Sir, I beg to give notice that on Monday next, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into Committee upon the Customs Acts, I shall move the following Resolution as an Amendment to the Motion:—

"That this House, recognizing the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure of the coming financial year, is of opinion that it is not expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary revenue, and is not prepared to disappoint the just expectations of the country by reimposing the income tax at an unnecessarily high rate."

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Prize Money captured by the Troops employed in quelling the late Mutiny in that Country is to be divided equally amongst all the Troops engaged without reference to district, or are there to be separate divisions of the Money for the relief of Lucknow under Lord Clyde (for which those engaged have hitherto received neither batta nor distinction), for the capture of that city, of Delhi, and of the sums realized in other places?

said, that all the troops in India during the mutiny, wherever employed, would certainly not receive prize money. The troops who captured Delhi would receive the prize money of that place; the troops who captured Lucknow would receive the prize oney of that place; but the troops who captured no place and took no prize money would not receive prize money belonging to other troops.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any special information on the State of Hungary has recently been received by the Government; and if so, whether there is any objection to that information being communicated to the House.

said, that a great deal of information had been received from our Minister at Vienna with respect to the state of Hungary, but, as it referred to the internal government of another country, he considered that it would not be convenient to lay it before Parliament.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War whether her Majesty's Government propose to make provision in the Army Estimates for supplying Ammunition to the different Corps of Rifle Volunteers; and whether Her Majesty's Government will place the Rifle Volunteers on the same footing in respect of Ammunition as the Volunteer Artillery.

said, he would prefer to give an answer in a few days, when he should be prepared to make a statement upon the whole subject.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is his intention to enforce the payment of the Duty on all home-grown Hops on the 1st day of January, or whether he will allow home-growers, by availing themselves of the proposed system of Inland Bonding, to share in the advantage enjoyed by the importers of foreign Hops, of not paying the Duty until the Hops are sold for consumption.

said, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in a letter which had appeared in the public papers the arrangements which he proposed with regard to hops:—namely, that the reduced duty on Foreign and English hops should not take effect until the 1st of January, 1861. As a considerable period was allowed the English hop-grower for payment of the duty, and as the duty was not paid usually until some time after the crop was gathered and sold, it was not probable that a longer interval would be enjoyed by the importer of foreign hops. He, therefore, did not think that any system of inland bonding would be extended to articles like hops.

said, he would also beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Resolution reducing the Excise Duty upon Hops to 14s. a cwt. will apply to the duty upon the crop of 1859, payable in May and November next; and if not, from what date it is intended that the corresponding Resolution reducing the Customs Duty on Foreign Hops should take effect?

said, that the present Duty on Hops would apply to the whole of the crop of 1859, payable in May and November next; and as had been already stated, the reduced Duty both on English and Foreign Hops would only come into effect on the 1st of January, 1861.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he is preparer] to give an assurance that Regiments of Militia will not, unless the exigencies of the State require it, be called out for training during those periods of the year when the services of the men are most needed for agricultural purposes?

said, the Committee which sat on the subject of the Militia last year recommended that trainings in future should be as nearly as possible simultaneous, so as to prevent the passing of men from one corps to another, in order to get double bounty and training pay. The Government had determined, as far as possible, to act upon that recommendation. It was clear that in different portions of the country the time of harvest was different; he had, therefore, put himself into communication with the Lords-Lieutenant of counties; and, in all probability, regiments in the south of England would assemble in May, and regiments further north later, in order that the training should not occur at a time when labour was greatly required,

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed Penny Stamp on Brokers' Contract Notes will apply to all transactions in the Public Funds, and will it therefore legalize all such transactions?

said, it was intended to make the Penny Stamp applicable to time bargains, and to repeal the Act of George II., which he had no hesitation in saying was a relic of an obsolete system, and, if enforced, would be most prejudicial in its effect. It was now a dead letter, except to cast an unmerited stigma on a respectable body of men, and to arm dishonest persons with the means of repudiating inconvenient contracts.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the expenses of Fortifying Plymouth and Devonport are included in the Estimates that have been laid upon the Table?

said, that the Estimates on the Table contained a lump sum on the subject of fortifications, without specifying the particular places to which the money was to be applied. It was rather unusual; but the hon. Gentle- man would have probably guessed that the reason was that the Report of the Commissioners on National Defences, in a complete form, was only placed in his hands on Saturday last. It was a matter of very grave and serious consideration, and he wished to have time to lay it before the Government, with the view to settle whatever plans it was expedient to adopt. Under those circumstances he had taken a lump sum The continuance of all existing works was included, and at a later period he would state the course which the Government intended to take upon the whole subject.

said, apprehending that the House had not gathered from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening to what period it was proposed to defer the payment of the £1,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds duo in the course of the next financial year, he would beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury to state the period.

said, that the last precedent for the renewal of Exchequer bonds was that set by the right hon. Gentleman himself, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1858, when £2,000,000 of Exchequer bonds were renewed for three and a half and four and a half years. It was probable that a somewhat similar period might be taken in this instance; but until the financial arrangements submitted to the House were further advanced, Government was not in a position to state the exact date. But sufficient notice of the date would be given before any Vote was proposed on the subject.

The principal object I have in view in asking the question of which I have given notice on the Motion for adjournment is to obtain what we failed in obtaining on a previous occasion from the Government—namely, a clear, distinct, and straightforward answer. The subject is one of deep interest to the country, and in order that I may adhere strictly to the rules of the House it will, perhaps, be kind enough to allow me to put to it an hypothetical case. Allow me to suppose that on a very recent occasion some hon. Member of this House put the question I now propose to put to the noble Lord at the head of the administration to a distinguished Member of the present Government, and received an answer something to the following effect:—"That as to whether the rejection of the treaty would produce any disturbance in our friendly relations, why the hon. Gentleman and every other Member of the House is quite as capable of forming an opinion as we are; that any threat or intimation of that kind has been made is utterly untrue, but as to what effect any angry speeches in the House of Commons against France, followed by a rejection of the Treaty might have, hon. Members can judge for themselves." I confess, if I had been in the position of the hon. Member who I suppose as having put that question, I should have heard the answer with considerable surprise. In the first place, it appears somewhat singular that a distinguished Member of the Government, entrusted with the foreign relations of the country, should have failed to have told any other Member of Her Majesty's Government what, in his opinion, might be the result of the discussion of this most important question, and that the Government of which he is a Member should not have anticipated the possible result of such discussion, and were not prepared to say what in their opinion that result would be. I confess if I had received such an answer I should certainly, having failed to obtain a direct answer from one Member of the Government, have taken the course of applying to the head of that Government, in the hope of obtaining a more distinct reply. I will leave the House to judge how far I have drawn on my imagination in putting this supposititious case. In my opinion the whole thing lies in a nut-shell. We have been told that the Commercial Treaty with France was a treaty which had been ratified, subject to the sanction of the House of Commons. On this only one interpretation can be put, that we are left to deal with the subject unfettered by any other consideration than the expediency of the Treaty itself. It is true that nothing to the contrary has been said in the House, but we are constantly hearing whispers in the lobby that we should be very careful how we deal with any of the details of the treaty, because any rejection on our part of its details might disturb our amicable relations with France? If that is the real meaning of the noble Lord, I can only look upon it as a positive insult to the House and the country. I cannot, however, bring myself to believe that the Government have not anticipated that the Treaty may not be accepted by the House, and that it has foreseen and provided for all possible consequences. I wish, therefore, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any understanding has been come to between the Governments of France and this country in the event of the Commercial Treaty not being sanctioned by Parliament?

I will endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman as plain an answer to his question as I can; and it will be very simple, as might naturally be expected. The Treaty was concluded between the Governments of France and England, as appears by a distinct Article in the Treaty, subject to the approval of Parliament. We may, perhaps, have been too sanguine in our expectation of the success of a measure which we deemed to be of great importance to the public interest, both as regards the development of our own commercial resources and as regards the natural and, we trust, the sure consequences that will result from the cementing more closely and thoroughly a good understanding between the two nations; but, confiding in the good sense of this House and the country, and anticipating that their verdict would be in conformity with our judgment, our hope, and our expectation, it is needless to say that we have not deemed it to be our duty to provide by any understanding with France for the failure of our just expectations. My answer, therefore, is that no such understanding has been come to, because we did not anticipate a failure of the proposals which we have made. Although there may be those who, like the hon. Gentleman, disapprove the treaty—and we don't, of course, challenge or question the judgment which any person or set of persons may pass upon it —our sanguine expectation is that the judgment of the country and of Parliament in the aggregate will be in favour of our proposals. Perhaps, while I am on my legs, I may be permitted to state that, as we are to commence the discussion of the Budget on Monday, it would be most convenient for the public service and for the despatch of business if the debate were to be allowed to go on day by day without being postponed by the intervention of any other business, which would be likely to occupy the House for any time.

in rising to put a question to the Secretary of State for War relative to the arming of the Volunteer Artillery Corps, observed that his attention had been called to a circumstance which had occurred at Liverpool, which afforded a pretty good indication of the feeling entertained by the Volunteer Artillary Corps with respect to the question of the arms which they were to carry. When Colonel M'Murdo, who had been appointed inspector of the Volunteer Artillery Corps, proceeded some days since to Liverpool to inspect about 1,500 of the corps, the major commanding and the officer of an artillery corps consisting of 640 men, which had been raised there, had impressed upon him the absolute necessity of arming the volunteers with the rifled carbine, and not with the old musket. It appeared that a majority of the force had joined on the express understanding that the artillery corps would be armed with the carbine and bayonet, and under those circumstances it was not to be expected that they should march through the streets of Liverpool armed with an antiquated Roman sword? The thing was utterly ridiculous. The major had also reported to the inspector that unless the men were properly armed he anticipated the utmost difficulty in keeping the corps together. He (Lord Elcho) should have thought nothing of this had it been an isolated case, but the fact was there were the same complaints in every volunteer artillery corps. The Government had intimated that volunteers raised in sea-board counties should be formed into Volunteer Artillery Corps, but he thought that it would be found impossible to do so unless they consented to issue a proper description of arms. With that view lie begged to ask the Secretary of State whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to arm the Volunteer Artillery Corps with the carbine and bayonet?

