said, he wished to ask Whether it is intended to introduce, on the part of the Government, any measure for the repeal or modification of the Oath now taken by Catholic Members of Parliament; and, if so, when they will be prepared to lay such measure on the table?

said, it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on the subject during the present Session of Parliament. He would remind the hon. Member that when a Bill on the subject was introduced last Session it met with great opposition. He only alluded to that circumstance to show how difficult it would be to deal with the question in the present Session. He might state that a measure would be unquestionably considered by the Government during the recess, and he had reason to expect that in the next Session a Bill for the modification of the Oath would be brought under the consideration of the House.

said, he rose to ask the Government if it intends to introduce any measure this Session for the alteration of the laws which regulate the relations between Landlords and Tenants in Ireland, with the view of securing compensation to the latter for all substantial and permanent improvements made by them on their holdings.

said, when the hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland replied to that question he would perhaps be good enough to state whether the Government intended to introduce any measure for the reform of the Irish grand jury laws.

said, it was not the intention of the Government during the present Session to introduce any measure for altering the laws regulating the relations between Landlords and Tenants in Ireland; but immediately after Parliament had risen the question would be taken into the anxious consideration of the Irish Government with the view to a settlement. He might add in answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member, that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill relating to the Irish grand jury laws.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Medical Charities Amendment Act during the present Session; and, if so, when such a measure will be laid upon the table of the House.

said, the question was brought under the notice of the House not long ago, and he did not think it was not susceptible of a satisfactory settlement during the present Session of Parliament.

said, he rose to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Trade whether the American Government regard the trade by sea between New York and California as a coasting trade, when the goods are unshipped at Aspinwall and carried across the Isthmus of Panama to be reshipped for California; and, if so, whether it is proposed by Her Majesty's Government to address any remonstrance upon the subject to the Government at Washington? And also, whether since he had given notice of his question another cargo had not been seized, upon the ground of an infraction of the coasting trade of the United States.

said, he was sorry to say he was informed that the cargo of another British vessel, consisting of guano, had been seized upon its way from one port to another of the ports of the United States, which was an infraction of the treaty between the two countries. The question was one of great importance to the shipping interest, and, in the present depressed state of that interest, it devolved upon the House and the Government to take special care that the existing arrangements between the two countries were fairly carried out. It would be recollected that the understanding with the United States, which was embodied in a correspondence between the English Minister at Washington and the Secretary of State for the United States, was that the whole of the privileges conferred by the laws of Great Britain upon the ships of the United States should be conferred upon British ships by the United States, except as regarded the coasting trade. A very large and expansive meaning was attached by the United States to the term "coasting trade," for they made it include the trade from the east coast of America, from New York and New Orleans on one side, round Cape Horn to California on the other side of the continent. He did not, at the present moment, contend that they were not technically right in that interpretation, because by the law of 1817 the coasting trade was declared to be the trade from one port in the United States to another, so that if a vessel were chartered from one port of the United States to another in one continuous voyage, it might be contended, by an extreme application of the term, that it came under the definition of the "coasting trade." It was urged by the United States that a similar state of things prevailed in Europe, and that when a vessel made a voyage from Havre to Marseilles, although a part of Portugal and Spain intervened, yet that she was engaged in the coasting trade. It was therefore contended that the question was one of degree and not of principle. Admitting this, he must say that to construe as coming within the definition of the coasting trade a cargo sent from New York or New Orleans to Aspinwall, unshipped there, carried across the Isthmus, reshipped on the other side, and sent to California would be, both technically and in spirit, incorrect. That was, however, the general representation of the shipowners. In consequence of the representations made to the Board of Trade, they had applied to the British Consul at San Francisco, who now happened to be in this country. As at present advised, he should be disposed to say that the English shipowners were under a mistake, and that it could not, even by the laws of the United States, be construed as a coasting trade if goods from one port in the United States were landed on one side of the Isthmus, conveyed to the other, and re-shipped to California. However, in order that no mistake should arise, and as by the increased facilities of communication across the Isthmus it was probable that almost all the shipments for California would be conveyed across the Isthmus, it became a matter of the greatest importance to come to an understanding on the point. The Board, of Trade had there fore called the attention of Lord Lyons to the subject, with the intention of obtaining a satisfactory settlement of this question.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to refer the proposed line of postal service from Eng-land to Australia, viâ Panama, for which tenders have recently been invited and received, to the Select Committee for which he moved on Thursday, the 7th instant?

said, that he bad not intended to make that reference, but if the tenders to which the hon. Gentleman referred had been sent in, they would be within the scope of the reference of the Committee, and it would be within the province of the Committee to examine that and other lines and tenders.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer allow me to ask a question on a subject of great interest,— namely, when he will be likely to make his financial statement to the House, and whether he can name a day for so doing?

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of referring to this subject, since it is one in which the public convenience is very much involved, and my answer to which will depend upon what I may term the forbearance and self-denial of hon. Members, rather than upon the will of the Government. It is the salutary, judicious, and almost invariable rule of the House not to enter upon questions of Ways and Means until the House has passed its judgment upon those items of the expenditure of the year which are at once the greatest and most variable—namely, the Naval and Military Estimates; and my answer to the first question is that it is my intention to submit the financial statement to the House as soon as the Naval and Military Estimates have passed through Committee. If the hon. Member asks when that will be, I must reply by asking another question—how much time will be taken up by those hon. Members who have Motions of their own before going into Committee of Supply. The time might be readily calculated if it depended solely upon the statements made in bringing forward the Naval and Military Estimates, but that calculation might be fatally disturbed if upon successive evenings discussions should be interposed which occupy the greater part of the night. Without in the least wishing to interfere with the discretion of hon. Gentlemen, I must be allowed to point out that the period of the year is now very late, and that very great anxiety is felt by those engaged in the commerce of the country to know what arrangements may be proposed by the Government and adopted by the House with respect to the duty of providing means for meeting the demands of the year. Upon the other hand, I may remind hon. Members that upon the Miscellaneous Estimates, which must occupy many nights of the time of the House after the financial statement is made, there will be many opportunities of bringing forward any questions which they may have to urge as an Amendment to the Speaker leaving the chair. I am quite sure it will be for the convenience of the House if hon. Members will waive, so far as they can, those questions until the Military and Naval Estimates have been voted in Committee of Supply, so that the financial statement may he submitted to the House. I can only say the financial statement will be submitted immediately after these Estimates have been agreed to.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what plea the Government has postponed the introduction of a Bill (promised so far hack as 1853) to place Roman Catholic charities under the superintendence of the Charity Commissioners, from whose control they were now especially exempt; and what course they propose to adopt regarding them?

said, he was unable to give the reasons why the Bill in question was postponed last year or in the first Session of the present Parliament. The present Government, during their short period of office, had not had it in their power to propose any measure on this subject. The question was, however, tinder their consideration, and it was their desire to propose a measure to cure the defects which were admitted to exist, and which were now met by an annual Act of Parliament. If it were impossible to carry a permanent measure during the present Session, he should be compelled to propose a renewal of the annual Bill.

I rise, Sir, to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question on a subject of very great interest, whether he has received any official intimation of an armistice which is said to have been agreed on between France and Austria?

The only information I have is in substance the same as that which appeared in the Moniteur of yesterday—that an armistice has been made between the Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria. I have no further information on the subject.

said, it had been his custom to bring forward the question of the Ballot shortly after the assembling of a new Parliament, and he now wished to state the reasons why he did not propose to follow that course at present. He had taken counsel with those hon. Gentlemen who had supported him on this question, who represented the great majority of the Liberal party, and he might add the majority of those hon. Gentlemen who had taken office under the present Government. They considered that there were reasons why this question should not be brought forward during the present Session. The Ballot had been twice before the House during the present year, having been once brought forward unadvisedly, as he thought, after a long debate, and in the middle of the night, and a second time when a full and free discussion took place—a debate remarkable in the annals of the Ballot for the brilliant and argumentative speech made by Her Majesty's Attorney General. Another strong reason for postponing the question of the Ballot during the present Session was, that a vast mass of evidence would be laid before the Election Committees which were about to sit, and then would he made manifest the state of profligacy into which some constituencies had been plunged by the late contest, when great efforts were made by both factions, which, as he believed, used the most unlawful means to obtain their object. With respect to the question of the Ballot in connection with any measure of Reform that might be brought forward by the Government, it was not his intention, or that of his Friends, to place the Ballot in direct antagonism with any well-considered Bill for extending the liberties of the subject and their political rights. It was not his wish to bring forward the Ballot in any factious spirit against the Government, but he was of opinion, and in that opinion he was backed by a large portion of the Liberal party, that no measure of Reform could be final, or even satisfactory to the electors of Great Britain and Ireland, which did not give them the protection of the Ballot at the hustings. He proposed to bring forward the question at the earliest period in the next Session. In the meantime he trusted it would not go forth to the country that he had deserted this great question, which he considered so highly important that it was his intention to press it forward so long as he had health, strength, and a seat in the House.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the serious inconvenience caused by the indiscriminate registration of all obligations to the Crown. As the representative of a constituency (Newark) which was particularly interested in this matter, he wished to explain to the House that all persons who were engaged in occupations that rendered them liable to pay customs or excise duties were required to find two sureties for the due payment of such duties, Those securities were registered, and the effect of such registration was, that they became a charge upon not only the property which the surety had in possession at the time of signing the bond, but also all freehold property which he might subsequently acquire. The persons who became securities were unaware of the extent of the obligation they were incurring, for there was nothing in the document they signed to warn them; but if they wished to part with or deal in any way with their freehold property during their continuance of their suretyship they found they could not do so without obtaining a certificate from the Treasury. He knew of one instance in which a gentleman was obliged to part with land compulsorily to a railway company, but was unable to realize the purchase money fur some months on account of his having become surety for a distributor of stamps. As another illustration, he might mention that there were twenty maltsters in Newark, each of whom had to find two sureties for the due payment of the malt duties, so that no less than sixty persons were affected by the grievance, and in many instances the most serious inconvenience had arisen. He could not see why registration should be enforced, nor indeed why the Crown should have priority of payment over other creditors. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the registration of obligations to the Crown might not, without injury to the public service, be dispensed with, except in cases of default on the part of the obligors.

said, he would suggest that these Crown debts as well as judgments should be unavailable as to real estate until they were put into execution.

said, there was a Bill in- troduced into the last Parliament by Lord St. Leonards, which went far to remedy the evil complained of; that Bill had, he believed, been again introduced, and one of its clauses was calculated to remove the evil complained of by the hon. Gentleman. The existing law acted as a great restraint upon the alienation of property, while little advantage was given by it to the Crown. By the insertion of a few words the clause to which he had alluded might be extended to Crown debts.

said, he was very sensible of the difficulty of this question, but he was afraid that it deserved ampler discussion than could possibly be given to it on that occasion. No doubt it involved topics of general policy, but with respect to legislation he could not move a step without calling in the advice of the law officers of the Crown. He should not express any opinion on the policy of the law which prevailed at the present time, which in substance had existed from time immemorial, and which gave a preference to the debts of the Crown; but he would confine himself strictly to the point raised by the question of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend was not correct in saying that the obligations of the Crown were indiscriminately registered. That was far from being the case. There was a Treasury minute on the subject dated as far back as September, 1852, in which it was stated that it was not expedient to register any bonds in the office of the Common Pleas, except those of a permanent character, where the responsibility amounted to the sum of £1,000 or more for each party to the bond; and then it went on to say that in special cases the legal adviser of any department might, if he thought fit, require registration on his own responsibility, even though the particular bond might be for a less amount than £1,000, though given for a temporary purpose only. That was the basis of the general practice that had prevailed from that time to the present in the departments of the Customs, Excise, Stamps and Taxes, Woods and Works, Paymaster-General, National Debt-office, the War-office, and the Ordnance office, and the effect of it had been a very great reduction indeed in the practice of registration, which undoubtedly was attended with inconvenience. He could give his hon. Friend details for the purpose of showing to what a great degree this evil had been lessened. The total number of Crown bonds regis- tered since 1856 on the part of the Customhouse officer, who used to have to register enormous numbers, was only thirty. He mentioned that for the purpose of showing that the attention of the heads of departments had been called to the subject, and that a great reduction of the inconvenience had been effected. With regard to the other part of the question —namely, whether registration might not be dispensed with, except in cases of default or expectation of default on the part of the obligor—again, without giving an opinion on the policy of the law, he was afraid he must answer the question in the negative. To register a bond in case of actual default would obviously be out of place. The only proceeding that could rationally be taken in case of actual default would be to put the bond in suit, and then the lands and goods of the debtor would be taken in execution. With regard to registration in expectation of default it was quite obvious that that would be a dangerous and speculative ground to go upon. If it meant that they were to register in cases where it seemed likely that the bond would have to be resorted to, it was substantially the same as the present practice, and he was afraid that they could not effect any change in the present practice. They could not change the practice by adopting any absolute rule so long as the law remained on its present basis. It was, he admitted, a serious question, and. in case the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, should bring it before the attention of the House, he hoped it would receive full consideration, and he could only add that he would be very happy to afford any information which might be required from the various departments concerned in the registration of these bonds.

observed that in the late Parliament he introduced a Bill as to judgments in Ireland, which were a great impediment to the transfer of land in that country. He had given notice of re-introducing the Bill, which was now in an amended shape, and he hoped he should have the support of those hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in this question.

said, according to notice he rose to call the attention of the House to the facilities by which a clergyman of the Scottish Episcopal Communion may by a private Bill obtain admission into the Church of England, even though he may have countenanced what had been condemned by his own Church as dangerous error. It was a very serious question, and one that perhaps derived immediate importance from the fact that a private Bill of the kind, relating to one particular case, would be before the House on an early day. When that Bill should be before them, he himself was at a loss how to deal with it— whether to refer it to a Select Committee, or what course to follow. In the year 1856, about the last day of the Session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an excellent speech, called the attention of the House to the legal disabilities under which clergymen of the Episcopal Church of Scotland lay, and expressed his opinion that there should be a general law on the subject. He was sure there was no Member of that House who would say that if a Scottish clergyman had fallen under the censure of his bishop, he would use his privilege to enable him to obtain admission into the Church of England. At present the Statute Law of the land created a disability, but private Bills were brought before the House to remove that disability in individual cases, and if Select Committees could be appointed to inquire into each case he should see no objection, but on the other band he could not see how the Church of England could be kept pure if Scottish clergymen who had fallen into error could be admitted almost without question into the Church of England. With regard to the case that was to come on before the House soon he would only make one remark. His hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) had called his attention to a statement which he (Mr. Steuart) had made on a previous occasion in the House with regard to the same case, when it was alleged that he said he had been in the chapel of the gentleman in question, and while there had seen him make use of burning incense in his church. By burning he could only mean such an inference as to that fact as he could make from smell. He certainly had seen flags and banners in his church. A communication which he had received from the Parliamentary agents who were promoting the private Bill in question stated that he (Mr. Steuart) was mistaken as to the burning of incense, and that the odour which be had perceived arose from fumigation for other purposes than of religious worship, and that the banners admitted of a similarly ready ex- planation. The fact of banners, then, was admitted. He did not mean to misrepresent the gentleman concerned in anything which he had said; he was sure the House would concede that to him. He wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he considered a remedy should be devised, either by a public enactment or by regulations, regarding private Bills of so unusual a nature?

said, that whatever might have been the fact in the case alluded to by the hon. Member, he (Viscount Palmerston) thought that while hon. Members had recently been suffering from the exhalations of the river close at hand, they would scarcely have criticised any course that would have rid thorn of the unpleasantness, oven at the risk of their being charged with License-burning. With respect, however, to the question put by the hon. Member, he believed that a Bill would come before them on Monday relating to the subject which had been brought under the consideration of the House. The Bill, he believed, was a private one, and though he did not think that was a proper way of dealing with matters of this sort, he thought that the time when the Bill was brought forward would be the proper one for making any suggestions that might be offered.

said, when, Sir, I gave notice last night of my intention to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Question, I did so under the notion that I was by that means adopting the fittest mode of dealing with the matter. I would abstain from pressing any question which the Secretary for Foreign Affairs should not think it desirable to be intruded, but I thought that occasion would give me the opportunity of pointing out why the document referred to might, with advantage to the public service, be laid on the table of the House. Before I proceed, however, to make any such observations, I hope the House will permit me to make a short explanation which is, I think, rendered necessary by the somewhat abrupt contradiction which was given the other day by the right hon. Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood) to a statement which I then made. I then asked whether there would be any objection to lay upon the table a communication stated to have been made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, giving advice to the Courts of Germany as to the course they should pursue with reference to the war now raging in Italy. I referred to this communication as one which I might fairly impute to the Government upon the authority of the right hon. Secretary of State for India; but that right hon. Gentleman with, I think, more vivacity than courtesy, at once exclaimed "I never said anything of the kind." Now of course, I am bound to accept the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman; but I deem it due to myself that I should state the grounds upon which, as I think fairly and justly, I was led to attribute that statement to the right hon. Gentleman. On referring to the report in The Times newspaper of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to his constituents at Halifax, I find these words attributed to him: —

"We have seen recent accounts that in a largo portion of Germany a strong spirit prevails by which they seemed disposed almost to engage in hostilities. I hope and trust that their own good sense, aided by the advice which we have given them since we came to power, will induce them to abstain from hostilities."

The right hon. Gentleman further said:—

"I believe that in the endeavour to keep Germany out of the war we shall be consulting the best interests of the country."

