has a Motion of the greatest importance for that day. It is with the greatest reluctance that I make an appeal to that hon. Gentleman to sacrifice the occasion of bringing forward a matter of so much interest, but my appeal to that hon. Member is not made under light circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for East Surrey, taking all the circumstances into his consideration—remembering that a Bill of indictment, as it were, has been preferred against Her Majesty's Government, that they are on their trial, and that we are, further, on the eve of a recess, will see the necessity that the decision of the House on this subject shall not be unnecessarily postponed. I cannot but believe that the hon. Gentleman animated, by the sentiments of a generous mind, will allow the adjourned debate to be resumed on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman gives his consent I shall feel it to be my duty to give him facilities for bringing on his measure on the earliest practicable occasion. If the hon. Gentleman consents that the adjourned debate shall be resumed on Thursday its termination must be near at hand, and cannot fail to take place either on that or the succeeding night. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford is negatived, as I hope it will be, I sec nothing in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman to which I could not give a willing assent.

said, that after the appeal made to him, he would postpone his Motion on Thursday.

said, he wished to ask a question relative to a gallant officer that had just been referred to. It was reported that Colonel Franks, who had just returned from Lucknow, understood before his departure that the Proclamation in question had been issued by Viscount Canning in obedience to instructions sent out from this country. He begged to ask the late President of the Board of Control whether that was so or not?

The question is so obviously ridiculous, although it arises from the first reference made to this sub- ject, that it scarcely requires an answer. My answer, however, is, that it was not, because the first intimation that I had of the Proclamation was from the letter, the substance of which I have stated to the House.

I am bound, Sir, by a feeling of justice to Colonel Franks to take some notice of the question that had been asked respecting him. I had yesterday the advantage of a conversation of considerable duration with Colonel Franks. He evinced the utmost possible feeling of delicacy with regard to any communications between himself and Viscount Canning, and any information he had derived during his intercourse with Viscount Canning. He expressed in the warmest and most honourable terms his sense of gratitude for the many favours he had received and the kindness which Viscount Canning had shown him, and his extreme reluctance to be a party to anything in the slightest degree reflecting unfavourably on the conduct of Viscount Canning. While I feel bound to say that Colonel Franks displayed a feeling of delicacy most honourable to himself, yet he gave me a great deal of information which I do think of the greatest importance as bearing upon the question before the House. Colonel Franks expressed to me most honourably a great desire that his name should not be brought forward, but Colonel Franks made a request personally to me that if his name were mentioned in this House, and if any reference were made to him which it was in my power to correct in consequence of this interview, that I would do him the justice to correct that wrong impression. I feel bound, therefore, to say that the bon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) has been misinformed with regard to what fell from Colonel Franks. Colonel Franks had heard the rumour that he was informed by Viscount Canning that the Proclamation was the result of instructions from home. Colonel Franks assured me that any such impression was altogether erroneous. Viscount Canning did not tell him that he had received any instructions to the effect supposed, and the mistake had probably arisen in consequence of the fact that Colonel Franks did infer, from his conversations with Viscount Canning, that, under all the extraordinary circumstances of the Proclamation, that Proclamation could only have been issued in consequence of in- structions from home. That, however, was only the general inference of Colonel Franks, and he does not for a moment pretend to say that the Proclamation was issued in consequence of instructions from home.

, in moving,

"That in the opinion of this House Real Property and Impropriate Tithes should pay the same Probate Duty as that now payable on Personal Property; and that Property belonging to Corporations, Universities, Colleges, Bishoprics, and Deans and Chapters should pay Probate and Legacy Duties equivalent to those now levied on Personal Property,"

said he rose to call the attention of the House to the glaring injustice of exempting land and tithes and other real property from the payment of probate duty, while all other descriptions of property when bequeathed in a greater amount than £20 had been made to pay such duty. This legislative inequality in favour of the rich man was created in the year 1796, when a Bill was brought in by Mr. Pitt to impose upon all property, both real and personal, a Probate and Legacy Duty. The proposition was, that all descriptions of property of the value of £20 and upwards should pay the duty, but in consequence of the resistance of the aristocratic element in the House the Bill was divided into two Bills—the one imposing this tax upon personal property, and the other upon real property. The division of the Bill was accomplished against the strong opposition of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and other distinguished men of that day. The Bill by which it was intended to impose this tax on real property was lost in the House of Commons, though by only a small majority. Since that period about £60,000,000 have been obtained from personal property, while real property had escaped until lately the imposition of any tax. But if the legacy duty had been then made applicable to real property, a large amount would have been realised for the discharge of a great portion of the national debt. It was true that the inequality between the two descriptions of property had been the redressed so far as regarded the legacy duty, by the succession duty, but real property still remained free from probate duty or from the burden of any equivalent impost. He complained of the injustice that £20 personal property left by a poor man paid a duty of 2° per cent, while the nobleman might leave property in land to the value of a million sterling without paying a shilling probate duty. Let them look, for instance, at the case of the tenant-farmers, for whose welfare hon. Gentlemen opposite expressed themselves so interested. When a tenant-farmer died, his executors had to pay probate duty upon the growing crop, the live and dead stock, farming implements, furniture, and even wearing apparel, while leases for life paid nothing. Again, in the case of building leases, the houses built under those leases paid probate duty, but when the property fell into the hands of the freeholder, no probate duty was payable. This was surely a gross injustice. There was another description of property which also escaped payment of probate duty—he referred to that of corporations, universities, colleges, bishops' lands, and impropriate tithes. The property held by those corporations was enormous. The corporation of London alone had an annual revenue of £300,000, of which £50,000 or £60,000 was derived from a tax upon coals. There were 180 corporations in England and Wales, without reckoning Ireland and Scotland, and the aggregate property held by them was enormous. Then there were the City companies, some of whom had incomes as high as £40,000 or £50,000 per annum. He saw no reason why these corporations should not pay probate duty estimated upon the average life of man. Any actuary could calculate what the fair amount of charge should be. He knew that in former years Chancellors of the Exchequer had argued that landed property ought to be exempt from this tax, because it bore an equivalent, in the shape of the stamp, duties on conveyances of reality, but since that time equal duties had been imposed on the conveyances of other kinds of property, such as railway shares, property in the funds,—and there was, therefore, nothing whatever to compensate for the exemption of landed property from probate duty. He was appealing to a reformed House of Commons at a time when a call was made for further reform, and he would beg to remind them that a similar Motion to this had been made in 1796, and was only lost by a majority of two. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his Budget in 1852, he (Mr. Williams) submitted this Motion to the consideration of the House. The right hon. Gentleman admitted its justice, but did not think it was expedient at that time to adopt it. If the right hon. Gentleman would now support it, no real representative of the people would wish to see him turned out of office. Even the most despotic Governments on the Continent compelled the aristocracy to bear their fair share of the public burdens, and he hoped that England would not be less just to the great body of taxpayers. A succession duty had been imposed by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone), and he (Mr. Williams) trusted the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry a measure for the rectification of the probate duties and thus remove a stigma; and perform an act of public justice.

seconded the Motion. He said it would require a little Amendment, so to include intestacies. He thought the principle had been conceded when the succession duty on real estate was imposed; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) whether, when he proposed that duty, it was not also his intention to impose a probate duty on that description of property. Motion made and Question proposed.

said, he thought that the House ought to feel indebted to the hon. Member for Lambeth for having brought forward this Motion. He was one of those who thought that an undue favour was shown to the landed interest in public taxation. He should, therefore, support the Motion, the adoption of which would, he believed, yield to the Exchequer £700,000 a year. The scale of succession duties did not go beyond £1,000,000. Several men had within the last few years died in this country, each leaving property worth much more than £1,000,000, and he (Mr. Alcock) estimated that those who succeeded to their property had each paid £5,000 less than they would have had to pay had the scale of duties not stopped short at £1,000,000. The real property of this country was worth above £100,000,000 a year, and a probate duty of about £2 per cent on it would, although an exceedingly trifling burden to the owners of real property, yield a large amount to the Exchequer. In his opinion it was only reasonable and fair that the landed interest should pay taxes in the same proportion as was levied upon all other descriptions of property.

said, he did not rise to enter into the difficult subject now under discussion, but to answer one of the hon. Members for Sheffield, who asked him whether in 1853, when he had the honour to propose a succession duty, it was not declared by him on the part of the Government of the day, that it was also their intention to propose that the probate duty should be charged upon real property and upon impropriate tithes, as well as upon personal property. Directly he heard that question he endeavoured to refer to the debate as being more to be relied upon, but he had not been able to do so, and there, fore he spoke from memory, and he was sorry to say that he could not speak in confirmation of his hon. Friend's statement, As far as his recollection went, it always appeared to him that the whole state of the probate duty was unsatisfactory, and required revision before the duty was extended. But over and above the necessity of revision and reform, he was bound to say likewise that he thought, so far as the views of that Government were concerned, which of course did not bind any succeeding Government, or, far less, the House of Commons,—so far as he could bring to recollection the views of the then Government, their impression rather way that the burden imposed by the Succession Duty Act constituted on the whole a fair, moderate, and equitable settlement of the ease as between landed and personal property. He spoke subject of course to correction by documents, and without stating any positively formed and fixed opinion; he had not heard anything recently on the subject to convince him that that conclusion was indefensible in point of justice. He thought this question could not be discussed with advantage without a great deal of detail and a very full and comprehensive consideration of the subject. It was found a very serious matter indeed to carry in that House the Bill imposing the succession duty, and he could not envy the Minister whose duty it would be to carry out the wishes of the hon. Member for Lambeth, by imposing a probate duty on real property and impropriate tithes.