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether as the Army of India has now been brought under the immediate administration of the Crown, it is his intention to permit Officers of the Indian Army to send their sons to Woolwich and Sandhurst upon the same terms as to payment as those upon which Officers of Her Majesty's other Forces are permitted to send their sons to those establishments?

said, he was desirous of putting to the Secretary of State the question of which he had given notice, with reference to the discussion on the Budget on Monday, Whether the Army Estimates comprise the whole sum to be I asked for the Defences of the Country for the ensuing year, or when an Estimate for any additional sum is to be laid upon the table? The Budget which had been submitted to the House was of a somewhat ambitious character, and dealt largely with the internal and external condition of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gilt the pill with all that consummate art and ability of which he was master; but it was essential that Parliament, in examining the prescription, should have before them all the elements which could enable them to form a decision. The right hon. Gentleman was about to make extensive remissions of what had been hitherto regarded as the permanent revenue of the country, and to repeal some taxes which were very objectionable in themselves and had become odious to large portions of the community. He had not the least objection to the abolition of these duties, providing a substitute were forthcoming to repair the wide breaches thus made in the permanent income of the nation; but the resources which were brought to bear for this purpose were of so adventitious and accidental a character—as, for instance, the taking up of the credit on the malt duties, and the sum of money which had come in once for all from Spain — that before concurring in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman he was anxious to know what other expenses it was probable the country would be called on to incur in the course of the year. They had been asked to vote a sum of £500,000 on account of the Chinese expedition. The war with that country he looked upon as unjust and unfortunate, and he believed that it would prove to be a great mistake; but, right or wrong, they were bound to meet the expenditure, and the experience which he had acquired from former undertakings of a similar character led him to the belief that the sum which was to be voted on this account would prove altogether inadequate. Under such circumstances he felt he was perfectly justified in putting the question of which he had given notice. For if they were about to take away a largo portion of the permanent income of the country and to repair the loss by accidental and adventitious means, and if in addition they had the prospect of a large aggravation of their expenses in the East, the whole case as to the expenses of the year ought to be put before the House. In answer to the hon. Member for Stroud, who was the great advocate of an extensive system of fortifications, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had last Session stated that owing to the recent period at which the Commission of Inquiry had made their Report, he was not prepared to state what course the Government might think it right to adopt. What he now wished to inquire was, not what the Government were disposed to recommend, or the amount which it was probable would eventually be required, but whether it was likely that in the present Session any considerable sum of money would be asked for on account of those plans. On the subject of the expenses themselves he expressed no opinion whatever, but as regarded the military Estimates which had been laid on the table it was impossible to speak without deep lamentation and regret, and he trusted that they would afford a lesson to the younger Members of the House. It might be possible, after careful examination, to effect some slight reduction in their amount; but the great bulk would still remain, and he supposed that they must make up their minds to meet it. It was therefore of the utmost importance that the country should be dealt with openly and honestly, and be made acquainted with the entire amount of the Bill. It was simply in a financial point of view, and in order to the clearer understanding of the discussion upon the Budget on Monday night, that he would now ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Army Estimates contained the entire sum which would be required for the defence of the country during the ensuing year?

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the Government to provide grounds for the target practice of the Volunteer Rifle Corps? According to the present regulations, the different corps were required to provide their own practice grounds, which should in no case be less than 200 yards in extent, and it was found that in reality a much more extensive range was required. The difficulties in their way, especially in populous localities, were so great that, unless some assistance were afforded by the Government, he believed it would require considerable time before these corps acquired that efficiency which was so very desirable.

said, he would answer the questions as far as he could in the order in which they had been put to him. In reference to the question put by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), he could only say that if the volunteer artillary corps wished to extract from the Government rifle carbines of the best description the Government would not be able to comply with the demand, because there was not yet a sufficient supply for the regular forces; but if the corps would accept carbines of an inferior description, the Government would be very happy to place them at their disposal. With respect to the question put by the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Wyld) he had to state that it was not the intention of the Government to purchase practising grounds for the use of volunteer corps. If Government were to undertake to perform any such duty as to provide ranges for rifle corps, the cost to the country would be something enormous. Where volunteer corps, having strong local influence and strong local connections, could hire or buy, perhaps obtain gratuitously, ground for such a purpose, it should be done; for if the Government came into the market there was a peculiar tendency in the value of property to rise in consequence, and of this he had had so much experience that he should be very much dissatisfied at any attempt to extend the practice. As to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hassard), he was sorry he could not give him an answer that would be satisfactory. The College at Sandhurst was not financially in a very satisfactory state at present, and an extension of the privileges of that institution to the sons of Indian officers at the present rates would only tend to involve the college in further embarrassment. It must be recollected that the officers of the local army of the Indian Government received higher pay, and their widows obtained higher pensions, than was the case with officers in the Queen's service, though the latter had a counterbalancing advantage in the right of sending their sons to Sandhurst. An officer in the Queen's army received £127 half-pay, and he paid £40 a year for the expenses of his son at Sandhurst, leaving a balance of £87; but an Indian officer received £365, and had to pay £100 for his son, instead of £40, leaving a balance of £265. That established at once a very great difference. However, he did not wish to preclude himself from dealing with this question in the future. To the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellice) whether the Army Estimates upon the table contained all the sums which it was likely Covernment would require for the military purposes of the year, he answered, in the first place, "No," because there was a Vote that would have to be taken for the disembodied militia of upwards of £500,000; but if the right hon. Gentleman referred to any Supplementary Estimate, in addition to those before the House, he (Mr. Sidney Herbert), would guard himself first by saying that subsequent to the Estimates of last year two Supplementary Estimates were proposed; but he would say that the Government had no expectation of being called on to ask the House to vote any additional sums over and above those already before them. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Estimates were large enough in all conscience. He should have to explain that evening what were the causes of this great—he might almost say—lamentable increase; but regretting that increase as strongly as any one, he should shrink from his duty if he did not avow that these sums were necessary in the peculiar circumstances of the country, but he repeated that there was no intention of asking for any additional sum. It was true there were items for fortifications in the present Estimates of no very inconsiderable amount, but as the Commission on this subject had given in their Report it would become his duty as Secretary for War to form his opinion on the course best to be pursued; and if, having come to a conclusion as to what was necessary, he could persuade the Administration to adopt his plans, and they could obtain the assent of the House of Commons, well and good; but he repeated that they had laid on the table of the House the exact sum which they had reason to believe Parliament would be called on to vote for this year. With regard to the sum taken for China, it must be remembered that the Vote of credit asked was about £1,350,000, part of which would be applied in the present financial year, and the remainder be thrown upon the next.

said, he wished to ask the Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any measures for the consolidation of the whole of the Statute Law?

said, at the close of the last Session the House had declined to continue the Statute Law Commission—a decision in which he was not unwilling to concur. He immediately, with the approbation of the Lord Chancellor, took steps for arranging a plan with a view to the consolidation of the statutes. He secured the services of three gentlemen—two of whom were to undertake the Civil, and one the Criminal Statute Law. In this latter work considerable progress had been made, and they were greatly indebted to the labours of the late Government, and especially to his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. With regard to the Civil Law Statutes it appeared to him most desirable that, in the first place, they should ascertain with accuracy of what the Statute Law of England now consisted, and after some delay, he had been able to obtain the consent of the Government to the employment of two gentlemen, under the superintendence of the Lord Chancellor, who had been directed to form what might be called an index of the Statute Law as it stood; in this also considerable progress had been made, some of the labours of the old Statute Law Commission having been adopted. It was intended to bring into one comprehensive index all the statutes that had expired, become obsolete, or had been rescinded, partially or entirely. The result would be to reduce the statute-book to a very few volumes. He proposed, then, to have the statutes arranged in a general way, under particular heads, and he hoped to be able with the consent of the House, during the present Session, to pass a preliminary measure for the purpose of sweeping away from the statute-book all that, on an accurate examination, should turn out to be no longer part of the statute law. The gentlemen employed, under the superintendence of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers, were proceeding with an expurgated edition of the statutes. They would be arranged under convenient divisions, each statute printed so as to bear on the face of it, in foot-notes, evidence of the manner in which it was affected or operated upon by subsequent statutes not expressly repealed, and in that way he trusted, proceeding regularly from the present reign backward, he would be enabled, in a very short time, to lay before the House a reduced and expurgated edition of the statutes. The House must be aware that the very small staff placed at the command of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers would forbid the hope of any great expedition. The whole sum devoted to this great work was not to exceed £3,000 a year; the limited nature of the supply would therefore render it impossible to make as much progress as might otherwise be expected. With regard to the criminal law, matters were more fortunate, for more had been done with it. Probably the hon. and learned Member was aware that Bills consolidating the Criminal Law had already been brought into the other House of Parliament; they were laid on the table, and he durst say would, in a very short time, come down to the House of Commons. He trusted that the whole subject of the consolidation of the statutes would be committed to a Board. A Resolution in favour of that proposal had already passed the House. He had had the honour of submitting a plan for carrying that Resolution into effect, which was favourably considered. The consolidation of the statutes, after the expurgated edition was completed, would be very much facilitated; but he thought the consolidation should be committed to a Board composed of more members than the small number of gentlemen who were now able to give their time to it.

