I wish, Sir, to take this opportunity of making a personal explanation, rendered necessary by something that was said with respect to my conduct,—where and by whom I am not acording to the rules of the House at liberty to specify, but it is sufficient to say, by a person whose authority in this country is considerable, not longer ago than on Monday last. I have been accused of unconstitutional conduct in questioning the prerogative of the Queen to dissolve Parliament when Her advisers may think fit, and upon whatever subject they may deem it right to dissolve. Now, Sir, I never said anything that could bear that construction. No man in his senses who knows anything of the British constitution can question the prerogative of the Crown, upon the advice of responsible Ministers—because the Crown can exercise no part of its prerogative except by the advice of responsible Ministers—to dissolve Parliament at any period of the year, or in any state whatever of public business that they may think a fit opportunity of so doing. But there happened to be conditions of public business in this House at certain periods of the Session at which that advice could not be given or acted upon without throwing all the transactions, business, and services of the country into utter confusion. While the Supplies are not all voted, while no Appropriation Act has been passed, and while no financial statement has been made, it is obvious that the advisers of the Crown cannot without great inconvenience to the public service recommend the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament, and carry that recommendation into effect, unless the house of Commons makes itself a party to the transaction, accelerates its proceedings, and concurs in the temporary expedients which are necessary in order to place the public business in a position in which a dissolution would not be attended with inconvenience to the interests of the country. That is exactly the state of things in which we are now, and what I said upon a former occasion was that the advisers of the Crown could not obtain a dissolution of Parliament at the present moment without the consent and concurrence of this House. What is the other course which might have been pursued? The House of Commons might have said,—"We will not be parties to these temporary expedients; bring in all your Estimates, we are ready to discuss them; we do not mean to refuse the Supplies; bring in your Appropriation Act at the proper time; go through the business of the Session, and when it has arrived at that point at which a dissolution is practicable without interference with the public interests, of course you will then exercise, with the permission of the Sovereign, the prerogative of the Crown." What I meant to imply was, that during that delay it was possible that this House might interpose other measures—that they might address the Crown, praying that it would neither dissolve nor prorogue parliament until the House had had the opportunity of considering another Reform Bill, to be presented by the Government. They might have gone a step further, and, pending the course of public business, have addressed the Crown to dismiss the present Ministers. All these would have been perfectly constitutional proceedings, and therefore I utterly repudiate the charge that anything which I said, that any doctrine which I held, was in the slightest degree repugnant to the prerogative of the Crown, or in any degree whatever contrary to the fundamental and practical principles of the British constitution. This House has not thought fit to adopt any of the courses to which I have just referred. I certainly should not have advised it to do so. I think it far better that we should accept the challenge of Her Majesty's Ministers, and appeal to the sense of the people; and I feel perfectly confident as to the answer which will be given to that challenge. There is another point of far less importance to which also I wish to advert while I am upon my legs. My noble Friend the Member for the City of London and myself entirely concurred in the Resolution which he felt it his duty to propose; and that perfect concurrence and identity of opinion being generally known, many persons suppose that there is the same perfect identity of opinion between us in regard to that general sketch or outline of a Reform Bill which my noble Friend gave us a few nights ago. I would only say that I entirely concur with him in the principles upon which that outline is founded—namely, the reduction of the county franchise, the reduction of the borough franchise, and the transfer of seats; but, with regard to the particular limits to which in his sketch he suggested that those principles should be carried, I retain the opinions which I have expressed upon former occasions.

Sir, I cannot allow the statement of the noble Viscount to pass altogether unnoticed. He has replied to the language held in "another place" by a person whom the noble Viscount says, holds a very high position in this country. Of course there can be no misunderstanding on the part of the House to whom the noble Viscount refers, and, therefore, I think it my duty to state, so far as I am aware, what was the language of the person to whom the noble Viscount alludes. I am not of opinion that that language is at all open to the criticism which the noble Viscount has passed upon it; but the noble Viscount must bear in mind that the language so attributed to a noble Earl in "another place" was held by myself in this House—not, of course, in exactly identical terms, but certainly in terms of a very similar nature. I am very glad that the noble Viscount has offered this explanation; but I must repeat that which I ventured to ex- press on a former day, that in my humble opinion the language of the noble Viscount on the occasion referred to was not consistent with respect to the Crown, and certainly did tend, as far as it was possible for the language of a statesman in this House to tend, to call in question the prerogative of the Crown in regard to the dissolution of Parliament. I am in the recollection of those who heard what the language of the noble Viscount was, and certainly if it tended to anything, it tended to a direct threat that, in the event of any attempt by the Crown to exercise the prerogative in respect to a dissolution, the noble Viscount, and those who acted with him, would refuse those Supplies without which the noble Viscount—and so far, no doubt, he was correct in what he stated—it would be impossible, or, at all events, very inconvenient, that Her Majesty should be advised to dissolve Parliament. I think there is no man in this House who was not struck by the marked contrast between the language of the noble Viscount on the occasion to which I have referred, and that which he used on Monday evening last in answer to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Her Majesty's Ministers had recommended the dissolution of Parliament. The two speeches were as directly contrasted one with the other as it was possible for two speeches to be. When the noble Viscount used that threatening language, I was surprised that he did not bear in mind the circumstances which attended his adoption of a precisely similar course two years ago. The only difference is that then the defeat of the Government took place at the beginning of the month of March, and now it has occurred at the beginning of the month of April. The Government of the noble Viscount was defeated, a vote of censure was passed by this House, and the noble Viscount and his colleagues had the same option which Her Majesty's present advisers have had, either to tender their resignations or to recommend the exercise of the prerogative of dissolution. The noble Viscount, exercising, no doubt, his perfect right as a Minister of the Crown, advised the dissolution of Parliament, and I beg to remind him that he was met by the Opposition with no effort to withhold the Supplies. On the contrary, the Opposition of that day took the course which the noble Viscount intimated on Monday night that he should now pursue, of affording every facility for an appeal to the people. That was not the language which the noble Viscount held upon a previous occasion. His language then was threatening. I repeat, it was, in my opinion, disrespectful to the Crown. If it meant anything it threatened an attempt to impede the exercise of the prerogative. I am exceedingly glad that the noble Viscount has seen fit to alter his tone, and to hold different language. The noble Viscount says that he is not apprehensive of the result of the appeal to the people; to that I can only reply, that Her Majesty's Government anticipate the result of that appeal with equal confidence.

Sir, I do not suppose that any Member of this House would suggest a doubt of its being within the prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament, but when the right hon. Baronet says that it is disrespectful to the Crown to suggest that the House of Commons will interfere between the advice of the responsible Government, upon which alone the Crown dissolves Parliament, and a dissolution, he is, I think, sacrificing the rights of the House, and stating a doctrine which ought not to pass without some comment. The right hon. Baronet must be aware that it is the constitutional privilege of this House to address the Crown upon matters of public policy and importance; and if, in the opinion of this House, great public inconvenience, great injury to the interests of this country, as well as great risk to the peace of Europe, as was suggested by Members of the Government, were likely to result from the dissolution of Parliament, it might have been the imperative duty of this House to interpose their advice between that tendered to Her Majesty by her responsible Ministers and the Act which was to follow it—namely, the dissolution of Parliament. My noble Friend suggested that it was not in the power of the Government alone to dictate what it was intimated that they intended to recommend—an immediate dissolution; and he only reminded the House that there were certain acts which must be done, before a dissolution took place, which rendered an immediate dissolution impossible, and that it was only by the concurrence of this House, by its giving the necessary facilities, that the advice which the Government might feel it their duty to give to the Sovereign could be acted upon. In that suggestion my noble Friend took perfectly constitutional ground. But the Government having recommended to the Sovereign an immediate dissolution have done it upon their own responsibility, and I think that my noble Friend and those who act with him—I think that the majority of this House have acted wisely and judiciously in leaving the responsibility of that course exclusively upon the shoulders of the Ministers. On them be the consequences which may result from the dissolution of Parliament which they have advised. As reference has been made to proceedings elsewhere, I cannot sit down without expressing my astonishment that in that place notice should, in a most irregular and unprecedented manner, have been taken of proceedings in this House, and an opinion been expressed upon them contrary to that of the highest authority in this House. It is true that we sometimes inspect the journals of the other House of Parliament, and I have no doubt that Members of that House sometimes inspect ours, and by that means information is obtained as to what is passing within the walls of the other House; but this is the first time that I have ever heard any person holding the position occupied by the noble Peer who has been referred to openly criticise in that place the proceedings of this House, and take upon himself to cite authorities with respect to them which this House does not in the slightest degree recognize. I am glad to hear the right hon. Baronet say that the dissolution which has been advised in this case, and that which took place in 1857, stand upon exactly the same grounds. The issue in that case was a definite one. There was a vote of the House of Commons upon a particular question of policy, upon which my noble Friend advised the Crown that a dissolution might take place with a view to an appeal to the country. That appeal was distinctly answered. I only hope than on the present occasion the issue will he as clearly understood; and that, the House of Commons having by an adverse vote condemned two of the main features of the Bill for amending the representation of the people submitted to the House of Commons by the Government, we shall have the opinion of the country and of the constituencies upon that measure.

said, that although no one would question the power of the Government to advise Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, it was equally well understood that it was not justifiable for them to take that course unless they had some hope of a majority being returned to sup- port their opinions. That was now the point of difference. That was the point which the Government would have to answer immediately upon the return of the new Parliament. It was strange that the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had accused the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton of indirect disrespect to Her Majesty, should have overlooked the direct disrespect of which the noble Earl at the head of the Government had been guilty in stating elsewhere that he would not under any circumstances recommend that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London should be charged with the formation of a Ministry, and that there was an hon. Member of that House representing the people with whom, under no circumstances, would Her Majesty have anything to do. What was that but a direct act of disrespect towards the House of Commons?

said, there was one thing which had given him extreme satisfaction in the course of this discussion, and that was the extraordinary uneasiness which was manifested by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the prospect of the impending dissolution. Hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House were last week exceedingly bold and defiant with respect to Her Majesty's advisers recommending a dissolution of Parliament. Some hon. Members said that such a step was not to be thought of, whilst others boasted that they were perfectly indifferent about it. But once that a dissolution was resolved upon the cry was raised that it was unconstitutional, and that the advice which Ministers had given to the Crown was not in accordance with the first principles of the English constitution. The House might now judge what that assumed indifference meant. The noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, in language of defiance so strong that, to his (Mr. Malins') mind, it was only comprehensible upon the assumption that the noble Viscount was in earnest, and intended to follow up his threat, had dared Her Majesty's Ministers to recommend a dissolution, and said that there must be no dissolution, because the House in the present state of public affairs could not be dissolved, and that he would take care that the Supplies which were necessary should not be forthcoming. If the noble Viscount was in earnest on that point why had he not followed it up? But instead of that he had contracted himself down to very small dimensions indeed. And how was that to be accounted for? Was it that the majority on which he had counted had melted away to too small dimensions? He (Mr. Malins), for his part, would say that he had been accustomed to look upon the noble Viscount as a man who in an emergency might be relied upon to support the principles of the English constitution, and though he did not agree in the whole of his policy there was no man of his party whom he should be more inclined to follow. He was, therefore, greatly disappointed to find the noble Lord on the present occasion disposed to adopt such extreme principles.

said, he rose to order. A number of hon. Gentlemen had given notice of their intention to make Motions on going into Committee of Supply, and it was not fair that other questions should take precedence. He wished, therefore to inquire whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was not out of order in making observations on such a subject.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly in order.