Now I find that report is identical with the report that appeared in the Daily News, the Morning Herald, the Morning Chronicle, and other morning newspapers of the following day. Even if this were all I should be entitled to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman the announcement that advice had been given by Her Majesty's Government as to the course which should be pursued by the German powers with regard to the war in Italy. I find however that the right hon. Gentleman's speech has apparently led not only me, but others into error, for that speech was thus commented upon in the leading article of The Times.

"We learn from Sir Charles Wood that our Foreign Minister has not been idle, and Prussia has been subjected to the same admonitions, expostulations, and warnings which so signally failed of their effect when addressed by Lord Malmesbury to France, Austria, and Sardinia."

As far as I was concerned the case does not even rest here; for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had attracted the notice of my noble Friend, the Earl of Malmesbury, and he thought it his duty to make sonic observations with reference to it in "another place," where he expressed his fear lest this officious giving of advice should be found to prejudice our position of neutrality, and might therefore impose unnecessary responsibility upon the Government of this country. I find that, Sir, in answer to the observations of my noble Friend, one of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, the Duke of Newcastle, said that, although he had not been able to read the report of the right hon. Baronet's speech, he had no doubt of the accuracy of that report, and he further said that the despatch alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman would not bear the construction to which the Earl of Malmesbury seemed to apprehend it was open. Now, Sir, when I found an identical report in all the morning Newspapers attributing to the right hon. Gentleman a statement that the present Government had given advice to the Powers of Germany with reference to the course to be pursued with regard to the war in Italy—when I found that that language was understood in the same sense by public writers, and that a noble Duke—the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman expressly stated that the language held by the right hon. Gentleman referred to a despatch of which that noble Duke was cognizant, I think I was perfectly entitled to attribute that statement to the right hon. Gentleman; and while I entirely accept his disclaimer I cannot but think he must have been somewhat precipitate in stating so decidedly that he not only had not said what I attributed to him, but that he never said anything of the kind. Now with reference to the question I wish to put to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I beg to assure him that my experience of the department over which he presides is far too recent to permit me to press him to produce any papers which he may think it desirable for the public interest to withhold; but I must say, at the same time, that I think the paper to which I refer does not come within that category, I do not ask for the production of any correspondence, or for anything having reference to pending negotiations, but we have had a circular from the Government of Russia expressing their views with regard to the present position of Germany — we have had a circular addressed to the various French Ministers at foreign Courts by M. Walewski,—and I think this country and Parliament should be in possession of the most authentic records of the opinions of our own Government upon the same subject. I think it is only desirable that we should be in possession of the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject, but that it is also very necessary that this House should know the language in which these views have been expressed. It may be that that language is judicious; it may be that it is conciliatory; it may be that it is all this House could desire; but, on the other hand, it may be such as is calculated to irritate and to wound the susceptibilities of those to whom it is addressed. However commendable may be the intention of a statesman in writing a despatch, it is not always that a public man is successful in attaining the object he has in view. A very remarkable instance of this occurs to my mind, because, on a former occasion, when the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) held the seals of the Foreign Office, he addressed a very important despatch to the Court of Russia. The laudable object of that despatch no one doubted; but, addressed as it was to that Court at the very time when those confidential and secret communications with Sir Hamilton Seymour were going on, it has been characterized in this House, and by public men in the country, as having clone more than anything else, notwithstanding its laudable intention, to provoke an outbreak of hostilities, and encourage the Emperor of Russia in the pursuit of those designs and the adoption of those measures which afterwards rendered a war between Russia and this country inevitable. It is therefore desirable that we should know not only what the policy of the Government is, but what arc the exact terms and phrases in which they have conveyed that policy to foreign Governments. If, under present circumstances, and especially after the news which has just been received, the noble Lord thinks it better that the despatch should not now be produced, I will say nothing further. But I shall now conclude with asking whether there is any objection to lay on the table the despatch alluded to by the right hon. Member for Halifax on the occasion to which I have referred?

(who was indistinctly heard), — Sir, I may be permitted, before the noble Lord rises, to offer a few words in explanation of what I did say at Halifax, and of why I made the answer that I did yesterday to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted. I understood the hon. Member yesterday to ask for the production of a despatch which I had stated had been addressed to the different Courts of Germany, urging on them an adherence to a course of firm neutrality in the present war; and in reference to that assertion, speaking perhaps with a little warmth, I remarked that I had said nothing of that kind. What occurred at Halifax was this: —Many persons there were very much interested in the trade of the Continent, and, apprehending that their business would be entirely stopped by the war, they expressed great alarm at a report which they had heard that Prussia was on the point of taking an active part in the struggle. On the other hand a large number of people were also apprehensive lest the preparations going on in this country should render the maintenance of our neutrality much more difficult. To quiet these alarms I told them the first place that the present Government were not more likely than the last to abandon the policy of neutrality, and I assured them that the naval and military preparations which had been for some time in progress were not intended, as I believed, by the late Government, and certainly not intended by the present Government, in any way as a departure front that policy. But I added, that events might happen elsewhere, for example in Germany, by which, if the war extended, this country might possibly become involved; and that out of consideration for our own interests, and even for our own obligations, we might be called upon to interfere. I further said, I hoped and trusted that this would not be the case—that the statement that Prussia was on the point of taking an active part in the war was unfounded — that that was a course which I thought a regard for her own interests should induce Prussia not to pursue, and that we had also given our advice to that effect. Not that we had advised Germany that she ought to remain neutral. That would, perhaps, have been going further than we had a right to do; but that, looking to the interest which this country felt in the question, she was justified in urging Prussia not to take an immediate and active part in the war now raging in Italy.

I certainly never used in relation to this despatch the words which the right hon. Gentleman has described. I spoke of it merely as a communication on the part of Her Majesty's Government giving advice to Prussia as to the course to be pursued with reference to the war.

I rise, Sir, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present state of Mexico, especially with reference to the outrages which have been committed upon British subjects; and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to obtain redress for such outrages. As the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs cannot speak twice on the present occasion I trust I may be allowed in a few words to introduce to his attention the subject of which I have given notice. Although that subject is in no way connected with the European war, I am sure that the House will consider it of sufficient interest to claim their particular attention. It relates, Sir, to the present state of Mexico and the outrages that have been recently committed upon British subjects in that Republic. Before entering upon a description of those outrages I hope I may be allowed to state, in a few words, the position of parties in Mexico. There were two leading parties, the Centralists, and the Constitutional party. In 1857 the Constitutionalists were overthrown, and the Centralist party obtained power. In the course of that revolution General Marquez, who was in command of the forces, took possession of the city. One of the General's first acts, after obtaining possession of the city, was to order into prison a British subject who had been brought before him under some trifling pretext, and to sentence him to pay a fine of 1,500 dollars. The name of this person was Mr. Newall, a respectable British gentleman; and upon his inability to pay this fine the General ordered him to be shot at six o'clock on the following morning. Fortunately, a friend and countryman of Mr. Newall, having heard of his situation, and the sentence that had been passed upon him, found the money and paid it, otherwise Mr. Newall would have been undoubtedly shot. At about the same time a Mr. Davis, another British subject, whilst residing in another part of the Republic, was arrested by the Mexican officials for some assumed offence, and was also fined a large sum of money. Mr. Davis having refused to pay the demand was sentenced to prison, and was degraded to march in the army as a common soldier. All this punishment Mr. Davis was compelled to undergo. I will not trouble the House with an account of the many minor outrages that were perpetrated on British subjects. I will rather pass on to the time when the late Government thought those proceedings of sufficient importance to send a British squadron to the Gulf of Mexico, and to introduce a paragraph into the Queen's Speech in February last in reference to the matter, thereby showing what their feelings were in respect to those outrages, and the prompt and energetic measures they were taking to obtain redress for British subjects in that part of the world. In April last, some three months after the squadron had arrived in the Gulf, and when one might expect that it would have exercised some restraint upon the parties guilty of those outrages, a battle took place in a village about six miles distance from the City of Mexico. After that engagement had terminated a Mr. Duval, a British subject and a surgeon by profession, in the exercise of his humanity, stripped himself of his outward clothing for the purpose of being the better enabled to attend to the wants of those who had fallen in the field, and to dress their wounds. Whilst engaged in his noble work of charity he was seized by order of a general of the Centralist party, led to a particular spot in the neighbourhood, and then and there shot as a felon in the presence of the army. Now, I believe that there has hardly ever happened a greater outrage than this I have just mentioned. At the same time another British subject, a Mr. Selley, who was engaged in business, being the proprietor of a certain store, was arrested for entertaining in his house some of the opposite party, and condemned to death. He was led in manacles into the city of Mexico at the head of the troops, but by a most fortunate circumstance he was rescued from the horrible fate that awaited him, and he is now alive. This gentleman was, however, actually led out to be shot, and the men were preparing to fire at him, when they were suddenly stopped by the interposition of another Mexican general. These matters affected the British merchants in Mexico in a serious degree, who feared the outrages against their lives far more than those against their property. But, Sir, the outrages committed against their property were by no means few or of a trifling character. In one city a very large amount of property, to the amount of £40,000, was seized by the Mexican authorities, half of which really belonged to British subjects, and the whole was under the protection of British subjects, I regret to have to add that while all these proceedings were going on great reflections were cast upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Minister at Mexico for the extraordinary indifference he manifested throughout. I do not give this character of the gentleman from my own knowledge. I wish to avoid casting any aspersion myself upon the character or zeal of Mr. Otway, as our Minister in Mexico, but I think it desirable, when I know that those aspersions have been cast upon that gentleman, and apparently believed to be true by the British residents in Mexico, that Mr. Otway should have an opportunity of defending himself if he could; and, I trust, that the noble Lord who now presides at the Foreign Office will endeavour to draw from him such an explanation as will necessitate a retractation of those charges. Sir, I will not detain the House by inflicting upon it a catalogue of the grievances of British subjects in Mexico. I may merely mention one alleged fact, which has made a strong impression upon their minds. It is this. At the time the squadron was in the Gulf the British residents in Mexico sought to obtain redress from the Centralist party. At the moment when it was supposed that Mr. Otway was negotiating for an inquiry into those matters it was noticed that he appeared to be on the most familiar terms of intimacy with Madame Miramon, the wife of the head of that party. On one occasion, when a British subject was being led to execution for no crime whatever, it is stated that this lady was observed standing on a balcony with Mr. Otway, and cheering on the troops that were guarding him. These circumstances naturally excited a considerable amount of indignation in the minds of British subjects in Mexico. Strong remonstrances were made by the British residents in reference to Mr. Otway's conduct, and they said that if Mr. Otway was on such friendly terms with this lady and her husband there was no doubt that he could have obtained pardon for this man if he were at all disposed to exercise his influence in that quarter. But it appears that Mr. Otway did not exercise any such influence in behalf of his fellow-countrymen, for I hold in my hand a copy of a letter from the American consul in Mexico addressed to Mr. Otway, in which he calls upon the latter to exercise his rights as British Minister in order to save the lives of British residents. I say, Sir, that the case must be one of a shameful character indeed when the Minister of another nation should feel himself compelled to urge upon our own Minister the necessity of interposing his authority to save the lives and property of his fellow subjects. Mr. Otway is in the hands of the Foreign Office, and will of course be called upon to give an account of his conduct in reference to those matters. I have now detailed the prominent facts of the case as briefly as I could. I trust the House will say I have not intruded myself upon its attention without sufficient cause. I hope that the noble Lord will give to me an assurance, that will find its way to our fellow-subjects in Mexico, that all the protection which the British Government can offer will be given to them; and that the British residents there will no longer be condemned to live from day to day in fear of their lives, nor be subject to a recurrence of those outrages so lung as we can command a, British fleet in the Gulf of Mexico.

said, that in the absence of his noble Friend (Lord W. Graham) he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Circular of Count Cavour, dated the 14th day of June, 1859, has been officially communicated to the English Court; and if so, whether he has deemed it consistent with his duty to make any reply thereto, or to address any observations thereon to the Sardinian Minister in this country. That despatch referred to one of the 1st of March, which had been published, and of which it purported to be merely a recapitulation. Nevertheless, while the despatch of the 1st of March spoke about obtaining a separate national constitution for Lombardy and Venice, the later despatch accepted the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont. On this point the following language was held—

"The feelings of the inhabitants have broken out; the municipal authorities, the very same that had been instituted by Austria, have proclaimed the fall of the ancient Government, have renewed the union of 1848, and unanimously con-firmed their annexation to Piedmont. The municipality of Milan proclaimed it even within range of Austrian cannon. The King, by accepting this spontaneous act of the national will, infringes the existing treaties in no respect, since Austris, by refusing to accept a Congress having for its basis the maintenance of these treaties, and by invading the dominions of His Majesty, has torn up, in so far as concerns herself, the transactions of 1814 and 1815.

The despatch then proceeded to say—

"The object of the present war, His Majesty openly avows it, is Italian independence and the exclusion of Austria from the peninsula. This cause is too noble for us to dissemble its full bearing, too sacred that it should not obtain in advance the sympathy of civilized Europe. We even ought to acknowledge that this sympathy has never failed us, for the policy of the King's Government has always been the same, and has met with the approbation not only of the public opinion but of the Cabinets."

The document concluded as follows:—

"We feel the most absolute confidence that the equilibrium of Europe will not be disturbed by the territorial extension of a great power, and that in Italy there will be a strongly constituted kingdom, such as is naturally indicated by its geographical configuration, the unity of race, language, and customs, such as diplomacy had already desired to create at other times in the common interest of Italy and Europe. With the rule of Austria, and of the States that joined their destinies to those of Austria, a permanent cause of disturbances will disappear, order will be guaranteed, the smouldering flame of revolutions will be extinguished, Europe will be able to give herself up in full security to those great enterprises of peace that form the glory of the age. You now have, Monsieur le Ministre, the point of view under which you are to present the events now passing in Italy. The contest provoked by Austria ought to have for its result her exclusion from a country which force alone had subjected to an odious and intolerable yoke. Our cause, I rejoice to repeat in ending this despatch, is noble and just; we can, we are bound to avow it openly, and we have full confidence in the triumph of good right."

This despatch conveyed so much meaning, and was written in so different a spirit from the earlier one, that it would be most desirable to have the noble Lord's answer laid upon the table.

In answer to the question which has just been put by the hon. Gentleman, and which was to have been put by the noble Lord the Member for Hereford, relating to a despatch or circular of Count Cavour of the 14th of June, I have to state that it has not been officially communicated to the British Government. There is a despatch from Sir James Hudson, stating the substance of a circular written by Count Cavour—I am not exactly sure whether the same circular or not—which alludes to certain States being annexed to Piedmont. The answer of Her Majesty's Government to Sir James Hudson was that they could not acknowledge any of these annexations of other States; that the state of occupation must be considered as provisional only to be decided finally by the wishes of the inhabitants, by the fortune of war, and by any general treaty of peace that might be concluded. This answer Sir James Hudson was desired to communicate to Count Cavour. There is, therefore, no acknowledgment by Her Majesty's Government of any of the annexations that may have taken place. I will next reply, Sir, to the question which has been put by the hon. Gentleman the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. His question is, whether I have any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of despatch stated to have been addressed to the Prussian Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Berlin as to the course of conduct which Prussia ought to pursue with reference to the war in the north of Italy. In answer, I have to state that it would be very inconvenient to the public service if that despatch were laid on the table. It is a despatch to which an answer has been given by Prussia; while, again, another was sent only last night by Her Majesty's Government, continuing the correspondence. I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that it would be highly inconvenient to give publication to part only of a correspondence. But with respect to the nature of the correspondence the hon. Gentleman has very naturally fallen into some errors. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a circular addressed to the Germanic Confederation from the Court of Russia, and of another circular signed by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Walewski. The circular of the Court of Russia, and I think also that of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, spoke of the rights and duties of the Germanic Confederation, and of what was the proper course for that Confederation to pursue in regard to foreign nations. Now, that is a kind of discussion naturally interesting enough for the States of Germany; but we have not followed any such course. We have not discussed at all the rights and duties of the German Confederation or the rights and duties of the several States, or what should determine their relations to other Powers. But with regard to Prussia, owing to rumours that were in some degree countenanced by official statements, we addressed a despatch to that Court. Now, in looking at the Italian Papers on the table, I see a despatch from the Earl of Malmesbury to Lord Bloomfield, our Minister at Berlin, in which, after stating that the Govern- ment of this country intends to remain neutral, he says,—

"Her Majesty's Government, therefore, deprecate any act which would unnecessarily extend the theatre of war, and they will be prepared to take advantage of any favourable opportunity that may be afforded to them of being the medium of restoring peace."—p. 402.