said, the question of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was whether the whole statute law was about to be consolidated. He (Mr. Whiteside) thought if they began in that wholesale way they would get little done. It was much better to proceed gradually in the matter, taking the statutes that related to one branch of the law first, and when they had consolidated them to proceed seriatim until the whole work of consolidation was completed. It should also be recollected that the Board would have no power to change or ameliorate the law, and he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General to Bills for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death and the Consolidation of the Statute Law of England and Ireland, which had been laid before the late Government, and had met with their approval. These measures should be brought forward on the responsibility of the Government. It was decided by the late Government that the first subject for consolidation should be the criminal statute law, and after that the commercial and then the real property statute law; because if they got the criminal and commercial law and the laws relating to landed property consolidated, they would have that portion of the statute law simplified which concerned men in the ordinary affairs of life.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the recent increase of Small-Fox and to the liability of the propagation of infectious diseases by the use of Street Cabs in conveying such cases to Hospitals and other places, and to ask whether it would not be desirable that Government should introduce some legislative provision for the establishment of Carriages for the exclusive use of the sick, and for the prohibition of the employment of Street Cabs for the above purpose within the Metropolitan district. There could be no difficulty in finding the proper machinery for carrying out his suggestion. There were several Boards in London, any one of which might take charge of it—the Poor Law Board, the Police Commissioners, the Medical Department of the Privy Council, and the Metropolitan Board of Works. The parish of St. James had already a carriage appropriated to the conveyance of the sick to the hospital, and there was no difficulty in confining its use to that class. The carriage could always be horsed from the nearest stand—by hiring the cab and horse, and harnessing the horse to the sick carriage, leaving the cab in the proper charge —and the cabman could receive extra payment. To show how much small-pox was spreading, and how largely the conveyance of cases in street cabs tended to spread the infection, he might mention the case of a town within ten miles of London where a street cab had brought from the metropolis a person labouring under small-pox, and that single case had affected the whole town, so that the epidemic was raging in the whole locality. He would therefore ask the question that he had placed on the paper.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman as to the danger involved in the present practice. He had no doubt that it would be extremely easy to prohibit the carrying of sick persons in cabs. The difficulty would be in finding a substitute for those vehicles. It could hardly be expected that the Government should undertake the conveyance of all the sick persons in the kingdom. It would be quite possible for parishes to make provision for that purpose, but until some such arrangement were made it would be hardly right to suppress the existing mode of conveyance. The police authorities had, however, ordered some model cabs to be provided for the conveyance of such sick persons as were under their control.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India what foundation there is for a report that the business of the India Office is to be transferred to apartments in the Victoria Hotel, Westminster; that a portion of the manuscript Records at the India Office are to be destroyed; and that the Museum and Library are to be dispersed; and in case of their being any truth in the above report, to ask what arrangements are contemplated to enable the East India Company to conduct their affairs. It had been rumoured that apartments had been taken at the Victoria Hotel, Westminster, for the purpose of transferring the business of the India Office there for a term of three years, at a rental of £6,000 per annum. The idea of the Government of India being transferred to lodgings at an hotel seemed hardly consistent with its dignity, and that £6,000 a year was to be paid for these lodgings seemed odder still. But that was not all. Under the roof of the present India House were arranged a vast number of manuscript records, comprising 200,000 folio volumes, which had with great labour and pains been racked, indexed, and classified in so methodical a manner that any paper that was required might be obtained in less than five minutes. These documents had to be referred to every hour by the different departments, and the greatest inconvenience and confusion must obviously re- sult if they were transferred to the temporary lodgings of the Government. At the India House there was also a museum, comprising an epitome of India in all its phases of climate, soil, minerals, raw materials, arts, manufactures, social characteristics and races; and there was not a manufacturing town in the kingdom which did not take an interest in that collection. This museum had been open to the public twice a week for only two years, and yet it had been visited by 150,000 persons. It was, therefore, most important that the collection should be kept together as a whole, and not broken up and dispersed in a variety of places. The British Museum could not exhibit one-half of its present treasures; and there could, therefore, be no use in sending the contents of this Indian Museum to be deposited in the underground store-rooms of that overstocked institution. Besides this museum there was a library of Oriental manuscripts at the India House, which were consulted by learned men from all parts of Europe. No greater act of Vandalism could be conceived than the breaking up of such a collection. The legal question might also be raised whether all these treasures were not the property of the East India Company, as they had been acquired, not from territorial revenue, but from the Company's commercial assets. Moreover, the cost of their removal to the temporal accommodation to be obtained by the Government, pending the controversy as to the best style of architecture for our public offices, would be enormous as well as destructive, and though the prospects of Indian finance had decidedly brightened, there was not any margin for unnecessary outlay. The Secretary for India was solely responsible to the House for the good Government of India in every department of the State except in that of finance; but in that his authority only ran concurrently with his Council; he trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would be able to assure the House that the proposed outlay had been carefully considered. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by putting his question.

said, he rose to express a hope that the rumour referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was without foundation. In any new arrangements the Government ought to pay some regard to the convenience of those persons carrying on business in the City who had fre- quent transactions to conduct with the Indian Department. It would be a great impediment to the operations of bankers, stockbrokers, and East India agents if they had to go to and from the West-end to manage their affairs.

said, he was not surprised that his hon. and gallant Friend who had long taken so great an interest in Indian matters had put this question to him. The House would, however, remember that the removal of the Indian Department to the West-end of the town was not now an open question. That removal had been decided upon long ago, and the only question at present was as to the time at which it should be carried into effect. The present arrangement led to great public inconvenience, on account of the time wasted in moving backwards and forwards, a distance of more than three miles, between Westminster and the India House. It was not a mere matter of personal but of public convenience, that the offices of the India Department should be near Downing Street; and he was sure the noble Lord who preceded him in office would confirm that statement. The benefit of the Indian Council would be entirely lost unless the Secretary of State was in constant communication with the members of it; and that could only be effected, during the sitting of Parliament, by removing it to the West-end. As it might be some time before the vexed question of style in regard to the new offices was settled and the buildings erected, a portion of the new Hotel in Victoria Street had been hired for the temporary accommodation of the Indian Department, which would probably be removed there in June. There was no intention, so far as he was aware, of dispersing the library. As to the East India Company, by June adequate accommodation would be provided for the discharge of the not very onerous duties they had to perform. The removal of the India Office might possibly cause some slight inconvenience to mercantile men at the east end of the town, but everything would be done to lessen that inconvenience as much as possible. A portion of the business of the Company, such as the transfer of India stock, might, he thought, be transferred to the Bank of England. With regard to the records, there was a very considerable number of them; in many instances there being not only duplicates and triplicates, but quadruplicates and quintriplicates of the same documents. Acting on the Report of a Committee he had appointed to examine them, he intended to destroy a large quantity of them having reference to ships of the East India Company, which were not of the slightest use. Those of any value the hon. and gallant Member might depend upon it would be preserved.

said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session which shall provide for the religious registration of foundling children, and if so, when it is likely to be introduced?

said, that in conjunction with the Irish Poor Law Commissioners he had considered the present state of the law in Ireland on the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and he could not but admit that it was very unsatisfactory and required amendment. In bringing in the Poor Law and Medical Charities Act, however, which would occur at an early period, he should have a proposal to make to the House in regard to this matter.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the trade marks which our manufacturers placed upon then-wares were fraudulently imitated by foreign manufacturers, who brought discredit upon British productions by passing off spurious and inferior articles as such. He understood that negotiations had been entered into with foreign Powers for the purpose of devising means to prevent the forgery of those trade marks, and he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations have been entered into, and if so, what was the state of them at the present moment?