said, he was aware that the House, after the excitement of the yet unfinished debate, which had already lasted two nights, was not very much disposed at present to discuss the question which had been raised, although the time would come when it would be necessary to enter fully into this subject, and when it did, he thought the theory of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) was a member, would be very rudely handled. He had, however, only risen for the purpose of stating a case which had come to his knowledge with regard to the operation of the Probate Duty. He remembered, not long ago, speaking to a Member of the House of Commons on this subject. That hon. Member was a fortunate man. A person who was no relation of his left him a handsome property in land yielding a rental of £700 a year. At thirty years' purchase this property was worth £21,000. There was timber on the estate, which might be sold, of the value of £12,000. If that property had been left in North Western stock, or in the funds, or in leasehold buildings, or in cotton machinery, or in any of those forms of property which had not been held absolutely sacred by the House, he would have had to pay the sum of £3,200 for Probate and Legacy Duty. The right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Gladstone's) Act had done something for him, because before that Act passed he would have had to pay nothing at all, but when he came to consult with the officers of the Government as to what he should pay, they asked him his age—it was a question they would not put to anybody who had other kind of property. He gave them his age, and then they turned to a table and said, "This man's age is so and so, and according to this table his life is worth so many years;" and then they multiplied the net annual income of this property, and they brought it to the sum of £7,000, and this gentleman, instead of paying £3,200, had to pay £700. Now it would he only to insult the understanding of the Members of the House if he were to attempt to argue for a moment that this was a case of great inequality of taxation, for which no adequate cause had ever been assigned, or attempted to be assigned, in that House. They had, some of them on this side of the House, resisted this description of unequal taxation, and, especially since the year 1841, they had been making progress towards greater justice in this matter. But unfortunately within the last five years the country had not been exactly in its senses; and whilst they had been plunged into a career of extravagance unknown in the last forty years, they had become much less careful of all questions of this nature. But he thought they had reached the worst period, and he hoped they should have some improvement. He would make this observation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who possibly might continue in office, not- withstanding the serious peril to which some persons thought the Government was exposed; but if be should be in office next year, he should like to see him, instead of bringing forward a budget which was so nicely trimmed, bring one forward based on broad and comprehensive principles. There were two things which the right hon. Gentleman could do, and which be believed the country would support him in. The one was to have a thorough revision of our expenditure, by which he thought large sums might be saved in many branches, and at the same time with regard to this question of taxation on property to show to the House that he desired to make matters a little more fair than they had been hitherto. He had great hopes of the right hon. Gentleman's party. He had watched them for fifteen years, and he was free to admit that they had made more progress on this question than any other party in the House—in fact they did not appear to him to be the same persons that they were fifteen years ago. Since they had got rid of the odious Corn Law question, the political atmosphere of the House had much improved, and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House had come forward wonderfully with great advantage to themselves and to the taxpayers. He thought it was the duty of that House to look into the question of the inequalities of taxation, and show that they were really and truly the representatives of the people. As regarded the land, it had great privileges of a political and social character attached to it, and there could be no reason why in the matter of taxation any preference should be shown to it as compared with any other description of property.

said, he must deny the assertion that the landed interest was unduly favoured in respect of taxation, and he thought that one point had been overlooked by hon. Gentlemen opposite in the consideration of this question. If they took the whole class of local taxation for example, the poor rate and the county rate, upon what property did that fall? Certainly not on funded property, or that large class of property inside the cotton mills. No, it fell entirely upon real property.

said, that the supporters of this Motion always based it on the alleged inequality which subsisted between one species of property and another. The real objection to this description of taxation was an objection of principle, which equally applied to funded, personal, and landed property. These taxes were taxes upon capital, which in their incidence were most oppressive and onerous. He did not, however, think that the question could be discussed on the present occasion.

said, he believed the House would then hardly be inclined to enter into a discussion as to the principles on which the system of taxation should be generally conducted; nor did he think that he would be expected to enter into the merits of the complicated system by which our Succession Duty was raised. He would, therefore, confine himself to the two main points stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth—first, as to the alleged injustice of placing a probate duty on personal, and not on landed property; and, secondly, what might be called the negligence of the Government in not imposing, a Succession Duty upon corporations and other public bodies. The first branch of the hon. Gentleman's Motion had often been discussed, and the House was perfectly aware of the difference that existed between personal and landed property, which rendered the application of a Probate Duty easy to the one, and very difficult, almost impossible to the other. The Probate Duty was a stamp that they placed on a document, without which an executor could not avail himself of the property which he was entitled to administer. But, in the case of landed property no document existed which requires a stamp. To the greater portion of the landed property of the country the heirs could succeed without the intervention of a will or any deed whatever. Then, again, the Probate Duty put upon personal property was put upon it all at once, and might easily be obtained by a sale of part of the property; but if they wished to obtain the tax from landed property by a sale of a portion they would have to put it into the market in a manner which depreciated the value of the article and produced all the injurious consequences experienced from forced sales. But it might be said, "If there be very great and perhaps insuperable objection to the laying of a probate duty on land you ought in justice to put an equivalent tax on that species of property." Now, the most difficult thing in the world was to adjust taxation so that there should be recognised on all sides a complete equality. Equality of taxation was about as difficult to establish as equality of mental or bodily strength. The only practical mode by which equality could be secured in respect of this particular duty, and by which what was termed an equivalent could be obtained, would be by repealing the existing Probate Duty altogether and raising the Legacy and Succession Duties. If the House would look for a moment at what would be the practical effect of such a process, they would see the extreme difficulties with which, on that view of the subject, they would have to contend. If they repealed the Probate Duty they lost at once a yearly sum of £1,200,000. They now obtain from the Legacy and Succession Duties £1,800,000 per annum. Therefore, by their process of putting an end to the Probate and increasing the Legacy and Succession Duties, they would have to raise upon the new scale a sum of £3,000,000. For this purpose they must levy, in the shape of Legacy and Succession taxes, about 16 per cent. and a fraction, instead of, as at present, 10 per cent. Such a proposition, he feared, would not have much chance of passing through that House. The only alternative would be that they should terminate all the conditions of consanguinity at present discriminated, and substitute a uniform rate of 4 or 5 per cent. on all property of this description. That plan he thought would be equally unpalatable. He made these observations as to the only mode by which if there were injustice that injustice could be counteracted. But the question naturally arose, "Was there injustice?" It was very true that personal property was now alone subject to Probate Duty. But it should be remembered that the Succession tax had been recently fixed upon real property. Moreover, real property was liable to peculiar taxation from which personal property was exempt, for it was impossible, in considering this question, to forget that £2,000,000 a year were raised by way of land tax, to which, of course, personal property was not subject. In discussing such a question they must look to the incidents of their local taxation, to the item of poor rates, for example, and the general parochial rating of the country. When the discussions on taxation took place which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) anticipated, it was much to be doubted whether the hon. Gentleman would find it easy to demonstrate the proposition which he thought so simple. The other branch of the Motion before them was of more novel interest; and the hon. Member for Lambeth was perfectly justified in drawing their attention to it. Undoubtedly, when the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford brought forward the important financial measures which had been referred to, there was an understanding—indeed, he believed an engagement-that the Succession Duty or an equivalent tax should be applied to corporations, and the right hon. Gentleman was exposed to some criticism at the time because some delay occurred in the fulfilment of his intentions. When he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) acceded to office under circumstances which rendered it necessary for him to see what possible means he would have at his command to meet considerable demands, he remembered quite as distinctly as the hon. Member for Lambeth the engagement entered into by the right hon. Gentleman, and he made some inquiries as to what might be expected to be derived from carrying into effect the right lion. Gentleman's plan. Having to meet a heavy deficiency he would have been very happy to provide for those Exchequer bonds to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded by a resource originally devised and indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the distinguished author of that species of temporary security. The House, however, would be surprised when he told them what would be the probable result of making corporations liable to the Succession Duty. He had before him several papers on the subject, prepared by a very competent person, from which he would quote only one or two results for the information of hon. Gentlemen. The usual calculation was that there were three successions to property by death in a century and an equivalent tax to the present Succession Duty of 10 per cent., if placed upon property belonging to corporations—which never died—would, at the rate of three farthings in the pound, realise a sum of not quite £4,500 annually. This estimate was based on the assumption that 100th part of the real property of the country was possessed by corporations. No doubt that calculation was arrived at by admitting eight considerable exemptions. No one in that House was generally more opposed than he was to legislative, and especially to financial exemptions. But he was bound to say, having examined the subject, and looked into the manner in which it practically worked, that he could not see how they could apply their tax to corporate property without recognising all these exemptions. As he did not wish to weary the House, which, after the late debates, would not be anxious for a financial discussion, he did not enter into details; but, as the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Motion seemed to think that a great source of revenue had been improperly neglected, he thought it was important that the House and the country should understand that we had been under a great mistake with regard to this subject, and that if the Succession Duty was extended to the property of corporations it would produce less than £5,000 a year, which probably would only be obtained by means of a crop of lawsuits, the costs of which would exceed that amount. Under these circumstances he must ask the House not to agree to the Resolution. The hon. Member for Lambeth dealt with these subjects with great ability and with a sincere desire for the public good; and, as he should be sorry to have to divide against him, he hoped that he would not press his Motion.

said, he quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the House did not wish for a long financial debate, and he only rose to speak because, if any blame attached to the successors of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford for not having proposed the extension of this duty to the property of Corporations, it attached peculiarly to himself, because he had had more time for the consideration of the subject than the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He did consider the subject; he arrived at the same conclusion as had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he believed that that conclusion would be fully borne out by the investigation of a Select Committee. After allowing for the property of charities and other descriptions of property which would be exempt according to the present state of the law, and making deductions for the cost of the litigation which this species of taxation always produced, he believed that the balance would be against the public. That was that the cost of collection would exceed the amount of revenue paid into the Exchequer. Under these circumstances, he arrived at the conclusion that it was undesirable to propose the extension of the Succession Duty to the property of Corporations. As to the extension of the Probate Duty to real property, he concurred generally with the re- marks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that right hon. Gentleman had inadvertently described this duty as a stamp upon deeds. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had not intended so to describe the tax.] The fact was, that Probate Duty was exclusively applicable to wills; and the real difficulty in the way of extending it to real property was, that wills relating to real property did not require Probate, but, in the language of the "proved themselves." At present the same will frequently related to both real and personal property, and when such a will was proved no duty was paid for the realty. If the law was merely altered so as to make the realty in such a case liable to duty, the result would be that where both realty and personalty had to be left conveyancers would make two wills instead of one; they would prove the one relating to personalty in the Court of Probate, but the other would require no proof, and therefore pay no duty. Therefore, without some further alteration of the law as to the disposal of real property by will, this duty would in a short time be unproductive. This was a fatal objection to the simple alteration of the law as proposed by the hon. Member for Lambeth, and then would arise the necessity for having recourse to the plan of increasing the Succession and Legacy Duties, which would lead to the oppressive consequences which had been explained to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby), that if the House went into this question they would also have to look into a variety of subjects such as local taxation, the land tax, and so forth. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had put a strong case, but the real merits of the subject had not been touched upon by any speaker who had yet addressed the House; no one had referred to the subject of stamps upon deeds. The hon. Member for Birmingham had alluded to the case of the fortunate gentleman who had lately acquired an estate of £30,000, upon which he hail only paid a tax of £700. Let him remind the hon. Member that that was not the only anomaly, and that if that property were transferred by conveyance, a very heavy stamp duty would have to be paid; whereas, if it consisted of £30,000 in the funds instead of in land, it could be transferred without any tax at all. That there were anomalies was quite clear, but it was equally clear that they were not all on one side.