As the hon. Baronet on the other side of the House, in his speech of triumph, had alluded to the issue now before the country, and the issue put before the country in 1857, he (Mr. Malins) could only hope that the issue which was put before the country by the noble Lord the Member for London and the noble Viscount opposite would be distinctly understood. The noble Lord the Member for London had told the House what his Reform Bill was to be; but was the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton inclined to adopt that Bill? He had not the good fortune to hoar the noble Lord, but he understood that he had said that he was not for that Bill; and unless the reports which had reached him greatly deceived him the noble Lord had expressed himself to the effect that whenever the Bill sketched by the noble Lord the Member for the City was brought in he should be found among its most strenuous opponents. Upon that point the noble Viscount seemed to be somewhat ambiguous. What then was the issue tendered by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton? The noble Lord, in his own case, took the opportunity of dissolving, and if they now tendered issue, the noble Lord must accept it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, even if they were in a state that by the union of parties not agreeing among themselves they could out number the Government, might yet find that there was no wish on the part of the majority for the retirement of the Government. This was a vote of confidence, and not one merely on the provisions of the Reform Bill. He would inquire of hon. Gentlemen opposite what would be their point of union if the noble Lord the Member for London came into office? Would they give way upon the Ballot? If they did they must compromise their principles, and if they did not he should like to know what prospect they had of retaining power. But he had too high an opinion of the noble Lord to think that he would become an advocate of the Ballot. But if the Government were turned out what would become of the principle of union? Hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway on the other side had said that unless the Ballot were offered it would be in vain to rely upon their support. If so, supposing the noble Lord to come into office, there would be as great difficulty in carrying on the Government as ever. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) had taunted the Government on their course. Now, he (Mr. Malins) represented a small borough, but it included a widespread area, and contained a great variety of voters. He had stood two very severe contests for it, and on the last occasion he had had to contend with the strong impression on the minds of a large portion of the electors that the noble Member for Tiverton was the only man who could carry on the war satisfactorily. But the country might now see that it was perfectly plain that the question now before them was capable of easy settlement. The points of difference between the noble Lord opposite and that (the Ministerial) side of the House were so small that they might have been capable of easy settlement, and the dissolution might have been avoided. Thus the confusion into which the affairs of the country must be thrown by a general election might have been avoided, which would have been especially desirable at a time when union, strength, and tranquillity were so much needed. The necessity of a dissolution had, however, been forced upon the Government. It was remarkable that this disturbance did not arise from the country operating upon the House of Commons, but from the House of Commons operating upon the country. He hoped that the attempt that had been made would signally fail, and it was in vain for the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to think that hon. Members on his side of the House were to be intimidated by any threats on their part.

Sir, there has been throughout our recent debates a constant, an unfair, and, I trust, a wholly unsuccessful attempt to fix upon this side of the House the responsibility of the present state of affairs. The remarks which have just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford would almost lead the House to suppose that it is my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton and the hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side who have advised the dissolution of Parliament and who are responsible for that important step. But observe what has been the course of the Government upon this subject. On acceding to power last year they took the Government, according to the expression of my noble Friend, with its engagements. I must be permitted to remark, however, that it is a perfectly new and not generally accepted doctrine that an Opposition, when it comes into office, abandons its own engagements and adopts those of its antagonists. However, without dwelling upon that part of the subject, I shall only say that Ministers voluntarily undertook the engagement of bringing in a Reform Bill. They renewed that engagement on various occasions by declarations of individual Members of the Government during the recess, and they announced in the Speech from the Throne their intention of introducing a measure of Reform. After mature deliberation that Bill was brought forward. It was made the subject of a long and able debate, and by the solemn judgment of this House it was condemned as unsatisfactory. In consequence of the adverse decision of this House they abandoned their Bill; but they do not announce that they will bring in any other measure, on the contrary, they state that in the present year it is not their intention to propose any other measure of Reform, and they appeal to the country against the decision of this House. Now, is that not a distinct appeal upon the measure of the Government? Upon what possible question can it be an appeal if not upon their Reform policy, upon their recent Bill, and against the adverse decision of the House in connection therewith? They do not substitute any other measure, and still less do they state what that measure is to be; they simply appeal against the decision of the House, and that decision was pronounced upon their existing Reform Bill. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: It was a refusal to entertain the question.] The decision of the House was pronounced upon the two most important characteristics of the Bill. Those two points were selected for the decision of the House, and upon those two main points, which included the most essential principles of the Bill, the House decided against the Government. Observe what was the conduct of Earl Grey's Government in 1831, when they appealed to the country upon the subject of their Reform Bill. That is the case which is most exactly in point. Earl Grey's Government brought in a Bill that was condemned by the House of Commons by a considerable majority. The course pursued then was very similar to that which has been taken in the present instance. Upon going into Committee a Resolution was moved, condemning one of the most important parts of the Bill, and it was carried, as I have said, by a considerable majority. The Government never for a moment pretended to say that that was not a condemnation of their Bill. They stood by the Bill; they went to the country upon the well-known cry, "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." No other issue was raised; the country pronounced in their favour, and its representatives came to this House, knowing what they had promised to vote upon. A dissolution is now about to take place. I want to know upon what it is to take place. Up to the present moment no issue has been raised either here or elsewhere beyond this—that the country is asked to express its confidence in the Government, in consequence of the policy which they have adopted on the subject of Reform. Can they put any other issue before the country? Can they say that they ask the confidence of the people in respect of a policy which they are about to pursue upon the subject of Reform? No such thing. Here is their Bill; it was condemned more or loss by every hon. Member who spoke in the recent debate, whether on this or the other side of the House, and upon its merits Ministers appeal to the country. Some hon. Members, indeed, condemned the form of the Resolution, but there was scarcely a single Member on cither side of the House who expressed a decided approbation of the general form and character of the Bill. What possible issue, therefore, is raised which does not involve their Reform policy? Surely Her Majesty's Ministers do not go to the country simply upon the question whether they shall retain their offices. That is not a question upon which an appeal can be made to the constituencies. Some principle—something beyond a mere vague expression of confidence—must be implied in an appeal. Gentlemen on this side are not responsible for the step about to be taken. A Bill was submitted for our consideration, and we rejected it. We have been told that in doing so we showed a want of respect to the Crown. Observe what hon. Gentlemen opposite did last year with respect to the India Bill. A recommendation from the Crown was made to this House to consider the question of India. The Government prepared a Bill carrying that recommendation into effect, and what was the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Why, they would not allow us even to read the Bill a first time, and they met us by a Resolution precisely similar to that to which so much objection has been lately taken. The only distinction, in fact, between the two cases is, that in the one they even refused to allow the Government to lay their Bill on the table, while in the other we reserved our opposition to the second reading, the proper time for it. To say, after a debate of seven nights, which was virtually a debate upon the second reading of the Bill, the measure has not received consideration, and that we have been guilty of disrespect to the Crown, is one of the most monstrous attempts at imposing upon the credulity of the country which my Parliamentary experience can furnish. We have merely exercised our constitutional right to consider and reject a measure proposed, not by the Crown, but by the Government, whose acts we are at liberty to canvass and criticise in every possible way. Upon them lies the responsibility of the Bill itself and of the dissolution which they have recommended, and the real issue which the country has to decide is—does the Reform policy of the Government, as expressed in that Bill, entitle them to the confidence of the public?

The right hon. Gentleman appears to be labouring under a misapprehension as to what fell from me upon a former occasion. I never said anything so absurd as that any want of respect was shown to the Crown in not entertaining the Reform Bill; but I did say, that the language of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, on the subject of a dissolution, trenched upon the Royal prerogative, and was wanting in respect to the Crown.

I did not refer to the remark of the right hon. Baronet, [that the language held by my noble Friend on the subject of a dissolution was disrespectful to the Crown. What I alluded to was an expression used both here and elsewhere, to the effect that we showed a want of respect to the Crown in not entertaining the measure of Reform proposed by the Government. Such an expression was used, and I repeat it is entirely erroneous.

said, he was one of those fortunate Members who had caught the eye of the right hon. Gentleman during the recent debates, and consequently he had already had the opportunity of communicating his sentiments to the House on the subject of Reform, and was not going to discuss the question again then. He could, however, make allowance for the ardour of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins), who had not enjoyed the same opportunity; but he must protest against that hon. and learned Member robbing the printers of Wallingford by making addresses in that House to his constituents. He thought they had had enough of Reform discussions, and had now better leave the battle to be fought out on the hustings. It was natural that the noble Lord should wish to make an explanation, but it would be of no use discussing the question further in a moribund Parliament. He was glad the Government had determined to dissolve, because he thought that a general election would put parties on a better footing. The object of his rising, however, was to ask a question. He wished to know whether it was true that the Government had appointed an hon. Member of that House to the vacant judgeship in the Irish Incumbered Estates Court, contrary to the report of the Commissioners.

said, he begged to inform the hon. Member that a Judge had been appointed to the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, and that the Judge so appointed was an hon. Member of that House.

said, he wished to know whether there had been a decrease of business in the Court.

replied that he could say nothing on that subject, but if the hon. Member would put a notice of his question upon the paper, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) would answer it on a future day. As to the course that had been taken since Monday last by the noble Lord, with respect to Supply, the Government did not complain of it; on the contrary, they thought that his willingness in facilitating proceedings so as to help forward the dissolution, was in conformity with his conduct during a long life passed in the service of his country, and with the policy they had themselves adopted under similar circumstances. He (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), however, could not help remarking on the tone of the speech which was delivered by the noble Lord in the course of the discussion. He would not undertake to say whether the expressions commented on were exactly those used by the noble Lord, but the tone which the noble Lord adopted in the course of the debate upon the Bill lately thrown out was that of absolute defiance. It was a defiance founded, as it seemed to him, on the idea that it was absolutely impossible for the Government to have recourse to the alternative of a dissolution. The noble Lord recommended to them a course which he would not have followed—a course of conduct which, as a gentleman, he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), for one, should not feel himself justified in adopting, and a course which he did not believe any of the sections into which the House was split, if any of them had been placed on the Treasury bench, would for one moment have thought of following. He must say, that he was not surprised that—when, like two adversaries about to retire for a moment, they were about to collect their forces for the battle—when the noble Lord, too, knew that the grave responsibility of the Government had been increased by what had occurred—there should be an attempt to fasten responsibility from one side of the House to the other; but he (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) thought, with the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Bernal Osborne) that they might very well adjourn this question to the hustings. The right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis) when he appeared before his constituents, would probably put the issue as he had already stated it, and no doubt he would call upon them to give him their support. The Government alleged, however, that they were defeated in an attempt to carry through a Reform Bill, and were prevented from the fair consideration of the question by a combination of parties. They did not accept their defeat as a defeat of their measure, but simply as an interruption of the proceedings of the Government, and as a proof that Government did not possess that which they never supposed themselves to possess—the implicit confidence of a majority of the House. The real question at issue for the country to consider was, whether the Government of the country should be carried on by the present advisers of Her Majesty, or whether power should be transferred to other hands. The Government had done their duty conscientiously and under a deep sense of responsibility, and it would be for Parliament, when it should re-assemble, to determine whether right rested with the Government or with those who impugned their policy.