remarked, that the practice of forging trade marks was by no means confined to foreigners, and that no greater adepts in that practice were to be found than those in our own country.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will mate a statement to the House explaining why it is necessary or expedient that the fiscal arrangements between Great Britain and France, proposed in the Budget, should be made the subject of a Treaty, seeing that there exists no apparent constitutional obstacles to the adoption of those arrangements by the ordinary legislation of the two countries respectively; and whether any Correspondence bearing on this point exists between Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary and Earl Cowley and Mr. Cob-den, or between any other official personages who took part in the late negotiations; and if such Correspondence can be laid upon the Table of the House? Until within the last few weeks it seemed to be generally admitted in that House that treaties of commerce formed part of an exploded system, which ought not to be revived. It was not expedient for this country, be had understood, to enter into such treaties, because it was almost hopeless to arrange our traffic in such a way that foreign States should not suppose we were bent only on some special advantage for ourselves, and because in the case of France the powerful Protectionist party in that country would say that their Government was bartering away the fruits of their toil and industry to give it to England. Such, at least, were the views expressed no later than last July by the noble Lord at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston) and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell). The words in which the noble Lords expressed themselves so strongly against commercial treaties were listened to with assent and approbation. They were called forth by a speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Mr. Bright, who seemed to advocate a commercial treaty with France. After the noble Lords had spoken, the hon. Member for Birmingham rose and explained that he was not an advocate of commercial treaties generally, that he had not advocated a commercial treaty on that occasion, that he had merely advised an independent repeal of the wine duties as likely to lead to good results, and that his opinions were strictly in accordance with those of his noble Friends. When they saw a Government, composed of and supported by statesmen who had done so much to disseminate the principle that commercial treaties were not desirable, acting in direct violation of the opinions they had expressed, he thought it right to ask why that which appeared to them to be wrong in July should appear to be right in De- cember. He had endeavoured to make himself master of the question by listening to speeches and reading despatches which had been presented to the House. But neither in the Treaty itself nor in the very meagre correspondence between the noble Lord and the negotiators of the Treaty, nor in the elaborate and admirable speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could he find the slightest allusion to this point. The only allusion, and it was a very passing one, was in the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government upon the Address. In that speech the noble Lord said that, in order to obtain such guarantees for the future as were essential (though in July the noble Lord thought that such guarantees ought never to be asked), owing to the peculiarity of the constitution of France, some form of convention was necessary. Having no other light to guide him, he went to the published constitution of France, but he confessed his researches had been wholly fruitless. He found by the constitution that all public measures proposed by the Emperor passed through a small Council of State nominated by himself, and then went down to the two Chambers. The Upper Chamber, or Senate, consisted of 150 members, all, except the cardinals, directly nominated by the Emperor himself, and, although they gave their services gratuitously, the Emperor had reserved power to endow any of them with a salary not exceeding 30,000 francs a year. Their sanction was required for every measure. The Second Chamber, or Corps Législatif, was elected by universal suffrage from a list of names supplied by the French Emperor. The most important function of that body was to discuss and vote on all measures laid before it, which were described as projects of law and questions of taxation. It was impossible, therefore, to see in the constitution of that country any reason why a reduction of duties might not have been made in France, as here, by the ordinary operation of legislation. The inferences to be drawn from that course not having being followed, and from recourse having been had to the extraordinary power which the Emperor undoubtedly possessed of making commercial treaties with the full force of law, were so obvious that he would not trouble the House by attempting to draw them, more especially as they were admirably drawn by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 21st of July last. As great interest was taken in the subject, he ventured to put the question to the noble Lord of which he had given notice, believing that if the noble Lord had a satisfactory explanation he would be happy to give it.

With respect to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), I have to state that considerable pains have been taken in order to ascertain what can be done with respect to foreign trade marks. On reference to the Law Officers, it was found that the state of the law at present is very imperfect, and that no penalties attach for the forgery of trade marks in this country. It would therefore be obviously useless to ask foreign Powers to give our manufacturers protection in their country which we do not afford to their manufacturers in this. For this reason it has been thought necessary to frame a Bill, which will shortly be brought in by some member of the Government, to enact such punishment for forging trade marks as may be thought sufficient to prevent that offence. When that Bill has become law the Foreign Office will be able to negotiate with foreign Governments for the object which my hon. Friend has in view. With respect to the question of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I think he must see that it is a question of so large a nature that he can hardly expect me to answer him this evening. If he desired to put forward his remarks as arguments against a commercial treaty, it was in his option to do so. But I should be ill consulting the wishes of the House and the time which the House has to consider the Army Estimates if I allowed myself to be led into this discussion. I despair of convincing the hon. Gentleman, as he was not convinced by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I promise him I will take a part in the discussion on Monday, when it appears the whole question of Protection and Free Trade is to be brought before us; and my argument with regard to treaties of commerce will be that when they delay Free Trade I shall be against them, but when they tend to promote and hasten the establishment of the principles of Free Trade I shall be in their favour. In fact, a treaty of commerce is but a means to an end. I was asked yesterday several questions relating to another important subject, to which attention has been very much directed—namely, the annexation of Savoy. I satisfied the questions which were put to me, but I think it right to add, for the information of the House, to the statement which I then made. Her Majesty's Ambassador in France, having addressed the Emperor on this subject, was assured that the Emperor of the French would not proceed to a final decision on this matter of Savoy without consulting the great Powers of Europe. The Emperor stated, moreover, that he should never think of annexing any part of Savoy unless the people of Savoy were desirous of that annexation. Our Ambassador afterwards was desired by the Emperor of the French to make this communication to Her Majesty's Government, and the same communication was subsequently repeated by M. Thouvenel, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in France. I do not know that I can state anything further on this subject, but it will appear from what I have stated that there must be further negotiations before any final decision be come to.

Sir, I am sorry to prolong a discussion of this kind, but the point on which I have to inquire is one of general and pressing interest, and cannot be postponed. It relates to the question to which the noble Lord has just adverted—the Treaty of Commerce. I believe I am only expressing the general feeling of the House when I say we want to know how the consideration of the Treaty with France will really be brought before the House. The House will recollect that in a former instance—in the case of the treaty of 1787—the minister, by command, brought down the treaty as the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) did the other day, and immediately after gave notice that he would, on a certain day, move that it be taken into consideration. When that day arrived there was an exposition of the character of the treaty, and then the minister proceeded to move Resolutions which generally speaking embodied the articles. The House of Commons passed those Resolutions and addressed the Crown. The Resolutions were then sent to the House of Lords, which also passed them, and in a similar manner addressed the Crown. Both Houses having addressed the Crown, a gracious answer was received, and then the House of Commons proceeded, I think, to pass a Bill to carry the treaty into effect. I do not see, however, that the Government are now pursuing a similar course. It appears to me that if a similar course is not pursued the House of Commons will be de- prived of its just privilege in a most important matter. The noble Lord, the Foreign Minister, has not given notice of his intention of calling on the House to consider the Treaty of Commerce, or to legislate for the purpose of carrying that treaty into effect. But on the contrary we hear that on Monday Resolutions in a Committee on the Customs' duties are to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be said—and I beg that the House will observe this, for it is very important—that when you go into Committee on the Customs Acts you will he called upon to reduce duties the reduction of which is provided for in the Treaty, and that, therefore, the Resolutions for this reduction is a preliminary step in order to give the sanction of this House to that Treaty; but if the House consider they will find that the means of observation and of criticism by the line chalked out by the Government are very partial and limited. The House can only give an opinion on points in which the Customs' duties are involved. There are most important Articles in the Treaty which by this means will never come under the consideration of the House except in a form and at a time which will render it very inconvenient for the House to discuss them. Take, for instance, the I3th Article of the Treaty, which has excited so much attention in reference to the duty on coal. That will not come before us when we go into Committee on the Customs' duties, because there is no duty on coal, either on its export or its import. Sir, I think that the House of Commons ought not in the year 1860 to be put in a worse position than it was in the year 1787. Again, take the third Article of the Treaty. That is an Article of an important character, referring to the differential duties on shipping; but the House will have no opportunity of giving an opinion on that important Article by merely going into Committee on the Customs. What I would wish to know from the Government is,—what is the mode contemplated by the Government of enabling the House of Commons to give a full and constitutional consideration to this Commercial Treaty with France which is now placed on the table for our opinion—whether the noble Lord intends to pursue the same course in this instance as was pursued by Mr. Pitt in 1787?

said, he was afraid that the House was being led into a most irregular course, which would before long involve it in great difficulty. There were certain preliminaries to going into Committee which ought not to be passed over. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary seemed to have misapprehended the purport of the question of the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling.) The hon. Gentleman did not enter into the merits of the Treaty, but, after pointing out that we were about to make certain changes in our tariff which we could make without a treaty, and that the French Government were also about to make certain changes which their Legislative Chamber could make without a treaty, he went on to ask. "Why does the Government resort to a treaty to do that which they can do without a treaty?" Reciprocity treaties were an obsolete, antiquated, condemned mode of doing business, and by no Gentleman in the House had they been more strongly condemned than very recently by the two noble Lords the principal members of the Cabinet. The noble Lord said it was too much to expect from him to go into the question to-night, but it was not too much to expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should have gone into it the other night. The first thing the Government ought to have said was,—"Before we go to consider the details of the treaty we think it our duty to inform the House why we take such an exceptionable and objectional course as to proceed by a treaty at all." This treaty gave the foreigner the power of intruding himself into our internal legislation. By it we surrendered our legislative independence; we abandoned our commercial policy. [Murmurs of dissent.] Certainly he had always understood that the system of reciprocity and bartering for equivalents was what we gave up when free trade was adopted. At any rate, by the Treaty we abandoned the exclusive right of administering our own internal financial affairs, and what the Government ought to have said to the House was, "We ask you to take an exceptional and reactionary course, and it is our duty in the first instance to point out to you the overwhelming motive and necessity for it." That ought to have been done before going to the consideration of the Budget. The point raised in addition by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was still more important. By the 20th Article this Treaty was not to be valid unless the 11th Article received the assent of Parliament. It was not that the withholding the sanction of Parliament from the 11th Article was to make the 11th Article invalid, but the whole Treaty. Another objection also had struck him. He should much like to hear the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to whether in the course pursued Her Majesty had not been advised by Her Ministers to exceed the power of Her prerogative. By this clause she fettered the future action of Parliament in a matter of taxation. She assumed legislative powers, and She declared that in time to come no duty should be levied on a particular article of export. That he believed to be a stretch of the prerogative of the Crown, and an unconstitutional usurpation of the powers of the Legislature. He hoped the Government would say first in what mode they proposed to ask the consent of Parliament to the Treaty; and next, whether, in this Article, by inadvertence, no doubt, Her Majesty had not been advised by Her Ministers to assume a power which by the constitution does not belong to Her. He did not press for an answer at that moment, but he should do so on the following Monday.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done the House some service by the point which he had raised, because there was another important view of this Question which had not yet been noticed. By the suggested mode of proceeding what might be called the omissions in the Treaty could not be taken into consideration. How was the House to discuss such an important point as the liberty reserved to the French to keep on the duty on the export of raw silk to this country, while we engaged to levy no duty whatever on the manufactured goods exported from France to this country? There were other questions of omission which ought to be considered in connection with the Treaty, and some mode ought to be devised by which the whole policy of the Treaty might be brought before the House. An hon. Gentleman had given notice of a Motion with regard to the shipping interest; but the manner in which that notice had been framed was most inconvenient. The Question ought to be considered in connection with the whole policy of the Treaty. In looking at the Treaty the point to be considered was whether justice had been done to all the great interests of the country, and not whether it would redound to the benefit of one or two special interests. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would de- vise some means by which the opinion of the House could be distinctly pronounced on the policy of the Treaty as a whole. Before sitting down he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question in reference to the Budget. It was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the wine licenses would be granted to all keepers of eating-houses at certain rates. Now, as there was a large number of persons who had been licensed, and not eating-houses, he was anxious to know whether the keepers of those houses would be able to take out licences to sell wine, or whether it was intended to confine them to certain houses?