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was already a tax upon the transfer of railroad shares, and almost every description of personal property, except the public funds. He should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, because he had for many years been endeavouring to get equal laws for real and personal property—a subject which he intended at some future opportunity to bring under the notice of the House.

said, that, although he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he wished not to be misunderstood, as he was a Member of the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen who passed the Succession Duty, and was a party to the engagement to which his right hon. Friend had referred, that a proposition should be made on the part of that Government to extend the Succession Tax to corporate property. He was not, however, satisfied with the calculations as to the amount which would be produced by a Succession Duty on corporate property, that had been read to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was estimated that when the Succession Duty was in full operation it would produce £1,500,000 per annum; therefore, if the corporate property chargeable amounted to only one-hundredth part of the land of the country, the proposed extension ought to produce, not £4,000, but £15,000 a year. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor (Sir G. C. Lewis) was a very good one; for he could not conceive how a Committee of that House could be better employed than in investigating the question what would be the produce of the extension of the Succession Duty to corporate property. He doubted whether the exceptions would be so numerous as was supposed. Some of those which had been mentioned were of a very doubtful validity. He could see no reason why the property of charities should be exempted; and, on the whole, he thought the produce of the tax would by no means be so small as was imagined.

replied, that he would venture to say that instead of the whole corporate property of the kingdom yielding only £4,000 a year, that belonging to the City would yield ten times that amount.

said, he rose to ask permission to bring in a Bill to regulate Insurance and Assurance Institutions, and to arrange for their incorporation. He said that the preamble of the proposed Bill recited that it was expedient that the statute laws relating to those companies should be embodied in one Act, and provision would also be made in the Bill for their registration and regulation. In future no Insurance or Assurance Company would be allowed to be established unless registered under the provisions of the Bill. The law with respect to these companies was at present in an uncertain and unsatisfactory state, and it was necessary that some legislative enactment should be passed with respect to them. He had understood from the Government at an early part of the evening that there would be no opposition on their part to his Motion, and be therefore trusted hon. Gentlemen would consent to the introduction of the Bill upon the understanding that its merits would be discussed upon the second reading.

seconded the Motion.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of the 10th year of King George IV., chap. 34, as related to conspiracies and solicitations to murder. It would be in the recollection of every hon. Member, that in February last the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, then at the head of the Government, introduced a Bill to alter the law as regarded conspiracy to murder in this country and in Ireland. In the course of the debates which ensued on the introduction of that Bill, it was generally admitted that the law as now existing in Ireland required alteration, and the sections of the existing Act which he proposed to alter were formally repealed by that Bill. The law, instead of making, as at present in Ireland, conspiracy to murder a capital offence, was by the noble Lord's measure assimilated in both countries, making the offence a felony punishable by transportation. The principle of that Bill met with the approbation of the House, and therefore he thought he had some right to ask that so much of its provisions as mitigated the law in Ireland should now pass into a law. During the discussions on the noble Lord's Bill, the present Chancellor of Ireland spoke very decidedly in its favour, and particularly in respect to that part of it connected with Ireland. True that Bill was defeated on its second reading, but not on account of anything it contained in reference to the Irish law. Therefore, in support of the Bill he proposed to introduce, he claimed the votes of those who, on the second reading of the Bill of the noble Member for Tiverton, expressed their opinion that the law as it existed in England was sufficiently adequate for the offence. The noble Lord the Member for London then very truly observed that a mild code strictly enforced was a more effectual preventive of crime than a severe code enforced unequally. On that ground he considered that the punishment being lessened, the chance of escape for the criminal would be less. He had seen jurors disagree upon a case, with respect to which he believed that they would not have hesitated to bring in a verdict of guilty if the indictment, instead of being for murder, had been for some lighter offence; for on a capital charge, unless the proof was of the clearest and most distinct kind, jurors were unwilling to convict. Unless there was a moral certainty of bringing home the offence of murder to the party charged, it was much better to proceed on a milder accusation; and he was satisfied that if that course had been pursued, in the recent ease of Dr. Bernard, the jury would not have acquitted him. It was impossible to carry out the existing law in Ireland, and persons charged with capital offences of this nature bad considerable chance of escaping. He believed the subject was at present under the consideration of the Commissioners for the Revision of the Penal Code; but notwithstanding that circumstance, be had thought it right to bring forward the subject now, as no one could say when their report would be received. His wish was that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) would take the matter into his serious consideration, as he had no wish to take up the matter on his own responsibility, but would cheerfully leave it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to submit to the House a measure for assimilating the penal code in England and Ireland.

seconded the Motion.

said, if his hon. and learned Friend would be content with calling the attention of the House to this important question, he had no objection to promise that he would take the matter into his most serious consideration; but if his object were simply to repeal the law without proposing any substitute for the punishment, he must give the Motion his most decided opposition. The Act was passed so lately as the reign of George IV. to meet cases of a certain description—not those quoted by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) on a former occasion, when he drew a very important distinction between cases of conspiracy resting in intention, and cases of conspiracy that had been carried into execution. As for instance, there was a great distinction between three persons, who met together to consider about shooting the right hon. Gentleman, and the case of three persons who, by their conspiracy, actually got him shot. Now, the Act of Parliament was passed to meet cases of this last description. He might instance the case of a lady who was shot not long ago in Cavan, when returning to her own house, not by any persons whom she could have injured, but by persons who were said to have been hired for the purpose, and who were prosecuted by the late Attorney General and convicted of conspiracy to murder. He was happy to admit that solicitations to murder were every day becoming more rare in Ireland, and the changes which might take place in the law, would in consequence be naturally in that direction which would distinguish between conspiracy for murders that were carried into execution, and murders that were not, for he held that a great distinction was to be made between the two cases. But he never could consent to deal with a conspiracy to murder, where the murder actually took place, as a misdemeanor simply. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman would be content with having called the attention of the House to the subject, and with his (the Attorney General's) assurance that he would give the matter his most careful consideration, he thought that would be much better than any partial dealing with the subject.

said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to him, he must say that he quite agreed in the remarks that fell from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. He did not see that any good was to be gained by attaching a severe punishment to conspiracy to murder where no murder had actually taken place. Not only might ignorant persons be easily entrapped into such a conspiracy, but designing persons might, by giving accounts of conversations that never took place, easily use it as a charge against others, who, though they were actually innocent, could bring no proof of their innocence. But in the case of actual murder, the case was altogether of another character. The whole subject was one of great importance, and certainly the law was in an unsatisfactory state. They had been told that in the case of Dr. Bernard, who had lately been quitted, and into whose case he did not wish the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to enter on the present occasion, if he had been found guilty, the Judges would have taken the matter into consideration whether the law applied to his case. But it did seem hard that after the trial had taken place, after the evidence had been given, and after the prisoner had endured the anxiety of the trial, the Judges were, after all that, to meet and consider the case; and persons very learned in the law said it was probable they would have found that the statute did not apply to his case. Surely, if that were the case, the state of the law required consideration and amendment; and if that were the case in England, much more must it be so in Ireland, where the offence of conspiring to commit murder, even though the murder was not committed, was a capital offence. But, under the circumstances of the case, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Motion.

said, he would recommend his hon. and learned Friend, after the promise of the Attorney General for Ireland that he would direct his attention to the subject, to withdraw the Motion.

remarked, that he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for King's County had very property called attention to the difference between the law of England and Ireland on this subject. He believed the law as it existed in Ireland was productive of great evils, and was far more severe than was necessary, and he would be glad to see it assimilated to the English law. He would, however, recommend his hon. and learned Friend to leave the question, which was one of a very difficult and complicated nature, in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

said, his object in proposing the repeal of the Act of the 10th of George IV. was to place the crimes of conspiracy and solicitation to murder on the same footing in both countries, leaving it to the law officers of the Crown to propose a measure applying an adequate punishment to such crimes. He thought it was monstrous that by the existing law in Ireland persons who had engaged in conversations which might expose them to indictment for conspiracy to murder, although no murder was committed, and who might have repented the intention the next hour, should be liable to punishment for a capital offence. He believed that after public attention had been drawn to the subject, it was impossible such a law could be allowed to remain upon the statute book. He was, however, willing, under the circumstances, to withdraw his Motion.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to enable or facilitate grants of land to be made near populous places for the use and regulated recreation of adults and as playgrounds for poor children, said, he felt it undesirable at that particular hour of the evening (half-past seven) to detain the House at any length; but he hoped to be able to show the necessity of the measure he proposed. With a great increase of population and wealth, the poorer classes had been driven into more confined neighbourhoods, and no suitable spaces had been reserved where they might obtain air and exercise. It was twenty-five years since he first drew the attention of the House to this subject by proposing the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the necessity of public walks and parks in the neighbourhood of large towns, and of twenty-three hon. Gentlemen who assisted him at that period only three were now in the House. The Report of that Committee showed the absolute necessity of reserving places in the vicinity of populous towns for the benefit of the humbler classes and contained several suggestions, many of which had been adopted. Since that time the increase of population in the metropolis and manufacturing towns had increased 100 per cent—the increase in the country at large being 45 per cent. In Bethnal Green the increase in ten years had been 22 per cent; in Shoreditch, 30 per cent; in Islington, 75 per cent; in Chelsea, 50 per cent; in Bermondsey, 32 per cent; in Camberwell, 40 per cent; in Greenwich, 20 per cent. In the same period, Wolverhampton had increased 30 per cent; Birmingham, 25; and Bradford, 40. In the whole of England and Wales the increase had been only 14 per cent in the same period, and 9 per cent in the agricultural districts. In the period from 1801 to 1831, the increase of Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, had been no less than 90 per cent. The House would easily see the necessity of some provision being made to meet this vast increase. In the Report of 1833, in the Health of Towns' Report of 1840, in the Reports of the Poor Law Commission in 1842 and 1845, the want of places of exercise for the poor residents in close towns had been pointed out. Of fifty towns possessing an aggregate population of 3,000,000 the water supply and drainage for the poor was deficient in 1847, so that the necessity for a supply of fresh air to those persons was apparent. In the denser populated districts the mortality was great, being in the eastern parts of the metropolis double that of the western districts. That was an index of illness, sickness, suffering, of widows and of orphans; and it was an index in the end of poor rates and of crime. The case was the same in the manufacturing towns as compared with agricultural districts. The law, as it at present stood, was greatly to blame for this state of things. He proposed, therefore, by his Bill to take power for setting apart suitable grounds in the neighbourhood of large towns. The Committee of 1833 hail recommended six such places near London. Three of them—Battersea Park, Victoria Park, and Primrose Hill Park—had since been formed. Independently of legislation, there was a hope of much being done to remedy those evils he had adverted to by the liberality of private individuals. He referred especially to such noble grants of ground for the purposes of public parks as had been made by Lord Calthorpe and the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley). Three parks, also, had been opened in Manchester for the public enjoyment recently. Much, also, might be done by the owners of villas and parks near the metropolis. At present the first thing they did was to build up a high wall round their domain: if the proprietors would remove those walls, and substitute an open railing, it would afford great pleasure to the pedestrians in those neighbourhoods. The principle of limited liability might also be called in, to aid the efforts of those who wished to provide places of public recreation. He would suggest the erection of shelter houses in each of the parks, where amusements might be provided under proper regulation. He anticipated shortly the erection of what might be called railway villages, where working men would reside, being conveyed to and fro at a light expense by the railway companies. He would further suggest that the five or six commons in the neighbourhood of London should bedrained and appropriated as places of public recreation. His proposition hail also reference to providing playgrounds for poor children, a matter of deep importance to the rising generation in the vicinity of large towns. He had received an anonymous letter on this part of his Motion, addressed front a London clubhouse, the writer of which stated that lie (Mr. Slaney) could surely never be in earnest in his intention to propound such a suggestion to the House of Commons. He had, on the other hand, received a letter from the municipal body of the important and populous town of Sheffield, highly approving that part of his plan, and he thought he might fairly set that off against the communication of his anonymous correspondent. There were within the metropolis several large squares formerly inhabited by great people, with large pieces of ornamental ground in the centre, and these might, under certain restrictions, especially as to time, be rendered available for the purpose he had indicated, the more so if it were practicable to get the children who might resort there to submit voluntarily, under the supervision of monitors, to a silent system. [A laugh.] Of course, he did not mean an absolute silent system, but one which would impose comparative silence. He saw no reason why a corner of Lincoln's Inn Fields might not be appropriated to the recreation of poor children at proper hours of the day. He scarcely ever saw any person walking there, and under proper regulations his suggestion might reasonably be adopted. It might likewise apply to some other squares—Soho Square for instance—which were in the immediate vicinity of the abodes of dense masses of the poor population. In the hope that the Government would not oppose his Motion, as it was a matter of great interest and importance to provide for the healthful recreation of the inhabitants of populous places, he would conclude by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

seconded the Motion.