Now, the whole object of our despatch to the Court of Berlin was to "deprecate any act that might unnecessarily extend the theatre of war." It appears to me that it is the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government, as far as they can properly do so, to consult with other Governments which are neutral in order to prevent the theatre of war from extending. I need hardly point out to the House, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman, who is so well acquainted with foreign affairs, that while it is a great calamity to have war in Italy, it would be a still greater calamity if the war extended to Germany, and through Germany to the whole of Europe. We were, therefore, led to consider what were the causes put forth that should induce Prussia to take part in hostilities, and to discuss in the most friendly manner the interests of Prussia in regard to the war. In regard to the latter part of the statement of the hon. Gentleman it is peculiarly necessary that there should be no premature publication of correspondence at this moment; for, without knowing how far the armistice may extend, we are informed officially by the Moniteur that it leaves room for negotiation. That is so important an announcement that it would be unadvisable for the Government, and very unwise for any Member of this House to enter into discussion on this subject. Our disposition must ever be the same as that of the late Government— namely, to take any opportunity afforded us of "being the medium of restoring peace." We may not take the same view in regard to what would be the most favourable time for restoring peace to Europe; but with regard to the object we are entirely agreed with them. The hon. Gentleman—surely very unnecessarily—referred to a despatch of mine written some years ago, and communicated to the Court of Russia. The fact, with regard to that despatch, was that the late Emperor of Russia thought it advisable that there should be a concert between this country and Russia with regard to the future state of Turkey, supposing the Government of the Sultan to be destroyed. We did not think fit to enter into any such concert, and the Emperor of Russia was told so in a despatch that was afterwards in sub stance repeated and enforced by the Earl of Clarendon, who succeeded me at the Foreign Office, upon the Russian Minister at this Court. The Emperor of Russia accordingly wholly abandoned that proposition; and therefore, how anybody, even in the extreme of factious misrepresentation, can say that that course of conduct on my part had anything to do with the breaking out of the war with Russia. I cannot understand. I now come, Sir, to the question that has been put to me with regard to Mexico, and I own that the subject is one upon which I must necessarily be very brief and general. Mexico, most unfortunately, has been divided into two envious parties, both of whom have been guilty of many outrages on British subjects in pursuit of their respective objects. It appears that the British Minister is considered favourable to one side, and that the Minister of the United Stales is considered favourable to another side; but whatever may be the truth of these representations it is undoubtedly true that both from the one side and from the other, both from the Centralist party and the Constitutional party, British subjects have suffered great outrages. Their property has been taken from them, and in certain cases where it has not been given up they have been brought to be executed, and in one instance it required the greatest efforts on the part of the British Minister to save the life of a proposed victim. As to the outrages that occurred in the first instance the late Government employed a squadron to procure redress, and this House is aware of what followed. I can only say that Captain Dunlop did his duty with great zeal and great discretion. But, unfortunately, since the arrangements then made, there is a fresh arrear of outrages to be complained of, and the serious question to be considered is, what should be done to protect British subjects against them. Undoubtedly it is the duty of the Government to protect them, and I may say that no effort will be spared to effect that object. With regard to Mr. Otway, he has lately received leave of absence, in order that he may come to this country and make his defence against the charges which have been brought against him. He himself considers those charges totally unfounded; but I regret to say that he has not entered so much into particulars as to enable me to lay papers on the table which will show that ha is in the right and the British merchants in the wrong. In conclusion, I have only to repeat that for the protection of British property as much will be done as can possibly be done in the circumstances.

remarked, that the noble Lord had stated that it was the duty of the Government to give such advice to the German Powers as might prevent the theatre of the war being extended. That was a very specious and plausible expression. In one sense every one would assent to it, but it was difficult to see to what extent the meaning of that expression might not be carried. He understood that the advice given by the Government to the German Powers was that they should observe a strict neutrality.

I did not say that we had given any advice to the German Powers. I said that we had been in correspondence with the Court of Berlin.

said, he understood that the despatch in question stated the view which the Government took of the course that the German Powers ought to pursue. Those Powers had not the advantage which we enjoyed of being an island; they were placed in a very different position to us. They had seen with considerable alarm this revolutionary war carried on by France and Sardinia against Austria. He called it a revolutionary war because it was carried on with appeals to nationalities, and by attempts to stir up the subjects of independent States, with whom neither France nor Sardinia had any cause of quarrel, to revolt against their Sovereigns. He was not unwilling to see the principle of Italian independence carried out; he had always felt that the question of Austrian power in Italy was a difficult one; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the present war was one of open and avowed conquest and carried on by revolutionary means, and in a manner quite new to the history of Europe. He did not wonder, therefore, that Germany saw with great anxiety the progress of the enormous, powerful, and apparently irresistible army of France. The noble Lord said that no advice had been given to the German Powers; still the House had a right to gather from what he said that the opinion of the Government was that the German Powers should remain perfectly passive in this matter, and should wait their turn, for their turn would come, to be devoured by France. He thought the Government would act very wisely by leaving the Germans to mind their own business. They were perfectly competent to understand what the interests of their great Confederation and of their different States required from them; they understood this much better than we did. If a powerful country like England gave advice to those German Powers, it must necessarily interfere with their policy to a considerable extent. As an island and a maritime country, England had much less to fear from France than the Germans had. We ought not to exercise the influence of this country to prevent the Germans from taking such a course as they thought might put some check upon the aggressive and conquering policy of France. He was not afraid of the consequences of an attempt to invade this country. If it took place he believed it would be defeated most effectually; but he did not feel quite so confident as many persons did that our turn might not come to repel the aggressive and conquering spirit of which he had spoken. On the contrary, he believed that Austria had been to a great extent fighting the battle of England when she opposed that conquering spirit of France. He looked with hope, and not without satisfaction, to the new state of things that had been brought about in Italy by the success of France. At the same time, he would warn the Government and the House, when they talked about sympathy with France, to remember that our turn might come, and probably would come, and that when Franco had overcome and swept back Austria, and had undertaken, probably next year, a successful war against Germany, the time would come when we should have to stand on our defence, and those who were so anxious to express sympathy with France would find it misplaced and see that they ought to have looked beyond present circumstances, when France sought to wipe out the defeat of Waterloo.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government had under their consideration Bessemer's economical process of manufacturing steel, and if there is the intention of substituting that metal for iron to any extent in the manufacture of guns for the Artillery and Ordnance?

said, he had to state that applications had been made on two or three occasions to the War Office, with respect to Bessemer's steel, as to whether it could be used in the manufacture of guns. It might be remembered that Mr. Bessemer started an invention some years ago which made a considerable noise at the time among a great many scientific persons. The Government had offered that if Mr. Bessemer sent in a block of iron, of a certain weight, an experiment would be made therewith; but the Government of that day very properly declined to become ironmasters and take up the invention before it had been sufficiently tested. He apprehended that if there hail been a great demand for this new material, which professed to combine economy with efficiency, the capital invested in the iron trade would have induced many persons to take the matter up, and it should be recollected that if the Government had done this and the experiments had failed all the loss would have been theirs; while if successful they would have gained nothing.

I do not wish to revive the discussion which seemed to be terminated by the observations of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, for I am sure that the noble Lord having stated that the correspondence with Prussia is still going on, the House will not press for its production, or even murmur at its non-production. At the same time, however, I am bound to state that the description which the noble Lord has given us of his own despatch is not altogether free from somewhat of an alarming character. It is quite clear that giving advice is interference, and if you profess a policy of nonintervention and at the same time indulge in giving advice to foreign Powers you will eventually find yourselves involved in engagements which you never contemplated. The noble Lord has quoted a depatch of my noble Friend the Earl of Malmesbury, which fairly described the general policy of the late Government, showing that they were in favour of a strict and impartial neutrality, but at the same time that they felt they were free to avail themselves of any favourable opportunity which might present itself for their becoming a medium to restore peace. The noble Lord gives his adhesion to a principle which I believe no hon. Gentleman will be inclined to impugn. But there is in the despatches of the Earl of Malmesbury another paragraph much more germane to the matter which has been brought under our notice this evening than the very general passage to which the noble Lord has referred in vindication of the course pursued by the present Government. While listening to the speech of the noble Lord there came to my recollection this sentence in a despatch of the Earl of Malmesbury to Sir James Hudson, dated the 20th of May:—

"Her Majesty's Government have done their utmost, within the bounds of friendly representation, to calm the excitement prevailing in Germany, but they have not felt themselves called upon or authorized to dissuade the German States from taking such measures as those States considered to be necessary for the maintenance of their several interests; for they could not assume the responsibility of even morally guaranteeing them against the eventualities of the Italian war." —p. 63.

Now, if you sanction a policy which gives advice to neutral Powers, and in consequence of that advice those Powers take a particular course which may prove to them a disastrous one, you will find that you are involved in what is very happily and accurately called at least a moral guarantee as the consequence of your advice. I think, therefore, the House of Commons will do well to insist on the preservation of a strict neutrality, and not to favour the advice which the nobles Lord seems anxious to give to those Powers at present occupying, like ourselves the position of neutral States. I felt it my duty to call attention to the difference between the quotation made by the noble Lord and the principle laid down in the quotation which I have read, and which appears to me of such importance that the House ought jealously to watch over its observance.

I do not wish to enter again into this discussion, but I think it right to say that the right hon. Gentleman has taken far from a correct view of the course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War his inten- tions with respect to the defences of the river Humber; and in so doing to refer to a report made to the Master General of the Ordnance in 1854 by a committee of officers appointed to inquire into that subject. He asked this question for the purpose of removing a misconception which prevailed on this subject. He should have inquired into this matter had he now been sitting on the other side of the House. It was not the result of any pressure or local apprehension, but he made the inquiry on his own responsibility and in consequence of his having a knowledge of the locality to which he referred, and because he knew the opinion of those most able to form a correct opinion. The question was not purely a local question, but one interesting to every hon. Member whose constituents were engaged in trade and commerce with the North of Europe. In 1852 the state of the Humber attracted the attention of the Board of Ordnance, and the then Master General of the Ordnance considered it his duty to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter. He appointed three officers well calculated from their position to form a correct opinion upon it. One was a colonel of artillery, the other a colonel of engineers, and the third a captain in the navy. Those gentlemen repaired to the spot, made an accurate examination into the matter referred to thorn, and reported upon the subject to the Master General of the Ordnance. Although he (Lord Hotham) had been for years aware of the contents of that report, he hoped his right hon. Friend (the Secretary fur War) and the House would understand and appreciate the reasons which prevented him from going into the details of that report. Suffice it for him to say, that of the recommendations of that Committee only a very small portion had been adopted. The question, therefore, he was anxious to put was, whether it was his intention to cause that report to be carried out. He would add—and no one would dissent from the statement—that whatever might have been thought necessary and desirable then could not be less necessary and desirable now. If his right hon. Friend should answer in the affirmative, of course he (Lord Hotham) should trouble him no further; but if his answer should be in the negative he hoped he would not object to state whether he refused to carry into effect the recommendations of that Com- mittee for certain reasons of his own or through financial considerations. If the answer of his right hon. Friend should be, as he thought it would, in the negative, he should reserve to himself the right of pressing the subject when the House should be in Committee.

said, it was quite true that in 1854 a committee of officers had made a report recommending certain defences for the Humber. Since that time —in 1858, he thought—a further inquiry had been made, owing to the impracticability of carrying into effect one part of the proposals of the Committee of 1854. It had been at one time proposed to give a great armament to the citadel at Hull; but it was found that that would have an injurious effect upon the docks; therefore the plan was abandoned. It was also found that the citadel stood upon ground that did not belong to the Crown, and which was liable to be sold. But in 1858 the Committee had made several proposals for the defence of the Humber. One of those was that a battery of six guns should be placed on the right bank of the river. That battery was now completed. In the last Estimate a considerable sum had been taken by his predecessor in office for de-fending commercial ports. If that vote would bear a portion of the amount being applied to Hull, it certainly should be so applied. No one would underrate the immense importance of Hull, and of giving very early attention to it; and if he found that he could, consistently with his duty, appropriate any considerable portion of that Vote to its defence, he would do so. On the other hand, he would ask, if a large number of guns were to be mounted for the defence of the mercantile community in Hull, that the inhabitants of that and other places should contribute something towards the expense. He hoped, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, that he might consider that a fair bargain.

said, that although a sum of £300,000 had been voted for the purpose referred to, it had only been taken at the rate of about £12,000 a year; so that it would require twenty-five years to complete all those defences. It would be far better to decide at once what was actually necessary to be expended, and either borrow the money or raise it in some other way, spreading the repayment over the whole period. It was of no use going on voting a few pounds every year.

A question of some importance has been raised with regard to the responsibility which the Government is said to have incurred in giving advice to foreign Governments; and it has been said not only that we ought not to advise other States to refrain from increasing their armaments—the fact being that we have given no advice of the kind—but that we ought nut to counsel those States to remain at peace, and to refrain from extending the ravages of war. Now, I find the following advice given by the Earl of Malmesbury to the Confederation. It is contained in a despatch to Sir A. Malet, dated May 1, 1859: —

"I have received your telegram of this day, by which it appears that a Motion will probably be made to-morrow in the Diet, calling upon the Confederation, without any casus fœderis, to make common cause with Austria. Her Majesty's Government trust, however, that the answer which I immediately returned to you by telegraph may have arrived in time to prevent any such ill-advised step on the part of the Confederation, and that the protest which I have instructed you to make against its adoption, and the warning that I have desired you to give, that if Germany should at this early stage involve herself, without a treaty obligation, in the present war, she would have no assistance to expect from England, and that without such assistance her coasts would be exposed to the ravages of hostile fleets in the Baltic, will deter the Diet from adopting so precipitate a course, which would at once extend to Europe the ravages of war, which every friend of humanity must desire to see confined, if possible, to the country in which it has broken out."

Now I do not object to this language, but to state that the Earl of Malmesbury had never given advice to any foreign Power to maintain an attitude of neutrality, and not to enter into war, is certainly not to put a fair interpretation on the language which that noble Earl has used. I do not think I have employed language so strong as that which was directed to the German Confederation requesting it not to take part in the present contest in Italy, and warning the German States that if they did so the coasts of the Baltic would be ravaged by a foreign Power.

The advice which the Earl of Malmesbury gave in this despatch is very frequently given by him in the course of the papers which have been laid before the House, and in none of them more strongly than in that from which I last quoted. He there says—

"Her Majesty's Government strongly declare that Germany should not be influenced in arriving at a decision then under the consideration of the Diet, by any hope of succour from this country."

Now, that is stronger language than any which the noble Lord opposite has quoted; but I apprehend from the language used by the noble Lord himself, that he has written a despatch to the Court of Prussia, in which he has recommended to that Court the adoption of a certain line of policy. That, hon. Members will perceive, is a very different thing from giving Prussia to understand, that if she entered into war, she must not expect the assistance of England. The course which the noble Lord has taken, in short, I do not conceive to be consistent with the observance of a strict and impartial neutrality; while all that the Earl of Malmesbury did, was to impress upon Prussia the conviction that if she engaged in hostilities, she must do so on her own responsibility.

The despatch of the Earl of Malmesbury which has been quoted by my noble Friend clearly does not confine itself to an intimation to Prussia, that if she went to war she must not count upon the support of England, but tells her she must reckon on something else—namely, the ravage of her coasts in the Baltic. The charge which was made against my noble Friend in the early part of this discussion was, that he had given advice to the German Powers. On the other hand, he admitted that he had simply given advice to Prussia, dissuading her from entering into the war which was then being waged in Italy; but the charges made being that my noble Friend had given advice to the German Powers, he proves from the blue-books that the Earl of Malmesbury did not merely give advice to the Diet to abstain from war, but pointed out the course it ought to pursue, and warned it of the dangers which would arise if it pursued a different line of policy from that which the late Government had shadowed out. The late Government protested against the steps which the Diet was going to take, and I do not find fault with them for having done so. I think they acted wisely in the course which in that respect they pursued, but then it is going too far to turn round upon us because we have, although only in a modified degree, adopted a similar policy. If there can be any charge against us, it is on the score that we have not protested against the conduct of the German Powers. Of all men, the late Ministry are the last persons who ought to have found fault with our proceedings this particular.