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) had complained of several votes which had been given by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. Now, if the recent question had been as to the conduct of the present Administration, he for one would not have voted against them. For, so far as he could judge, they had conducted the business of the country well and wisely. He must, however, state that the issue before the country would not be "confidence or not in their administration of affairs." The Government had laid upon the table of the House a Bill which he (Mr. Lindsay) believed to be erroneous in principle and crude in its construction. The time to deal with the fundamental principles of the Bill was upon the second reading, and he had no other course left to him but to support the Resolution of the noble Lord, and with regret he did support it, because he thought it would lead to the overthrow of a Government which in more than one respect possessed his perfect confidence.

said, that a short time since the Minister of War had stated that henceforward the circular of Lord Hill would be strictly carried out, and "therefore the Host would not in future be saluted." Now, the third paragraph of the circular expressly directed the sentries to salute, and if that order was carried into effect the very evil complained of would arise. He hoped the right hon. and gallant General would be induced to reconsider the matter. He also wished to ask the Lord Advocate when the Royal Commission for inquiring into the working of the Forbes Mackenzie Act would be issued.

said, he must repeat what had been stated on a former occasion, that the order issued by Lord Hill had not been altered.

said, he wished to correct a statement which had been made in his absence by the hon. Member for Dovor (Mr. Bernal Osborne) as to an appointment in Ireland. He thought it would have been more courteous if the hon. Member had given notice of his intention before putting the question. He had stated, however, that an appointment had been made to the Incumbered Estates Court in direct opposition to the report of the Commission, and in the face of a decreasing business in the Court. Now, it was not made in direct opposition to, but in conformity with, the law and the provisions of an Act passed last year. The question was then fully discussed as to whether there should be two or three Judges of the Court. The Government thought there should be two only, but the House was of a different opinion, and after considerable discussion, and in deference to that opinion, it was determined that the Court should consist of three Judges. With regard to the business of the Court decreasing, a more unfair statement than that of the hon. Gentleman he had never heard in that House. The Court, as newly constituted, had not been long in existence, so that no fair criterion could be formed as to what its future business would be likely to be. Sufficient time had not been afforded those who wished to avail themselves of the Court to bring their cases into it, and time had been required to revise the rules. But as soon as the Court could get into fair working there was good reason to believe that its business would be increased, and that there would be ample employment for three Judges. There was also every reason to believe that the Court would be self-supporting. At any rate, the appointment made would not create an extra charge on the Treasury, because if there were only two Judges their salaries would have to be increased.

, said, that the explanation of the noble Lord was altogether incorrect. It was last year thoroughly understood that the business of the Court would be speculative, and the Attorney General for Ireland deprecated the appointment of three Judges, because he said two would be quite sufficient for all purposes; but it was thought that as Mr. Hargreaves was about to be pensioned off at his full salary, the country might as well have the advantage of his services. In the event, however, of his transference to England, where it was proposed to establish an Estates Court, the understanding was that the vacancy in Dublin would not be filled up. In his opinion a more rash and ill-considered appointment could not have been made, and he could not compliment the Government upon a desire to save the public money. It was a mere evasion to say the salaries of the Judges would not be paid by the country. They were paid by the suitors' fees, which was in truth the same thing. He could only repeat that his recollection of what passed last year was entirely different to that of the noble Lord. There was no intention to make a permanent provision for the Judges.

Perhaps, Sir, the Committee will allow me to answer the question put to me by the hon. Baronet. I will not occupy your attention for more than a moment [Cries of "Order, order!"] upon which the noble Viscount resumed his seat.

said, he wished to call the attention, of the Committee to the fact that a hope had been held out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Session that £1,000,000 of these bonds would be paid off, and that there would consequently be only £1,000,000 of those Exchequer bonds to provide for.

said, the additional million had been issued. That, however, was a matter to be explained in the general financial statement when it came under consideration.

remarked, that the point was this—there bad been £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds issued instead of paying off £2,000,000 according to a solemn engagement entered into by the Government.

observed that this was too important a step to be taken as a mere matter of form. They ought not to be called upon to discuss it in so small a House. The Committee were asked to repudiate a distinct engagement entered into with the public for the repayment of £2,000,000 of the public debt. He contended that there was a specific agreement entered into that those Exchequer bonds should be paid off in a specific time. The Government paid higher for the money in consequence, for it could have been borrowed upon more favourable terms. Last year it was one of the most difficult points with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain the assent of the House to the renewal of the £2,000,000 Exchequer bonds, instead of paying them out of the ways and means of the year; but the obligation once disregarded it seems easier to disregard it on a second occasion. The obligation entered into by the Government was broken last year, and that too, without the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinking it necessary to come down to the House to offer any explanation on the matters. There was a large increase of the receipts in the present year from one source in particular, namely, from the sale of old stores, the most expensive mode by which the Exchequer could be replenished. Notwithstanding the receipts had increased about £1,500,000 since the last financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government were now about to break the engagement they had deliberately entered into with the public.

explained that what the House was asked to do was to authorize the Government to pay the Exchequer bonds issued in May, 1854, and redeemable in May, 1859. If the House were dissolved before the 8th May, the Government would not be able to pay off these bonds without a vote authorizing them to do so.

said, he wished to impress upon the Committee that when the Government asked for votes on account with regard to the public service, they only asked for what was merely necessary to continue the current services of the year. They did not ask the House to assent to any new principle. When this debt was contracted on Exchequer bonds there was a kind of obligation entered into that when they fell due means would be found to discharge them without borrowing money or permanently creating £2,000,000 additional to the national debt. He did not, however, think that the Government could adopt any other course than the one proposed, without previously making the financial statement for the year. It might be difficult, under existing circumstances, to expect even the financial statement. When, however, the dissolution took place two years ago he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he thought it his duty to give a statement before that dissolution. He then proposed to Parliament and obtained its assent to the most material measures for the arrangement of the finances of the year. On the present occasion they were going to a dissolution without any such arrangement, and the House was called upon to authorize Government to pay off £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds, without knowing on what terms the debt was to be renewed. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is not to be renewed at all.] Then he presumed that there would be sufficient income from present taxation, or by additional taxation, to pay off these £2,000,000 in the course of the next year. That raised a totally new question for the consideration of the House. Last year £2,000,000 Exchequer bonds fell due, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would pay off the bonds, but take power at the same time to issue £2,000,000 more; and he held out the hope that the ways and means of the year would be sufficient to pay of £1,000,000. He saw by the last account that the expectation had not been fulfilled, and the £2,000,000 Exchequer bonds had been re-issued. The House was now called on to vote money to pay off £2,000,000 additional Exchequer bonds; and it ought to know whether it was intended to pay off by re-borrowing, or out of the Ways and Means of the year.

said, he could not anticipate the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Then, the House was left in uncertainty on that point. This was a question wholly unconnected with the current service of the year. He wished distinctly to understand whether it was the intention of the Government to defray those £2,000,000 out of the Ways and Means or by re-borrowing. He had his doubts whether the Committee ought to vote this large sum of money without some explanation as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government.

said, the necessity of obtaining a Vote to pay those Bills was obvious. The bonds would become due on the 8th of May, and if faith with the public creditor were to be kept, the Government must have authority to pay him. He understood the hon. Member for Devonport to argue that if the Committee were to give the authority they were now asking for to the Government, it necessarily implied that the Government were to renew the debt in some other way. He protested against that inference altogether. It was not possible for him at that moment to anticipate the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All they asked was to be empowered to keep good faith with the public creditor.

said, that of course there was nothing objectionable in keeping faith with the public creditor, but that House had certain constitutional rights and one of them was not to grant money until it was satisfied that the money would be properly applied. This was not a mere vote for carrying on the current services of the year, like the payment of soldiers' wages; it was one of an extraordinary character. He did not mean to say that he should ultimately object to this Vote, but the House was entitled, before consenting to it, to know something more than it knew at present. Let the Government state whether it was their intention to pay the £2,000,000 absolutely out of the Ways and Means of the year, or to pay £1,000,000 by re-borrowing, and the other £1,000,000 out of the Ways and Means.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) had referred to the constitutional right of that House in respect to matters of finance. But no one had ever called those rights into question. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that one of those rights was to enter as largely as possible into questions of finance in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman had largely availed himself of the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enter into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman could not, he was sure, expect from him (Sir John Pakington), the only Member of the Cabinet present, to enter into this question which was altogether extraneous to his own department, or to anticipate in any degree the financial statement of his right hon. Colleague. But so far as he understood the question, the proposal was, to ask the House for authority to pay off £2,000,000 of a debt which would fall due on a day when it was very well known there would be no Parliament sitting, and for the payment of which the Government had not the means. It was merely a proposal to provide for that emergency. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor said that the course pursued was unsatisfactory, and that they ought to know before the House of Commons consented to the grant what were the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the permanent arrangement on the subject of those bonds. The best explanation he could give was, as his right hon. Friend was not present, that this Vote should be postponed until to-morrow, or some more convenient time. The Government had no desire to take the House by surprise.

said, that the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet might entail an unnecessary loss of time. He believed that there was no real objection to this Vote. It was desirable, however, that some explanation should be given as to whether the debt was to be paid out of Ways and Means or by re-borrowing. Nevertheless, be thought that they might agree to the Vote, upon the understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enter into an explanation on the subject upon bringing up the Report.

said, he was ready to concur in the suggestion of his right hon. Friend that the explanation should be given on bringing up the Report. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty made a sort of complaint that this question should be discussed in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was something like the complaint made to the effect that the Members on the Opposition side of the House were responsible for the dissolution of Parliament. He was not responsible for the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as the Vote had been proposed, there was no reasonable ground of complaint on account of comments made in respect to it.

said, he did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of bringing forward this question improperly. As to the responsibility of the dissolution of Parliament, he (Sir John Pakington) thought that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends were exclusively responsible for that proceeding.

said, he trusted that the Vote would be postponed, and that the Committee would not consent to Vote £2,000,000 without knowing whether the money was to be paid out of the Ways and Means or borrowed.

observed, that this was a public debt which would fall due early in May, and the public honour required that it should be properly met; but the right hon. Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis) and the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain whether this debt was to be wholly discharged out of the revenue, whether it was to be continued, or whether it was to be partially paid off. It would, however, be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to afford the explanation requested without entering fully into a statement of the general finances of the country, and he thought it would be most unfair to force the right hon. Gentleman to adopt such a course in the present condition of public affairs. He hoped the Vote would now be agreed to, leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any statement he might think necessary on the Report.

said, he did not object to the Vote being taken, but as in the middle of last week the Government balances were £500,000 below their engagements, and that amount of deficiency bills was required to make up the quarterly statement, it was not probable that in the course of four or five weeks the excess of revenue over expenditure would enable the Government to meet these bonds out of their existing balances without some financial arrangement. He thought, therefore, that the House was entitled to some explanation on the subject, either now or on the bringing up of the Report.

said, he wished to ask whether the Government had the money in hand, or would have to borrow it?

replied, that the money was in hand; and the only question was, whether Parliament would authorise its appropriation.

said, there was no question as to the renewal of the bonds, but the Committee were asked to provide for their payment, and any explanation that was needed would, no doubt, be afforded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a future occasion.

said, he thought the best course would be to agree to the Vote, but he maintained that, before it was finally sanctioned, the House ought to be informed whether it was intended that the debt should be extinguished out of the Ways and Means of the year, or whether the Government meant to extinguish it simply by the creation of a new loan. That was a reasonable question, and as he understood there was an engagement on the part of the Government that it should be answered on a future occasion, he would suggest that the Vote should be now agreed to.