said, that as he had long known the unwearied exertions of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney) to improve by legislation the condition of the working classes and of the poor in large towns, he was glad he had an opportunity of moving for leave to bring in this Bill. He (Mr. Walpole) would assent to the Motion, but would reserve the expression of his opioion on the details of the measure until it was before the House.

said, that in pursuance of his notice, he had now to bring forward his Motion for a Commission to inquire into the best means of manning the Navy. The time bad come when the House of Commons, the Government, and the country should put their shoulders to the wheel with the view of devising some system of manning the Navy in a manner worthy of the country and of the service itself. He should of course be told by the First Lord of the Admiralty that this was not the proper time to bring such a subject under the notice of the House; but he had waited for upwards of forty years—in the hope that this important question would be taken up by some Government, either Whig or Tory, but he had waited in vain. Since October last he found that the Horse Guards had succeeded in enlisting 50,000 men and 30,000 militia; while the Admiralty had not been able in the same fine to man two line-of-battle ships and two frigates. The Diadem was commissioned cm the 19th of April; she sailed on the 13th of July following. He found that the number of men obtained were, 103 in the first week, 80 in the second, then 28, 37, 57, 32, 20, 17, 17, and 19 in subsequent weeks. That was the way in which they were able to man the British Navy—was that right? How came it that, for thirty years, all the statesmen in this country, Whigs and Tories, peers and commoners, who had sat at the head of the Admiralty, had not been able to fall upon some means of giving us an efficient Navy? Generally speaking, the Admiralty did not originate anything advantageous for the service; it more commonly came from without. If a naval officer made any recommendation or suggestion to the Admiralty, they were sure to give him a rebuff. This was so well known, that few officers attempted to go near the Admiralty. Their suggestions, if they made any, must be by letter, and those letters anonymous, otherwise they were treated with a great deal of indifference, and probably punished in some way or other for their presumption. He had been in the habit of making suggestions to the Admiralty for the last forty years; but he could not say that he had received any very favourable attention. One suggestion which be made in 1816, respecting an increase in the officers' pay, had at last been adopted, after forty years' consideration. He would now come to the system of impressment. In the year 1816 he had recommended to Lord Melville a plan by which impressment might be avoided. That plan remained on his Lordship's table some eighteen or twenty years. In 1827 he (Sir C. Napier) made a similar application to Lord Auckland, but that noble Lord thought it was hopeless to induce the House of Commons to take interest in it. In 1835 Sir James Graham brought in a Bill, which, nevertheless, had many faults. It proposed to call out men by Proclamation when the urgency of the service required it. Had the Government issued such a proclamation they would have had to go to the expense of half a million of money before they succeeded in manning the Navy. Afterwards he (Sir C. Napier) brought in a Bill in conjunction with Mr. Sidney Herbert; but, unfortunately, from various causes, that Bill did not succeed. It was not well worked, and the sailors themselves were averse to it. Again, in 1847, he brought in a Bill to amend the Act of Sir J. Graham. In that Bill he proposed that the men should be called out by classes as wanted. For example, if the Queen wanted 5,000 men the register was to be examined, and those who had just served their apprenticeship were to be called out. If they were not enough, those who had served for one and two years were to come forward. But there was no use in calling out men unless there was some mode of making them obey the call; and this he proposed to do by what he considered a mild compulsion. But the House did not think the measure necessary at the time, and it failed. Our system was inferior to that of the French. During the war in Syria several of our line-of-battle ships had to wait at Portsmouth for months before they could obtain their complement of men. For himself, he believed that in case a sharp war were to occur again, they might be obliged to have recourse to the system of impressment unless something was done now; but he did not think seamen would stand it—they had got a better notion of their rights than they formerly had, and they would resist any attempt to impress a man on board ship, and that if life were lost in so doing no jury would convict a man of murder for defending his personal liberty. Formerly the horrors of the system were very great. If a wife wanted to get quite rid of her husband, a father of his son, or a son of his father, they had only to bribe the pressgang, and the poor victim was forced into the service. Even the Speaker of the House of Commons, if he had once got into the hands of the pressgang, would have found it impossible to get off. They would have paid no attention to his remonstrances, or would not have believed him. He knew something of the subject, for long ago he had been engaged in these transactions himself. Unless Parliament were prepared to resort to some regular mode of manning the Navy it must again have recourse to the system of impressment—a system under which the sailor was subjected to a degree of slavery which, he contended, ought not to prevail in the case of any class of men in a free country like England. But the real question for the consideration of the House was, what were the best means for manning our Navy? If they raised the wages of sailors which were very fair at present, merchants must inevitably raise their wages also. He thought means might be found less objectionable than this. In the first place, he would raise the pay of petty officers; to petty officers of the first class he would give £4 a month, or twice the pay of the ordinary seaman, and to those of the second class, he would give half as much as the ordinary seaman's pay. That would not act injuriously upon the merchant service. Then he would recommend—what would perhaps horrify some hon. Gentlemen—that the petty officers should be allowed to advance to the positions of commanders, captains, and other high ranks. The distance might be a long way off, but many men would aspire to reach it, and it would induce many men to enter the Navy. He did not, however, think that the means which he had just mentioned would be in themselves quite sufficient to effect the object which he had in view. An additional encouragement might be found in the re-establishment upon a better footing of the merchant seamen's fund, with the management of which the sailors had become so disgusted that they had almost altogether given up being subscribers. He believed that fund now received from the Treasury a sum of £65,000 per annum, but if the amount were considerably increased sailors would be induced to become regular contributors to the fund, and the means would thus be furnished of providing pensions for their widows and orphans. That much good would thereby be effected he had no doubt, and his own views as to the expediency of taking some such step were borne out by the opinion of a gentleman who was conversant with the subject, and with whom he had been in communication with respect to it very recently. A Commission had been appointed in 1853 which had recommended that a bounty should be given to sailors, but upon that, as well as upon several other recommendations of the Commission, Parliament had not thought proper to act. He might further observe that the authorities by breaking faith with our seamen had caused a loss of confidence upon their part which was calculated to operate most prejudicially. Not very long ago, for instance, a gratuity used to be given to sailors when paid off for good conduct to the amounts of £6, £7, and £10, but the Admiralty in its wisdom had not hesitated to take away that trifling boon even from those sailors who had entered into the service in the expectation that they would be entitled to the privilege. On the recommendation of the same Commission the system had been instituted of granting to the men stripes on their arms as marks of distinction, each stripe being accompanied with additional pay. This privilege, however, they withdrew, so that when the men became petty officers they did not receive more than before. He believed that lately the Admiralty had reinstated matters, and allowed the petty officers to gain the stripes, so that this ground of complaint had been taken away. In 1857 we had as fine a Navy or at least, what remained of it—as could possibly be, yet numbers of the men who composed our crews entered in 1853 as raw recruits. He was informed that the merchant service only furnished 400 seamen to our Baltic fleet in 1854 and 300 in 1855. When the House of Commons was asked to reduce the Navy in 1857, and eight sail of the line were paid off, the continuous-servicemen, who had enlisted for ten years, were not told that they were turned out, but that they might go if they liked. The consequence was—for Jack was very touchy—that the men availed themselves of the privilege very largely. In 1857 there were 17,432 continuous—service men in the fleet, of whom 2,973 were discharged. However, he did not approve the ten years' continuous service system. He believed that the plan of the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) was wiser—to enter the sailors for five years. If the ships were kept in commission five years—and their stores would last that time—the officers might be relieved every two years or two and a-half years, so that other officers would have an opportunity of seeing service. Otherwise there would be continued the state of things described by his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Walcott), who for twenty years went on his knees to the Admiralty to allow him to see active service, but in vain. He would keep the ships constantly moving about. The soldiers were removed from Gibraltar, to Malta, the Ionian Islands, the West Indies, and he would do the same with the sailors. He would let them come home occasionally to see their wives and friends and have a run on shore. When he first knew the Navy the sailors scarcely knew what the shore was. They never saw the face of the fair sex, and this was a horrible state of things. The men in the Lisbon squadron of Sir William Parker were never ashore for three years, and other fleets were the same. When he went out in command of a squadron, the late Lord Auckland asked him whether he ought to let the men go ashore. He said he would let them go ashore, whether they got drunk or not, for the evil would right itself. When they got to Lisbon the scenes were very bad. He recommended the authorities to put all the drunken sailors they could find into the guardhouse, and keep them there for two or three days. The Government complained, but he persisted. The Queen sent a message to him not to let the sailors come ashore. Still he persisted, and the result was, that in a short time the men who were allowed to go on shore behaved as well as the officers. Under the ten years' continuous-service system, the tie between the Royal Navy and the merchant service would be almost severed, because the vacancies would be so few that they would be filled up by the boys. But if the men were taken for five years, they would then probably take their turn in the merchant service, and tell the men that the Royal Navy was not so bad a profession. This would be better for the Navy than the ten years' continuous service, which the men did not like. The late First Lord of the Admiralty said, it was true that the men were discharged with their own consent in 1857, but that they had passed over the quarter-deck and entered themselves again for five years' service. He had ascertained how the case stood, and he found that only sixty-three men had crossed the quarter-deck and entered again. In 1857, the Admiralty paid off eight ships of war, on the ground of economy. It was supposed that a saving of £100,000 or £150,000 would be thereby effected. But was the fact so? Did the House believe that all this money was saved? Would the right hon. Gentleman state how much it would cost to put those eight sail of the line in the position in which they stood when they were paid off. He believed the Admiralty would not be able to put them into commission again, fully manned and fully stored, under £200,000. A ship newly fitted out would last five years; but if it were put out of commission at the end of one or two years, there were sure to be complaints of inefficiency, and the ship was usually newly caulked, coppered, masted, and rigged, at a great expense for very trifling defects. In 1853, an Act was passed which repealed the Act of 1835. It enabled the Queen to call the seamen out in classes, but did away with the double bounty given by the Act of 1835, providing that the men should have such pay as the Government might think fit. That was very equivocal in Jack's eyes. He knew what the double bounty was, but he did not know what pay the Government might think fit to give. The register was also abandoned. He disapproved both those alterations, and thought the Act of 1835 would have been much better amended, if the Act of 1853 had merely provided that bounty should not be given to seamen unless in time of war, and that the men should be called out in classes. He did not say that they should begin the register over again, but some means ought to be found for enforcing the calling out men by Proclamation. The manning of the fleet was as simple a thing as could possibly be. Supposing the Channel fleet was to be composed of ten sail of the line, three of them should be flagships. He would discharge from the ships in time of peace one-half the marines. Those marines should garrison the whole of the seaport towns. In the event of war they would go on board again, and the militia would walk into their places. In a case of emergency they might discharge one watch to another ship. The coastguard men must remain to take care of the revenue; but if they called out the Coast Volunteers, they might, by his plan, muster men enough for twenty sail of the line within a fortnight, and that force would be completed in a very short time. But what was the state the country was now in? He did not say that Louis Napoleon was going to invade this country. God forbid! He hoped he would not; but Louis Napoleon might not be his own master. The French army had lately been increased by 40,000, and now numbered 500,000 men. According to the representations of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, while we had forty-two screw ships, France had forty. France had 70,000 trained seamen for fitting out a fleet. A quarrel might arise. They very nearly had one the other day, and he was not quite sure it was over yet. People armed to the teeth at all points could pick a quarrel whenever they pleased. He would ask the House what position England would be in if they heard to-morrow there were fourteen sail of the line manned at Cherbourg and 40,000 or 50,000 troops sent there by the railroads. What would be the effect on the funds? People would be running about right and left, but there would be no means of defence. He spoke plainly, because it was quite immaterial whether he did so or not. The French knew what we had in our ports, just as well as we knew what they had in theirs. When he (Sir C. Napier) was in Russia there was no attempt to conceal anything from him. He went on board almost every ship they had, and did the House suppose the French would not do the same here? We were in a defenceless state. We would not pay an insurance for our lives and property. He believed that if the Prime Minister stood up in his place and said he would not be responsible for the safety of the kingdom unless there were ten sail of the line, the whole country would cheer him from one end to the other. The country did not understand it, nor did Members of Parliament, nor merchants of the City of London. The time was come when they ought not to defer for a day longer the putting the Navy in a proper state. There must be a fleet independent both of the coast guard and volunteers, who formed only a reserve for cases of emergency. If the French were to make a descent upon our coast what should we do? The Commander in Chief could not take the field with more than 30,000 men, while France had an array of 500,000 men, and we had no fleet to send to meet hers at sea in the event of hostilities. It might be said that they could order out the whole coast guard; but did any man mean to tell him that an Admiral could go to sea with his ships manned with coast guards and volunteers, who were only compelled to go fifty leagues from the coast, and in case of emergency 100 leagues? He did not say that men whose services were limited in that way would object to go further if necessary, but still there would be the danger of a mutiny. Altogether he thought it would be most inconvenient to have the fleet manned in that manner. If they wished to support the honour of the country, they must be prepared to put to sea, in the event of being threatened by the French or any other fleet, so as to be certain of victory. In the battle of the 1st of June the French fleet was not manned or officered as it ought to have been, owing to the Revolution; but, in spite of all this, never was an action better fought, and the enemy never hauled down their flags until half their ships' crews were hors de combat. Now, the French sailors were as well disciplined as ours—indeed, better; both men and officers were constantly employed, and the men, after employment for five years afloat, were liable to serve again if called upon. Surely he had said enough to show that it behoved the Minister, whoever he might be, to come down to this House and say, "I must have at my disposal a proper fleet." He (Sir C. Napier) did not wish any extravagant expenditure. There were many ways in which a great deal of money could be saved. For example, he believed that £20,000 or £30,000 might be saved by putting a stop to the nonsense which now went on through having an Admiralty at Whitehall, and another at Somerset House. He wanted a Commission to inquire into all those things—not only the question of manning, but one which would. investigate everything in the dockyards see how it was that at Haslar forty or fifty gunboats were so drawn up that they could not be launched for two months, and inquire also whether the Admiralty was properly carried on. The Commission should not be composed of Lords of the Admiralty or of any who had served in that capacity, but of men experienced in the service who were not warped by red tape. Such a Commission, he believed, would pay well for the service done; and he therefore begged to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the best means of manning the Navy and improving its management, with a view to reduce its expenditure without impairing its efficiency."