The noble Lord who has just spoken seems to labour under the impression, that in warning Prussia against ravages in the Baltic, we were speaking of the possible policy of England.

observed, that nothing could more completely breathe a spirit of neutrality than the language which the Earl of Malmesbury had employed.

said, he wished to ask the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Whiteside) what course he proposes to take with respect to the Bills for the adjustment of the relations subsisting between Landlords and Tenants in Ireland, of which he gave notice when a law officer of the Crown.

said, that on the eve of the division which had led to the resignation of the late Government he had been asked by a certain hon. Gentleman what course he proposed to take in reference to the subject to which the question which had just been put to him related. His impression was, however, that the hon. Gentleman who had addressed to him that inquiry had already made up his mind as to how he should vote on the impending division. He had, nevertheless, replied to the inquiry in the only manner in which he could consistently with truth, and had stated that the late Government had prepared a Bill, or rather two Bills, on the subject, and that, in accordance with the instructions which he had received, he hoped to be able to lay them within a few days on the table of the House. He had not, however, entered into any discussion as to what was meant by the words "tenant compensation," for probably one of the compensations they would expect would have been compensation for paying their rents. The House was well aware what course that question had taken in Parliament. The settlement of it which had been proposed in 1852 had been rejected. About a year ago a certain number of gentlemen had waited on the Earl of Derby, with a view of ascertaining from him whether his Government was prepared to take the subject into their consideration. He (Mr. Whiteside) was at the time engaged in carrying through the House the important measure which related to the transfer of land in Ireland, and he would then have found it impossible to proceed with Bills for the Amendment of the law of Landlord and Tenant in that country. The answer, therefore, which had been returned to the gentlemen to whom he alluded was that the Government would inquire into the question. The issue was, that he had in the course of last autumn, received from his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge, who at the time was Secretary of State for the Home Department, an authorized statement of that which the Cabinet would be prepared to do in connection with the subject. He (Mr. Whiteside) had as a consequence applied to the gentleman who had written the best account of the result of the inquiry of 1843, in which 40,000 interrogatories were embodied, and Bills were prepared providing for the settlement of the question, when the House was pleased to give that vote which rendered further progress in the matter on the part of the late Government impossible. He believed that in dealing with the question he possessed the confidence of the gentry of Ireland and of the tenant farmers of Ulster, and thinking it was possible to settle it in a satisfactory manner he had devoted his best endeavours to the attainment of that object. Some hon. Gentlemen, to show their great interest in the subject, deemed it their duty, when the new Government was but a few days in office, to ask whether they proposed to introduce a Bill with respect to it, but he should remind them that it was not the most agreeable of all topics for discussion in the month of July, and that it could not advance the views which they proposed in any great degree to put questions to the noble Viscount opposite at the wrong time, and when they must know that no advantage could result, from the inquiry. A small portion of the Irish Members who were known under the designation of the "independent party" had, he thought, been used rather roughly in the matter, because they ventured to support the late Government against the twenty-one Roman Catholic Members who voted on the side of the noble Viscount. They had been charged with giving up the tenant-right question. He, however, could conscientiously state that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan, and he believed the hon. Mem- bers for Meath, had privately sought for the adjustment of the question, stating that they wanted nothing for themselves, but were simply desirous that a subject of great importance to their country should be satisfactorily disposed of. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had even gone so far as to bring under his notice the case of a priest who had been dispossessed of his farm without adequate compensation for the improvements which he had made upon it by a gallant officer who had returned to take possession of his property from the Crimea. That case had come before the Lord Chancellor in Ireland, and it was but just to the gallant gentleman to whom he had referred to state, that when he had become aware of the remarks which the learned Judge had deemed it his duty to make with respect to it, he had at once written to offer to the priest the restoration of the property which he had held. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had asked him whether the measures which he (Mr. White-side) proposed to introduce would meet such a case, and his answer had been that he thought they would. He had simply to add that the late Government had done all in their power to bring about a settlement of the question of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland, but now that they were no longer in a position to deal with it satisfactorily, they were forced to resign it into the hands of those to whom it had been confided by a vote of that House.

said, that this question, which deeply involved the interests of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland, was not a party question, and it no longer stood in the same position as formerly. The more violent promoters had cooled down, and as the principle was admitted on both sides of the House, he saw no reason why a fair settlement could not be made. He was sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken was too patriotic to refuse to lay the Bill which he had prepared upon the table for the benefit of hon. Members and of the present Government.

I avail myself, Sir, of the earliest opportunity that has occurred since the change of Government, to express my regret that a party vote should have had the effect of delaying, and perhaps of defeating for some years to come, the settlement of this important question, I confess I have heard with surprise that some hon. Members have expressed a doubt as to the bonâ fide intentions of the late Ministers on the subject. Nothing, it seems to me, could have been more explicit than the promise made by the late Government. The bonâ fide nature of that promise was rendered evident (if indeed any extrinsic proof was necessary) by the antecedents of the Government, by the nature of certain attacks made upon them in organs of the Liberal party, and by their conduct subsequent to that promise. The friends of Tenant Right now universally acknowledge that the Bill introduced by Lord Derby's Administration in 1852 was in every respect an admirable Bill, and even the present Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Serjeant Deasy) has expressed his regret that it had not been carried. Many Members will doubtless recollect that it was a large body of Irish Liberal Members, headed by the late Mr. John Sadleir, who succeeded in defeating that Bill. Although Lord Derby's Government was overthrown, the Members of that Government did not give up the question. An eminent Member of the late Cabinet, Lord Donoughmore, brought in two Bills on the subject in February, 1854. Of course Lord Donoughmore's Tenant Right Bill contained compensation clauses. Objection was taken to it on that very ground. A Member of the present Cabinet, no less a personage than the Lord Chancellor, objected to any sort of compensation whatever. That learned Lord distinctly declared that "even prospective improvements were a fit subject for contract, and not of legislation." Another Liberal Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth) also declared that, in his opinion, "the noble Earl's measure went a great deal beyond what was just." When Lord Derby's Government was again restored to office, a, deputation waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to urge upon him the necessity of a Tenant Right Bill. The conversation which the Members of the deputation had the honour of holding with the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was directed altogether to the subject of compensation for improvements. Referring to that conversation, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, in a few days after, that the Government were determined to settle the question in a manner which would be satisfactory to the Irish people. On the hustings of the University of Dublin the late Attorney General for Ireland referred to the Bill which Lord Derby's Cabinet had sanctioned. He stated distinctly that when the Bill became law it would have the effect of preventing a recurrence of cases such as those to which reference has already been made, where tenants are evicted and are refused compensation for their improvements. He actually described—as an example of the action of the Bill in this respect—a case in which a priest was refused compensation for his outlay on land, and he stated that the Bill would provide a remedy for all such cases. The organs of the liberal party in the press assailed the late Government for their Tenant Right sympathies. The Saturday Review said, that "Lord Derby's Government was the only Government that ever had the audacity to sanction Tenant Right." Such was the position of the case when Parliament met. Hardly had the House assembled when the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Irish Members that the very first Bill to be introduced after the financial statement were the Irish Tenant Right Bill, Surely under such circumstances it was not unnatural that Gentlemen from Ireland who had at heart the interests of the Irish tenant, and who indeed value those interests more than they value the party interests in this House, should have given the late Government some support on a vote of want of confidence, taken as an Amendment to the Address. What was the result of that party move? I have heard with deep regret the answer which the right hon. Gentleman, the present Attorney General for Ireland, has given on this subject. The late Government had a Cabinet measure prepared. The present Government are not even ready to promise a Bill of any kind this Session. We are now informed that the subject will be carefully considered by the Irish branch of the Administration after the present Session has closed. If they determine on a Bill, they will report their deliberations to the Cabinet. The Cabinet will then proceed to consider the subject; and it is possible that the Government may be in a position to promise a measure of some sort or another next Session. The Tenant Right question is by far the most important in relation to Irish interests which has been agitated for many years. I earnestly hope the present Government will deal with it more speedily than they appear at present to think expedient. I can assure them it is a question, the urgency of which cannot be overrated. But, whatever course Her Majesty's present advisers may adopt, I feel confident of this, that when the people of Ireland know what has occurred, they will feel grateful to those Irish Members who voted a few nights ago in favour of the late Government.

said, he wished to ask when the Report of the Dockyard Commission, which he understood contained some statements of a startling character with respect to management of the Dockyards, would be laid on the table of the House.

remarked, that there was a Vote in the Navy Estimates for the new Dovor contract; and if that were voted to-night the House would he affirming the contract. He apprehended that the House would much prefer waiting to have the Report of the Contracts Commission before they gave such affirmation. He brought the subject last night before the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told him that it should be considered by the Admiralty; and he hoped now to hear from the noble Lord in his reply to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Vote would not be called for till the Contract Commission should have reported on that particular contract.

said, that in answer to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgewater, he had to state that the Dockyard Commission had reported, and that their Report had been printed; but it was now before the Commission for correction. Before it was presented to the House it would be laid before the Board of Admiralty, and it would be for them to lay it on the table of the House of Commons. Previously, however, to this being done, he thought it likely that the Board of Admiralty would be desirous of receiving some communication from the Surveyor of the Navy, which he understood the Surveyor was desirous of making on the Report. As soon as these matters had been attended to, he believed the Report would be laid on the table of the House. With regard to the question of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, relative to the packet vote, he thought it unlikely that it would come on to-night for discussion; but if it was the wish of the House that that vote should be postponed, Her Majesty's Government would not object.

said, he was fearful, from what the House had just heard, that a considerable delay would take place before the Report of the Dockyard Commission was in the hands of hon. Members. It was one of those Reports which he alluded to in the early part of the Session, and which he had promised to lay on the table as early as possible. Other Reports which he had promised had not been delayed; and he much regretted the unforeseen delay which had occurred in the preparation of this Report, on the very important subject of the expenditure of large sums of money in labour in our Dockyards. The first part of the answer he did not clearly understand. He thought the noble Lord had said that the Commission had reported, that the Report had been referred to the Admiralty, and that the Admiralty had referred it to their Surveyor. He was afraid, then, he must infer that a considerable delay would take place, but he hoped no unnecessary delay would occur before the papers reached the table of the House.

Sir, I rise to submit to you these very large Navy Estimates. At all times it would be somewhat difficult for a Gentleman who had only been a very few days in a public department at once to take up the Estimates of the Session. But, over and above that, it does so happen that these Estimates are of an unusually complicated character. Many of the items in these Estimates are in fact not only original Estimates, but they have extraordinary Estimates attached to them, and Supplementary Estimates on the top of all. So that, upon several of the Votes, we shall have to consider three distinct classes of Estimates. Under these circumstances I hope I may claim the indulgence of the Committee; and if I fail in giving a proper explanation of the various items, the Committee, I am sure, will feel that it is not from want of the desire to give every possible information in my power, but that it is simply from the fact of my not having yet had time to make myself thoroughly acquainted with the subject. Before I proceed to plunge into this mass of figures I think the Committee will be interested, and that I shall only be doing my duty, if, in a few words, I endeavour to make them thoroughly acquainted with the exact state of our naval force at the present time. I desire to show you what forces we have ready for the defence of our coasts if any unfortunate circumstances should arise in which the honour and dignity of the country demand that we should engage in hostilities. I wish to show what we possess in effective ships, what we possess in reserve, and what we possess in ships building, or in course of construction, and in short to show the Committee what is in reality the present state of our naval property. I will first of all allude to the ships which we have now in commission. It will be for the Committee to decide as to what constitutes a sufficient defence of your coasts. Some will tell you, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) is of that opinion— that yon ought never, under any circumstances, to be without a very strong naval force actually in the Channel. Others think that it is much more advantageous that that which you call your home squadron should not be confined to these waters, but should cruise in the Bay of Biscay, which would afford it a more enlarged field of operation. That, however, is for hon. Gentlemen to decide according to their own opinions. My humble opinion as a naval man is, that for all circumstances in the defence of our shores we may consider that vessels anywhere in the Mediterranean and along the coast of Portugal are, to all intents and purposes, available for the defence of our coast in the event of war. Feeling this, I am now going to show you what you have got in commission at home and in the Mediterranean, and these two forces combined, form, in my opinion, what may be called your available force for the defence of your coasts. Now, we have in commission at home twelve sail of the line, all screw ships, and in the Mediterranean fourteen sail of the line; making a total of twenty-six steam ships of the line in commission. Those ships which are on the home station, especially those which have been very lately commissioned, are, of course, not fully manned; but, whatever faults we may find with the scheme of my right hon. Friend opposite, the late First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to the late proclamation respecting a bounty, if the success of a measure is to be a test of its merits, at least I am bound to say that that measure has been attended with considerable success, as far as it has gone, The ships which have been most recently put in commission are naturally not fully manned, but with regard to the bulk of the great squadron which I am about to enumerate, they may in truth, for all practical purposes, be considered as vessels fully armed and fully manned, with the exception of those which have just been commissioned, and in all respects ready for service. I have paid, then, that we have twelve sail of screw ships of the line in the Channel and fourteen in the Mediterranean, making a total of twenty-six sail of the line in commission. With frigates we are not quite so well supplied. We have twelve screw frigates and one paddle frigate on the home station, making together thirteen; and in the Mediterranean two screw frigates and one paddle, together three. Then with regard to corvettes, sloops, and gun vessels, I should wish to state that, with a view to making these statements perfectly clear to all, oven those who have not an intimate knowledge of naval matters, I have simplified this as much as I possibly could. Hon. Gentlemen who are acquainted with naval affairs know that there are a vast number of intermediate classes of vessels, and to those who desire further information I can give it; but I think it will be more for the convenience of the Committee if I make but these three classifications—line-of-battle ships, frigates, and corvettes, including in the last sloops, and a variety of sized vessels. The Committee will then thoroughly understand what is our actual force in commission. Of corvettes and sloops, then, we have 6 screw at home and 26 paddle, making together 32; whilst in the Mediterranean we have 10 screw and 9 paddle; together, 19. The grand total of our force at home and in the Mediterranean amounts to 106 vessels in commission, besides a force of gunboats which are constantly varying in number, and moving about here and there. In addition to the 106 steamships in commission in the Channel and in the Mediterranean, we have ships on other stations all over the world, for the protection of our commerce and our Colonies; not such a force, indeed, as would be necessary in the event of war still sufficient for all the purposes of peace. In fact the total of our ships in commission, including sailing vessels, is about 200. Now that constitutes what I term our first line of defence, of which the more important part consists of the 26 line-of-battle ships. I come next to what constitutes our second line of defence. At this moment we have nine blockships which are manned by coastguard men, and which though not ships of the line are doing good service to the country by inducing sailors to join the fleet. They are employed in cruising about our coasts. Being vessels of light draught of water, they can get into ports which heavy ships could not enter, and, in fact, they are performing a most useful service as nurseries and recruiting ships for the fleet. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Charles Napier) entertains great contempt for these coastguard ships. I believe he considers that they had better be put behind the fire and burnt as useless. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: No, no!] I can only tell my hon. and gallant Friend that I should be sorry if these ships were not to be taken into consideration as valuable vessels for our coast defences. Some of the lot are in very fair condition; and by a slight alteration in their masting I believe we shall make them very valuable ships indeed. In accordance with what has been often recommended by my hon. and gallant Friend, who is really a very high authority, and whose opinions I am sure are greatly respected at the Admiralty, it is proposed by the Board that there should be placed in the principal ports of the kingdom three efficient line-of-battle ships as the headquarters of the coastguard of those portions of the coast; the coastguard ships being meanwhile retained for the purpose of training and exercising the coast volunteers; it being found that the constant friction of heavy guns on the decks of vessels did a great deal of damage, and speedily unfitted them for the duties of effective ships of war. I cannot, in fact, speak too highly of these blockships, and I trust my hon. and gallant Friend will not be too hard upon them. Besides the handiness of the vessels in getting in and out of port, and their qualifications for drilling the men, it should not be forgotten that the men on board of them are acquainted with everybody in the locality. They do what was suggested to the Admiralty the other day; they give dinners of plum-pudding and roast beef to the inhabitants of the ports on Sundays, and thus induce a number of men to join the fleet. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: When they come on board to eat the roast beef and plum-pudding.] There is no doubt that these blockships do a great deal of service, and I trust they will not be depreciated as a portion of our reserve or second line of defence. But there is a more powerful reserve than they, which would be available in the course of a very few days in the event of an emergency arising. We have on shore at the present moment, at the various coastguard stations, not less than 3,400 active, first-rate seamen, most of whom entered the navy during late years, served in the Baltic and Black Sea, and afterwards went into the coastguard. Moreover, attached to them is a body of coastguard volunteers, of whom there are at this moment upwards of 6,000 enrolled. Great differences of opinion undoubtedly prevailed with regard to the value of these coastguard volunteers. Some persons say that they will come forward to a man whenever wanted; whilst others say that they will make a poor show; but the result of the experience of an excellent officer, who has been at the head of the coastguard service, is now at the Board of Admiralty, and has paid great attention to this subject — I mean Commodore Eden—is, that you may count upon deriving from this body at any moment—as fast as the telegraph and railway can bring them to your ports crews for twelve line-of-battle ships. This, then, is no doubt a powerful reserve of seamen. Besides these, we have a number of marines and boys who are under instruction, and will soon be ready for service. The general result is, that we have got, first of all the force of ships which I call the first line of defence. We have next got the 9 blockships, which form the second line of defence, and the 3,400 coastguards-men, and the 6,000 coast volunteers, whom Commodore Eden considers you can always rely upon. His opinion is that you may also make certain of each one of the coastguard bringing his Mend under his arm. The next question is, what ships we have got to put them into; and here I must pay a compliment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), because I certainly shall be able to show that the construction of ships during the present year is really something stupendous—something marvellous even for this country. I have attempted to show you what you have in men; I now proceed to state what ships you have to put these men into in the event of an emergency. At this moment you have 10 sail of the line ready for commission; you will have 3 more in the course of the autumn. You have also I under repair; so that the total of your screw ships of the line already built is 40. You have, in addition to these, 10 ships of the line building, and 6 in pro- cess of conversion. Thus the grand total is 56 ships of the line, of which, by the end of the present financial year, we hope that 50 will be afloat. I am now about to depart a little from the usual rules of the Admiralty. I know there is a great dislike on the part of Boards of Admiralty to look into the future. They readily tell you of what has been done; but they are always guarded when speaking of the future, for fear they may not be able to do what they wish to do. I am willing to admit that it is impossible for any Board of Admiralty to tell you distinctly and exactly what it will do in the current year. The navy is subject to many and various contingencies which cannot be always foreseen, but, as a general rule, I believe that if a little more system, a little more method is introduced into these matters, you will arrive at a very fair average of the number of men that you require for your repairs, and, consequently, that you will not he obliged to take the men who are building ships, and put them upon the repairs of others. This is one of the questions which the noble Duke the First Lord and the present Board of Admiralty have taken into their consideration; and believing, as I do, that there will be no serious transfer of hands in the building department, I think I am justified in stating to the House what ships we hope to build in the course of the present financial year. I trust and believe, then, that by the end of the financial year we shall have 50 ships of the line afloat, 37 frigates, and 140 corvettes, sloops, gun vessels, and other vessels of that class. The 50 sail of the line are independent of the 9 blockships. I have now told the Committee, as far as I am able to do so, what is your force of men and what your force of ships; and this constitutes the present preparation for the defence of the coasts of this country, but let no one for a moment suppose that this represents the entire force of England upon the seas. Why, Sir, we have got— I take it from a Return which was moved for a few days ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn (Mr. T. G. Baring)— 159 steam vessels over 1,000 tons each, and 72 between 1,000 and 700 tons each, together 231 merchant steam vessels, most of which might be quickly adapted to carry Armstrong guns, and thus prove a most valuable addition to the defences of the country. There is yet another source from which we can very largely increase our navy at any moment with regard to ships, and that is our commercial yards. Here is another Return which I think will be interesting to the Committee, according to which there are, in addition to the shipwrights employed in the Royal Dockyards about 10,000 shipwrights in Great Britain. Now, it is an old shipwright's maxim that 1,000 shipwrights can build eight men-of-war of 1,000 tons each in twelve months, consequently 10,000, which is the number that we have in the commercial yards in this country, could build 80 corvettes of 1,000 tons in twelve months, or at the rate of between six and seven per month. In the event of our being pressed for ships, then, there is no doubt whatever that, with a certain number of months' start— say three or four—we might build half a dozen of these very heavy corvettes per month in our merchants' yards over and above what we could build in the Royal Dockyards; and your steam machinery is in proportion. My object in stating these facts for the consideration of the Committee is to show what I think the public are extremely anxious to know—whether our navy is really in a state which befits the honour and dignity of this country, and I believe I may answer that by saying that our navy is in a state which befits the honour and dignity of the country. I do not say that we should not, in the event of war, have to call for additional men. I have no doubt that they would be required, inasmuch as at present we are within 2,000 men of the whole number voted. In fact, the Government hare no power to commission any more ships than we have now in commission, but my firm belief as to ships is, that we have enough ready, or nearly ready, in the event of an emergency, to justify us in asking for a considerable addition to the number of men. Having, to the best of my limited ability, stated what is our present condition with regard to the fleet, I shall now endeavour to make these very large and very complicated Estimates intelligible to the Committee. Now, I will ask hon. Gentlemen to turn their attention to that portion of the Naval Estimates which contains the supplementary votes. It will be observed that the four first Votes of the original Estimates have all been taken, and, therefore, it would not be necessary that I should advert to them on the present occasion; but as there are many hon. Gentlemen present who were not in the last Parliament, I think it would be right to give them some information upon Vote No. 1, as to the numbers taken under the original and Supplementary Estimates. The original Vote was for 47,000 seamen; the supplementary Estimate which we are now considering proposes an increase of 8,000 men, making a total of 55,400 seamen, including the coastguard. With regard to marines, the original number was 15,000; and an increase has since been proposed of 2,000, making a total of 17,000. It will, therefore, be seen that the grand total of seamen and marines, including the coastguard, at present estimated, is 72,400. Now, Sir, the first item in this Vote No. 1 is the usual charge for wages; it is, therefore, unnecessary to remark upon that. The second item is £13,000 for an increase of pay to seamen gunners, and this has been inserted in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon manning the Navy. Items three and four are to meet the increased pay to officers and chaplains of the Royal Navy. Now I for one, and I believe the feeling to be general, approve of this act of consideration and justice on the part of the late Government towards these valuable officers, but I am bound to tell the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) that I do think he would have pursued a more just course if, while considering their claims, he had also paid attention to the claims of those in every way equally entitled to consideration, namely, the paymasters, masters, and engineers. I trust, however, that the present Board of Admiralty will examine into the position of these officers, and if necessary be able to supply any shortcomings in that respect. The next amount is for good-conduct pay, and allowances to petty officers after promotion. This again is granted in accordance with a recommendation of the Royal Commission. These petty officers were, in fact, in a worse condition with respect to good-conduct badges than when they were the able seamen themselves. Then comes a sum of £31,000 to provide a bounty for seamen volunteering their services in the Royal Navy. Sir, this question of bounty involves considerations very importantly affecting the Royal Navy. There cannot be a doubt that in a great emergency it is perfectly justifiable for the Government to give a bounty as an inducement for seamen to enter the service. Whether that exigency has arisen it is not for me in my subordinate position to assert. But this I do say, that it is perfectly impossible to avoid taking into consideration the case of those seamen who belonged to the Royal Navy before that bounty was given. As far as the army and marines were concerned, no objection has ever been raised to the bounty system. There it has been the constant practice; there has been a gradual but a continuous growth of the corps; every man has received the bounty, which has varied in amount only in accordance with, if I may use the term, the market price, increasing or lessening as the case may be. But in the navy it has not been usual of late years to give any bounty. It has therefore become necessary for Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration the case of those seamen who have not participated in this bounty. By an Act of Parliament passed in the year 1853, I think it was the 16th and 17th of Victoria, it was enacted that if a bounty was offered to volunteers for the fleet, that original seamen should have no right whatever to participate in such a grant. Therefore in the present instance they have no legal claim to participation. But Her Majesty's Government, considering that this is quite a new thing in the navy, and, moreover, the excessive amount of the bounty, and I cannot describe it in stronger colours than by stating the fact that it consists of £10, a suit of clothes, and bedding to every man—