said, that as the matter was put by the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Lewis), the explanation required would involve a general financial statement for the year. What he (Sir John Pakington) had intended to state was, that the money was in hand to pay off £2.000,000, but he had not meant in any way to compromise his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to anticipate the financial statement which it might be his right hon. Friend's duty to make. He did not dispute the right of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to put his question, but if he made his assent to the Vote conditional upon the answer he might receive, the better course would be to postpone the Vote to another evening, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would he prepared to afford an explanation. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman did not make such a condition, the money might now be voted, and the explanation might be given on the Report.

said, he thought it was desirable that the Vote should now be taken, but the House was entitled to some further explanation, which might with perfect propriety be given upon the Report.

said, he had always strongly objected to this mode of raising money which had deranged our finances ever since the Crimean war. These bonds were issued, in the first instance, to the amount of £6,000,000. He believed that of that amount £2,000,000 had been extinguished, and he wished to know whether £4,000,000 was yet due?

was understood to say that none of the bonds in question had been extinguished, but he believed they were all out.

said, he rose to inquire as to the nature of the works at Kingstown Harbour, for which there was an item of £10,000?

stated that it was to carry on the works in progress there.

said, he wished to ask if it was intended to have an Appropriation Act?

said, it was, and the various Votes would be set out in the Act.

said, he would beg to draw attention to the fact that the Votes on account of the Harbours of Dovor and Alderney had been omitted.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would afford some explicit explanation respecting Dovor Harbour.

observed, that taking the Vote in cumulo would embarrass the Appropriation Act. He, when Secretary of the Treasury, took a Vote on each item, and thus he was able to particularize them in the Appropriation Act.

remark- ed, that in 1857 there had been two Appropriation Acts—one following a Vote in cumulo, and the other a series of Votes.

observed, that he was not aware that, in the preparation of these Votes on account, any Estimate for the works at the harbours referred to had been omitted. He would certainly have asked for a Vote on account, because he was satisfied that it was most desirable to proceed with the works in question, and he hoped that before the new Parliament met, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) would reconsider his avowed intention to oppose all Votes for these purposes. The question fairly open to the decision of the House was one of degree—how much further the works at these two harbours should be carried; but he hoped that no hon. Gentleman would endeavour to induce the House to stop altogether these important works which had been carried on at great cost for a series of years. The abandonment of the works in their present state would be a course most injurious to the public interest.

said, that he was one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of Harbours of Refuge, and he had devoted three or four months to that inquiry. The harbour of Dovor had not been inquired into, but he collected a good deal of information with respect to Dovor, which, with the permission of the Committee, he would lay before them. If they went on with the construction of Dovor on the small plan of Mr. Walker, it would cost £4,500,000, in his opinion, while the large plan would cost £6,000,000. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether the better course would not be to complete the harbour as a packet station, without expending enormous sums with the view of rendering it available for military purposes. He thought the proper course would be to proceed in the first instance with the construction of harbours which were necessary for the convenience and safety of the mercantile navy, delaying further expenditure upon such works as those at Dovor and Alderney.

intimated that the hon. Gentleman was out of order in discussing the question of Harbours of Refuge on that Vote.

said, in that case he would simply move that the Vote be reduced by the £10,000.

said, be hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, as the Government, in taking a Vote on account, would undoubtedly limit their expenditure to purposes of absolute necessity, until the Estimate was brought as a whole before the House, when the question could be fully discussed.

observed, that if this suggestion were acted on, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, the Vote in this respect was only intended for the continuance of the works already commenced.

said, he wished to state that the Appropriation Act would take the form of that of 1857.

expressed a hope that the Appropriation Act would set out the details, and that these would be submitted to the House in print.

said, as this Vote included the costs of the Probate and Divorce Courts, he wished to take the opportunity of calling attention to the state of business in the Marriage and Divorce Court. The most serious complaints were made of the large arrear of business in that Court, which amounted, he believed, at the commencement of the term, to about 150 causes. It was due to the learned and able Judge who presided over the Court to say, that he was untiring in his exertions to cope with the pressure of business, so that with reference to the probate causes which came under his separate jurisdiction as Judge Ordinary, there was an arrear of only nine cases. It was, however, necessary that the Judges should attend the full Court, and the arrears had arisen, not from any want of industry on the part of the learned Judge Ordinary, but from the difficulty he had experienced in obtaining the assistance of other learned Judges. In cases of such a peculiar character as those which came before this Court delays were attended with much more serious inconvenience to the suitors than in cases of ordinary litigation where questions of property were concerned, and he had received many applications from persons who had instituted proceedings for divorce, who complained, that although their cases had been set down in the month of October last, there was no probability of their being decided until next November. So far as the Judge Ordinary was concerned, he had devoted himself with the most untiring industry to the transaction of the business of his Court, but the question was, whether additional judges ought not to be appointed, and he hoped the subject would receive the immediate and serious attention of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he was deeply sensible of the great public inconvenience resulting from the state of affairs which had been brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone; but it was one thing to express—as he (the Attorney General) now did—his regret that the public should have been exposed to such serious inconveniences, and another, and a more difficult thing, to suggest a remedy under existing circumstances, and at the present moment. Notwithstanding the great ability and the close application of the learned Judge who presided over the Divorce Court, it was found impracticable to carry on the business of that Court with the same despatch as, he was glad to say, now prevailed in all the other Courts of the kingdom, and it was quite obvious that no effectual remedy could be applied except by the creation of additional Judges. The Committee were aware that under the existing law, in order to constitute a complete Divorce Court the attendance of certain of the common law Judges was indispensable; but those Judges, in consequence of their other numerous occupations, had found it impossible to attend in sufficient numbers and with sufficient regularity to carry on effectively the business of the Court. Efforts had been made by the learned Judges to assist Sir C. Cresswell, the Judge of the Divorce Court, but it had been found utterly impracticable to keep down the arrears of business. The subject had, of course, attracted the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped that a remedy might be applied at the earliest possible moment; but looking to the present state of public business and the approaching dissolution of Parliament, as well as the difference in opinion which existed as to the number, qualification and station of the Judges to be appointed, it was evidently almost impossible that any step could be taken until the new Parliament assembled. He could assure the Committee that not only had the matter engaged the attention of the Government, but that he would lose no time in communicating with noble and learned Friends in the other House, with the view of ascertaining whether it was possible during the short remaining period of the present Session to apply a practical and efficient remedy to the grievances which the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had brought under the notice of the Committee.

said, he believed that the present state of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial causes was a great public evil, owing to the narrow area to which the selection of the Judges for the consideration of the full Court was limited it could not be assembled oftener than once in two months. The Committee had also been informed that there were not less than 150 cases in arrear, some of which had been waiting ever since October last, whilst there was no possibility of their being disposed of before November next. Now, that was a state of things which existed in no other tribunal in the country. In the Court of Chancery, for instance, it was never known that a case had to wait more than six weeks for hearing; and on the rising of that Court on the 26th of last month, virtually not a single case was left undisposed of. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone was quite right in stating that if there were any part of the law on which there should be no delay, it was where an application had been made for a divorce; because, if the application were well founded, they could not too speedily have the question decided: whereas, if it were unfounded, they could not too speedily relieve families from that state of uncertainty and misery in which such an application must necessarily involve them. The delay, he feared, would continue certainly until June, and perhaps during the present year. He regretted that nothing could be done before the assembling of a new Parliament with a view to provide a remedy, and he apprehended that even when the new Parliament had met no remedy would be immediately applied. He trusted, however, that his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) either in the present or early in the next Session would take an opportunity of setting a matter right which so loudly called for correction.

It now becomes my duty to ask the Committee to agree to certain Votes on account of the Navy Estimates, and first I will place in the Chairman's hands a Vote for £20,000 on account of "the scientific branch" of the service. Before proposing this Vote, however, there are two subjects to which I must ask the permission of the Committee to advert. It will be remembered that on a recent occasion I announced my intention to lay upon the table the report of certain Committees. Amongst those was the Report of the Committee which has been appointed to inquire into the machinery of the navy; I also promised to lay upon the table the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate the dockyard expenditure; and also the report of a confidential Committee appointed by the Government to investigate the causes of the great increase which has lately occurred in the naval expenditure of the country. At a more recent period I further expressed my intention of producing a statement on the part of the Surveyor of the Navy with reference to some observations which have been made in this House by the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich (Lord C. Paget). In consequence, however, of the sudden change of affairs leading to a dissolution of Parliament, I wish to state what is the course I now propose to adopt with reference to these four important reports. I am very sorry to say, with regard to the important report from the Committee on dockyard expenditure, that it is not yet in my power to present it to the House, the Committee engaged in preparing it not having yet completed their labours. The other three reports I have already laid upon the table. Three or four evenings ago I produced a report of the Committee on machinery, the report of the confidential Committee on the increase in the Navy Estimates, and the statement of the Surveyor of the Navy, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich; and I wish to lake this opportunity of saying what I accidentally omitted to state on an earlier day, that Sir Baldwin Walker has repeatedly expressed to me his anxious desire to face in the most prompt, open, and candid manner the statements which have been made by the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich. So far as Sir Baldwin Walker has been able to meet those statements in writing he has done so. His report is not yet printed and in the hands of hon. Members; but I believe, that so far as it is in the power if the ship-building department of the Navy to moot the allegations of the noble Lord in writing that has been done, and the report will be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of a very few days. In that written statement Sir Baldwin Walker has gone fully into the allegation of the noble Lord that £5,000,000 of the public money has been wasted in reckless expenditure during the last eleven years; and into the further allegation of the noble Lord that, with respect to certain ships which he named, there has been a reckless and unnecessary expenditure in altering those ships from time to time, while in course of construction. Speaking on behalf—I was going to say of the Admiralty—but the present Board has so little to do with the matter that I ought perhaps rather to say our predecessors in office—and on the part of Sir Baldwin Walker and the shipbuilding department, I must say that I deeply regret that the sudden dissolution of the present Parliament will put it out of my power to take the course I intended, and which I certainly should have taken as soon as possible, namely, to move the appointment of a Committee, to be constituted in the fairest and most impartial manner that any such tribunal can be constituted, to inquire into the truth and accuracy of the allegations of the noble Lord, and to report how far the noble Lord is, or is not borne out in the statements which he has made to the House. In the present state of public affairs of course, I have no alternative but to wait the assembling of a new Parliament before these serious allegations can be investigated by any tribunal composed of Members of this House. I must therefore, limit myself to the expression of a hope, that the written statement of Sir Baldwin Walker, which he has made as fully as possible, will have the effect of removing the erroneous impressions which the speech of the noble Lord has created. At all events I am quite sure that it will have the effect of inducing the Members of this House and the public to suspend their judgment with regard to the allegations of the noble Lord until a full investigation has taken place; but I hope that the information furnished will be found sufficiently complete to dispel these impressions. The other subject to which I would refer is that contained in the inquiry addressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby). My hon. Friend has stated that the sum voted for the year ending March, 1858, amounted to £9,172,590, and that the total expenditure for that year was £9,062,839; and he asks for an explanation of the excess amounting to £790,249. Now, my explanation is this. The greater part of that sum was made up of two large items; the first connected with the war with Russia, and the second with the war in China. The sum of £264,923 was incurred on account of arrears and claims for the expense of the late Russian war, and for which no Vote was taken, provision having been made already for it under an extraordinary Vote of credit. The second sum was a balance of £390,942, to which I adverted on a former evening, and which was moved for last year. That was taken out of the £400,000, which was voted by the House to cover the expenditure of the war in China. These two sums, with £133,383 in excess, some of it upon one Vote and some upon another, in the Estimates of the year, make the total of £790,249. This explanation, I hope, will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend.