seconded the Motion.

said, he rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the best Means of manning the Navy and of improving its management, with a view to reduce its expenditure without impairing its efficiency. It appeared to him that a Committee of that House would afford a better instrument than a Commission for conducting that inquiry into the state of the Navy, which he and the gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark were equally anxious to see instituted. He believed that the manning of our fleet was at present a subject of paramount importance. We had of late had in commission along our shores four of the finest ships of their respective classes that had ever been built—the Marlborough, the Euryalus, the Renown, and the Racoon, and they had all been for several months unable to proceed to their destinations in consequence of its having been found impossible to provide them with a sufficient number of men. But that was an evil which had been growing for many years. In the year 1856, Sir Maurice Berkeley, the first Naval Lord of the Admiralty, and one of the most able and indefatigable officers who had ever filled that office, bad stated in that House that we could not have manned more ships than we had done during the progress of our recent hostilities with Russia, and that he really did not know what we should have done if we had been engaged in a maritime war. It appeared to him (Admiral Duncombe) that that was a most serious and a most humiliating statement. He thought the time had come when the House and the country should direct their attention to that particular point; and he should add, that he believed if the Estimates voted by that House were properly applied, we should have better means at our disposal of manning the Navy. He had been told for the first time that evening by the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark, that the Government had consented to grant his Motion for a Commission; but he (Admiral Duncombe) certainly felt some surprise that the Government, who must have been aware of the Amendment of which he had given notice, had not thought proper to make known to him in any way their intentions upon the subject. But as he still believed that a Committee would be preferable to a Commission in that instance, he begged leave, in conclusion, to submit his Amendment to the House.

seconded the Amendment.

said, he thought that the Motion and the Amendment had very nearly the same object in view. He believed both sides of the House would agree that this was a most important subject, considering that the Navy was our right arm. The subject for inquiry might be divided into two heads: manning the Navy, and as to its general management and efficiency. As to the first and most important point, he thought it had been conclusively shown that inquiry was necessary; their ships were worthless unless they had men to man them, and it would appear that some of our finest ships were sent to sea without the proper complement of men. The two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who had spoken had recommended different courses, a Royal Commission and a Select Committee. He was opposed to a Commission, as he thought the tribunal would be too narrow to consider the question. A Select Committee, on the other hand, was the most competent body that could be desired, as they could summon witnesses, and take all other steps to ascertain the curious anomaly by which the mercantile marine was well supplied, while the Navy was always in want of men. He thought the inquiry ought to be extended to everything connected with the dockyards, for he was one of those who held that there was a great waste of labour in the Government dockyards, as he found that ten men in a private yard would do as much as fifteen in a Government establishment.

Sir, I must, in justice to the gallant Admirals who have preceded me, assure them that I recognize the same praiseworthy intention in either of their suggestions for a better plan of manning the Navy; but, as for this object, according to their several propositions, the alternation lies between the appointment of a Royal Commission and a Committee of this House. I confess I incline to the former, and for this reason; it might be constituted of civilians who had held the post of First Lords of the Admiralty, and hon. Members conversant with naval matters, with officers of high experience of the naval profession, whether Members of this House or not. In concurring, then, as I do with the gallant Admirals in their views, as to the propriety of securing to the navy the highest state of efficiency, I conceive greater weight would be attached to their opinions, when thus expressed in a deliberative and collective capacity, than, as otherwise would be the case, merely tendered in evidence, individually, before a Committee. For the last four or five years when the Navy Estimates have been before the House, I have never failed to enfore upon the attention of First Lords of the Admiralty the importance of having twelve sail of the line fully manned by prime seamen and ably officered in the highest state of efficiency and preparation, constantly at sea, because it would afford the immediate means, on the most sudden emergency, of supplying by drafts of inferior seamen and landsmen, twice that number of ships for the service of the country, and this irrespective of frigates and sloops. In former days we manned our navy principally from the coasting trade, and seamen and apprentices taken from our merchant ships. Those men were the pride of our navy. I may say the collier brigs were the school and nursery of seamen for the Royal Navy; but screw colliers are driving the old collier brig off the face of the waters. Screw colliers have very small crews and do not enter boys, and our merchant ships are now not compelled to carry apprentices, consequently, we have not the same power to call seamen into our employ, and, moreover, our merchant ships enter too many foreigners of all nations, because they are obtained at a lower rate of wages than our own seamen. Let it, however, be understood, that in the case of a sudden emergency, we have in our mercantile service 180,000 seamen, whilst in the event of a war a large proportion of these seamen so employed in the commercial service of the country would not be required, and we could therefore rely on their assistance. As regarded our Coastguard reserve of seamen, it is true that we cannot command their services at sea beyond a distance of one hundred leagues from our shores, but nevertheless, I am confident that there would not be found one man in that service who would not be willing to admit our claims for their assistance, should it be required. My desire in making these remarks is to remove the impression, and fortify the country in the belief, that we are not in the melancholy state which the statement of the gallant Admiral (Sir C. Napier) is calculated to create. With respect to the reduction of the eight sail of the line to which the gallant Admiral has adverted, I scarcely know what to say upon that point, because it was the House of Commons which first reduced the naval Estimates, and compelled the First Lord of the Admiralty to acquiesce. The income tax having been reduced there was no alternative. The gallant Admiral has with great truth commented on the subject of that system of impressment, which, in former days, was resorted to for the purpose of manning the navy, now banished as it were even in idea; and nothing but our very existence as a nation could justify a resort to it, and heartly do I rejoice in the circumstance, for impressment was little better than slavery. It has been truly said by the gallant Admiral, that in the war, at the period to which his remarks applied, our seamen were not allowed to go on shore for three or five, and in some instance seven years; but to say that they were never allowed during those periods to see the face of a woman was going a little too far. [Sir C. NAPIER: I alluded to the Tagus.] Women were allowed to go on board the ships at each of the home ports in the Mediterranean and some other places. As I am given to understand the Commission asked for will in part thereof be granted as affects manning the navy, it would be an unnecessary trespass upon the attention of the House if I offered any suggestions as to the best manner of manning the navy, for I am confident that every Member of it will be able to deal most effectually with the important question proposed to be submitted to them, and that each will endeavour to the utmost of his ability to forward the best interests of the naval service.