For continuous-service men only.

Besides the mess utensils.

Considering the excessive amount of that reward to men, who, although they are able seamen, are really very inferior to the thorough man-of-war's seamen in their ability to perform the various duties of a ship, Her Majesty's Government think the position in which it has placed those men with reference to their comrades already in the service is one not altogether of a satisfactory nature. Now, it is right to say that these men have not uttered one word of complaint. Their conduct has been noble in the extreme. I have been astonished at the fact, that so far as I am aware, there has not been one word of discontent or complaint uttered in any ship in the fleet. Sir, Her Majesty's Government have resolved to deal generously with these men. I am not at this moment enabled to give the details of the measure that is proposed to be carried out. A Privy Council was held to-day, and an Order made upon the subject will be issued to-morrow; but I think it is advisable that I should not enter into any details further than to state that a portion of this bounty, in proportion to the position which these men hold, either as able seamen, ordinary seamen or second-class ordinary seamen, will be granted to them upon certain conditions. I would gladly state those conditions, and the amount proposed to be granted, but I need only say that my belief is, that the been will be received throughout the fleet with gratitude and joy. But, Sir, I must say that I think this general question of bounty is one that any Government ought very carefully to consider before they again resort to it. I cannot see what circumstances occurred in the month of April, when this Proclamation was issued, to justify the proceeding. That Proclamation I think had rather the air of an ukase of the Emperor of Russia than a measure undertaken by the Government of a constitutional country, and I think that Parliament should have been consulted, before a measure so fraught with great and important consequences to the welfare of the Royal Navy was decided upon. Now, Sir, I wish to impart a piece of information which will be found very interesting, and I think I may say very amusing. It is a return showing the difference between the results obtained by the present system of manning the Navy, and those arrived at in the horrible days of impressment. It shows the number of men who were pressed into the service, and the number of those who deserted during the years 1811, 1812, and 1813, which were the three last years of the period during which that system was pursued. There were pressed into the service 29,405, while the number of those who deserted was 27,300. So that the total gain to the country during those three years by impressment was 2,105 men. But in order to bring these men thus compulsorily into the service of the fleet, a force of nearly 3,000 good sailors had been employed on shore as pressgangs. Therefore the country actually lost about l,000 men during those three years under that horrible system. I think it will be admitted that these figures furnish an unanswerable argument against the advisability of reverting to such a mode of manning the Navy. I hope I have given no cause of offence to my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. Pakington) in making the remarks I have deemed necessary upon this question of bounty. I can assure him that all the officers of the Navy have felt very strongly that it is a question in which the future welfare of our Navy has been somewhat jeopardised. I trust that no evil effect will arise from it; but I must confess it to be my opinion, that if it had been brought before Parliament, we could have shown reasons why that measure should not have been carried out, at all events in a manner so excessive. But, Sir, I promised I would state to the Committee what had been the success attending it since the 1st of May, when the order was issued. The total number who have entered and received the bounty is 5,730, of which there are 1,437 able seamen. Now, I am bound to say, I think that is a very fair proportion, and therefore, as I have said before, as far as its success is concerned, the measure may be considered to have possessed great merits. Now, Sir, the next vote which we come to is No. 2 in the Supplementary Estimates—the victualling Vote. Here we have the usual charge for the purchase of provisions and victualling stores. There is also a sum for increased rations of biscuit and sugar for seamen and marines when afloat. This is another excellent recommendation of the Royal Commission which the late Government carried out. There is also the gratuitous issue of bedding and clothing to which allusion has been made. Then in Vote No. 3, of the Supplementary Estimates, a sum of £3,000 is asked for to provide for the employment of additional clerks of the Admiralty rendered necessary by the great additional amount of correspondence which so large an increase of the fleet has naturally entailed. Then we come to Vote No. 4—and I beg my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) to pay especial attention to this. It is to meet the expense of forming a volunteer reserve corps of seamen, in pursuance of another recommendation of the Royal Commission. The hon. Gentleman has given notice of a Motion to defer that Vote until more information can be obtained respecting it; but I hope that the few observations I am about to make will prevent him from taking that course. He is aware that the Royal Commission of 1858 recommended that a sum of £200,000 should be taken for a variety of matters of detail upon which I need not trouble the Committee for the improvement of our reserves. One of the items was for school ships, another for the animal payment of £5—a sort of retaining fee—to 20,000 men; another related to an annual payment of £1 per man to a pension fund, and a fourth was for training gunners; the whole Amounting to £200,000. The late Government before quitting office took a long time to consider these matters, and then they arrived at the conclusion that £100,000 should be the sum included in the Estimates, and I believe prepared various Bills for the purpose. Well, Sir, it would be deceiving the Committee if I were to say that the present Admiralty, having been in office since last Friday only, have had time to go into a vast measure of this sort; the amount of business we have had to go through has entirely precluded any consideration of these matters. But, Sir, we felt it would be obviously impolitic and unnecessary to exclude this sum from the Estimates, he-cause we had not been able to arrive at any knowledge of the details, and we therefore retained it, and have left them for future consideration, when we shall prepare a Bill or Bills to carry them into effect. In the meantime not one shilling of this money will be spent. The hon. Gentleman will therefore observe that there is no necessity for him to press his Motion, because if the House should not think fit to concur in passing the Bills necessary to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners, necessarily this money will not be spent; hut, on the other hand, it will be immediately available. I therefore trust he will rest upon the full assurance from me that not one shilling of this money shall be spent until an Act of Parliament has passed authorising us to apply it to the improvement of our reserves. I will now pass to the original Estimates. Up to this Vote, as I stated before the Committee had already passed the original Estimates, and I have therefore up to the present time only been considering and explaining the Supplementary Estimates. But now I must go into a little wearying detail, because not a fraction beyond the amounts I have mentioned has been at all considered, although money has been taken on account of the whole of the remaining Votes. We therefore begin with Vote No. 5, as to which, as well as Votes 6 and 7, I need not make any observation. The first relates to the pay of the draughtsmen in the scientific department in which there is a small increase; the second to Her Majesty's establishment at home, but there is nothing worth attention in them. I may say the same of Vote 7 relating to the establishments abroad. Upon Vote 8, however, I have a few observations to offer. It will be observed that besides the large amount for shipwrights there is an extraordinary charge here which I think we may call the reconstruction Vote. Those two amounts are to be expended upon two distinct objects, but beyond them we have got a supplementary Estimate under the head of wages to artificers to a very large amount which I will immediately proceed to explain. The history of this transaction I believe to be as follows. Up to March last the dockyards were working in their usual way upon day pay; there was no particular pressure upon them, and the men were all receiving their day's pay for their day's work. But in the month of March my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) on behalf of the late Government, thought fit to commence a system of class and job work, and also to enter a considerable additional number of artisans. There were 1484 shipwrights entered in addition, besides a corresponding number of other tradesmen and labourers. In April, again, the right hon. Gentleman—I suppose from circumstances connected with our foreign policy—considered it important that we should make additional exertions for fitting out and preparing our fleets, and he commenced a system of over-hour working; that was to say, besides the institution of task and job work men were allowed to work over time. So matters continued until the month of May, when a further large increase was made of no less than 1350 shipwrights and other artificers and labourers, making the total number of men now employed in our dockyards 17,690, as against 14,128, the number of men in the beginning of March. This is a very great increase, but I believe that that increase was absolutely necessary, and I think that the right hon. Gentlemen deserves great credit for having boldly taken this heavy matter in hand, and for having decided upon getting over this necessary and important work in our dockyards with the least possible delay. Well, Sir, Her Majesty's Government upon coming into office, looked very carefully over this Vote, and we sent for the Surveyor of the Navy, Sir Baldwin Walker, and asked very particularly to what period this additional Vote would provide the pay for these additional men, and he stated to us that it would only pay the men up to, I think, the month of October next. The Government, under all the circumstances, thought it would be very unwise that that body of men should be discharged at a moment when the short days of winter were coming on, when work all over the country was very scarce, and, moreover, when we have a vast amount of work still to be done in the dockyards, for which the services of those men were originally required. The Government, therefore, resolved that they would continue these men on until the end of the financial year; and for this purpose, it will be observed, that we have taken an additional sum of money, amounting to £100,000 over and above the sum which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) proposed in his supplementary Estimate. It has been said that the present Government were going to cut down the expenditure in the dockyards, and cease the efforts which are being made to put our navy on a good footing. I think that, after what I have said, the Committee will not find any fault with the Government on that score. The next Vote is No. 9, for artificers employed in Her Majesty's establishments abroad, and in reference to that I do not think that there is anything with which I need trouble the Committee. I now turn to Vote No. 10, and upon this Vote I wish to say a few words, because on the subject to which this Vote relates I have sometimes myself, when not in office, taken the liberty of making some remarks in this House. Up to the present year we have not had much information given to us as to the way in which the money granted by this Vote has been spent. There has always been taken a large sum for materials for ship-building, and that is all the information which the House has ever received in respect of the Vote. I have been endeavouring to ascertain whether some sort of information could not be given to the House to enable hon. Members to judge what amount of tonnage has been built during the past year in our dockyards. We have very often heard little disputes which have taken place between very high authorities as to the quantity of ships built in this or that time, and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) claimed some line-of-battle ships, which were the property of my right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood) in all right and by all rule, for they were built during the time the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India was at the Admiralty, though they were finished under the reign of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington). I think that they were rather improperly taken possession of by the right hon. Gentleman as having been built dur- ing his time. For the purpose of avoiding these discussions for the future, and of giving the Committee a just idea of what has really been done in the dockyards, I have endeavoured to ascertain the exact amount of tonnage built during the year. This is the fairest way of showing at once to the House what we have got for our money. During the past year we have built in tonnage of line-of-battle ships, 10,604 tons; in frigates 5,851 tons; in corvettes, 1,193 tons; and in sloops and gun vessels, 1,511 tons; making the total tonnage built, up to the end of the last financial year, 19,159. Then comes the question, what shall we do this year? And this is what I wish to draw attention to, as showing the enormous power of our Dockyards in building. During the present year, supposing that our scheme is carried out, and that no unforeseen contingency should arise, we shall build of line-of-battle ships 19,606 tons; of frigates, 15,897 tons; of corvettes, 5,130 tons; and of sloops and gun vessels, 5,651 tons, making a total of 46,284 tons which will be built this year, against 19,159 tons last year. During the last year we converted five sailing line-of-battle ships into screws, and in the present year we are in process of so converting five more line-of-battle ships, in addition to four 50-gun sailing vessels, which will be turned into screws. This is entirely exclusive of contract-built ships. I now wish to show what the country has got for its money in respect of engines. We have at this moment in course of construction for ships building 14,570 horse power of engines, and orders have been given for 2160 horse-power more, making a total horse-power of 16,730. That is the way in which the money appropriated under the Vote is to be expended, and I hope that the noble Duke at the head of the Board of Admiralty will permit me next year to place the details of this Vote on the table of the House, with the Estimates, that hon. Members may judge of the way in which the money they have voted has been spent. I can assure the Committee of the earnest desire of the noble Duke and of the Board of Admiralty to give every possible information upon these matters. I find I have one further remark to make in reference to Vote 10, and it refers to the enormous sum of money that is taken in the original Estimates for ships built by contract. There is £252,000, a first instalment for two iron-cased frigates, and there will probably have to be voted for these vessels a further sum in addition, but I am not prepared to say how much that will be. One of these vessels is commenced, and is to be launched by the 1st of April; and in addition, they would find in the supplementary Estimates a Vote for eighteen very superior gun vessels now building by contract. With regard to Vote 11, I should be deceiving the Committee if I told them that I could give them any real information as to this Vote for new works. The Committee will quite understand that the present Board of Admiralty has had no time to go through any one of these contracts. There is a vote for lengthening docks, but that is one of those luxuries that we enjoy every year; because as we build bigger vessels we must have bigger docks, and I suppose we shall go on doing so until some day there will be a change and we shall begin to build our vessels smaller again. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Hear!] On the 12th and 13th Votes, I have no remark to offer to the Committee. The 14th is the Vote for half-pay, and in the Supplementary Estimate on this an addition is asked for on account of the increase in the scale of the half-pay of medical officers and chaplains. It had reference to the order to which I adverted when explaining Vote 1 for full pay. Vote 15 is for military pensions, and is of the usual character. There is a supplementary Estimate to Vote 17, which contains a large sum for freight of ships for the conveyance of troops to and from the Colonies; and the fact is that during the last few months the Government has thought fit to reinforce the Mediterranean colonies, and this has made a considerable increase in the Vote. The last Vote I have to allude to is that for the Packet Department—Vote 18. In the original Estimate there is nothing that calls for any remark: but there is a supplementary Estimate for the conveyance of mails to and from Dovor to Calais, and Dovor to Marseilles, under a new contract; and as this vote is entirely under the control of my hon. Colleague the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, I trust the Committee will allow him to make any explanation necessary in reference to it. I have now, to the best of my limited ability, explained these very complicated Votes, and I am conscious that I have omitted a vast amount of interesting detail that it was my duty and my desire to lay before the Committee. In the course of my remarks I have necessarily been obliged to refer to that which took place under the late Government, and I hope that nothing that I have said has been at all offensive to the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington). I have no desire to do anything but frankly and candidly to state that which in my opinion, as a naval man, it is necessary to state upon a subject which has lately much occupied public attention. If there is one thing more than another which it is to be hoped will be debated in this House, without reference to party politics, it is naval matters. We are all clearly interested in keeping up this right arm of England's glory, and I therefore trust that in discussing these Estimates there will be an entire absence of anything like party spirit, and that we shall all enter into the question with the most earnest desire to put our fleet in the most efficient state. We do not desire war, we desire peace; and the great preparations making to arm our fleet do not arise from any desire of aggression or to disturb other countries. Far from it. I believe that it is the earnest desire of every man in this country that the horrible and bloody war now raging may be speedily brought to an end. I trust that what we have lately heard may be the forerunner of what we so ardently desire— peace. But

"With common men it needs some show of war To keep sweet peace "

were words used by the immortal Shakespeare 300 years ago, and they are equally true to the letter at the present time. I trust that the remarks I have made will receive the kind indulgence of the Committee.