Are there any outstanding accounts for the China war?

I am not aware of any outstanding accounts connected with the Navy.

observed, he would say but one or two words in answer to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He had already said, and he would again repeat, that in the statements he had made with reference to the navy, he never had the slightest intention of making a charge of any description against any gentleman connected with the Admiralty or the naval department. He had only, to the best of his ability as a naval officer, calculated what he thought was the expenditure upon the navy, guarding himself at the time by saying, that he should he very much obliged to his right hon. Friend if he could contradict the figures laid before the House. By the courtesy of his friend, Sir Baldwin Walker, he had, during the last half-hour been furnished with a copy of the paper written by the Surveyor of the Navy. Of course, he could not be expected now to enter into details, but he was bound to say that in that document he saw no substantial contradiction to the statements he had made respecting the alteration of certain ships. Be that as it might, he hoped that in the new Parliament a Committee would be appointed which would go very seriously into this expenditure in shipbuilding. Meanwhile he would venture to make a sugges- tion to his right hon. Friend, which he believed would be approved of both by the country and by Parliament—that he should come prepared to lay the Estimates before the new House of Commons in a more satisfactory form. In making the statement which he addressed to the House the other night, he (Lord C. Paget) had a vague idea that he was not asking for anything unprecedented; that in former days the Naval Estimates were prepared exactly in the form which he wished to see adopted, and that it was only within the last forty years that they had assumed their present unsatisfactory shape. Now, he had consulted old Navy Estimates, and taking those from 1811 to 1819, he found the ships' names given in a tabular form, as he wished now to see, with the number of their guns, whether building, or what was the nature of their repairs, the time when they were taken in hand, and when they would be completed, the charge for the hulls, masts, yards, rigging and stores, while the total charge was given in another column. Even during the French war, the name of every ship in the navy was thus set forth, and the most detailed information was furnished to the House, at a time when it was of importance that the French should not be acquainted with our resources. He would now explain how it was that the House of Commons came to be mystified. The lesson was instructive, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would profit by it. He had received a letter from Admiral Tucker, who had sent him a pamphlet published in 1849, addressed to the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) who was then at the head of the Admiralty. It was at the time when a Committee was sitting on our naval expenditure, and this gentleman, who was thoroughly acquainted with naval affairs, recommended certain reforms, particularly advocating among other things that there should be a detailed estimate of ships building and in course of alteration, as had been the case in former years:—

"Formerly," he says, "and until the year 1819, the Navy Estimates used to contain, for each ship in course of building or repair, the following columns of information:—1. Name of the yard, royal or merchant, at home or abroad. 2. That of each ship. 3. Whether building, or nature of the repairs, and whether contracted for, or not; and whether Government did or did not supply any part of the materials. 4 and 5. The time when each ship was taken in hand, and when to be completed. 6 and 7. Charge for that year of hull, masts, yards, stores, &c., of that ship. 8. Total cost of the identical ship for that year. With such annual information it was very easy to watch some of the conduct of the Board of Admiralty."

The reason for adopting the present form of Estimates was thus stated:—

"At the end of 1818 terminated some communications which my father, who had been Lord St. Vincent's secretary, and second secretary to the Board of Admiralty, and who all his life attended to naval affairs, had, by Lord St. Vincent's command, with Lord Melville, respecting the progress of work in our dockyards; when some of my father's statements were ascertained to be so very accurate, that he was supposed to have obtained sight of an official document which ought to have been considered confidential. To remove that impression he attended at the Board of Admiralty, and he did so to the 'entire conviction' of Lord Melville and of the Board. A part of the conversation (of every word of which I retain a memorandum) is to the present point. 'You have stated, Mr. Tucker,' said Lord Melville, 'that eight sail-of-the-line is the average annual produce of the yards. How did you get at that information?' 'From the Navy Estimates.' 'How so?' asked a Sea Lord? 'How? why thus:—The Navy Estimates show every line-of-battle ship building and repairing, and when she is expected to be finished, and by comparing the Estimates of one year with another, it will be seen when any ship had been launched or put out of dock.' The Members of the Board looked at each other and said nothing; but the very next Navy Estimates assumed the very unintelligible form in which, as regards ships, they have over since appeared; while upon ever other head they have ever since, year after year, given clearer and clearer information."

In a letter accompanying the pamphlet, Admiral Tucker said, the old system was put a stop to by Sir G. Cockburn, who, on learning that his father got his figures from the Navy Estimates, said, "I will take care you do not get them for the future." Here, then, was the mystery solved, and he hoped his right hon. Friend, perceiving that what was asked for was no new tiling, would be disposed to grant that which in itself was but a reasonable demand.

said, he could assure his noble and gallant Friend that he should always be happy to receive a lesson from whatever quarter it came, provided only it was a good one; and he thought he might venture to say that he had already afforded proof to this House that he had no desire for any concealment in these matters, of anything which it was desirable for the public service should be made known. He would, therefore, at once accept the suggestion of his noble Friend, and during the recess turn his attention to the subject. It would be his duty to prepare fresh Estimates after the recess, and he would consider in a bonâ fide spirit how far it would be consistent with his public duty to do so in a fuller shape than at present.

remarked, that he saw from the newspapers that tenders had been invited for steam machinery, the supply of which used formerly to be confined to two or three firms. He should like to hear from the right hon. Baronet the price at which the engines were obtained by open competition, as compared with that given when a practical monopoly existed. Another point to which he wished to draw attention was, as to the anchors supplied to the Admiralty. Some seven or eight years ago he served on a Committee which condemned the Admiralty anchor as the worst of several which were examined, but this condemned anchor had, nevertheless, continued in use on board Her Majesty's ships ever since, while the supply remained a monopoly in the hands of the same individual, and the country had continued to pay the monopoly price. He should be glad to hear from the First Lord an explanation upon this point.

said, he was of opinion that the Vote for the scientific branch was one of the best in the Naval Estimates. He felt satisfied that his gallant Friend Sir Baldwin Walker had done his duty as Surveyor of the Navy. He wished now to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) whether he had had his attention drawn to the excellent plan invented by Captain Kynaston, of the Royal Navy, for lowering and raising ships' boats at sea. He understood that the apparatus had been supplied to Her Majesty's ships Diadem, Euryalus, Royal Albert, Avon, Argus, St. Jean d'Acre, and others; and he perceived by recent accounts from Alexandria, that whilst the Euryalus was running eight knots an hour, an able seaman, named William Childs, fell overboard, and that by means of this apparatus, a boat twenty feet long was lowered, fitted with lifeboat hooks, and that the man and the boat's crew were rescued without difficulty, although they were on the weather side of the ship. At present, Captain Kynaston was on a bed of sickness, and he was sure that it would be even more gratifying to him than promotion to receive the testimony of the approval by the Admiralty of his invention.

said, he trusted that any Committee which might be appointed in the new Parliament would begin at the beginning, and inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and so proceed downwards to the dockyards. The House and the country were greatly indebted to present the Board of Admiralty for organizing a Channel squadron, but he wanted to know what had been the use of the six, or seven, or nine sail-of-the-line which composed it? The ships had been lying idle in harbour, and the officers and men were gaining no experiences whatever. When the present state of Europe was taken into consideration, he did not think the Navy ought to be allowed to remain idle, and he should therefore express a hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty would issue orders to the effect that the Channel squadron should move about from place to place, so that a more perfect practical knowledge of its duties might be ensured.

observed, that he thought the hon. and gallant Admiral's anxiety for the efficiency of the fleet carried him occasionally beyond the bounds of accuracy. The hon. and gallant Admiral began his statement by saying we had in some way or other a Channel squadron of six or seven sail-of-the-line; but before he sat down he talked of that squadron as amounting to nine sail-of-the-line. Now what did the hon. and gallant Admiral mean by that inconsistency? The Admiralty did not want to take credit for more than they had done; but the Channel fleet really consisted of ten sail-of-the-line and six frigates, some of the latter being amongst the most powerful and efficient frigates ever seen in this country. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Hear, hear!] The hon. and gallant Admiral, moreover, not content with making contradictory statements, had proceeded to lecture the Board of Admiralty with respect to the places in which the Channel squadron was kept. In his opinion, however, it must be left to the Admiralty and the officers commanding to decide when the fleet ought to go to sea and when it ought to stay at home. This was a matter on which he could not take counsel from even so high an authority as the hon. and gallant Admiral himself. He could assure the Committee that the Admiralty were fully alive to the importance of improving the discipline of the squadron, and would leave nothing undone to effect that object. In reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) as to extension of the area within which tenders for steam-engines might be received, he could only say that the monopoly which formerly existed—if it were a monopoly—had been destroyed, and that several houses had been invited to send in such tenders. He trusted, however, that he should be excused if he did not enter further into detail on the subject on the present occasion. His hon. Friend had next proceeded to advert to the costliness and inferiority of the anchor used by the Admiralty as contrasted with that which might be obtained in other quarters; but the Committee would, he trusted, suspend their judgment on that point until certain returns which he had moved for had been laid upon the table of the House. When the information which might be gathered from those returns was supplied it would, he thought, be found that the Admiralty anchor was neither so inferior nor so costly as his hon. Friend seemed to suppose. With regard to the question asked by the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir George Pechell) on the subject of Captain Kynaston's invention for lowering boats, an experiment had been tried with that invention on board the Diadem, but it was tried when she was at anchor, and not when she was under weigh. He regretted the illness of the gallant Captain, to whom the country was so much indebted for having devoted his energies to this very important matter. He (Sir John Pakington) hoped the invention might turn out to be successful, but he could pronounce no opinion on that point, as the experiments were only in progress.

said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet ought to be a little more accurate before he ventured to contradict him. He believed that there were eleven ships-of-the-line in commission, but of these two had been sent to Gibraltar and one to the West Indies. He did not know whether the right hon. Baronet included these in the ships which he had just spoken of. Were the two ships at Gibraltar included by the right hon. Baronet in the Channel fleet? [Sir J. PAKINGTON: Yes.] He did not think it was fair of the First Lord to try and blind the House in that way, and to impute to him (Sir Charles Napier) statements which he had never made, and which he never intended to make.

said, he was sorry to find the hon. and gallant Admiral so angry at what he had said. When he spoke of the ten line-of-battle-ships, he meant ships attached to, and connected with, the Channel squadron. The vessels which the gallant Admiral alluded to as having gone to Gibraltar might, in a few days, return; they had never been attached to the Mediterranean fleet, and might, therefore, justly be numbered among the Channel squadron.