said, he had come down to the House intending to support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark. He (Lord C. Paget) had hoped, from the terms of his Motion, that he was going to strike out a new line, and to suggest a little economy in the management of the Navy, when he proposed to ask the Crown to appoint a Commission, to consider the best means of manning the Royal Navy and improving its management with a view to reduce its expenditure without impairing its efficiency; but he found that the gallant Admiral in his speech asked that there should be an increase in the pay of petty officers, and in other branches of the service, which he (Lord C. Paget) confessed he did not think necessary. The ample funds in the hands of the First Lord of the Admiralty were perfectly sufficient to maintain an admirable fleet, whether as respected manning or shipbuilding. The question was, whether they were to have a Royal Commission or a Committee of Inquiry? He did not hesitate in giving his preference to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Admiral Duncombe), because he thought a Committee of that House would be able to get better evidence than a Royal Commission, which would most likely consist of some old naval officers, some belonging to, or who had been connected with, the Admiralty. He had great respect for those distinguished officers; but he felt that there was a kind of "about of sanctity" about them which would pre- vent them from receiving the opinions of younger and more active officers. He had another and important reason for objecting to a Royal Commission. A few weeks ago, when he addressed the House on the subject of a reform of lighthouses, he was informed by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade (Mr. Henley) that a Royal Commission should be issued, but he had heard nothing of it since, and he presumed if one were promised for the Navy, it would prove equally tedious, and be probably put off till long after the House had separated for the year. As they possessed some excellent Members for a Committee, he thought it would be well to nominate one at once, for examining into the management of the Navy. There were plenty of naval Members of that House who were competent to carry out this inquiry. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) was a perfect Christopher Columbus, and then there was the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) who was as good a sailor as could be desired. He might be allowed to say that he thought this was the most opportune time for inquiry. He had heard warnings thrown out against inquiry at the present time, when they could not get men for their ships, and when vessels in Portsmouth harbour were entering only three or four men a week, and that it was inexpedient to publish this fact to the whole world, but this country had never, in his recollection, been so well prepared for any contingency which might happen as now. At the close of the Russian war that admirable force, the Coastguard, was augmented, and placed under an excellent officer, Commodore Eden; and under the naval administration of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) the Coastguard received a great accession in numbers, who were also first-rate seamen. In fact they had a force amounting to 8,000 men. No man could read the newspapers without being struck with the fact that while they had splendid ships and first-rate officers, they could not procure men. But they were safe with the Coastguard, and the 10,000 Coast Volunteers, who were, he believed, efficient. There was, however, no opportunity for members of the former force occasionally going to sea to keep their hands in, and it was, besides, most important to consider how its ranks should be reinforced; for, able and efficient as it was at present, unless proper means were taken to recruit its ranks, it might come to consist of a set of men like those complained of by the gallant Admi- ral for always reading the Bible with their spectacles on. He meant no offence to the gallant Admiral—it was very proper that sailors should read their Bible; but what he meant was that the members of the force would become elderly men, and would consequently, not be possessed of that energy and activity which was so essential, and, therefore, he thought it would be worthy of the consideration of the Committee, if one should be appointed, to endeavour to improve this part of the system, for many of the men would be glad to return to sea again. He would therefore propose that the Coastguard should take an occasional tour of duty at sea, their places being supplied by the crews of ships arriving from foreign service. The next point for them to consider was the manning of the fleet. It was an easy thing to propose an increase of pay to petty officers, and such a course must be popular among them, but they had no right to expect to be paid differently from others. By improving the system he thought they might increase efficiency without enlarging expenditure. He was perfectly satisfied with the exertions which had been made in general by the right lion. Gentleman late at the head of the Admiralty, but he could not help finding fault with one part of his administration. In 1852–53 there was a Committee of naval officers appointed to inquire into the question of manning the Navy. They reported that it was desirable to employ ships of war for the purpose of transport instead of hired vessels, where that could be done without prejudice to the public service; but their recommendation had never been fully carried into effect, notwithstanding the number of ships of war available for that duty. At Liverpool there was a line of-battle ship, which was fit to go to sea to-morrow, and yet he had seen in a newspaper that the steamer Pacific, of 1,500 tons burden, had been taken up to carry troops to Ireland, and in the same newspaper he had read that the City of Manchester, a steamer of 2,109 tons, had been chartered for the conveyance of troops to Gibraltar. Now, these were services which could well have been performed by ships of war, and in his opinion the statement which was sometimes made, that carrying troops interfered with the discipline of a man-of-war, was entirely without foundation. On the contrary, he thought that if more ships of war were employed in the transport service a larger number of able seamen would be retained in the service of the State, In the Estimates of the present year he found a sum of £495,000 for the hire of transports. When the Estimates of last year were framed we were at peace with all the world, and then our Estimates for the transport of troops in hired merchants ships was £207,000. The Committee he had alluded to recommended that the business of reliefs and all common business should be undertaken by vessels of war. Our Estimates this year for survey, troop, and store ships was £102,700; the survey ships he should imagine took up more than half that sum, so that they had spent only £50,000 in carrying out the recommendation of the Committee, whilst there was a charge of £495,000 for hired merchant ships the crews of which would not be available in war. If we had only applied half that sum in keeping up men-of-war transports, employment would be found for half pay officers who were now wasting their best years on shore, while a saving would probably be effected in the item for transports. He had suggested on a former occasion that the crew of the Royal Albert, three-decker, instead of being turned adrift upon the world, should, as an experiment, be kept together and placed in one of the barracks and made to do the work of the Dockyard at Portsmouth or Plymouth. In the Dockyards we had now 500 men employed in our boys, 400 riggers, and 2,500 labourers, the work performed by all of whom might be done by the sailors of our fleet who would thus have a tour of duty on shore. He was convinced that without adding a shilling to the expenditure of the country we might obtain a large accession to our force of regular seamen; and he trusted that the Commission or Committee would be appointed to take these matters into its consideration.

said, he thought that the importance of this question could not be overrated. Last night, however, when they were engaged in a discussion of a totally different character, the question whether certain Gentlemen should be transferred from one bench to the other, there were present 500 hon. Members anxious to hear the magnificent speeches which were made, the House was crowded up to the galleries till one in the morning, and everybody was in the highest state of excitement; but now, upon a question involving not merely the honour and reputation, but the very existence of this country, they in the early part of the discussion had only about fifteen hon. Members present. That was certainly a very curious spectacle for the Senate of the first maritime country in the world to present. From what they had heard, it appeared that what was called economy in these matters was in nine cases out of ten nothing more than extravagance and sheer waste of money. When they talked of the necessity of extending the naval defences, what they meant—and there was no use in mincing the matter—was this, that we were not in a position to defend ourselves from an attack from our nearest neighbour. Across the water they knew exactly the condition of our naval defences; they knew everything that passed in our dockyards, and therefore it was idle—nay, absurd, to make any mystery about the matter; and the fact was, that when they were discussing this matter they were considering how they could resist a French invasion. He did not anticipate a French invasion, for he belioved that the distinguished man who sat upon the throne of France would do all in his power, in the interest of both countries, to prevent an outbreak; but even that great man was not omnipotent, and it was impossible to say what might, from the consequences of a casualty, happen after what had recently occurred in England. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the gallant Admiral opposite, it was not very clear how we could at all times command a sufficient number of seamen for meeting what was termed an emergency, but which simply meant an invasion, without maintaining the "continuous-service" system. It was perfectly true that for an ordinary war they would have time to man their ships; but how were they to deal with an emergency unless they had a number of men ready to be employed? In France, when once they laid hands on a seaman they never parted with him, in a manner, for they knew where to find him again; whilst we were perfectly aware that we could not at this moment man two or three line-of-battle ships. His hon. and gallant Friend had said, that if they had ten sail-of-the-line, they could easily man ten more; but where were the ten sail of the line? About two months ago they elicited from the First Lord of the Admiralty that for many months past they had not had a single ship commissioned for defence, whilst it was merely in the chapter of accidents when they might want them. They should consider the enormous wealth of this country, and then say whether it was not perfect madness to leave that wealth in a defenceless state. As to the question of Commission or Committee, he preferred a Com- mittee; and for the reason that they would have a Committee directly; and another reason was, that it appeared to him that if the Board of Admiralty had been constituted as it ought to have been, this Committee would not have been necessary; for what had the Board of Admiralty been considering for thirty years, but how to manage the navy?—and if the house were asked to solve the question for them, it showed that they were incompetent to deal with the subject. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) had told them that there was great difficulty in manning men-of-war, and none in manning merchantmen; and it was a simple question of money; they would not pay the market price, and hence the difficulty. Let any man consider what would be the loss, in position, character, and security, from the occupation by an enemy of any part of our coasts for a few days, and then say whether the necessary sum for manning the fleet was too much to pay to avert such a calamity. He repeated, that this question involved not merely the honour and the dignity of the country—not merely the dominance of the British lion, of which we had heard so much—but the very existence of England. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Paget) in his remarks upon the transport service, and he only wished that he would move for a return of the cost of the transport service of the country, from the commencement of the Crimean war to this time, for it would have shown the House that the waste of expenditure on the transport service during the Crimean war was something that nobody would believe, and which sum would have been sufficient to have built a navy. He trusted the present Board of Admiralty would turn their attention to the transport service.