After the speech of the noble Lord I am happy to say that I shall not think it necessary to detain the Committee at any length, nor have I the slightest complaint to make of the tone and manner in which he has treated this subject. On the contrary, I am anxious to bear my testimony to the ability with which he has performed his duty, and considering the very few days which he has held his present office, the Committee must feel that it is highly to his credit. I am bound, too, to acknowledge the candour and fairness with which he has referred to the efforts made by the late Government to increase the efficiency of the navy. He has confirmed that which I felt it my duty to state as to the force which we turned over to our successors, that having found when we went into office 26 line-of-battle ships—12 in the Channel and 14 in the Mediterranean—we left behind us 40, which number will be increased to 50 by the end of the present year. I heard from him, too, with the greatest pleasure, that the present Government intend to adopt the whole of the Estimates of the late Government, unusually large as they undoubtedly are. In fact, after the statement of the noble Lord, the House and the country must rather begin to wonder why the late change of Government took place. There are two subjects of paramount importance in the public mind just now—our foreign relations, and our national defences. We have had the most distinct assurance from the noble Lord at the head of the Government that, with regard to our foreign relations, the present Government are content "to walk in the path chalked out for them by their predecessors." They hare adopted our policy, and they make no complaint of it And with regard to our national defences, I have the double satisfaction, as a member of the late Government and as an Englishman, of hearing from the noble Lord tonight that our Estimates are accepted and our plans approved. I confess, therefore, I am at a loss to know why we forfeited the confidence of the House of Commons; but, having forfeited it, it is satisfactory to have the compliment paid us of being told that our successors can do no better than tread in our steps, with regard to these two subjects of paramount importance. The first statement made by the noble Lord was that the Government, in deference to the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, had determined to place three superior line-of-battle ships in stations round the coast. I should like to have some further explanation on that point. I presume they are to be deducted from the Channel fleet. [Lord C. PAGET: No, they are three ships which are ready to be commissioned, but are not yet in commission.] In that case I think the measure may be a very prudent one. The noble Lord next alluded to the course taken by the late Admiralty with regard to the medical officers and chaplains, and he seemed to make some complaint of our not having remedied the grievances urged by the masters and paymasters. As the noble Lord has been but a very short time in office he can hardly be aware of the attention which was paid by the late Board of Admiralty to the complaints of the latter classes of officers. It is true that we had arrived at no final decision on the question, but we had recognized their fair claim to have their complaints considered, and I left in the hands of the Duke of Somerset a written memorandum, explaining the views of the late Board of Admiralty on the subject, and showing that it was their full intention to deal with the complaints of these officers. I wish to prevent the existence of an impression which would be as erroneous as it would be unfair towards the late Board of Admiralty, that they had declined to entertain the complaints of the masters and paymasters. It was merely the want of opportunity, arising from the change of Government, which prevented us from dealing with the complaints of these classes of officers in the same spirit in which we had dealt with the complaints of the surgeons and chaplains. I will now advert to what fell from the noble Lord with reference to a most important subject, upon which I wish that he had afforded us more information—the intentions of the Government with regard to an extension of the bounty. The noble Lord has on former occasions avowed his disapproval of the principle of a bounty, and I think, considering that circumstance, that he treated the subject with the utmost fairness. He admitted, with as much fairness as if he had been one of the strongest supporters of the bounty, that the experiment has been completely successful, and I do not think it is presumptuous to say that the success of that measure is in a great degree a test of its merit. [Sir CHARLES NAPIER: Hear, hear!] I am sure no one will deny— and the noble Lord and his colleagues would be the last persons to do so—that, considering the state of public affairs in Europe three months ago, it was the imperative and bounden duty of the Government to lose no time in giving England an efficient fleet. How, then, was this to be done? The measures which the late Government intended to introduce, and with which the present Government, I am glad to say, intend to proceed, consequent on the Report of the Manning Commission, had not been matured, and the only resources to which we could turn were the coastguard and the naval coast volunteers. Would it have been politic on our part to turn at once to the last resource? I do not believe any man would have recommended such a policy. How, then, could we obtain a fleet? Only by offering a bounty. It happened that at that moment, from different causes—partly owing to the prevalence of easterly winds, and partly owing to its being the season when the Baltic and the North American trades were just commencing—an unusually small number of merchant seamen were available in our ports; and unless we had adopted the principle of a bounty, and a largo bounty, we could not have turned over to the present Government 26 line-of-battle ships and 13 frigates in a state of perfect efficiency. We had no hesitation in adopting the principle of the bounty, and, although I am sorry the noble Lord doubts the wisdom of that measure, my consolation is that I believe he will be almost alone in that opinion. The noble Lord says the bounty is excessive. I told the House on a former occasion that the bounty was certainly high beyond any precedent; but if we had not made the bounty high beyond all former precedent we should have failed in our object, and we should not have succeeded in manning the fleet, I believe that no bounty has been resorted to in this country since 1815, and it must be remembered that in the interval immense changes have taken place in the general condition of seamen, and in their rate of pay. I think, when the accidental scarcity of seamen, and the high rates of pay offered in the merchant service three months ago, are borne in mind, very little consideration will convince the House that it would have been perfectly useless to offer a low bounty. In fact, if we had not offered a high bounty we should not have been successful, and I believe that by the course we adopted we have obtained the fleet we required. My earnest hope is that the adoption of a sounder system, providing a steady and permanent reserve for the supply of the navy, and carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission, will prevent future Governments from being compelled to resort, as we were obliged to do, to the unusual stimulus of offering a very high bounty. I now approach a statement of the noble Lord which I heard with great surprise, and, so far as I understood him, with great regret, and I am sorry that the noble Lord did not furnish us with some further explanations on the subject. He told us that a Council had been held to-day, and that an Order in Council was to be issued, but he did not tell us what was its object. If I understood him rightly, the Government have made up their minds to extend the bounty to other seamen who were previously in the service. [Lord C. PAGET: To a portion of them.] I think I have some right to complain of the imperfect explanation afforded by the noble Lord on this subject, and, although I will not presume to censure a measure which I so imperfectly understand, and, on that ground, I express my opinion very guardedly, I must say I am afraid the Government have established a precedent which may hereafter be found most inconvenient and objectionable. I think the noble Lord's statement did not justify the course which I understand the Government have determined to adopt. He frankly declared that there had been no dissatisfaction or discontent in the fleet. When we offered a bounty we were told, I believe by my hon. and gallant Friend near me (Sir Charles Napier) and by other very high authorities —"The certain result of your measure will be to spread discontent and dissatisfaction throughout the fleet, and you will be obliged to extend the bounty to other men." I never felt more firmly determined—and my colleagues completely concurred with me—to resist any such demand, and my opinion has been justified by the result. The noble Lord has admitted, in the broadest terms, that there has been no discontent or dissatisfaction among the seamen. He has told us that the Government have determined to deal generously with the seamen of our fleet. In that principle undoubtedly I concur, but I say that we have dealt generously with them. The noble Lord has told us that when we examine the Estimates in detail we shall not only find charges for the bounty, hut for those new allowances and advantages, such as clothing, bedding, and other things, the grant of which, I think, shows a disposition to deal with seamen in a most generous spirit. But upon what principle do you think it necessary to extend to men who were previously in the service the bounty which we offered to induce other men to enter it? I entreat the Government to recollect that this course is wholly without precedent. I believe that there have been three occasions on which a bounty has been given, but in no instance has it been extended to seamen previously engaged. The right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) told us on a former evening that, at the commencement of the Russian war, the Government of which he was a member abstained from giving a bounty to seamen. I think he did not explain why that course was adopted, but, if I am not very much mistaken, the main reason was that an Act passed in 1835, the 5th and 6th William IV., contained what I think a very unwise clause, providing that whenever a bounty was offered every sailor then in the fleet was to start a new engagement for five years, and in consideration of such new engagement was to receive the bounty. It is quite clear that the Government of which the right hon. Baronet was a member shared the opinion I now express as to the impolicy of that provision, for under his auspices I believe in 1853 an Act was passed by which it was repealed, and the necessity of extending a bounty to seamen previously in the fleet ceased to exist. The clause to which I have referred, whether wise or unwise, was never acted upon, and I fear, if the Government now introduce for the first time what I think a dangerous principle, that you cannot on an emergency offer a bounty to man your fleet without incurring the great and unnecessary expense of extending that bounty to all men who were previously serving. The practical result will be to deter Governments, on account of the large and serious outlay thus involved in it, from resorting to this most useful measure—one, I admit, which ought not to be lightly adopted, but which may be most valuable when some pressing occasion may arise. The noble Lord complained of the form of our Proclamation in regard to bounty, comparing it to a Russian ukase. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I meant that it was an arbitrary proceeding, being without the sanction of Parliament.] I admitted on a former occasion that the late Government took upon themselves a very great responsibility, and the step was subsequently sanctioned by Parliament. I thought it was to the form of our proclamation that the noble Lord objected, and I was about to say that in drawing it up we strictly followed precedent. I am glad that the Government intend to introduce a Bill for carrying out the Report of the Commission on the manning of the navy; but at the same time I must beg leave to Bay the late Government arc not open to the accusation that has been repeatedly made against them as to their having been very slow in arriving at a decision on this point. I beg leave to say we do not in the least deserve that charge. The Commissioners reported in the month of February, the Government had to consider their report, and the noble Lord seems to have forgotten that for a considerable interval of time there being no Parliament sitting, it was impossible for the Government to announce their decision. A few weeks only had elapsed after the presentation of the report before Parliament was dissolved, and in the Queen's Speech, delivered on its reassembling, there was an intimation that this point had been decided. We could hardly, therefore, have been more expeditious in the matter. The noble Lord also alluded to the great number of shipwrights that we added to the dockyards in order to accelerate the shipbuilding operations now going on, and he announced the change which the present Government have resolved to adopt, at a cost to the country of about £100,000. I am not prepared at this moment to give a very decided opinion one way or the other as to the policy of what the Government have done; but one part of the noble Lord's reasoning I cannot accept. He says it would be very hard on the shipwrights that they should be turned adrift just at the time of the short days after having been employed all the summer by the Government. Now, however natural this feeling may be as between man and man, I must say that in dealing with the public money you are hardly justified in spending £100,000 to maintain shipwrights whom you do not want. The great question is, "Do you require them or not?" If you do, then the Government deserves credit for employing them, and certainly had we remained in office, and the services of these men had been called for at the end of the six months, we should not have hesitated to retain them. The course we took was founded on the recommendation of the Surveyor of the Navy. Sir Baldwin Walker came to the late Board of Admiralty and suggested that an additional force of shipwrights should be taken on for six months to expedite particular works and to clear off arrears. Upon his advice we determined on engaging these 1,300 extra shipwrights for that period accordingly; and if, at the end of the first six months, he had informed us that the men would be wanted for six months more, we should then have undoubtedly thought that a sufficient justification for our taking the course now adopted by our successors. That is a matter of which the Admiralty must be the best judges. If they are prepared to assure the House that the work in the dockyards is in such a state that it is desirable for the interests of the public service, and not merely on grounds, as it would rather appear, of private charity, that these men should be kept on for the whole financial year, then I certainly will not offer the slightest objection to their proposal. The noble Lord next stated that I claimed credit for ships which really belonged to my predecessor. Sir, I do not know of anything that has passed or that has fallen from me on which this assertion is based; but I must in the most distinct and emphatic manner repudiate any intention ever to make any such claim. And let me add that I think we have had a little too much party feeling and party views mixed with our discussions relating to the navy; and I quite agree with my noble Friend opposite that the more this is avoided the better. I am content with having, during the period I had the honour to be at the head of the Admiralty, endeavoured to do my duty to the country as well as I could, What I have done has been most kindly acknowledged, and by none more than by some distinguished members of the present Government. I have no wish to detract from the merit due to other men; and if party discussions on this subject have reluctantly on my part been forced upon me, I, for one, do not want to renew that of which we have had too much already. This great question of restoring the strength of the British Navy, and keeping it up to the point at which it ought to be maintained, is one of such paramount national importance and intense interest at this moment that it infinitely transcends everything which savours of party. As I have endeavoured to do my own duty in this matter, I doubt not the present Government will also endeavour to do theirs; and I am sure that no man in this House will give to their services a fuller or more frank recognition than I shall.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) in his opinion as to the admirable manner in which his noble Friend had introduced the Estimates. He had done it in a clear sailor-like manner. The gallant Officer had told the Committee that he had got the Channel fleet up to 12 sail of the line; and he quite agreed with him that it was not desirable to confine that fleet to the Channel. What was objectionable was that they should have been lying in harbour from the time they were got up almost to the present moment. It was gratifying, therefore, that the new Board of Admiralty had sent them to sea to smell a little of the fresh breeze. The great mistake was that ever since they had been put in commission they had remained in harbour. They had only made one short voyage, some to Gibraltar and others to Bantry Bay. The Channel fleet, to be maintained in good order, ought to be constantly on the move. Portland was a fit place for the head quarters; but they should go to Torbay, then to Plymouth, then to St. Helen's, and thence to the Downs, in order to give experience to the officers and captains,—aye, and to the Admirals also. The knowledge how to sail a fleet could only be learnt by constant practice. This practice they had not yet had, and he was glad the present Admiralty intended to give it. The ships ought not to be practised separately, but should go out together under the Admirals. When he had the honour to command the Channel fleet he could say, though he was not fonder of praising himself than the late First Lord was, that the ships were kept in efficient condition, and he did not believe a smarter squadron had ever been seen. He did not say the ships should be kept at sea in gales of wind, but they might be out all through the summer. It was our duty to exercise our navy in the same way that other nations did. With regard to the vexed question of block-ships, upon which so much had been said and upon which so much money had been thrown away, he would suggest that they might be employed in the different ports for practice purposes. The noble and gallant Officer must know, however, that there were five of those vessels which were utterly useless. He was happy, however, to find that they were about to be replaced by efficient ships, but he did not want them to be destroyed. Then, again, with regard to the reserve. The coastguard were old sailors, and there were no better men sent to the Baltic. As to the coast volunteers, he believed with Commodore Eden, that they would come forward when they were called upon, if they were properly treated, and not sent some to one place and some to another, but made available for manning the ships at the naval stations to which they belonged. But suppose the ships manned, where were the officers to command? Where were the captains and lieutenants to command the men? whereas at one time we were overwhelmed with officers, captains, lieutenants, and cadets. He wished to know how our navy had been reduced to this state. We had been asked for £100,000 for seamen in reserve, but that was not the way to get our reserve. He had stated in letters to various First Lords of the Admiralty the natural way of getting a reserve of seamen. In the first place, we should have a Channel fleet of never loss than 10 sail of the line. It was as necessary to have a fleet ready as it was to have troops ready. The whole of our fleet should be composed of able seamen. In case of emergency, part of those men could be removed to ships manned to a great extent with coastguards-men and volunteers. We could thus have 30 sail of the line at a cost of little more than that of 10 sail of the line at the present moment. If the state of our navy were as had been represented by the noble Lord, he did not think there was any nation in the world that would attempt to show their face against us for a moment. The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that in case of necessity the navy could be reinforced by 231 merchant steam vessels. That was all nonsense. Months would be required to fit out those vessels, and in the meantime what was to become of the merchant service? We must trust to our navy, and with 50 sail of the line we might defy the world. They must remember, however, that 50 or 100 sail of the line did not compose a navy. The vessels were no more than fortresses without troops unless they had sailors to man them, and therefore he trusted no reduction in the number of men would be thought of. The payment off the fleet in 1857 and the consequent necessity of getting it up again had cost more money than the maintenance of it in an efficient state at its full force would have done. He now came to the question of bounty. The House had been told that the Government were prepared to give the men actually entered a portion of the bounty which they were offering to new hands. So far well, but the men would not be satisfied with a portion of the bounty; they must have the whole of it. The refusal of the bounty had produced a soreness in the fleet, but if the men were to receive what was fairly due to them there would be no more murmurs of discontent. It appeared from the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty that in the years 1811–12, in the middle of the war, something like 21,000 men deserted from the fleet. Well, that was nothing re- markable, for in those days the pressing system was in full operation, The fleet was now manned by volunteers, and yet from the 1st of January, 1854, to the 31st of December, 1857, no fewer than 11,250 seamen and 1,775 boys deserted. Nothing could show more clearly the bad state of the navy. If the seamen were properly treated, desertion would be rare. What had the Admiralty been doing? The members of the Board were well paid by the country for looking after the fleet, but, nevertheless, they had shamefully neglected their duty. No steps had been taken to prevent desertion, and he was afraid that, unless Parliament interposed with a strong hand, nothing would be done. Why should the Admiralty not establish an efficient police in all the sea-port towns? Let the men be well treated while they remained in the navy, and let deserters be severely punished. The gallant Officer had stated that our ships were formerly too short. That was quite true. He added that they were now too long. This was also his (Sir Charles Napier's) belief. We could sail very well with these ships upon the broad sea, but how should we navigate vessels of such length in narrow waters like the Baltic, with its rocks and shoals and difficult harbours? These were questions which the Admiralty ought well to ponder over. The noble and gallant Lord had asked for indulgence, and that the House would cheerfully grant; but the system which tolerated such frequent changes at the Admiralty was a vicious one, and required alteration. In seven years we had had five First Lords, while all the other members of the Board had been changed as well. Remembering this, nobody could wonder at the waste and extravagance which had prevailed. Not that he wished the Lords of the Admiralty to remain too long at their posts, for in that case they would be likely to get into the old ruts; but if they were changed once in five years, he thought that would be a satisfactory arrangement. He wished now to allude to the manner in which the men were treated in Greenwich Hospital. All the officers there had their pay, and pensions for wounds as well; but the poor sailor enjoyed no such privilege. He was deprived of his pension for wounds if he went into the hospital, and all he got was 1s. a week, which might buy him a little tobacco There was no employment by which he could add to this pittance; and he was forced, besides, to give part of his provisions to his wife, or she must starve. Would the House believe that the men's wives went to the Main Guard to get what was called the "offal," by which was meant the broken victuals? Fancy seamen's wives reduced to fetching away the ''offal," the very name of which was enough to disgust one! If proper wash-houses were fitted up, these respectable women might be employed in doing the washing of the hospital; but no! it was all sent out. Another system would probably surprise the Committee. If a man were ruptured in the service, instead of being pensioned, he received a gratuity of £5 or £6, and was then discharged, though, of course, as he was disabled from laborious work, he must go into a poor-house or starve. This was the way in which our sailors were treated, and yet we wondered at men not entering the service, or at their deserting after they did enter. He believed that, if properly administered, the funds of Greenwich Hospital would pay all the men £30 a year at least, and then they could live at home with their friends. At present the hospital gave them splendid misery, and nothing more. From a Return which had been published, it appeared that in England and Wales there were 592 sailors who had been disabled in Her Majesty's service. These men were in the workhouse, instead of being in Greenwich Hospital with a comfortable pension. Was this, again, proper treatment? Some time ago the present Secretary to the Admiralty pointed out various alleged abuses in the dockyards, taking special care, however, not to direct his observations against the Surveyor of the Navy, or any other officer. Still a report had gone abroad that during a certain number of years there had been a waste of £5,000,000, but the Surveyor of the Navy, he believed, made a Return which accounted for the whole sum. He thought the Board of Admiralty was, under these circumstances, bound to take notice of the statements which Sir Baldwin Walker had made, and to bear testimony to their accuracy. There was only one other observation which he wished to make, and that had reference to the number of continuous-service men who had been discharged from the navy. He ought not, perhaps, to say discharged, because he did not wish the House to believe that those men had been forced to leave the service; but some of them had been informed that they might quit it if they pleased, and "Jack," being an independent sort of gentleman, had not hesitated to act upon the hint. That as well as other facts showed that the navy was not quite so popular a service as might be supposed. The evil was one which he was, however, bound to say the late First Lord of the Admiralty had done his utmost to remedy, and he hoped that the present—now that we were trying all sorts of gentlemen in that capacity—would follow in his footsteps.