In justice to the right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty, I must express my high estimation of the earnest zeal and great ability which have distinguished his administration of the affairs of the navy since his accession to office. Whenever this opportunity occurs, I shall be always ready to appreciate such services to my profession, and openly avow my opinion in any other event. The gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) has with a just emphasis urged the maintenance of the Channel Fleet in the highest state of efficiency, as a matter of primary importance. I am happy to be assured that no officer is more qualified or certain to ensure it than its present commander Admiral Sir Charles Fremantle. The information I have received authorizes me to believe that the Channel squadron is at this moment perfect in the several evolutions of forming in line-of-battle—of order of Railing in divisions—or of taking up anchorage, and in all other duties; and when its services are demanded, will be found prepared to uphold the honour of the country and the distinguished character of the profession.

said, with reference to the observations made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) with respect to the Admiralty anchor, he could only state he had taken his statement in reference to it from the Report of a Committee of that House, in which it was set forth that the Admiralty anchor was the worst of seven descriptions of anchors which had been brought under their notice. It appeared that the Admiralty, in accordance with their contract, paid at the rate of from £44 10s. to £73 10s. a ton for their anchors, whereas they could be supplied by other firms at the rate of from £20 10s. to £30 a ton. The result was an unnecessary outlay of 120 per cent.

said, he would urge upon the Government the necessity of affording the Channel squadron opportunities for manœuvring on the sea. He thought the same principle of active service that was being carried out in the army at Alders hot might with great advantage be applied to the navy. In his opinion the single vessels at Gibraltar and the West Indies could not properly be considered as forming part of the Channel squadron.

said, it was perfectly necessary at times in the Navy, as it was in the army, to detach certain portions of the forces from the main body; and this was precisely what was done in the case of the vessels to which reference had been made. It must not be supposed, however, that two of these vessels so detached for a time did not form part of the squadron for all important purposes.

rose and said: If the present Vote had been proposed in the regular course of the Estimates I should have thought it my duty to make some comments upon it. As this is, however, merely a Vote on account, and as it will be necessary that the question should again be brought under consideration when the new Parliament assembles, I shall abstain from adverting to it further on this occasion. I hope, however, that I may, nevertheless, be permitted to take this opportunity to throw myself on the indulgence of the Committee while I reply to some observations which fell from the First Lord of the Admiralty in his statement in introducing the estimates a few weeks ago, and in which he impugned the conduct of the Board of Admiralty with which I was connected, in not paying sufficient attention to building larger line-of-battle ships, and leaving our navy in a state of relative inferiority as compared with that of the French. This statement, when made, was so contrary to anything which I could have anticipated from the right hon. Gentleman that I was not, at the moment, provided with the necessary documents to enable me to controvert it. I have, however, anxiously waited for this opportunity to reply to it, and, as I hope, successfully, to vindicate the course pursued in this respect by the Government of which I was a Member. The right hon. Baronet said, that the increase in the number of larger line-of-battle ships had not proceeded so rapidly as the requirements of the public service demanded, and, had he confined himself to that assertion, I should have no reason to complain. I frequently had said the same thing, and had taken measures to make good the deficiency. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he asked the House of Commons to assent to a large additional sum for the building of ships, because he was bound to state that, when he succeeded to office, he had not found the navy of the country in a condition adequate to the defence of our coasts. The right hon. Gentleman added that he did not mean to impute any blame in this respect to his predecessors, but I appeal to the Committee to say whether a more serious charge than that which I have just mentioned could have been made against us. My noble and gallant Friend the Member for Sandwich, referring to the observations which fell from the right hon. Baronet on that occasion, remarked that the first object which he seemed to have in view was to make an attack upon those who had preceded him in office; the next, to vindicate his asking for the large sum of money which he asked the House of Commons to vote. I have been asked if we were so ignorant or so regardless of the state of the French navy, as the statement of the right hon. Gentleman implied, if it was true that our shores were not adequately protected? Such imputations were of the most serious character; one, indeed, so serious as, if true, to render our conduct in the opinion of the gallant Admiral near me open to impeachment. I trust, however, that I shall be able to demonstrate to the Committee that the charge is devoid of foundation, and to vindicate the characters of the gallant officers who were associated with me at the Admiralty Board, as well as my own from the aspersion which has been thus cast upon them. The accusation which the right hon. Baronet has made against us resolves itself in point of fact into three heads:—that we neglected to ascertain the state of the French navy; that we did not build an adequate number of ships-of-the-line; and that we left the coasts of this country unprotected so far as its safety depended upon the existence of a sufficient number of screw and other steam ships. I shall now proceed to deal with those three charges. I went to the Admiralty during the progress of the Russian war. The right hon. Baronet who preceded me there had made great exertions to strengthen our navy, and it became my duty to proceed still more vigorously in the same direction in the year 1855, and in the early part of 1856. The result of those efforts was the magnificent fleet which in the spring of the latter year assembled at Spithead, winch was alluded to in terms of high praise by the hon. Member for Norfolk, and which I have reason to know excited upon both sides of the Atlantic the greatest admiration of the naval resources of England. It is of course perfectly just to say that our attention had been principally directed to the building of vessels which were required for the purposes of the war in which we were engaged, but it is not correct to state that the building of line-of-battle ships was neglected during the years 1854, 1855, and 1856. It may, under the circumstances, he matter of interest for the Committee to know what was actually accomplished during this period. I will state, then, that the number of steam vessels which was added to our navy during the three years I have just mentioned was:—Line-of-battle ships, 14; frigates, 6; block-ships, 5; mortar ships, 3; corvettes and sloops, 18; floating batteries, 8; gun-vessels, 28; gunboats, 156; troop and store, 10; tenders, &c., 36; making altogether 284 steam vessels; added to which there were 106 mortar vessels constructed. Such was the addition which was made to the steam force of our navy during the last three years of the war. In 1856 came peace, and it of course became necessary to reduce our naval force from the war establishment. No reduction, however, in the rate of building in our dockyards took place for nine months after, and they were not reduced fully to a peace expenditure until the 1st of April, 1857. It became my duty in 1856 to consider the state of our navy with respect to the question of what our peace establishment should be, but I had not an opportunity of making a statement upon the subject until the month of May, 1857. I then entered into a very full explanation with respect to it. I went at considerable length into a comparison between the state of our own and that of the French navy at the time. I adverted to the comparative strength of both at various periods of our history, and I referred to the additional cost of a steam as compared with a sailing fleet. I gave, in short, to the House, as the right hon. Gentleman did the other day, all the information which I possessed on the subject, and I shall now, with the permission of the Committee, quote one or two passages from the speech which I then made, in order to show that from the first day of the peace, we were fully impressed with the necessity of building large vessels. I said on that occasion: "The French are building large and more powerful line-of-battle ships than ourselves. We ought not to be without the means of meeting such vessels. "I then proceeded to state that the number o French screw line-of-battle ships was forty, while our own was forty-two, and added that in this list I omitted our block-ships which, though very efficient for certain purposes, could not keep their place in a cruising or blockading squadron. I was followed in the discussion which ensued by the noble Lord the Member for Sandwich. Did he think I had overrated the force of the English navy and underrated that of the French? Far from it. My noble Friend said—

"The First Lord had stated that we had forty two line of battle ships. The fact was that we had fifty-one, for the nine screw clock-ships, which he had excluded from his enumeration of ships-of-the-line, were among the most efficient of our line-of-battle ships."

He then referred to the French naval force He was aware that all the French ships were not efficient and he stated the number only which he believed to be so. He observed:—

"As reference had been made to the French navy, he might state that he held in his hand a list of their screw line-of-battle ships with which he had been favoured by the French Minister of Marine. They amounted to thirty-one, so that the number of our steam line-of-battle ships was nearly double that of our allies. He was of opinion, therefore, that the first Lord might with great propriety rest upon his oars, and take the opportunity of consulting members of the naval service before he proceeded to add to the number of those vessels. Instead of increasing our line-of-battle ships he should appoint a committee to consider what description of vessels ought to be built."

I did not take the advice of my noble Friend. I proceeded in building ships, and in doing so maintained a number of men in our dockyards, which was condemned by no less an authority than my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. The building in our dockyards depends entirely on the number of men employed, and when once you have more men than are required for fitting ships and repairs, every addition of men is an addition to the building. Now in reducing from the war establishment we did not reduce our dockyards to the peace establishment of the year preceding the war. We reduced it to the war establishment which my right hon. Friend had sanctioned in 1854, and which was 1,200 men stronger than the peace establishment in ordinary times. What did the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) tell us? He said 10,800 artificers was too great a number to keep up in time of peace. No man is a higher authority on naval matters than my right hon. Friend, but in spite of his opinion, I kept up the larger number of workmen in the yards. As soon therefore as the Russian war was over we turned our attention to building line-of-battle ships, and kept up a larger establishment for that purpose than the right hon. Baronet thought was right during a time of peace. In the course of that year, moreover, I authorized the hiring of additional men, and the excess of wages was £17,000. The amount of building done in 1857 was 50 per cent greater than it was in the year preceding the outbreak of the Russian war, and the result of this appeared in the subsequent year. It must be recollected that the launching of ships depends mainly upon the amount of building done in the preceding year. In 1857, there were added to the Royal Navy 15 steamships, of which only two were line-of-battle ships; while in 1858 there were also 15 ships added to the navy of which 8 were line-of-battle ships. In this year therefore I had increased the total building by one half, and quadrupled the building and converting of ships-of-the-line. In the course of the autumn, however, I came to the conviction that our building was not proceeding as rapidly as was necessary. I went to Portsmouth myself, and I also sent Sir A. Milne and Sir B. Walker the Surveyors of the Navy to other ports, who reported to me upon the subject. Upon their report I prepared the estimates for 1858–9 containing a very considerable increase in the building force of the dockyards. As I have said, the amount of building depends upon the surplus number of men left disposable after providing for the fitting and repair of vessels. The average number of men employed in building in 1857 was 1,600, and we proposed an addition of 1,340 men, or about 83 per cent. It was not my fate to bring on those Estimates, but those figures appeared upon the face of them as prepared by me, and one undeniable proof of what our intentions were. I will now state what was the comparative strength of the English and French Navies in respect of steam line-of-battle ships in the early part of 1858. At that time the French had 22 line-of-battle ships, and we had 25, in addition to 9 block-ships, making a total of 34 vessels fit to take part in any action in the Channel. I have now in my hand a nominal list of the French Navy, and a nominal list of the English Navy made out before I quitted office, and therefore I speak without fear of contradiction. My gallant Friend (Sir Charles Napier) made a similar statement, only that he stated we had 29 vessels and the French 23, but I believe he included in both instances vessels which were being fitted with engines. This statement was made on the 12th of April, and if the gallant Admiral's figures are correct the superiority we had in January had increased. But I must now beg to call into court as the most decisive witness in my favour against the charge of the right hon. Gentleman opposite no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman himself. He, as the Committee are aware, reduced my Estimates, and on the 12th of April when he made his statement I objected to that reduction. I at that time told him I thought he was taking an injudicious step and one prejudicial to the public service by diminishing the Estimates that I had prepared in respect to the outlay for the building of steam line-of-battle ships. The right hon. Baronet upon that occasion said, "The right hon. Member for Halifax had complained that we had not line-of-battle ships enough, and that we had only two more than the French. That was true if only the line-of-battle ships actually afloat were meant, and the block-ships were excluded. He admitted that those block-ships should be superseded by line-of-battle ships as soon as possible, but four or five of those ships were in good condition, and it was not fair to exclude them." The right hon. Baronet also went on to say that if ships building and converting were included, the superiority of England would be still more manifest, and our superiority was more decisive as regarded large frigates. Now, I submit I cannot have a more complete testimony of the condition in which I left the navy. I had no reason to believe that there were any additional exertions being made in the French yards. My noble Friend the Member for Sandwich, who from his acquaintance with French officers had very good opportunities of obtaining information, bore his testimony to this. On the same occasion, after again objecting to laying out any money in building line-of-battle ships, he went on to say that—"he had lately been at Paris and had conversation with French officers on the subject, and whatever reports the late First Lord of the Admiralty might have heard respecting the French navy, he could give him positive information that so far from there being any activity there in building large ships, they were waiting to see what would be done in this country. Sir, I have quoted the right hon. Baronet's words, I now adduce his acts, as more decisive testimony in completely exculpating me from the charge which he has made. The efficiency of the navy in respect of building and repairing ships depends upon three Votes—the one we are now considering for labour in the dockyards, the one for stores, and the Vote for improvements, &c. The right hon. Gentleman reduced every one of those Votes—not hastily—but after having very properly taken a month to consider the Estimates, and then he came down here and spoke of the "prodigious expense" incurred in providing a steam fleet of the "unprecedented force" in the dockyards. He said the pressure for work was only "temporary" and "exceptional." He stated that the reductions he proposed had been very carefully considered, and he was of opinion that the sums originally intended were not, after ample inquiry and deliberation (I quote his own words) required for the efficiency of the service. I had proposed to increase the number of men in the dockyards in order to go on with the building of line-of-battle ships, but the right hon. Gentleman reduced that Vote, and founded his reasons against doing so upon our superiority over the French navy. We are aware of things now which were unknown to us at that time, and it now appears that before then the right hon. Gentleman had received a "submission" from the Surveyor of the Navy that the building of line-of-battle ships would, after the proposed reduction, he insufficient for the wants of the country. I should like, too, to know how the right hon. Gentleman dealt with those two officers who formed a portion of his board as they did of mine. They, I know, concurred in my views of the necessity of increasing the building; how he managed to convert them or to overcome their opposition I cannot tell. The right hon. Baronet must either have converted them to his views, or he overruled the opinions of those officers who had the best means of judging what was right to be done. I have had no communication with those gentlemen upon the subject, but the inference from what took place is irresistible that the convic- tions of the right hon. Gentleman must have been very strong when they enabled him to convert or overrule the opinions of such competent judges. Well, then, if he, after ample consideration and with the fullest information, thought it right to reduce my Estimates because of our superiority over the French navy, I put it to any candid man in this House whether I am fairly liable to the imputation that has now been cast upon me by the right hon. Gentleman that I was ignorant or negligent of the state of the French navy. I think I have pretty well disposed of that charge. There remains the statement of the hon. Gentleman that as regards the number of steam ships, we had left the shores of this country without adequate defence. Before I state what the steam force of our navy was when I quitted office, there is one other point to which I will advert with respect to those block-ships which the right hon. Gentleman last year held in such high esteem, and which he now utterly condemns. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: As sea-going ships.] I said in 1857, that I did not consider them as sea-going ships, but the right Hon. Gentleman condemned that view, and expressed a much higher opinion of them then. He has since told us, "I have no hesitation in saying that the block-ships are totally useless."