said, he was extremely sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Admiral Duncombe) should have thought that the Government had been guilty of any discourtesy towards him in respect of this Motion; but he certainly did anticipate that another debate, of which the House was now in the middle, would have occupied every night this week, and that this question would have been postponed. Had it not been for that expectation he should have informed his hon. and gallant Friend of the course that the Government intended to take on the present Motion. Turning to the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir C. Napier), he thought that he had borne rather hardly upon successive Boards of Admiralty when he said that it was in vain for any officer to approach the Board, because any representations from officers of the navy were always treated with indifference. He should himself be exceedingly sorry to be guilty of any discourtesy either to the gallant Admiral or any other officer of the navy; and from his experience, which was limited to a very few weeks, he could not believe that the members of the naval profession, who succeeded each other at that Board, would show any disinclination to entertain proposals which might come from such high and justly respected authorities as the gallant Admiral. He honoured the feelings which had led the hon. and gallant officer to press this matter upon the attention of Parliament; he fully admitted the immense importance of this topic, and the difficulty, if not danger, to which this country was exposed by attention not having been paid to this subject earlier, but he thought that the House would do him the justice to admit that great part of the speech of the gallant Admiral was directed to topics which he himself brought under the notice of the House when introducing the Navy Estimates. He then expressed in strong terms the deep sense which he entertained of the importance of this subject, and stated, as far as he could after so short a tenure of office, what were the views of the Government on the matter, and how anxious he felt to find some remedy for the existing state of things. He then referred to the slowness with which our ships were manned; but he was happy to inform his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Admiral Duncombe) that considerable progress had since been made in completing the crews of the very ships which he had mentioned. He also alluded to what he thought the very unwise dismissal of the continuous-service men and the paying off of ships last year, and to the necessity of recommissioning the same ships this year; and stated the views of the Government upon that practice of commissioning ships for a short time, which he then and still thought a most unwise practice, and which he hoped to amend. He was sure that the gallant Admiral and his hon. and gallant Friend behind him would admit that these were matters which could not be corrected in a few days or weeks. On the same occasion he stated, almost in the words of his hon. and gallant Friend, that the defenceless state of our coasts was humiliating and disgraceful to the country as a naval Power. Since then he had from day to day been endeavouring, in conjunction with the Board of Admiralty, to remedy that state of things, and he hoped not without some success. We had now more ships and men available than we had at that time. He did not seek to attain impossibilities by endeavouring to correct in a few weeks evils which were the result of the impolicy of years; what he aimed at, and what he did not despair of accomplishing, was, to put the manning of our navy on such a permanent footing, that England should not again suffer the same risk and the same inconvenience to which she was now exposed. At the same time he must express the regret with which he bad heard the gallant Admiral say that we had no means of defence and no ships. [Sir C. NAPIER said that he had not used such an expression.] In speaking of a matter of great national importance, it was necessary to be cautious, as the words spoken would go through Europe. He, therefore, could assure the gallant Admiral that he took his words down, and they were, that we had no defence whatever, and no ships. No doubt he meant that we had no ships in full commission or in the Channel. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Hear, hear!] In the ports we had some of the noblest ships that ever were built. At Sheerness, at Portsmouth, and at Plymouth, we had some of the noblest men-of-war ever launched, which were in the first condition of steam ordinary, and could be prepared for sea in forty-eight hours. He was sorry to say that at this moment we had not the means of manning them so readily as he could wish; but he hoped that defect might be corrected; and supposing an emergency should arise, lie had that faith in the spirit and energy of the country, that he believed there would be no difficulty in sending a fleet into the Channel at a very short notice. He was very glad to hear from the hon. and gallant Admiral that he did not think that this country would sanction the resort to any compulsory manning of the navy, or any return to the system of impressment. He did not believe the spirit of the country would bear a return to that system. The only result of its adoption would be to drive our sailors to other countries, and he hoped that we should never sanction any plan for manning the navy more stringent than that adopted for recruiting the army. If, then, we could not adopt compulsion we must turn to other means, and must endeavour to put our navy on so permanent a footing that we might at all times, and under all circumstances, rely upon having a force which should amply provide for the defence of the country. The real and practical question was, how that was to be done? and he quite acknowledged that that was a fair subject for inquiry. When notice of the Motion was given, he stated, in private conversation with the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier), that inquiry had already taken place to a sufficient extent; but, upon reconsideration, he had altered that opinion, and he would shortly explain to the House the reason of the change. The noble Lord the Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget) had asked him whether he had ever seen the Report of the Committee of 1852 with respect to the manning of the navy. To that Report he had alluded at considerable length upon a former occasion, when he stated what the noble Lord would admit to be the fact, that the Report in question was the origin of all the improvements recently introduced as regarded the manning of the navy. He thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had hardly done justice to the contents of that valuable Report. The hon. and gallant Admiral had stated that the recommendations of the Committee, with respect to bounties and other matters, had not been carried out; but, with one exception, he had omitted all reference to those parts of the Report which had been carried into effect. A great deal of what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Officer on the subject of the continuous-service system he had heard with regret and surprise, for he had no idea that the gallant Admiral disapproved the system of continuous service for ten years. He believed that the dismissal of 3,000 continuous-service men by the late Government was one of the most unfortunate steps connected with the navy which had ever been taken. The Board of Admiralty had been occupied for the last few weeks in anxious endeavours to give extended effect to the continuous-service system. Their object was to increase the number of continuous-service men. They were also considering measures connected with the system of pensions, and were devoting a good deal of attention to the present state of the petty officers of the navy, being anxious to adopt a system under which no man should be allowed to hold rank and pay as a petty officer unless he had entered for continuous service. It was by such measures that they hoped to effect their object of establishing a good standing navy. The noble Lord the Member for Sandwich had referred to the Royal Albert, and had recommended that the crew should be held together. That, however, could not be done until all the men were entered under the continuous-service system. In addition to that system, the country had derived considerable advantage from the Coastguard and Naval Volunteers. The establishment of the corps of Naval Volunteers was entirely owing to the Committee of 1852. It might be termed a marine militia, and he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark would hardly recommend that more compulsion should be resorted to with respect to it than was now adopted in the case of the land militia, at all events until it had been proved that the present system had failed. At present the volunteer plan was most successful, and, so far as the Naval Volunteers and the Coastguard were concerned, we had a reserve which, though not so numerous as it ought to be, was still very effective. The noble Lord the Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget) had expressed a fear that the Coastguard were allowed to become rusty and unsuited to sea service. That was a point to which the Board of Admiralty were directing their attention. They hoped to perfect a system under which the seagoing powers of the men should be kept in constant activity. With respect to the three most important points connected with the navy—the continuous-service system, the Coastguard, and the Naval Volunteers—the Committee of 1852 had conferred great benefits upon the country, and had rendered unnecessary any further inquiry. But there was one branch of the subject to which the attention of that Committee had not been sufficiently directed—he meant the value and capabilities of the mercantile marine as an auxiliary to the Royal Navy; and it was here, be thought, that further inquiry might take place with advantage. Since the Committee drew up their Report, considerable changes had occurred in the constitution of the mercantile marine. The old manning system had been repealed, and the registration system had broken down. In consenting, therefore, to a further inquiry, he by no means wished to throw the slightest blame upon the gallant and very distinguished Officer who conducted the investigation of 1852. It was of the utmost importance, however, that means should be found for making the mercantile marine more useful to the navy in case of emergency, and with that view he thought it desirable that some inquiry should be instituted. Then came the question whether the investigation should be intrusted to a Commission or to a Committee. He preferred a Commission. There was no reason why a Commission, as anticipated by the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich, should consist exclusively of naval officers and Lords of the Admiralty; on the contrary, one of his reasons for preferring a Commission to a Committee was that it would enable the country to obtain the assistance of gentlemen practically acquainted with the mercantile marine, and who were not Members of that House. Besides, it was important that the inquiry should be carried on and concluded as promptly as possible, and the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich was wrong in supposing that delay would be the necessary result of a Commission. If the House approved a Commission he would take care that there should be no unnecessary delay in its appointment; and when once appointed it might sit whenever it liked, without reference to holidays or adjournments, and carry on the inquiry continuously. The result would be that the public would receive the Report with greater promptness than the well-known dilatory proceedings of a Committee of the House of Commons admitted of. Such an inquiry would be better conducted by a Commission than by a Committee of fifteen Members of Parliament, many of whom would not, of course, be cognizant of all the difficulties and intricacies of the subject. To this extent he was willing to meet the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, but he could not consent to the second portion of the Motion. He by no means denied the great importance of the subjects to which the hon. and gallant Admiral had referred, but what were they? The gallant Admiral had adverted to the constitution and working of the dockyards, to the whole constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and to the whole management of the Royal Navy. Now, he asked hon. Members how soon did they think there would be a chance of obtaining any Report, either from a Committee or Commission, if the inquiry was not to be confined to the question of manning the navy, but to be extended to all those other subjects? He thought it one of the most unbusiness-like proposals he had ever heard of. The manning of the Royal Navy was a most important, distinct, and practical question, which a body of gentlemen might direct their attention to, and make their Report on; but if the gallant Admiral thought the constitution of the Admiralty or of the dockyards required correction let him make a distinct Motion on that subject; but in the course of a long speech he had alleged no reasons why the Commission should go into that extensive inquiry. He might be permitted to say, however, that the present Board of Admiralty were not negligent with regard to that subject and other subjects. They were now engaged in organizing two Committees. To one of them was to be intrusted an inquiry into our steam machinery and the best mode of applying steam to the Royal Navy. That was one large subject of inquiry of great importance. The other Committee was to investigate the present system of the dockyards. It appeared that in reference to efficiency and economy some inquiry was necessary. He was now preparing a Committee of inquiry on that subject, and he believed that by such a Committee the inquiry would be more effectually carried out than by embarrassing a Committee or Commission with the investigation of the whole of these subjects. He would give the House some little idea of the extent of these inquiries by stating that a very eminent individual connected with the mercantile marine informed some of the gentlemen organizing these Committees that the different heads of inquiry could not be satisfactorily gone through under three years. He mentioned this to show that the gallant Admiral was preparing more work than ally Committee or Commission could satisfactorily perform. These were the reasons why he could not consent to the latter part of the Motion, and therefore he should suggest that the Motion should conclude with the words, "manning the Navy." With that alteration he was willing to consent to the Motion.

said, he thought that they were all agreed as to the great importance of the subject to which his hon. and gallant Friend had so ably called the attention of the House, and he should not, therefore, trouble the House with any observations in support of the object he had in view. The only question on which there was any difference of opinion was as to the relative advantages of a Committee or Commission. Perhaps either of these means of inquiry would very sufficiently accomplish the object in view, but he thought that there were reasons why a Commission was preferable to a Committee. Some of these reasons had been indicated by the right hon. Baronet opposite. In the first place a Commission was a more "continuous-service" instrument than a Committee. A Commission sat during adjournments and prorogations and could go from place to place. In taking the evidence, there would be more facility of interspersing conversations with examinations, and a greater freedom of communication between the persons conducting the inquiry and the persons examined, in the case of a Commission than the formality of proceedings in a Committee would probably allow of. He should therefore support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend for a Commission in preference to the Amendment suggesting another mode of inquiry. The right hon. Baronet opposite had suggested the expediency of limiting the inquiry to the subject mentioned in the first part of the Motion, and he would recommend his hon. and gallant Friend to accept the suggestion. That subject would be quite sufficient to occupy the Commission for a considerable time; and his hon. and gallant Friend, if he succeeded by his Motion in providing a good plan for securing the manning of the navy, would accomplish a great national object, for which the country would be deeply indebted to him.

said, he concurred in the statement of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) that if they wanted a good article they must give the market price for it, and he trusted, as the continuous-service system was about to be restored, that the House, when the proposition came before it, would not object to vote the money for the purpose. As the difficulty of obtaining men for the Navy had been adverted to, lie would observe that there was no difficulty in obtaining lads from 14 to 17 years of age. They were perfectly willing to enter the service, and would soon rise into men; and when once they began the service they were apt to abide by it. If that were so, it would be worth while to make some expenditure for the purpose of receiving a number of those lads, and training and educating them, He preferred a Commission to a Committee, as an instrument of inquiry, and he presumed that the hon. and gallant Admiral would not be indisposed to limit his Motion in the manner suggested by the first Lord of the Admiralty.

said, he must express his regret and surprise that the Government had not supported an inquiry by a Committee of that House rather than by a Royal Commission, which was always liable to some suspicion. He was sure the report of a Committee of that House would have more confidence with the country.

replied, he decidedly objected to the employment of men of war as transport ships. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that in what he said he did not mean at all to reflect upon him, but upon the late Board of Admiralty, of whom he had a good right to complain, and he was surprised that, of three Lords of the Admiralty who were in the House not one of them stayed to hear the debate. He gratefully accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, believing, as he did, that be would not have got so much if the late Board had been in power.

said he rose to move,

"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an Address to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the ratepayers of Ireland be relieved from one-half of the expenses of the annual revision of the valuation, in such manner as she may deem fit, and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the same."