said, he had early called attention to the very anomalous course pursued by the Government in this matter. He felt that it was a stretch of Her Majesty's prerogative to undertake that that House should be pledged for years to come in respect to taxation. However, he thought a more serious question would arise when the House went into Committee on the Customs' duties. It was impossible not to see that the free discussion of the subject was very much impeded by the language held by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who told the House that he really could not say whether, if these duties were not repealed, that circumstance would be considered offensive by the Emperor of the French, or not— the position of the House was certainly most embarrassing. For if the House were not to accept the system of free imports in England and the system of protection in France dictated by the Treaty, we should be perpetually reminded that we were likely to do something disagreeable to the Power over the way. The most anomalous thing of all was, that Parliament was asked to legislate for both countries, and that if it sanctioned this Treaty it would sanction a system of protection in France for ten years. He was old-fashioned enough to agree with the majority of the people of France and of America that raising revenue by Customs' duties was a very good form of taxation; he never would condemn Customs' duties, merely because they incidentally encourage native industry; but whether France chooses to adhere to that system or not was her own affair—not, he ventured to think, that of the House of Commons. His duty was to represent English constituency, and on that ground he thanked the light hon. Gentleman (the Member for Bucks) for having pointed out the fact that this matter could not be fully and freely discussed by the proposed mode of procedure.

explained that if the Resolutions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were carried it would be competent for the occupier of any beershop by taking out a licence as an eating-house to obtain in addition a licence for selling wine. But it was right that he should state that a large number of representations on the subject of the Resolutions as to licences had been received, which would require a great deal of consideration and probably some modification would he introduced into those Resolutions, more especially as regarded police regulations and the hours of opening. He could only state at present that those modifications would be submitted to the House in a complete form, and that time would be given for their consideration before the House was asked to come to any decision whatever.

said, he wished to remind the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs that he had omitted to answer one question which had been addressed to him by the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling)—namely, whether any correspondence bearing upon the foreign Treaty existed between Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary and Earl Cowley and Mr. Cobden, or between any other official personages who took part in the late negotiations, and whether such correspondence would be laid on the table of the House?

said, he was anxious to express his hope that Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the recommendation which had been made to them, and would take such a course as would enable the whole subject of the Treaty to be submitted to the deliberation of the House. According to the method originally proposed such unquestionably would not have been the case; and he hoped that the evening would not close without some distinct intimation of the course which the Government were prepared to adopt. Allusion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire to the course which had been pursued in 1786, and on a question of such importance he thought it would be inexpedient to depart from the precedent which had thus been established. He differed in opinion from the right hon. Member for Stroud, for he held that all taxation must proceed from, or at least, be suggested by, the Crown, and that the House had no right to go into Committee of Supply or to vote taxes without such a recommendation. The Government were correct in advising her Majesty to enter into a treaty, but it required the subsequent sanction of both Houses of Parliament. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) would be able to sustain the position which he assumed. He would not detain them further than to state again that the Government ought to place before the House some definite course of proceeding.

said, he was most unwilling to address the House, but he thought it worthy of consideration whether the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire was sound or not. No one could for a moment doubt that it would be necessary for the House of Commons to pronounce their opinion, aye or no, upon the French Treaty; for it was expressly stated in the Treaty itself that its validity was conditional on its acceptance by the British Houses of Parliament. But the question really was as to the order in which they should proceed —whether they would consider the Treaty as a whole, and pronounce upon it either the approbation or disapprobation of the House, and subsequently pass to the consideration of domestic legislation with reference to it; or whether they would in the first instance enter upon domestic legislation, deciding the points which arose not with reference to France, but solely with regard to the interests of the people of this country; and having achieved this object; they would then proceed to consider whether the Treaty was sound or not. He apprehended that the fair and proper method for the House of Commons to pursue was to deliberate in the first instance on the changes which it was proposed to effect in certain duties in contemplation of the Treaty, and having decided, purely in accordance with British interests, whether the Government were right or wrong in having recommended these, they could then proceed to the consideration of the Treaty itself.

said, that while agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that it was of the utmost importance that the two questions to which he had referred should be discussed separately and distinctly he could not believe that the mode which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed was the convenient or even the constitutional course. Certainly, if he were right, Mr. Pitt was wrong; and with all respect, he must say that on such a point he would prefer the authority of the elder statesman. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have misapprehended the answer given by the noble Lord to the question so well put by the hon. Member for Perthshire, and which was, in fact, a reply to some question which had occurred to his own mind, and which had never been put. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) stated distinctly that it was his intention on Monday next, upon the question that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, to go into the whole question of the French Treaty, and to vindicate the whole of its contents. Surely, then, it was necessary for those who dissented from such a course of proceeding to make their remonstrances at once, and to say—as he was happy to have heard it said on both sides of the House—that such was not the proper and constitutional method of proceeding. He now understood from the cheers which the noble Lord had given to two or three hon. Gentlemen that he was not prepared to vindicate the Treaty on Monday next, but proposed that a separate occasion should be afforded to the House, in order that, in the proper and legitimate discharge of its duties, it should be able to express a deliberate opinion, aye or no, on the provisions of that Treaty. He must again thank his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire for bringing forward this important question; and he begged to say that to that question Her Majesty's Government had not attempted to give the shadow of an answer.

said, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) had no doubt unintentionally misrepresented him altogether. He had understood the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) to ask why it was that when both countries by their legislative bodies, could have instituted changes in the duties which they relatively imposed, the Government had chosen to proceed by way of Commercial Treaty; and he replied, that when the debate was raised on Monday upon this whole question he would give the reasons why in this instance Her Majesty's Ministers had thought it advisable to enter into a Commercial Treaty. He did not say, as had been represented by the noble Lord opposite, that on that occasion he would be prepared to enter into the details of that commercial treaty. He would now give to one part of the general question an answer, which possibly he had before omitted to do—namely, that no such correspondence as had been referred to existed at the Foreign Office.

said, with a view of showing how completely and inseparably the Government had mixed up the Budget and the Commercial Treaty, he would with permission read a passage from a letter written by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord J. Russell) to Earl Cowley and Mr. Cobden. It was as follows:—

"The effect of your instructions will be to place at your disposal a large sum belonging to the revenue from Customs, to be employed in removing, in most case3, wholly, and in all cases to a considerable extent, the charge of Customs' duty from very important productions of France. These productions are not in general articles of primary necessity, or of such universal use among the people of the United Kingdom as to entitle them on those grounds to the first attention of the Government. They are selected, then, for relief, in part indeed upon commercial grounds, but in part also because of the collateral effects which we anticipate from the conclusion of the Treaty."

If the House were to act in the manner that the Government now called on them to do—in an independent way and for the interests of England alone—they ought in the first instance to enter on the consideration of the Treaty, and afterwards to take up the discussion on the Budget.

Sir, I take advantage of this Motion to answer the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). It must be obvious to anybody who has read the Treaty, or to any one who reflects on the constitutional principle, that it is essential that the opinion of Parliament should be taken on the Treaty as a compact between the two countries. The only question is as to the order by which our proceedings should be governed. Now, I humbly think—considering that the Treaty involves a considerable number of changes in our Customs' regulations,—that if we had come down to the House, and at once and before any other proceeding had proposed a general Vote sanctioning the whole Treaty as it stands, we should have been met with the natural objection—"You call on us by one vote to give an opinion on a matter involving a great number of details; you are not dealing fairly with Parliament. Let us go through the whole matter point by point and step by step, and when we have arrived at a conclusion on all the separate parts, then give us an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the national engagement as a whole between the two countries." That, Sir, I apprehend, was the coure pursued by Mr. Pitt; that is the course we mean to pursue. We intend to take the sense of Parliament on the different matters dependent on that Treaty, in combination also with changes made on separate grounds in our other Customs and fiscal regulations. But undoubtedly it will be our duty—a duty from which we have no intention of shrinking—to give to the two Houses of Parliament an opportunity of stating their opinions plainly and directly —aye or no—in approbation or disapprobation of the Treaty. It will be our duty to give notice of the time most expedient for the public interest to take the discussion, and the House may be assured we have no intention of shrinking from that duty. My noble Friend has deprecated the premature discussion of the Treaty, and with all submission I must say, when the House is assembled to discuss the Army Estimates it is inconvenient to employ the time of the House in discussing a treaty which will probably be a subject of debate in the ensuing week. My noble Friend has been interrogated by several hon. Gentlemen after the time when the forms of the House permit him to be catechized; and I believe I myself am now in some degree departing from those forms in giving the information asked by the right hon. Gentleman.