said, there were two points connected with the expenditure of the navy to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee. The Estimates for that department of the public service had of late years been not only steadily, but enormously on the increase. According to a paper on the table of the House the whole expenditure for naval purposes was, for instance, in 1852, £5.800,000; in 1853, £6,280,000; in l858, £8,800,000; while in the present year it amounted to no less a sum than £12,680,000. That Vote was an extremely large one every hon. Member must be prepared to admit, but he was nevertheless not prepared to oppose it, inasmuch as he deemed it to be a wise economy to maintain the defences of the country in an efficient state. To do so would, in his opinion, be, in the long run, found to be the cheapest policy. He was, however, anxious to bring under the notice of the Committee the question whether the navy could not be maintained in a state of efficiency at a much less cost than was involved in the present rate of expenditure. His noble and gallant Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, whom no one could be more happy to see filling the honourable position which he now occupied than himself (Mr. Lindsay), had frequently, with that honesty of purpose which guided his conduct, called the attention of the House, while one of its independent Members, to what he deemed to be lavish expenditure in connection with the navy. He trusted his noble Friend, now that he was in office, would not forget those truly wise doctrines which he laid down when in Opposition, and that, instead of yielding to the suggestions of those who were under him, he would follow the dictates of his own good sense, aided by that ability which he unquestionably possessed. Having given that advice to his noble Friend, he should beg leave to call his attention and that of the Committee to four items, under the heads of which he thought the navy of England might be rendered as efficient as it now was at a considerably reduced rate of expenditure. He should first take the Vote which comprised the wages of artificers. In dealing with that Vote, the details of which he had minutely considered, he should trespass upon the time of the Committee by referring to a Return which he held in his hand of a number of ships which had been built in our dockyards, and which were all of the same size —1,462 tons burden. The first of these vessels, the Satellite, had been built at Davenport, and he found that the expenditure for shipwrights' labour had in her case been £6,450, or at the rate of £4 8s. 3d. per ton. The second, the Pelorus, had also been built at Devonport, and the shipwright's wages had been £6,712. The Scylla had been built at Sheerness, and the expenditure for the same purpose had been £8,621; and the Clio, built at the same place, cost £9,311; while in the case of the Racoon and Tantalus, which had been built at Chatham, it had been £6,321 and £6,569 respectively. One important fact he wished to bring before the Committee was, that the cost of labour in one dockyard was much greater than in another. Thus, the Pearl, built at Woolwich, cost us between £6 18 s. 5d. per ton; while the Satellite, built at Sheer-ness, and the Racoon, at Chatham—vessels precisely of the same kind—cost £4 6s. 6d. per ton. There must be something radically wrong to cause such a discrepancy as this. Two frigates built in a private yard on the Thames for the Russian Government— namely, the Tartar and the Cossack—cost £2 8s. per ton. That included not only the cost for shipwrights, but the cost of fitting them out for sea; whereas the entire cost of fitting out the Pearl for sea was £8 13s. 11d. It was true that the Pearl was a somewhat larger ship than the Tartar or the Cossack; but the difference in size would only account for a difference of a few shillings per ton in the cost of building the two latter vessels. There were, no doubt, objections to building ships for the Royal Navy in private yards, but it was evident from these facts that there was something inherently wrong in the management of the Royal dockyards. Why could the men not be employed as they were in private dockyards? If they were employed on piecework, instead of the labour account of the shipwrights being £8 13s. 11d. per ton, it would not be more than £2 12s. per ton. The rate for labour in the present Estimates was £1,527,000, Of this £1,000,000 at least was for shipwrights; and on this item alone there might be a saving of £400,000, while the work would not be one whit less efficiently done. He would say nothing as to the construction of ships beyond this, that he hoped his noble Friend would carry out in office the reforms he had contended for in Opposition. The next branch to which he would refer was that of materials and stores, the sum required under which head amounted to £2,800,000. Now, he would take a few examples of the mode in which that money was expended. Among the most important items was that of steam engines. Formerly it was supposed that there were only two or three firms in this country competent to build steam engines for the Royal Navy. Now, he would not ask tenders for steam engines as he would do for clothes and provisions, but it was too much to say that the builders of the engines used by the great steamboat companies could not construct engines fit for the Royal Navy. The consequence of this exclusive dealing was to enhance the price of the article, and we had been paying £60 per horse-power for engines (an hon. Friend near him said £80), whereas, if the range of competition had been widened we could have had our steam-engines at £50, if not £45 the horse-power. He trusted that his noble and gallant Friend would open the door somewhat wider, and not hold to the belief that none but certain firms could build steam-engines. He did not advocate unrestricted competition in so ticklish a matter; but if quite as good engines could be obtained for £40 per horse power, he did not see why the Admiralty should pay £60. He would take another item, that of anchors. Nine years ago he devoted a considerable portion of his time as a Member of a Committee to inquire into the test description of anchors. Seven anchors were brought before the Committee. They tested those anchors in every possible way, and they unanimously arrived at the decision and reported that the Admiralty anchor was the worst of the seven. For nine years that Report had been in possession of the Admiralty, and the same description of anchor still continued in use in the Royal Navy. But, more than that; for seventeen anchors, from 20cwt. to five tons weight, the Admiralty paid £3,434 17s. 6d.; whereas, according to a published statement which most hon. Members must have seen, the market price of the most eminent firms was only £1,428, or at about one-third of the outlay. When he found the Admiralty wrong in these two items, he thought there was great reason to fear they were wrong in many others, and that they paid far too much for stores and materials. Why was it so? The answer he had received to that question in the matter of anchors was, that the Admiralty had been in the habit of dealing with a particular firm. One firm had a monopoly—and a very nice monopoly it was—for them, at the expense of the poor taxpayers. He would take another item—that of wages to seamen and marines, He had no desire to go into the question of manning the navy now, because he felt that he should require more time than the Committee would be disposed to give him; but he had the honour of being a Member of the Royal Commission which inquired into that subject, and he was presumptuous enough to differ from his colleagues. The reasons for his dissent were stated in the Report. He dissented with regret, but with the most solemn conviction that the extra expenditure about to be saddled upon the country would be money wasted. Though some time had elapsed, he had no reason to regret the course which he then felt it his duty to take; and although his noble and gallant Friend had appealed to him not to oppose Votes which were inserted in the Estimates, on account of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, he certainly should oppose them at every stage, until the House had had an opportunity of fully and calmly discussing the question in all its bearings. The recommendations of the Commission involved not merely the £100,000 which would be asked to-night, but, as the Commissioners made it, £600,000, or, as he made it, £700,000. Whether it was £600,000 or £700,000, it was a very large amount, and, if capitalized, the smaller sum would represent something like £20,000,000. Though he should find only one hon. Member to support him, he would walk into the lobby against any sum being voted on account of manning the navy until the House had expressed its opinion whether the recommendations of the Commission warranted such a vast expenditure. Upon the question of wages he thought he should be able to prove, as clearly as he trusted he had proved the other items, that Parliament could save £500,000 per annum without rendering the navy one whit less efficient. When the question came on for discussion he should show that, while the country had been marching onwards in the substitution of mechanical for manual labour, they required the same number of men to man a ship now as in the days of Trafalgar. By the improvements of the age and the application of machinery, one man produced as much in the factories of Manchester, as fifty did at the commencement of the century; yet the navy now required the same number of men as in the days of their grandfathers. There must be something wrong and something to inquire into before voting these large sums. He believed he was correct in saying that there was no such thing as a patent block in the navy, while every collier had them, because one man was thereby enabled to pull as much and to raise as great a weight as three. Some time ago he asked the question of a distinguished post-captain and elicited the startling fact that there was nothing new in the British Navy since the last quarter of a century, except the reefing of the sails, and that we got from the French. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir J. Pakington), who took so much interest in the navy, said very truly that it was not merely a question of ships and money, but a question of officers. He did not recommend any reduction of the pay of officers. God knew they were too poorly paid already. But he must call attention to the subject of half-pay, which would require, sooner or later, some alteration. The Vote for that purpose amounted this year to no less a sum than £718,000. There were ninety-nine admirals on the active list, and the number employed was only fourteen. There were 357 captains on the active list, of whom only ninety-six were employed; 514 commanders, of whom 173 were employed; 1,038 lieutenants, of whom only 696 were employed; and 348 masters, of whom 263 were employed. Again, in 1855, towards the close of the Russian war, we had ninety-nine admirals on the active list, of whom only eighteen were employed; 399 captains, and 139 employed; 550 commanders, and 192 employed; 1,177 lieutenants, and 883 employed; and 318 masters, and 269 employed. That was at a time when the whole strength of England was put forth against an enemy. The effect was serious in two Ways. First, we had no right to take into our employment officers or servants of any kind, unless we saw a fair chance of giving them active employment. To both employers and employed we were doing wrong. We were taxing the coun- try to an unnecessary extent, and bringing up men to a service for which they could find no employment, and then leaving them to starve on the pittance of half-pay. Those officers who had influence at Court received constant employment, but those who had no such influence were left to starve on half-pay. The other evil lay in saddling the public with a large sum of money annually. In the plans which had been put forward for increasing the naval forces in time of emergency, the valuable reserve afforded by the mercantile marine had been comparatively overlooked, and the measures which had been taken had only weakened that service, without strengthening the power of the navy to a corresponding degree. The officers of the merchant service, who were now a very different class from what they had been even ten years ago, ought also to be included in any arrangements for a reserve force, and called out with the men, at stated intervals, for drill. A trifling payment as a retaining fee would be sufficient for the purpose, and would have, he maintained, a great effect in stimulating volunteering. That was a part of the question of manning the navy which deserved to be discussed at length in that House. Without they broke down the line of demarcation at present existing between the merchant service and the navy, they might go on spending millions of public money, and be no nearer the solution of a great problem namely, how to obtain reserves sufficient in the hour of need, at the least cost, and disturbing in the smallest degree, the industry and resources of the country in times of peace. The steps which had hitherto been taken were altogether in a wrong direction. £100,000 had been added to the expenses of the navy in the increase of salaries in 1852; but he would ask the gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) whether he had found his difficulties lessened in consequence when endeavouring to man the Baltic fleet in 1854? He thought his right hon. Friend the late First Lord, committed a grave mistake—perhaps it was the only one he made during his administration—when he offered a bounty of £10 with the view to attract able seamen to the naval service. That bounty had only tempted 1,400 able seamen into the service, and that even at a time when the merchant shipping of the country was suffering great depression. The consequence had been two-fold. The wages of seamen in the merchant service had been unnecessarily increased, and great dissatisfaction created in the minds of the 55,000 able seamen now serving in the navy, from whom a similar bounty was withheld. An unnecessary competition had been evoked between the Royal Navy and the merchant service. The latter would increase their wages in the same proportion, and the Admiralty would find, in the long run, that they were spending the money of the country in vain. He had thus endeavoured to show that upon four items alone upwards of £2,000,000! sterling might be saved to the country, and he did not hesitate to say that if he was allowed to go fully into the matter— for he would much rather do good in a i quiet way than make speeches in the; House; and he begged his noble and gallant Friend, if he thought he could assist him in any way, not to hesitate in sending for him—he thought he would be able to show that £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 at most would go as far in the navy as the £12,000,000 they were now about to vote. It was their imperative duty to look into these matters, and promptly, too, for taxation was begining to press heavily upon the country, and though it might not be much felt just now, when we were in a state of prosperity, yet if a famine came, or stagnation of business, it would rouse a strong feeling of discontent among the industrial classes. If they got value for their money he would not complain, but it was the first duty of the House to look into these matters and see that there was no wasteful expenditure.