He wished to explain that the valuation in Ireland was carried on under an Act of 1828, and since by several other Acts, originally for merely local purposes, the expense having been about £360,000. The ratepayers did not object to its original cost as it was of great local use, but the minute annual revision of it, costing at present £8,300, and likely to cost £12,000 when the whole of Ireland was brought within it, was really of greater use for imperial purposes, as the Government at present, for the expense of copying the documents already framed at the cost of the ratepayers, obtained what formed the basis of their taxation. Upon that was founded the license duty, all levies for Exchequer purposes, the Succession and Legacy Duty, the elective franchise, and to a very large extent the operations of the Incumbered Estates court, and on that ground he thought the ratepayers were entitled to be relieved of part of the expense of making that annual revision.

said, that it was not competent to the hon. Gentleman to move that the House do go into Committee at once; and he should put the Motion, introducing the words "Thursday next."

said, that his hon. Friend had stated his case with great fairness, and he thought that those who had paid attention to this subject would agree that his hon. Friend was justified in bringing the case under the consideration of the House. No doubt this, which might be called a tax for a peculiar interest, was employed for Imperial purposes, and had become part of the machinery by which the public business of Ireland was carried on. When notice of the Motion was given by his hon. Friend, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) told him that he would consult Sir Richard Griffith on the subject—having received a deputation on the subject—and request that gentleman to draw up a Report, in which the matter might be brought before the Government in all its bearings, and that he would give his sedulous attention to that Report, which would very much influence any determination to which he might come. That Report he had received, but he would honestly say that such had been the pressure of public affairs during the last week, and the demands on him in the conduct of the business of the House, that he had not been able to give that attention to the subject which a question that concerned the Consolidated Fund demanded. He could not undertake to sanction a change which would affect the Consolidated Fund, without giving it a greater scrutiny than he had been able to give it. He would assure his hon. Friend that he would give the subject all the attention it so eminently deserved, and inform him, as soon as it was in his power, of the decision of the Government. He admitted that the subject deserved attention, but he thought it would not be becoming in him to call on the House to permit an addition to be made to the charge on the Consolidated Fund without having had sufficient time to consider the subject.

said, he thought that they could not press the Chancellor of the Exchequer further than he had stated, and he had no doubt when the subject was considered justice would be done.

suggested to the Chancellor to consider whether there might not be a saving of expense to the country by making a septennial instead of an annual valuation, from which no particular advantage was derived.

said, he was quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and was content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. He would therefore withdraw his Motion.

said, he rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read, a second time that day six months. He agreed with the hon. Mover that it was quite desirable to have uniformity in weights and measures, but he objected to the mode in which that object was proposed to be obtained. The Bill proposed to make it compulsory that all descriptions of grain and fruit should be sold by measure. Now, in most of the large towns of England, and in all the towns of Ireland, wheat was sold by weight. The effect, therefore, of passing such a measure as this would be to introduce a perfect revolution. He had been in hopes that the bon. Gentleman, when he brought in the Bill, would have stated some satisfactory reasons why so important a change should be made. He had failed to do so, however, and he presumed, therefore, they must judge of the arguments in support of the Bill by a paper which had been very generally circulated, and a copy of which he (Mr. Horsfall) then held in his hand, entitled, "Weights mid Measures and Sale of Corn: Reasons in favour of the Bill." Now, in those "Reasons" he found some very extraordinary statements. One of these was, that the inspectors of weights and measures, although they were authorised to inspect weights and measures in shops, were not authorised to do so in the public streets, But no grain was sold in the public streets; at least he had never heard that it was in any town in England. Further, they were told that it was clear no person could effectually protect himself against fraud in the purchase of corn without having both weight and measure. All he could say, however, was that in most of the large towns grain was sold by weight; and after communicating with his constituents he had been informed that there had never been an instance of fraud known in Liverpool, where corn was sold by weight. It could not be said, then, that there was very much in that argument. Again, one of the "Reasons" stated that the articles which were sold by weight were almost invariably adulterated. Well, he had never heard of corn being adulterated, and, upon inquiry among those who were interested in the trade, he was assured that there was not an instance of the sort on record. But the main reliance of the promoters of the Bill was placed on a return which had been ordered by the House upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass). Now, he confessed he felt somewhat staggered upon looking at that return; but, recollecting that it came from his old Friends at the Board of Trade, he entertained sonic little distrust; and placing it in the hands of those whom he deemed to be competent to analyse it, he found that it was a purely fictitious statement—a complete fallacy. It stated, for instance, that at Bristol, Gloucester, Leeds, Macclesfield, Hull, and Newcastle, all important market towns, grain was sold by the imperial measure; whereas the fact was that in every one of them grain was sold by weight. He left the House, then, to say what reliance ought to be placed upon such a return as that. Yet this very return was one of the grounds upon which the House was invited to pass this Bill. The only semblance of an argument that could be urged in behalf of the measure was that the import duties were levied by measure; but this had not been put forward by the promoters of the Bill. If he were called upon to suggest any uniform system, he would recommend that, instead of making it imperative to sell by measure, it should be made imperative to sell by weight. But it was not his province then to propose a plan, but rather to point out the objections to that which was contained in the Bill, and having done this, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment. The amount which a measure would hold depended a good deal upon the skill of the measurer, and a measure, when shaken would hold much more than when the corn was put lightly into the measure; so that it was a common saying in the corn trade, that sharp measure would not hold out when carried to any distance. The intention of the Act of 1835 was that, with reference to grain, measure, and not weight, should be adopted throughout the country, but by an elasticity in one of its clauses weight was permitted, and the country divided itself into two great districts—one adopting the principle of measure, the other that of weight—and that state of things still continued. Throughout the cast and midland parts of the country, which supplied the great manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, weight had now become almost universal, though for a short time after the passing of the Act the principle of measure was adopted. For himself, he could say that for some years after the passing of the Act of 1835 he had endeavoured to carry out its provisions and sell by measure, but that system imposed upon him such an amount of trouble, and led to such frequent disputes, that he was obliged to resort to the principle of weight, since which he had scarcely had a single dispute. Where he had one dispute now, he should have at least ten if he went back to the principle of measure.

said, there was a strong feeling adverse to this Bill, particularly among the merchants engaged in the corn trade. He thought he could best explain the discrepancy pointed out in the Board of Trade Return by stating the practice,—which was that, although nominally took place by measure, they were actually carried on by weight. He believed that the passing of such a Bill as the present would not only entail on the dealer an additional amount of labour, but a considerable increase of expenditure. The present mode was perfectly satisfactory both to merchants and farmers, and he had never heard of a dispute between the seller and the buyer as to the quantity actually delivered; but he believed that under the proposed measure endless disputes would arise, and therefore he thought the plan highly objectionable.

would undertake to say that there were not two expert measurers in London who would measure twenty quarters of grain and produce the same result. What was wanting in the empire was a uniform method of transacting business in a sound way, and that was by weight. Everything ought to be sold by weight, and the pound avoirdupois ought to be the unit of weight. In retail business it was impossible to prevent fraud on the humbler classes by any other means, and, therefore, lie was decidedly in favour of weight as a standard.

said, he believed that actually and virtually the sale of all grain and all agricultural produce in Ireland was by weight. The great thing required was a uniform standard of weights and measures throughout the three kingdoms, and the simplest plan would be to fix the unit at one pound, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Drogheda. Owing to the want of simplicity, farmers were obliged to enter into elaborate calculations, which it was desirable as far as possible to obviate. A bushel in one part of the country meant 67lbs., in another 70lbs., and in another 80lbs., and that fact alone was sufficient to show the want of that simplicity in our system which ought to govern all the calculations of a commercial community like this.

said, he understood that the object of this measure was to obtain some uniformity of weights in the three countries of Ireland. Scotland, and England. The great opponents of the measure of course came from Liverpool, as representing the Irish interest; but he did not think their opposition ought to prevail. The Bill gave weight tested by measure, or measure tested by weight, the only true test of quality; whereas at present all transactions were carried on by measure. Under the present system if a man sold a bushel of barley, there was no means by which its quality could be tested beforehand: in fact the system afforded no measure of capacity whatever. He purchased largely in Norfolk, in Suffolk, in Northamptonshire, in Lincolnshire, and in Yorkshire, but he never could buy except by measure, which had no reference to weight. On the other hand, he had recently been obliged to go into the German and French markets to buy grain, and there the rule was that you bought so many bushels of such a quality which should weigh so and so. Now that was all that was asked for by this Bill: it was to enable a buyer to ascertain weight as well as measure. If hon. Members would look at the Report of the Committee of 1834, they would find a great deal of information on the subject, and he might adduce in support of the views which he entertained the testimony of Mr. R. Page, who was perhaps better known under the name of "Daniel Hardcastle," and who stated that, with the exception of one or two places, corn was sold by measure throughout Europe.

observed, that in most counties there were two different modes of selling corn, and the disadvantage of this want of uniformity was, that if a man went from one county to another to make a purchase, he had to dot and carry one before he could ascertain the weight according to the measure of his own county. The object of this Bill was to correct that, and he, for one thought the House would be doing a great service to the farmers if it adopted some such system of uniformity as this measure proposed.

said, it was impossible to overrate the importance of the question raised by the Bill. Several gentlemen had waited on him during the progress of the Bill, but from all he had heard he was convinced that they were not yet in a position to legislate on the subject. He was sure that the hon. Member must see that there were a great many difficulties in the way of his proposal. The earlier speakers that night had declared entirely for weight, and for an alteration of the present mode of weight by the introduction of the decimal mode of reckoning. Was the country ripe for that? There were other parties, among whom were the supporters of the Bill, who contended that the standard should be, not measure, but measure combined with weight. It was said that uniformity would be attained by that system; but it was already in practice, and yet it had not secured uniformity. In Liverpool people sold by the bushel of 701b., and in Leeds people sold by the bushel of 631b. He wanted to know whether, if sales were to be made by the bushel of a certain weight, the sellers should add more corn to the bushel in case the weight was deficient. That was a point on which he found that a difference of opinion prevailed among the supporters of the proposal. Amid such a conflict of opinion, it appeared to him that the House would do well not to proceed with the Bill, and he should recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman the Mem ber for Southwark to withdraw it for the present. If, on the other hand, he went to a decision, he should be obliged to vote against him.

, in reply said, the right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehended the first clause of the Bill, as he never contemplated to enact that by that clause the sale of corn by a certain measure ought to be of a certain weight. It was only intended by that clause to enact that corn should be sold by measure, but it was added ex abundante cautelâ that if the weight was in any case added, the sale should, nevertheless, be held to have been by measure. He extremely regretted that he had ever had anything to do with the subject, because hon. Gentlemen in the corn trade seemed to argue on a principle that if it were said twice two made four, they could prove that twice two made five. It seemed to him a rather good Bill, independently of the first clause, and if that clause were struck out there was sufficient good in it to justify its being read a second time. He entreated the President of the Board of Trade to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and promised not to occupy time with the question whether corn should be sold by measure or weight. He would give up either the vegetable part or the corn part of the Bill; but he hoped the provisions would be retained which prevented persons in the streets selling by false weights and measures, and enabled legal weights and measures to be properly verified.

said, the hon. Gentlemen who had the conduct of the Bill gave a different account of it—one saying that it had nothing to do with measure, and another that it had nothing to do with weight. He thought, however, the great advantage in the Bill was the uniformity of system which it tended to secure throughout the kingdom. He should be inclined to vote for its going into Committee with the view of introducing such Amendments into it as would remove the objections that were urged against it. He would, therefore, vote for the second reading.