The House will permit me to say that I have not yet received any answer from the noble Lord to the question I put to him. No Member of the House will suppose for a moment that this Treaty is to be carried into effect without the House having an opportunity of giving its sanction to it; but the question to which I wish to call the attention of the House is the mode and manner in which it shall receive that sanction. I understand from the noble Lord that the question whether the Treaty will be approved of by the House will be brought before us; but what I maintain is that it ought to he brought before us in the mode in which the Treaty of 1787 was brought before it by Mr. Pitt, so that upon each Article of the Treaty the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. I do not agree to the conclusion at which the noble Lord has arrived as to the propriety of the course settled by the Government, because the House will have the opportunity of parting with a considerable portion of the revenue of the country, and afterwards have the opportunity of rejecting that Treaty on the hypothesis of passing which the destruction of the revenue was founded. I quite agree that nothing can be more proper than that we should have the subject, prefaced by a financial statement embracing the project of the Government with respect to the Commercial Treaty with France the financial prospects of the present year, and the policy of the Government so far as that policy is acted on by internal and external necessity; but it does not follow that because we have had such a statement we should immediately go into Committee upon the Customs Act. The House will remember that in 1787 the Prime Minister was also Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he moved that the Treaty should be taken into consideration he first of all gave a full exposition of the financial policy of the Government. The next step taken was to call upon the House to take the Treaty into consideration, thus giving the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon every Article of the Treaty. That, in my mind, was the proper and constitutional course; nor do I believe that any other course will be satisfactory to the country.

said, that in calling the attention of the House to the great expense incurred in raising and training a Regiment of Militia so as to make it fit for permanent duty, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he contemplates to fill up the vacancy in the numbers of the Army that will be occasioned by the disembodiment of the Militia Regiments? This was a question of great importance, especially at the present moment, when the affairs of foreign nations were in a state of great derangement, and nobody knew how soon our Militia might he required. Great as the talk about the power of England was, it should be remembered that the policy which one ministry pursued might be immediately reversed by the succeeding ministry, and they had no large standing army to carry into immediate effect the policy of the Government. A short time ago the country was frightened out of its propriety by a fear of invasion, and there were Volunteer Corps, Rifle Corps, and Artillery Corps raised all throughout the country. In addition to this they had the Militia—a force raised and commanded by the gentry of the country, who organized and drilled those regiments at great expense and inconvenience. When they were drilled, however, they were acknowledged to he a force that could he in every way depended upon, and if, instead of disembodying that force, as he regretted to hear was intended, they were to reorganize and put it on a permanent footing, it would form a reserve from which they might enlarge their army at any time by whole regiments and battalions. The Militia force was a force no Government ought to hastily get rid of. Was there anything in the state of foreign affairs which justified them in disbanding 12,000 of the Militia force they had in order to replace them by regiments coming home from India? If, I when those regiments came home, they found their depôts in a perfect state of efficiency, there might be no objection to such a course: but no regiment coming home from abroad was in so perfect a state of discipline as the Militia. He would much rather keep up an embodied Militia as a permanent reserve, for the purpose of garrisoning the fortified places existing, and those which he hoped to see erected, than see the force disbanded, and their place supplied with troops coming home from India. If the Government would confine themselves in ordinary times, when there was no fear of an invasion, to a force of 10,000 men, enrolling them for five years' service these men would be glad after that period to enter into the line, and would prove a most valuable and experienced force. In this way they would avoid the objectionable practice of calling out a very large body of the Militia at once. It was generally supposed that the agricultural labourer was only required for getting in the harvest, but he was equally required for other purposes, such as draining, ploughing, and the hay harvest. If they had a permanent force of 10,000 Militia, the injury to agricultural interests, inflicted by the sudden calling out of the Militia, would be avoided. To what extent was the reduction to be carried? The Estimates gave the House no information upon the subject. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would explain that, but he must excuse him for calling his attention to the matter. However peaceable might be our relations with France every minutiæ with regard to our army was deeply studied in that country. He would also refer the House to a statement of the accoutrements with which a French marine was furnished, as appeared on the occasion of a visit by Admiral Desforres to the fleet at Toulon. Amongst the rest each man was provided with a six-barrelled revolver, a hatchet, and grappling-iron. The Commercial Treaty did not seem to be going quite so smoothly as Government had perhaps at first supposed. It had been said in that House that the Government, were so sanguine they should be able to pass this measure, and that it would re-unite the bonds of peace so strongly, that they had not thought it necessary to consider what the effect of its rejection would be on the minds of the French Emperor and the French people. That, however, was a most important ingredient in the case. The French people were not so accustomed to the inconsistencies of our Legislature as we were, and he thought it extremely possible that if the Treaty were not adopted by that House some feeling of irritation would be created in their minds. Entertaining that opinion, he thought it would be most dangerous and ill-advised to disembody one single regiment until this matter were settled. It would be most unwise to do anything that should diminish the defences of the country. Whatever the number of regiments to return from India, he should, at the present juncture, welcome their approach with the greatest satisfaction. Even with them, with the Militia, and all the volunteers that could be raised, there would not be a man too many. When a Ministry had difficult negotiations on hand, or a difficult policy to follow, the best force he could have was a large army well appointed.

said, he rose to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would, in the statement he was about to make to the House, give them some information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the militia. It was very important both to the country and to the army that they should have a large force of militia, whether embodied or disembodied; but he was afraid it would be found, when the Return of the hon. Member for Middlesex was produced, that the number of the militia bore a very small propor- tion to the nominal amount voted by Parliament. The number of absentees on the books of regiments had been found to be increasing at every annual training, and the force now available, in all probability, was not over 60 per cent of the Parliamentary Vote. He did not speak without a knowledge of the subject. In the militia regiment he had the honour to command there had been for two or three years an accumulation of absenteeism most annoying to officers and prejudicial to the public service. Had the War Office permitted them to strike off the absentees from that regiment two years ago, there would have been no difficulty in filling up the numbers. During the last two years there were but few fresh absentees, but they were cumbered with the names of those who were nominally members since the conclusion of the Crimean war, but had long since enlisted fraudulently in regiments of the line. The object of these fraudulent enlistments was to obtain the full bounty and allowance given to a recruit who was not a militiaman. In his opinion they would never be stopped until the difference in the allowances of a militiaman and a civilian entering the army was put an end to. He quite appreciated the motives of the Government in not striking off the names from the roll, because it would be impossible to avoid declaring the number of fraudulent enlistments. He hoped the Government would adopt such a course of calling out the militia regiments in turn as would at once prevent their training being a loss to agricultural labour, and at the same time retain for us a valuable body of men accustomed for years to military training. He did not wish to say one word which might be construed into speaking disrespectfully of the Volunteer Corps who had so gallantly come forward to enrol themselves in the service of their country; but he could not help drawing the attention of the Government to the fact that while they must always depend upon patriotic impulse for the volunteers, they had in the militia the old constitutional force of the country, from which they could at any time largely recruit their army.

observed, that he was glad the subject had been brought forward, although he had not met with the support his Motion deserved when he introduced it. They had been on the previous night entertained with a graphic description of certain militia regiments. He did not mean to say that they were com- posed of the very best materials, because it was well known that the great mass of the militia were raised from the lowest dregs of society. He was not ashamed of that, because the fault lay with the rules of their military organization, which deterred any but the lowest classes from entering it. On the contrary, without taking any undue credit to themselves as officers for the discipline and treatment of the militia, when he considered the nature of the material upon which they operated, he thought that they ought to feel proud at the improvement which they had effected in the private character of the men themselves, as well as at the efficiency of the force. He did not object to the disembodiment of regiments which had been long embodied, but he deprecated any general disembodiment, or rather he objected to its being carried out in such a harsh and unfeeling manner. The case of the junior officers of militia thrown destitute on the world was a very hard one; and it was to be regretted that the Secretary of State for War should have met their claims the other night with the simple remark that he thought these young men had derived great advantage from having been two or three years in the service. The promises held out to them had been deliberately broken, and certainly their prospects had not been improved by their two or three years' militia experience. Then as to the injury to the public: he believed the French and other nations were as anxious to avoid hostilities as ourselves; hut, from the questions constantly put in that house, it was clear there was a lurking suspicion in the public mind that the political horizon was not so clear as had been supposed. The Estimates to be asked for by the right hon. Gentleman reached £14,800,000, and with the Supplementary Estimates which would have to be considered, the total expense would reach nearly £15,500,000; and yet the whole number of disposable men of all ranks, exclusive of those in India, was only 143,000. Under those circumstances to disembody a large number of well-trained militia regiments was most unadvisable. There was a Vote of £300,000 for the embodied, and of £500,000 for the disembodied militia. How was that money to be spent? He believed that no Member in the House understood the way in which those Estimates were made up. The expense of the disembodied militia would not much exceed £150,000, which would leave £650,000 for the service of the embodied militia and for the training of the disembodied regiments. But he maintained that that training was thrown away. If we were to have a militia, it ought to he kept in a state in which, should its services be called upon at any moment, it would be found perfectly efficient. A certain number of the regiments should always be embodied, even though the embodiment of each regiment should last only for a short time. Then we might rely upon having, for every regiment that was embodied, six or seven others that would be ready in case of need. In short, he would ask, was the militia to be a service, or was it not? Were the officers to keep their regiments in order, though they were never likely to be wanted? or was the force to be treated as one to which they might be proud to belong? At least, let the militia not he disembodied without some slight recognition of the services of its deserving young officers.

said, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the use which soldiers off duty are in the habit of making of their belts and buckles, which has been found by experience to be injurious to the safety of the public; and to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is essential to any Military duty that soldiers off duty should wear equipments which are only necessary to support side-arms, the wearing of which has been long dispensed with on such occasions; and whether, therefore, the consideration of the public safety may not, in the absence of any military necessity, reasonably induce the military authorities to discontinue the practice of allowing soldiers to wear such belts and buckles when off duty; and to move an Address for Copy of any Correspondence or Return that may have occurred between the Police and the Military authorities on the use which soldiers off duty are in the habit of making of their belts and buckles? He wished to express a hope that this matter would receive the attention of the Government. Soldiers were pre-eminently the creatures of impulse, and the slightest relaxation of the rules of the service was injurious at all times. They ought in that respect to be treated as children, and be prevented from doing harm. One of the chief difficulties which the great Duke experienced was to restrain his troops from plundering, marauding, and excesses of that character. Like too many others of their countrymen, their predominent idea of recreation was getting drunk in low public-houses, and when intoxicated they were often led into acts of violence towards that community whom it was their special business to protect. The way in which they sometimes used their belts upon unoffending civilians had called forth the animadversion of the metropolitan police magistrates. It had been said, indeed, in answer to such complaints, that accidents would happen even in the best-regulated families, and that there was no reason why soldiers when off duty should not be allowed to wear these ornaments. If, however, they were to be indulged in such amusements with their heavy buckles and belts—in the use of which, by the way, practice was making them far too perfect—the same logic would require the authorities to restore them their side-arms, which had been taken from them on account of the dangerous nature of the diversions in which they had been employed. Indeed, the tunic belt was fast becoming a formidable substitute for the side-arm; and a severe blow could easily be dealt with that weapon by an expert hand which it would be extremely difficult to parry. It had from this reason the effect of intimidating the police, and thus was a serious injury to the public peace. In a case recently tried at Westminster Sessions, Mr. Bodkin, the assistant Judge, had remarked that soldiers' belts were weapons of a very dangerous description, and sentenced the offenders to a long term of imprisonment. In the neighbourhood of the Tower these outrages were less frequent, and the reason appeared to be that the soldiers, when they got leave from the Tower Barracks, betook themselves to the West-end, to the purlieus of St. Giles's or Westminster. It was remarkable that the soldiers of the Life Guards or the Blues were never found amongst those offenders —they were entirely confined to the Foot Guards. A writer in the newspapers, who signed himself "Old Practical," recommended that every man guilty of such an offence should be handed over to the tender mercies of his comrades, and made to run the gauntlet of their buckles. But why had the military authorities themselves hitherto shown no disposition to put down the practice? Recently, a sergeant had told a magistrate that a man who had been guilty of an outrage of this kind would be deprived of his belt for a year. Very well; but did not that show that the man would be just as well, when off duty, without his belt? If this matter were to be left entirely to the discretion of the officers, why not exempt the soldiers from responsibility to the civil law in every other respect, and allow them to conduct themselves in the streets as they thought proper. He imputed no blame to the military authorities, but brought forward the subject in the hope that effective measures might be taken for the prevention of an evil which prevailed to a considerable extent.

said, he could not but express regret at the number of cases which had occurred of soldiers assaulting people with their belts. It was a great distress and disgrace, however, to a well-conducted soldier to be deprived of his belt; and he thought that the remarks of the public press upon this subject, coupled with the efforts of the officers would have the effect of preventing the recurrence of the outrages complained of. When they considered the number of the Guards quartered in the metropolis, and the small number of the offences charged, he thought it would be a hard thing to punish the many by discontinuing the permission to wear their belts and buckles off duty. He felt sure that if the matter was left in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief and the officers of the Guards, there would be very little occasion for the repetition of severe remarks.

observed, that in his opinion these offences were by no means more numerous among the Guards than among the men of other regiments. The reason why so much was said about the misdeeds of the Guards was that in the metropolis when one of them went out at night, got drunk, and did any mischief, he was brought up before the magistrates the next morning, and the whole story appeared in The Times. People read it and talked about it, and so the Guards got a bad name, whereas in a garrison town similar escapades might happen and never be heard anything of. It was hardly fair to represent the Guards as the black sheep of the service, for the truth was these assaults happened just as often in provincial towns as in the metropolis. He thought it would be going too far to take away the belts of the whole army because a few soldiers had misconducted themselves; and, besides, if that were done, a commanding officer would lose that means of punishing a man. At present if a man misconducted himself his belt was taken away, which was a marked punishment, and he should like to hear what better punishment could be substituted. There were more than 6,000 of the Guards, and the number of offences which had been complained of among them during the last two years had not reached thirty. The highest number in any battalion being sixteen only in a year, while in the others the numbers were as low as five, six, four, and three per annum, and in one none at all.

said, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government if any estimate has been made of the expenses of the war with China, because nothing had so mischievous an effect on the purse of the country as wars in the East. The Affghan war cost from £15,000,000 to £18,000,000, and the Burmese war £3,000,000? He wished to know, also, whether any portion of the expense will fall on the Indian Revenue; and, out of what funds will the expense of transporting the Troops from India to China be defrayed?

said, the question of the hon. Baronet was of great importance. It was quite obvious that the sum of £500,000 referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on Friday last would be quite inadequate to meet the costly preparations now being made for hostilities in China. He would venture to express his opinion that no glory could be obtained from a war with the Chinese. He lamented that it had been entered upon at all, and he attributed it to the injudicious selection of high officials. He understood that 20,000 British troops were to be sent, together with the siege artillery, and an immense bulk of stores. The cost of transport alone for so great a distance must be immense, and he therefore deemed the hon. Baronet quite justified in demanding an explicit and rational statement from the Government as to what would be the probable expense of this enormous expedition.

said, he also wished for some explanation of the proposed expenditure of the China war. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have deducted from the revenue of this year £500,000 towards the expenses of the China war. He wished to know whether all the regiments to be sent from India to China had been already transferred to the home establishment, and how the Native Indian troops were to be paid. The Estimates now before the House were for £14,800,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement estimated the Army and Navy Estimates at £15,800,000 — the increase of £1,000,000 being £500,000 for the Chinese war, and £500,000 for the excess of expenditure over Army Votes for the year 1859–60. The £500,000 would not cover the expenditure already incurred in the Chinese war, and he should like to know whether the other £500,000 would be sufficient to meet the excess of expenditure, because, if there must be a Supplemental Estimate, the whole Budget would be upset. He had not the least idea that he exceeded his Estimate of 1858–59 by a single shilling, and yet he found it necessary to introduce a Supplemental Estimate. If that was the case in a year when there was no extraordinary expenditure, what must be the case when they were sending out so large a force to so distant a place as China? He never could understand how the men of the Native army who had been in China for the last two years had been paid. He had never made any provision for them. Nevertheless those men were sent out by the Governor General with the authority of the War Office. If then they had not been paid by the late Government, there must be a heavy charge in some shape or another upon the Indian Government which would come upon this country to repay the money. He also wished to know whether an agreement had been made with the Indian Government that the 22,000 men now sent to China, but who were chargeable on their establishment should not come on the home establishment during any portion of the coming financial year. If not, every one of those men when sent home would be an excess in the number of men actually voted.

said, he rose to ask for an explanation of the 11th Article of the Treaty of Commerce with France, which engaged Her Majesty not to prohibit the exportation of coal. The Article was framed with great simplicity of anguage, but evidently without any consideration of the possible contingency of war. It might be very suitable in their new Plenipotentiary, but those who did not believe in the immediate approach of the millennium might be allowed to object to it. The terms of the Article betrayed great carelessness on the part of the negotiators, and a certain amount of blame was also to be imputed to the Foreign Secretary who had ratified the Treaty. Still, as everybody knew that negotiation was not the forte of the noble Lord, some blame must also lie at the door of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government for not exercising that superintendence over his Foreign Secretary which the interests of the country demanded. Probably, for the sake of keeping peace in the Cabinet, the noble Viscount had allowed his Foreign Secretary more licence than was permitted to himself in a former Cabinet, when the situations of the two noble Lords were reversed. This Article, as he read it, bound us, even in the event of war being imminent with the French, to permit them, up to the very day of war being declared, to export as much coal as they wished for the purpose of making war against us. If we were at war with any other nation this Article bound us to allow France to take as much coal as she pleased from any of our ports and dispose of it as she pleased to the other belligerent. And in the event of war between France and any other country we were bound not to use our neutral rights, but to permit the export of coal to go on, so that our colliers might run the risk of being captured by the cruisers of either belligerent, and we should have to submit to the insult or be dragged nolentes volentes into the war. He hoped the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would give the House his interpretation of the Article at once, and not delay it until his speech on the Budget, when so many questions, political, commercial, and financial, would have to be discussed that the insignificant question of our national defences might be forgotten, perhaps, altogether. If the noble Lord did not give any explanation, or if the explanation were unsatisfactory, he should feel it his duty to submit a Resolution on the subject.