said, that as they were to have another opportunity of discussing the question of the naval reserve on the introduction of a Bill, it was not his intention to inflict upon hon. Members all the observations which, as a member of the Commission on Manning the Navy, he should be anxious to address to the House when the proper time arrived. He would not, however, be doing his duty towards the colleagues with whom he had acted, as an attack on their scheme had been made in anticipation of the latter debate, to offer no brief defence of it on the other side. The recommendations of the Commission on the reserve in the merchant service could not be correctly gathered from the observations of the hon. Gentleman. The Committee must be under the impression that an unwise expenditure of £600,000 had been recommended, and that, upon the more accurate showing of the hon. Mem- ber, a still further expenditure of another £100,000 would be necessary. No doubt, if the hon. Member went over the whole of the subjects of the Report, which embraced a great variety of subjects, the Commissioners recommended an additional expenditure which at the proper time he was prepared to show would not amount to more than £600,000. But if the hon. Member confined himself to the subject now before the Committee—the naval reserve to be drawn from the merchant service of this country, and which would furnish 25,000 trained gunnery men to man our ships in the hour of danger—the whole expense recommended by the Commission was £200,000, and this was the only matter with which on the present occasion he ought to occupy the attention of the Committee. Upon what evidence did that recommendation rest? If there were one thing of which the Commissioners satisfied themselves it was that the system of naval impressment was a broken reed, which would pierce the hand that leaned upon it, and for this simple reason. Such was the progress of science in the use of arms, of precision, that men of the highest skill in gunnery and not the men promiscuously collected by a pressgang, were required to man their ships and sustain the honour and dignity of the country in the hour of need. With the leave of the Committee he would state in very brief outline what were the recommendations of the Commission, so that they might not be under any mistaken apprehension of what they would afterwards be called on to discuss. The proposal of the Commissioners was, that for a sum of £160,000 you should have a force of 20,000 men on the home voyage, and 5,000 men on the distant voyage, trained and practised in gunnery, who should be ready on an emergency to come forward in the defence of the country. And as with regard to the navy nothing could be more clear than that both in point of loyalty to the navy and efficiency in the service there was no body of men equal to those who from boys were trained up for the service, it was proposed to add £40,000 more in the training of boys for the reserve, thus making in all £200,000. For this sum it was anticipated they would obtain a force of 25,000 men in the merchant service trained and practised in gunnery, with a self-supporting pension fund, and with ships at each of the principal sea-ports for the purpose of entering and training youths. The hon. Gen- tleman would have the House believe that the Admiralty were making no improvement in the navy; that it required as many men to work a gun or haul on a rope now as at Trafalgar; and the House might imagine that the practical conclusion at which the hon. Gentleman arrived was that he recommended a smaller number of men than the Commissioners. But he agreed with them within 2,000 as to the number of men required from the home voyage; he exceeded them in the number of boys he recommended; he equalled them in the number of coastguard and coast volunteers; and he far exceeded the Commissioners in the number of seamen on the distant voyage and the marines. The hon. Gentleman thought the object could be attained more cheaply than the Commissioners. He hoped this might prove so. If so, it would be an argument à fortiori in favour of the plan. But the Commissioners reported to the Crown according to the evidence they received. He regretted that they had not been entirely unanimous and that the hon. Member for Sunderland had not gone with them in their report. He could only say that that report was based upon the evidence of witnesses most qualified to speak upon the subject. The Commissioners reported in conformity with the opinion of the Commander of the coastguard of England, with those of the Commander of the coastguard at Liverpool, the Chief Clerk at the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, represented by the Secretary and the officers of the nautical department, and according to the evidence of the Registrar of Seamen, and of all the shipping masters, and of the managers of the great steam-ship companies. There were reasons for the report, which he would not enter further upon at present, as a full discussion of the matter was promised on a future day. He only wished to point out that they proposed to substitute for the system of impressment a reserve of seamen, which, according to the evidence, could be accomplished for £160,000 a year, to which they had added £40,000, making altogether £200,000 — not one-sixth of the expense of maintaining a similar number of men in the service. With respect to the officers in the merchant service, who no doubt deserved all the praise the hon. Gentleman had bestowed upon them, the reason why the Commissioners did not offer any opinion was that they considered there was nothing in their Commission which authorized them to entertain that question. The report was that of three admirals—men of the highest distinction— of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and Mr. Green, the great shipowner, and at the proper time he should be prepared to defend and justify it on its merits.

said that he desired to advert to one or two points which had been raised in the course of the discussion. The first was to the non-employment in the Navy of appliances which had been introduced into the merchant service. It must be borne in mind that the manning of a ship of war was in relation to the guns and not to the rigging. Such appliances as patent trusses and blocks, with a strong ship's company, would be torn to pieces, and be of no earthly use. The patent truss was tried on board one of the hon. Company's ships and found to be unserviceable in the case of heavy yards. Besides, he was not aware that any mode of handling had been discovered which would reduce the number of men required to manage a 32-pounder. The subject of officers was not within the scope of inquiry of the Commission, but he thought it was one which merited investigation. It was very well to point to the number of admirals, and to say that so many were not fit for active service; but it was natural that during a forty years' peace men should grow old, and according to their interest or merit should rise to the highest grades, and owing to the more temperate habits of the period should live longer than their forefathers did. There was a long lieutenants' list, including men of all ages, some sixty or seventy years old, while a quarter-deck officer's efficiency rarely lasted beyond forty-five. In the year 1848 a Committee sat, presided over by the noble Duke now at the head of the Admiralty, to which were to be attributed many of the evils existing in the navy. The number of junior officers entering the service was restricted, and now there were three-decked ships with only six or seven midshipmen, instead of twenty. A man of war without midshipmen was crippled. With half-a-dozen efficient midshipmen he would dispense with a lieutenant or two. The consequence of the present system was that there was no rising junior class. He thought, instead of allowing old lieutenants to drag on a miserable existence upon a guinea a week, the fairest way would be to buy them out of the service when they had done a fair turn of work, and so keep the junior portion of the service in an efficient condition. With respect to the conversion of ships, he thought it absolutely necessary that that work should go on, but he confessed he had never yet seen a ship converted properly according to his notion. A vessel to be converted properly ought to be cut across at the foremast and afterport, lengthened by a good run aft, and a completely new entrance added forward: these parts ought to be strongly fortified, and would supply much of the room now occupied by the engine-room. She would then have her original battery on the main deck, would be more buoyant, and generally more commodious and efficient. There was another point that had not been noticed, but which was of importance—the expenditure for fuel. Having paid much attention to the subject, he was convinced that if proper measures were adopted very large sums might be saved. At present he believed that not a single one of the many meritorious appliances for consuming smoke or economizing fuel had been adopted in the navy. Then, again, as to the construction of engines, he could not see why the eminent engineers of the Clyde should not be allowed to compete with their more favoured brethren of the Thames. The machinery on board of the West Indian steamers were equal to any that was to be found in the Royal Navy. The Royal Commission, of which he was a member, made recommendations which were of a twofold character, and which he was happy to sec in a great measure carried out. One class of the recommendations concerned the well-being of the seamen, the other the provisions of an efficient reserve. The food on board ship was insufficient, and he would advise the present Board of Admiralty to go further than the last, and add the quarter pound of meat for supper which the Commissioners agreed was necessary for the health of the men. He could assure them that a seaman in a hot climate, who took his tea and a biscuit at five o'clock p.m., and then kept two watches without eating a single tiling till eight o'clock next morning, could not avoid falling sick under such a system. An officer who had just returned from China, and had there shipped two crews, the last being of merchant seamen, told him that the chief, indeed only complaint, which he had from the last crew was that they did not have enough to eat. The Commissioners also recommended that there should be restored to the warrant officers their widows' pensions, the withdrawal of which had sunk deeply into the minds of those men. They were chosen from the élite of the seamen, and while the amount of property under their care was greater than ever, their pay and standing in the service had been much lowered. The effect of this state of things has been to make it very difficult to induce good men to come forward for the warrant. With regard to Greenwich Hospital, he had once fancied that it must be a perfect Elysium; but after examining it the Commissioners considered the state of matters! there most wretched, and it was a question whether it would not be better for the service that the money spent there should he given to the men as out-pensioners, so that they might be enabled to live comfortably with their friends, instead of keeping them, as at present, in one of the worst monasteries ever established. He strongly disapproved of the use of frigates as flagships in hot climates. The flagship was a sort of storeship for the squadron; and unless it was very roomy the men had to be accommodated on the lower deck, which in hot stations were absolutely pestilential, and he had every reason to believe that this was the main cause of the shortness of seamen's lives.

said, he had listened with pleasure to the very able statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty, which had been followed by a very able debate, showing the great and growing errors existing in the naval system. Still he thought they had been putting the cart before the horse; that they had been dealing with effects instead of causes. Many of the evils so ably stated were attributable solely and entirely to the general errors of the system and to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty; and what he should have preferred would have been that this discussion had been preceded by a discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member who proposed to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and that the House should have looked into that part of the question before commencing the discussion as to the errors and mistakes and blunders which occurred under the present system. He had long been of opinion that it was utterly impossible, constituted as the Board of Admiralty was, that it should not be the source of errors, blunders, and extravagances without end. And the two grounds of that opinion were these. It was perfectly impossible that a Board, at the head of which was placed a gentleman, be his talents what they might, who was utterly unacquainted with the details of the business over which he had to preside, should be ever conducted in an able, satisfactory, and economical manner. But he believed that there was still a greater evil existing than that, and that was in the fact that the Board of Admiralty was subject to change at every change of the Government. So long as that was the case, whether those who presided or those who came after were right in their views did not much matter. So long as we had the recurrence of a change of system from good to bad, or from bad to good, there must he delays and other inconveniences attending a change. The navy, above all, required a continuance of men who were, first, duly qualified for their office, and secondly, who from long experience had acquired that knowledge which long experience only could give. As to the question of the bounty, he must differ from his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay). He thought the late Admiralty was justified in offering the bounty for manning the navy. He thought they had no other course to pursue under the circumstances, as it was the only means in their power to supply the deficiency of men that then existed, with the requisite rapidity; but the fact of their having been compelled to do so was the fullest proof not only of the defective constitution of the Board of Admiralty, but that it was a standing slur on a country calling itself the "first maritime nation in the world." If the navy department were in an efficient condition, not only would there be an efficient force for all immediate wants, but such a reserve, on which the Admiralty could lay their hands at once, that the necessity for a bounty could never possibly occur. He might add that the mode in which anchors had been supplied to the navy was another proof of the inefficient system which prevailed under the present constitution of the Admiralty.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken, that they ought to have a discussion which would settle the question once and for all, whether they should continue the present system at the Admiralty. It would be better to set apart a night for that purpose, instead of having continually to listen to a series of desultory attacks involving vague charges which there was no opportunity of answering properly. On the question of the bounty he could hardly give an opinion, because he was not aware of the circumstances to which the right hon. Baronet opposite had so much referred. If there was a pressing danger, the right hon. Baronet was not only justified in what he had done, but was to be praised for it. Unless there was a pressing danger, it was not a wise step to have recourse to the extreme measure of offering a bounty. He would postpone any remarks upon the manning of the navy which he had to make, until that opportunity which he understood would be afforded them of discussing that important subject. With regard to the question of provisions, a Committee had sat in 1850 and had fully considered it; and its recommendations had been adopted by the Admiralty of the day. He had himself asked for a vote of £30,000 for improving the provisions for the navy. The Report of the Commission on the Manning of the Navy required in his opinion to be fully considered and debated, and he was by no means prepared to accept it without discussion. He should he glad to hear how far the recommendations of former Commissioners had been successful, how far the continuous service system had enabled them to procure a better class of men, and whether it had led to those advantages which were expected from it. There ought to be a full inquiry into these points, and he hoped the First Lord would give them an opportunity of ascertaining whether all the charges made against the Admiralty were true or not.

said, the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty had submitted the additional Naval Estimates to the House in a clear and lucid statement greatly creditable to him, seeing how short a period he had held his present office. He was desirous to fix the attention of the noble Lord to a recommendation he had enforced upon the late First Lord of the Admiralty, on the occasion of his submitting the Naval Estimates to the House in the early part of the present Session, that there should be a Board constituted, to assemble as occasion might offer, to be composed of experienced and scientific men, not naval officers singly, who should receive the suggestions and consider the inventions of those who had turned their attention to improvement in naval architecture, gunnery, and other inventions pertaining to the naval service. And at a time, as he had more than once adverted to in this House, when science was making fresh advances hitherto unexampled, and other maritime Powers were strengthening their navies in proportion, no caution could be too great in a timely construction of our ships before war commenced. The position, one of the highest importance and responsibility, that of the Surveyor of the Navy, demanding as it did the display of great ability and a judicious expenditure of the public money, required that it should be accompanied by a seat at the Board of Admiralty, by which opportunity and authority would be afforded to him to represent his opinions with freedom and cogency. He believed that the late First Lord of the Admiralty yielded to none of his predecessors in a desire to improve the service. Complaints, however, had been made respecting the bounty which the right hon. Gentleman had offered; but the House should remember the state of affairs on the Continent had been such during the last few months that it was impossible to foresee what position this country would be placed in. We had splendid ships and plenty of them; but what use were they, unless they were alive with practical officers and efficient crews from stem to stern. Now, the fact was, they had not efficient crews and not a considerable number of practical officers; and the reason was, that during the long peace of forty years which we had enjoyed, we had been unable to employ the officers on the list to any great extent. In the case of any emergency, however, he was satisfied that the navy of Great Britain would preserve the high honour and character which it had always hitherto maintained. It was within his knowledge that not a single fleet issued from an enemy's port from 1794 to 1815, which did not supply fresh laurels to the British Navy, and that even when we were engaged in fighting single handed. Let us then be prepared for any exigency that might arise; for a preparedness to meet danger was the best security for occupying a solid position. With regard to our ships, he feared we were building them of too great a length. In the present Estimates, he observed a sum of £250,000 for a contract to build two ships, and he had heard that these ships were to be from 4,000 to 6,000 tons burden, and to be furnished with the masts and yards of ninety gun ships. If that were correct, he had no hesitation in saying that it would be a gigantic failure, and that the ships would be perfectly useless (under any circumstances) unless they had two screws, one fore and the other aft, so as to back or go ahead as might be required; for if they happened to be thrown on a lee shore in heavy weather, it would require great sea-room for them to turn without incurring the greatest danger.

said, he now had a very pleasing duty to perform, in thanking those hon. Gentlemen who had complimented him on his manner of performing his duty, and had made many valuable suggestions. That which had just been made for a Board of scientific men to consider the subject of naval architecture was a very valuable one. He also had to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland for his suggestions, which he would lay before the Board of Admiralty.

said, that he wished to ask for a pledge that none of the sums contained in the Votes amounting in all to £58,657, for carrying out part of the scheme of the Commissioners for Manning the Navy should be expended until Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing the whole report.

said, it was impossible to give that pledge as some of the money—such as the expense of gratuitous bedding and other such items—had already been expended.

said, in that case he must protest against the expenditure of public money without the sanction of Parliament. The House, too, was thus committed beforehand to at least one part of the scheme of the Commissioners.

said, he hoped that the noble Lord would persevere with the items.

remarked, that there was no ground for complaining of any attempt prematurely to pledge the House to the report of the Commissioners. They had made certain recommendations, and the vote referred to was for the purpose of carrying out part of their scheme. If the hon. Gentleman did not approve of that scheme, the constitutional time to object was when the Vote came before the Committee, and if he succeeded in persuading the Committee to agree with him and reject these items that part of the scheme would fall to the ground.

said, he had to complain that the House was now called upon to vote nearly £2,000,000 without any explanation. He should therefore move that the Chairman report progress.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion, as he believed the general feeling of the House was in favour of proceeding with the Votes.

said, he thought the general feeling of the country would be that some explanation should be afforded with regard to the demand of £2,000,000 beyond the amount required by the late Government. The present Navy Estimates were nearly double the amount of any which had been asked for since the termination of the last war, and, although he was as anxious as any one to place the navy in a state of efficiency, he thought some explanation ought to be afforded on the subject.

said, the only amount required in these Estimates beyond those prepared by the late Government was £100,000 to continue the labours of shipwrights in the different dockyards.

said, that the Estimates of the late Government were £10,800,000, and those now before the House were £12,682,000.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had not been asleep during the last two years, and that he was aware that the universal feeling of the country was that we should place ourselves in such a position as would enable us to maintain our neutrality.

said, he had no objection to a single Vote being taken.

would again move that the Chairman report progress.

said, he would move, for the third time, that the Chairman report progress.

said, he wished to ask what was the object of this Bill.

said, this Bill was merely intended to render any person whom Her Majesty might appoint equivalent to the Clerk in ordinary of Council so far as regarded the signing of certain acts. It would, no doubt, save the expense to the country hitherto incurred by having two Clerks of the Council.

asked, what would be the salary of the retiring clerk?

replied, that he was unable to answer the question, but the amount would appear in the Estimates.

said, no doubt it was very desirable to curtail the expenses which fell on the Sheriffs, but he thought the measure required more consideration than appeared to have been given to it and that its second reading ought to be postponed. He professed to transfer the duty of forming the escort for the Judges of Assize and of maintaining order in court from the High Sheriff and his javelinmen to the county police. It was a serious question whether the effect of this would not often be to subtract largely at the time of the assizes from the number of the county police available for their ordinary duty, and thus afford to the thieves a convenient opportunity for the exercise of their ingenuity. He also thought that some difficulties might arise as to where the jurisdictions of the High Sheriff and the chief constable terminated. For instance, how far would the chief constable of the county, when keeping order in court, be under the directions of the High Sheriff? The whole subject of Sheriffs' expenses might advantageously be inquired into before a Committee—a course much preferable to dealing with the matter piecemeal in the manner now proposed.

said, his impression, without having considered the matter, was that the chief constable would not be bound by the present law to obey the orders of the High Sheriff. The duties of the javelinmen were, no doubt, to a great extent ceremonial. He would take care that inquiry should be made of the county inspectors of police on the subject if the hon. Gentleman would postpone the Committee for some time.

said, that if the House would read the Bill a second time he would postpone the Committee till the 19th of July, which would give ample time for consideration.

, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Regulation of the Corporation of the City of London, said that that Bill very much resembled the Bill that was introduced on the same subject in a former Session, and referred to a Select Committee, where it underwent considerable alterations, the principal alteration being an increase in the number of wards. The main difference between that Bill and the Bill he wished to introduce was this—that it only dealt with the constitution of the Corporation, and omitted entirely the financial part of the question. It did not attempt to deal with the coal duties or with the metage duties. Those were questions that must be reserved for future consideration. He did not wish to be understood as expressing any opinion on these questions. The coal duties, or at least a portion of them, would expire a. an early period, and it would be convenient to postpone the consideration of those difficult questions till that time arrived, or shortly before.