That is not correct. It is not in my speech, which I have here.

All I can say is, that I copied these words from The Times' report. The right hon. Baronet may, in correcting his speech for publication—and I see he has a copy in his hand—have struck out those words, but they were reported in The Times as I have quoted them. I would, however, remind the House that they must not suppose that ail the French ships are as fine sea-going ships as our new line-of-battle ships are. There is one of them I know, the Montebello, which has only 140-horse power, while the weakest of our block-ships has 200-horse power. I say that for the defence of our coasts, at least, these block-ships are good and efficient, and as available for that service as many of the French ships-of-the-line are for attack. In considering our means of defence, I must, however, be allowed to take into account the numerous vessels of a smaller class which we possessed, and which, as the noble Member for Sandwich said, no line-of-battle ship could resist. I am content to rest my own case, on the larger ships, and I will state them separately, but for the purpose of dispelling the alarm which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has created, and of showing what our means of defence really were. I must state also the comparative number of smaller vessels, I have a statement of the force in each navy in January, 1858. At that time we had 25 screw line-of-battle ships and the French had 22. We had also nine block-ships and 15 large screw frigates; the French 11 screw frigates. Thus, including the block-ships, we outnumbered the French line-of-battle ships by 34 to 22, and including heavy frigates our superiority was 16 vessels. Taking steam vessels of all other descriptions, large and small, in both countries, I find we had a total of 368, and the French had 144, leaving us a superiority of 224, including the larger ships of 240. Whether with that amount of force our coasts were in any danger, or whether any old woman had reason to fear being disturbed at night by a French invasion, is a point upon which the House can determine for themselves, as well as how the right hon. Gentleman was justified in the statement which he made. The question that has been raised applied only to the building of the larger classes of ships, and I have confined my remarks solely to that point, and I hope the House will agree that I have succeeded in making a complete answer to the charge that has been levelled at me and the Board of Admiralty, with which I was connected, that we were negligent of our duty, and that we left the coasts of this country in a defenceless condition. Whether the state of things which existed when I left office has been altered since, I am not able to say. I have no means of knowing what the French have done, but I do know what the right hon. Baronet has done. He reduced the power of building ships in April, having previously received a submission from the Surveyor of the Navy recommending a different course, on hearing of his intended reduction. In May he told us that he received a second submission from the Surveyor, urging an increase of building; and this I suppose accounts for what I remember was done at the time, namely, putting the men on task and job to increase the work. He received another submission in July, and he also then obtained information of what was doing in the French dockyards, on which information then obtained was grounded the alarm- ing statement which he made to us a few weeks since. He said that in July last we had twenty-nine ships-of-the-line, and the French had the same number, and that at the rate of progress then going on in each country the numbers would be before the end of this year forty French to thirty-six English ships. I am not responsible for the rate of working in 1858. The right hon. Gentleman had to arrange that with the smaller number of workmen in the yards than I had proposed. The rate of work was that determined by him, and not by me: I had intended and anticipated very different proceedings. I have here a statement made from the Surveyor's department, dated Christmas, 1857, showing the state of the ships building at that time, and the probable time of their completion. It is of course impossible to state precisely what would have been the case, but we anticipated launching before the end of the financial year 1859 a larger number of ships than the right hon. Baronet proposes now to launch, with the exception of the eight new vessels about to be converted. To revert, however, to the state of things in July last, the right hon. Baronet became acquainted with the proceedings in the French dockyards which have been alluded to some time in that month. My belief is, that up to the winter of 1857–8 no great exertions were made in the French dockyards, but in all probability since then great exertions were made; nothing else can account for the line-of-battle ships increasing from twenty-two in January to twenty-nine in July. In that country they have the power of compelling workmen to leave private yards to work in the Imperial dockyards, and I have seen lately that a very large supplemental credit is asked for on account of money expended in 1858 for the transformation of the navy. I think it very probable, therefore, that after the winter of 1857–8 great exertions were made in the French dockyards. I could not know this when I quitted office. The right hon. Gentleman might have learnt the fact in the course of the spring, but at any rate he knew it in July. Surely then it was his duty, knowing these things in July, when Parliament was sitting, to have come down to this House and ask for a supplemental Vote to enable him to carry on the work in our dockyards, at least pari passu with the French? To be sure, he told us there were obvious reasons why he should not do so, and he spoke of the alarm that would have been created; and that he could not amend the Estimates to which the Government was pledged. The alarm would not have been greater in July last than it was in February. The Government were not pledged to their Estimates, because the right hon. Baronet, in April, when moving them, said,—

"If the present pressure continues at the close of the Session,—if, in point of fact, we find that the late Government was right, and that they did not exaggerate the requirements of the country, I shall have no hesitation in coming down to the House before Parliament is prorogued."

In July the right hon. Gentleman knew, not only that we were right, not only that we had not exaggerated the requirements of the country, but he knew that which we did not know and could not know, that during the whole spring the French had been making such exertions as to diminish very materially that superiority in large ships which we had when I quitted office. He knew in July all the facts which he knows now, and he ought then to have done what he had pledged himself to the House and the country to do, that is to ask for a supplemental Estimate if there was any necessity for it. But what did he really do? He took the men off job and task work and thus reduced the amount of the work done at the very moment when it was most urgent to increase it. I think the right hon. Baronet assumed a very grave responsibility when he omitted to do as he said he would—come to this House for additional means to enable him to increase the building powers of the country. If he had done so he would not have lost, as he now has lost, nine valuable months. Even if he did not choose to do that he should have employed additional men, and it was his duty to have incurred the risk of exceeding the Estimates sanctioned by Parliament. If he had done so, and had made a statement of his reasons in the following February, the House would, I am sure, not only have sanctioned his proceedings, but they would have applauded them. In my own case, in 1855, after Parliament was prorogued, and we had ordered the construction of a certain number of gun-vessels, we found that the Russians were building at a faster rate than he had expected, and I then consulted my noble Friend then at the head of the Government, and he agreed with me as to the course I should take, which was to order the construction of a large number of additional gunboats, which cost somewhere about half a million sterling. It was my duty to do so, and if I had not done so I should have merited impeachment. I cannot but think the right hon. Baronet has incurred grave responsibility by the loss of those nine months, for, although of course, no one will object to the Vote now asked for, yet money is not time. The loss of time cannot be recovered. I will not longer trespass upon the patience of the Committee, but I think that I have shown that I was neither negligent or ignorant of the state of the French navy—that I did take means which the right hon. Gentleman thought unnecessary to increase the power of our dockyards—that when I quitted the Admiralty our shores were in an adequate state of defence—and that, if from any unfortunate circumstances there should be at the end of the year 1859 any inadequacy of line-of-battle ships to meet any force that France could bring against us, such inadequacy is not fairly to be attributed to any neglect on my part before the spring of 1858.

Sir, I am aware that of all the questions which come under the consideration of the House none are of so painful a character, and none are so distasteful to the House as allusions of a personal character. I do not blame the right hon. Baronet, if he think the statements which I recently made with respect to the condition of the navy bore hardly upon him, for entering upon a defence; but I think he has imputed to me charges which I never made; and, next, I think he has failed in his endeavour to vindicate his own administration of the navy. The right hon. Gentleman has extended his observations to such a length that, at this hour (a quarter past five), I fear I shall scarcely be able to reply to them so fully as I could desire. He complains of this passage in my statement on introducing these Estimates:—

"I may state at once that we ask for this great addition to the cost of ship-building, because I am bound to say that when I succeeded to office I did not find the navy of this country in a proper and adequate state for the defence of our coasts and the protection of our commerce."

These phrases were intended to cover all the various functions which the navy of England has to perform, and, taking that free and extended view of them, I beg to say I adhere literally to that statement. I also said,—

"I cheerfully do justice to former Governments, and especially to that which immediately preceded us, to which in regard to many points great credit is due; and while they left many things still to be done, it is but fair to say that there were strong and obvious reasons connected with the Russian war why certain reforms should not then have been adopted."

Surely there was no want of courtesy to the right hon. Gentlemen in that. I added,—

"It will be seen that during the time that that right hon. Gentleman was at the Board of Admiralty considerable additions of the smaller vessels were made, such as corvettes, sloops, and, above all, gunboats. I am not sure whether the addition of gunboats had not commenced in the time of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle; but our present gunboats were chiefly added by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax, and I do not think a more valuable addition has ever been made to the navy than those: gunboats."

Was that an attack on the right hon. Gentleman? I will trouble the House with one more extract. I said,—

"Those additions were chiefly made in 1856; they had reference to the war then going on with Russia; and the right hon. Gentleman very naturally added vessels of a class suited to the emergency of the moment; but while a considerable force of those gunboats and sloops was added to the navy, the line-of-battle ships and frigates did not increase in the ratio which the interests of the public service demanded. On the contrary, the result of the war was actually to check the progress which ought to have been made in augmenting the number of line-of-battle ships."

Now, Sir, I ask, after reading those extracts—and there are no others bearing on the point in question—is the right hon. Gentleman justified in saying that I brought those three charges against him? If I erred at all, it was surely on the side of courtesy, and I am prepared to say that I do think the right hon. Gentleman, partly from the causes to which I have adverted, and partly from other causes, did not take those steps which were incumbent on him, in the position he occupied, with the view to strengthen our navy, and to make up the deficiency in our line-of-battle ships which had resulted from the introduction of steam. In justification of that statement I would refer to a speech of the right hon. Gentleman made in the month of May, 1857, on bringing forward the new Navy Estimates. He said on that occasion,—

"Nevertheless, it would be unwise not to continue building a certain number of ships of a large size. We must look to what other nations are doing in this respect. It is plain that no great naval engagement could be maintained in the middle of the Atlantic between line-of-battle ships and gunboats. The French are building large and more powerful line-of-battle ships than ourselves; the United States also are building a class of frigates larger than any we have."

Then he added a little further on,—

"He had never said, as had been supposed, that we must bring the numerical proportion of our ships to those of the French up to what it had been during the last war. All he said was, that when our line-of-battle ships only exceeded the French by two that was not the proportion that our fleet should bear."

Here I find in May, 1857, a distinct acknowledgment on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that our line-of-battle ships were not what they ought to be when compared with the French force in that respect. Why, I ask, did he not take steps to redress that inferiority, and to restore the strength of the navy to what it ought to be? [Sir CHARLES WOOD: I did.] The right hon. Gentleman says he did: I join issue with him and say he did not. The statement I have just quoted was made in 1847 by the right hon. Gentleman on moving the Estimates; but in that year he took no steps whatever to correct the deficiency the existence of which he had avowed. He did nothing to remedy it, and we have had it from his own lips that in the financial year 1857–8 two line-of-battle ships were launched, which is one less than the maintaining rate of three per annum. So much for the year 1857. I come now to the year 1858, when I succeeded to office. What had the right hon. Gentleman done then? I understood him to say that eight line-of-battle ships were launched in 1858.

What I said was, that eight line-of-battle ships were added to the Navy in 1858, as appears by a Return which I hold in my hand.

I hold in my hand a Return from which it appears that, instead of eight, the number is only four.

Here is a Return, signed by Sir Baldwin Walker, Surveyor of the Navy, showing that of steam-vessels added to the navy in 1858 there were eight ships-of-the-line—namely, four built and four converted. That is the statement contained in paper 65 of the present Session, for which I moved on the 16th of February.

Well, I hold in my hand a printed Return, showing that there were only four added—namely, the Donegal, the Windsor Castle, the Hero, and the Edgar. I can only reconcile the difference by assuming that there were four built and four converted. But that does not affect the argument I was pursuing, which is, that the right hon. Gentleman, having acknowledged that he was then aware of the deficiency, did not take the necessary steps to correct it. The mode in which I prove this position is by referring to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman on the Estimates of last year. What was that course? The right hon. Gentleman added £100,000 to the Estimates of the preceding year for shipbuilding. Well, we all know that £100,000, even if the whole of that sum had been available for the purpose, would do very little towards redressing the deficiencies in the navy, having regard to what ought to be its proper strength. But the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to add £100,000 was not really an addition to that amount, for he had taken £30,000 too little in the previous year, 1857, so that the actual addition to the Estimates of last year was only £70,000; and I leave it to the House to determine whether an addition of £70,000 to our Naval Estimates was sufficient to bring up our force to the position in which it ought to be, considering the state in which it was at that moment. But I have a still more serious question to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I find in his speech of 1857 a statement to which he has adverted today, but without giving the figures, showing the comparative strength of the English and French Navies. That statement was made on the 18th of May, 1857. The right hon. Gentleman stated the comparative naval force of England and France in 1793, 1817, 1840, and 1857. He was then speaking of ships-of-the-line. His statement was, that on that day, the 18th of May, 1857, the English screw line-of-battle ships were forty-two, and the French screw line-of-battle ships forty. "In this list," the right hon. Gentleman said, "I omit our block-ships, which, though very efficient for certain purposes, could not keep their places in a cruising or blockading squadron." I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman where those forty-two line-of-battle ships are? He stated on the 18th of May, 1857, that we had forty-two screw line-of-battle ships, exclusive of block-ships. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits, that in January, 1858, we had only twenty-five screw line-of-battle ships.

That statement the right hon. Gentleman will find includes the screw line-of-battle ships which were building and converting, as well as those which were afloat. Of those there were forty-two English and forty French. In February, 1858, however, when stating the number of ships immediately available for the defence of our coasts, of course I took into account those only which could be brought at once into service.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has made that explanation, I must say I think he was not dealing candidly with the House, seeing that in his statement on the 18th of May, 1857, when referring to the comparative force of the two countries, he included in the list of English of-the-line ships which were only in course of construction, and many of which are not launched even at this moment. I should have had no objection to the right hon. Gentleman making that statement if he had plainly told the House what he actually meant; but he did no such thing. The House will do me the justice to remark, that in my statement the other night I mentioned how many ships we were building and converting, and what the state of those ships was; but the right hon. Gentleman was not so explicit on the 18th of May, 1857, for he merely said we had then forty-two screw ships-of-the-line, and the French forty. I think every man who heard that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, or read it, would be led to the belief that that was the effective force at that moment; and nobody could ever suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was practically, though not intentionally, misleading the House and the country by stating the number of ships which the country could only suppose were effective, but including, in reality, the ships which now, two years after, are still on the stocks and yet unlaunched. I think the House and the country have a right to complain of the right hon. Gentleman's statement as wanting in candour and ingenuousness. If the force was then in the state in which he has now explained, it was his duty as First Lord of the Admiralty to have said so frankly to the House. I confess I cannot understand, if that was his meaning, how he could have been so wanting in ingenuousness as not to tell the House that, instead of having forty-two ships afloat, we had on his own showing I know not how many; for, in the following month of January we had only twenty-five effective line-of-battle ships. When I succeeded to office I found a fleet with only twenty-five or twenty-six line-of battle ships, and that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed an addition of £100,000 to increase the force. What had he done to correct that state of things? Next to nothing. He did add £70,000 to the Estimates when we had only twenty-five line-of-battle ships. I say the right hon. Gentleman neglected his duty. To come down to this House, as the Naval Minister, and propose an increase of only £70,000 to the Estimates, at a time when we had only twenty-five line-of-battle ships, I say was to fall greatly short of the duty which he owed to this country. The right hon. Gentleman says that one of my charges was that he did not know the state of the French navy at that time. I did not make that charge. But I now say, from the information I have received since I came to the Admiralty, I do not believe they were apprised of the state of affairs in France with that accuracy with which they ought to have been informed. Again, the right hon. Gentleman says I overruled the members of the Board. I beg leave to tell him I did no such thing. We had no difference at that Board, and I am happy to say we never had. The right hon. Gentleman next complains that on succeeding to office I cut down his Estimates. But, how much? Upon the matter of dockyard labour I took off £20,000. I first proposed to reduce the Estimate by £100,000. Sir Baldwin Walker remonstrated, and said he wished I would add £50,000. I did so. I then discovered the error about the £30,000 to which I adverted, and I added that sum; so that when I made my statement to the House in April the real difference between the right hon. Gentleman's Estimate and mine was only £20,000. But I have said before and I say again, that I would not have made that difference, or indeed any difference, if I had known then what I know now of the inefficient state in which the navy was left by the right hon. Gentleman. He talks of my speech of the 12th of April. How long had I then been in office? Why, not a month. And yet the right hon. Gentleman says, that after full deliberation I did so and so. Why, the truth is, I had not then had a full opportunity of ascertaining the state of the English, much less that of the French navy. I only said then that I was unwilling to adopt large Estimates without first satisfying myself of their necessity; but, undoubtedly, if I found that necessity I would ask for an increased Vote. The right hon. Gentleman says I pursued the course which I did in spite of the remonstrances of Sir Baldwin Walker. No such thing. The right hon. Gentleman has mis- understood what I said on a former evening. I corrected the Estimate after I took office, previously to receiving, so far as I remember, that "submission" from Sir Baldwin Walker which came into the Admiralty either at the extreme end of March or the beginning of April. [Sir CHARLES WOOD: March.] But why was it that we received that "submission?" If the right hon. Gentleman had done his duty to the Board of Admiralty, if he had put the navy of England on the footing on which it ought to be, or even proposed to put it on the footing on which it ought to be, why was it, I ask, that the Surveyor of the Navy felt obliged to come to me, immediately on my taking office, and make a remonstrance as to the defective state of that great arm of the public service, and implore that I would forthwith proceed to add to the number of line-of-battle ships? Why, the very fact of that "submission" having been made is the most conclusive evidence which can be appealed to in proof of that neglect of the navy of this country which the right hon. Gentleman has denied. If he had put the navy on an effective footing, Sir Baldwin Walker would have had no occasion to come to the Admiralty with such a "submission" on our immediately taking office. The remonstrance was made in April, and I immediately added £50,000 to what I had proposed. In the following month of May there was another "submission" from Sir Baldwin Walker; and what did we do then? Why, we immediately put our whole dockyard force on task and job work, and it was owing to the exertions we then made that we were enabled to have a Channel Fleet of six line-of-battle ships in August. The right hon. Gentleman says it was my duty to have come down to the House in July and ask for an increased Estimate. But, Sir, it was only at the extreme end of July, just towards the close of the Session, that we discovered that which the right hon. Gentleman ought before to have discovered,—namely, the rapid strides which the French navy was making. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman find that out? Why was it reserved for us in the month of July, in consequence of inquiries prosecuted during the summer? We then learnt the state of the French navy and the rapid advance which it was making; but when those discoveries were made Parliament was on the point of breaking up, and we could not then have come before the House with a Supplemental Estimate without taking a course which was unusual, and unless we had been on the eve of war, or some great national emergency, we should not have been justified in creating the alarm which such a step would have produced in the country. What did we do? Did we neglect the occasion? No. We immediately took the most active and effective steps to adapt our position to it; we proceeded to convert our line of-battle ships, which are now practically added to our navy, and so endeavour to restore to it that efficiency which we found did not exist when I came to the Admiralty. And now that we have come to a new Session of Parliament, and have had to frame our own Estimates, we have not, like the right hon. Gentleman, made a proposal to take a Vote of £70,000, when we had only twenty-five effective line-of-battle ships; we have taken a very different line, and I suspect that is the real cause of the speech we have heard to day from the right hon. Gentleman, and of the sensitiveness he has shown with regard to charges which were never made. Instead of taking a Vote for £70,000, we have proposed to take one for £1,300,000, which will enable us to add twenty-six powerful men-of-war to the navy, and to redress, so far as it is possible to redress, that positive and relative deficiency in our naval force which the late Government had allowed to exist. Sir, under the pressure of time (nearly a quarter to six o'clock) I have had to advert to the topics embraced in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am not aware that I have omitted to notice any of the more important of his observations. I think I have satisfied the House that the right hon. Gentleman had no reason to complain of what I said the other night, and that if I erred at all it was on the side of courtesy. I could not conceal the state in which I found, the navy when he had acceded to office. I explained that matter to the House, however, in a manner which was as fair towards the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as it was possible it could have been consistently with an adequate discharge of the duty which had devolved upon me. I hope, too, I have satisfied the House that, considering the state of things which I found on succeeding to office at the Admiralty, it was impossible, under the circumstances, and with every desire to discharge our duty, to do more than take the steps we have done, with the view to bring the navy to a pitch of efficiency commensurate with the requirements of the times in which we live.

said, he thought that both the late and the present First Lord were to blame. The late First Lord was to blame for having paid off seven sail-of-the-line at the end of the Russian war; and the present First Lord was to blame for diminishing the dockyard Vote of last year, notwithstanding the three "submissions" which had been sent to him by the Surveyor of the Navy.