The objection taken by the hon. Gentleman to a certain part of the Commercial Treaty does not refer to commercial interests or trade regulations, but to its effect on our political relations with France. I believe that that Article, which has certainly met with a great deal of comment, was inserted in the Treaty without any political view. Our negotiators took no political view of the question, and the French Government have declared—indeed I fool assured—that they had no political view in agreeing to it. The hon. Gentleman, perhaps, is not aware that it is our general policy not to impose export duties. On this particular article Sir R. Peel proposed an export duty, in which I supported him, and it met with the concurrence of this House, but it excited such great discontent in the country, as being opposed to the principles of trade, that in the following year he remitted it. Our general policy, therefore, is in favour of not imposing export duties and not preventing the export of coal. The hon. Gentleman, I suppose, would wish to have a power reserved of prohibiting the export of coal to France, either while it is exported to other countries, or else a general prohibition. But a general prohibition would be opposed to the interests of a large number of our countrymen; and the export of coal increases so much from year to year that no Minister would be able to carry such, a proposition. Well, if you cannot have a general prohibition, to make a special prohibition in the case of France might be held of itself to be a symptom of hostile relations with that country—an indication of your intention to go to war before any long time; and you would give France the right of asking what your intentions were, and whether you meant to go to war with her or not. In fact, apart from all questions of the Treaty, you could hardly venture on such a measure unless you meant to place yourselves in a hostile position towards France. But the hon. Gentleman will say that if that is the general policy of this country it is still unnecessary to make your exports a subject of treaty. But, perhaps, he is not aware that stipulations with regard to exports do not first appear in this Treaty which he says Earl Cowley and Mr. Cobden have negotiated without sufficient attention and which I have too carelessly ratified. A treaty was concluded not long ago with Russia under the direction of the Earl of Malmesbury, by an Article in which we agree not to forbid exports of any particular article to Russia unless we also forbid them to all other countries. Coal comes under that provision, and therefore we have already existing an agreement with Russia, sanctioned by the Earl of Malmesbury, not to prohibit the export of coal unless we prohibit it to all other countries. And yet we are quite as likely to go to war with Russia as with France. For the last forty-five years we have not been in a state of hostility with France, but we have been with Russia. But even if there were no 11th Article in the Treaty, by the "most favoured nation clause" we should be compelled, while we allowed the export of coal to the United States, Spain, or any other country, not to prohibit its export to France. We should have to choose between stopping the trade altogether or permitting it to France as well as to all other countries. This being the state of the case I think it is quite a delusion to attach any great importance to this article. It is an article in favour of a branch of our export trade which is of great importance, and which it is our interest to continue; and I cannot see that the Treaty in the least affects any practical interests. The hon. Gentleman says we may some day be on the brink of war with France, and what would happen then? No doubt, in the present state of steam navigation coal is an article of great importance in war; but there is another article which has lately become of much more importance—rifled ordnance. We were informed in the course of the autumn that very considerable orders had been received in this country for rifled cannon. How absurd it would be to allow rifled cannon to go into France at the moment we were prohibiting the exportation of coal to the same country! The fact is that when we come to a state of approaching hostilities there will be an end of commercial treaties, and we shall unquestionably take whatever measures we may deem necessary for our own security. In 1793 complaint was made that the Treaty of 1786, which has been mentioned to-night, was violated by the British Government in prohibiting the exportation of wheat. What was the answer made to that complaint? Mr. Dundas said, "I am perfectly aware of everything you say, but we were about to go to war. My object was to distress the Power which was likely to be our enemy, and, therefore, I prohibited the exportation of wheat as measure of defence." So, in like manner, the present Treaty is intended for a time of peace. The hon. Gentleman may not value peace. [Cries of" Oh, oh!"] I have no wish to use any harsh expression, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to think himself at liberty to cast reflections upon me. The object of the present Treaty, I repeat, is to maintain relations of commerce while we are at peace with France. If, unfor- tunately, we should ever approach the brink of war we shall take measures to protect ourselves, and the 11th Article of the Treaty will assuredly not prevent our doing so, any more than the treaty made with Russia last year would prevent our prohibiting the exportation of contraband of war and warlike munitions to Russia in the event of an impending war with that country. Such is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the 11th Article of the Treaty has no such importance as he supposes. It was not considered when the Treaty was negotiated to have that bearing which is now attempted to be given to it. The same obligations would be imposed by the article relating to the most favoured nations, and therefore the objections of the hon. Gentleman are entirely destitute of force.

The importance of the subject now under discussion cannot, I think, be overrated. The noble Lord has, I venture to state, entirely misapprehended the question. There is no controversy, I apprehend, on either side of the House, as to the policy of export duties. I have not heard any person say he hoped the time would come when an export duty, even on the article of coal, would be a desirable duty. The question before us is an infinitely more serious one than the comparatively trifling question of export duties. What are the powers at present possessed by the Executive Government with respect to the exportation of coal? They are defined by Act of Parliament; they have been conferred upon the Crown by an Act of the Imperial Legislature, and no later than 1853, when many noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were themselves in office, they were given in these words:—

"The following goods may, by proclamation or order in Council, be prohibited either to be exported or carried coastwise:—Arms, ammunition, gunpowder, military and naval stores, and any articles which Her Majesty may judge capable of being converted into or made useful in increasing the quantity of military or naval stores or provisions."

There is here, therefore, a power granted to the Crown by Parliament, on any emergency of the State, of prohibiting the exportation to any place, or to all places, of anything which can be converted into military or naval stores. 0 course coal is, above all other things, the article now which can not only be converted into naval stores, but without which any other naval store would be comparatively immaterial and useless. I apprehend that, as a matter of constitutional law, there can be no doubt that the power thus committed to the Crown to be exercised for the benefit of the State is a power which it is not in the right of any British Minister or Government to advise the Crown to surrender or part with for either ten years or the space of one year. I mean, of course, without the consent of that Parliament which has bestowed the power. But the noble Lord says, "You are talking about war with France. In the first place, we do not expect to go to war with France; and, in the next, if we did, we should put an end to the Treaty altogether." The noble Lord adds, moreover, that we could not prohibit the exportation of coal to France without prohibiting it to all other countries. But the question is not war with France— it is war with any country on the face of the globe. Here is a power given to the Crown to be exercised by the responsible advisers of the Crown, in the event of war either actually declared or imminent, with any country in the world, to prohibit at once by proclamation or order in Council the exportation of coal to the whole universe. What then will be the consequence of the 11th Article of the Treaty? It is not an Article by which the Crown engages not to prohibit the exportation of coal to France, but an Article by which the two high contracting Powers engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal to any place whatever. If the Treaty obtains the assent which it requires, the consequence will be that the power of the Crown to prohibit the exportation of coal to any country whatever will be terminated. We do not desire to put even hypothetically the case of the country being at war, but let us so far do violence to our feelings as to suppose that we were at war with Russia or the United States. What is the power which the Government at present possess? The Minister of the day can advise the Crown, by order in Council, to prohibit the exportation of coal to any country in the world. But now we are asked to come under an obligation with one country— namely, with France—by which we should tie our hands with respect to the power we already possess as regards every country on the face of the earth. The noble Lord has cited the treaty with Russia. What does that treaty say, according to the statement of the noble Lord himself? I understand from him — for I have not had time to refer to the treaty—that there is a clause by which we engage not to prohibit the exportation of coal to Russia without prohibiting it at the same time to all the world. I believe that is a reasonable clause, and one which does not interfere with the general power of the Crown. All the Crown has to do in consequence of the Russian treaty is to exercise the power which it already possesses of prohibiting the exportation of coal entirely. No one can suppose that any Government would be so foolish as to frame an order in Council which, upon the ground that we wanted to prevent America being supplied with our coal, should merely prohibit its exportation to that country. The exportation would be prohibited to all the world, and that is the power which the Crown possesses at present Exclude one country from the prohibition, and the whole world will be able to obtain coal. Here, then, is a question deserving the serious consideration of Parliament. The present is not a fitting opportunity for discussing it fully, but I want some information from the noble Lord. We are asked to go into Committee upon Monday next with the view of repealing the wine and spirit duties, and duties on manufactured goods, under the Treaty with France. The Resolutions which have been prepared expressly state that it is in consequence of the Treaty we are asked to repeal those duties. Suppose the House agrees to the propositions of the Government, I presume the consent of Parliament is to be taken in some shape or other to the 11th Article of the Treaty. I do not believe that any Minister can be found who would advise the Crown to surrender a power conferred by Parliament for the public good without the assent of that Parliament which has given the power. By Parliament I mean, of course, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Suppose, then, we repeal the duties and afterwards refuse to surrender the power of prohibiting the exportation of coal. What would be our position then? The Emperor of the French may say, "I, as one of the contracting parties, am prepared to accept the Treaty as a whole; but you cannot get the assent of Parliament to an important clause, and therefore I refuse to go further in the matter." We are told by the noble Lord that the 11th clause was not intended as a political clause; but, at all events, it was regarded as a clause of some importance. I do not think it was of much importance to us to obtain a promise from the Emperor of the French that he would not prohibit the exportation of coal. The importance, therefore, was to the Emperor of the French to bind us not to prohibit the exportation of English coal either to France or to countries from which she could procure it. What would he our position if the Emperor, under the circumstances I have suggested, were to decline to accept the Treaty? In the meantime we should have repealed our duties, because we all know that the passing of Resolutions upon the Customs Acts is, for all practical purposes, an immediate repeal of duties. By so doing we should have placed these trades, and all those dependent on them, in a position from which it will be difficult to extricate them. I want to ask, therefore, whether the Government intend to take the assent of Parliament to the 11th section of the Treaty; and, if so, whether they have any assurance from the Emperor of the French that he will accept the Treaty without that section which Parliament may refuse to sanction. If they have no such assurance, and if they fail to obtain the assent of Parliament to the 11th Article, will they be prepared to ask us to rescind those Resolutions for the repeal or modification of duties which in the meantime we may have passed? We are entitled to have these questions answered. It is idle to discuss the Articles of the Treaty, or the propriety of dealing with certain duties, until we know that our discussion will not be altogether purposeless and nugatory.

I cannot suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman imagines that Resolutions of this House, so far as the levying of duties is concerned, have the power of an Act of Parliament.

I said, "For all practical purposes"—using the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his letter published in the newspapers to-day.

I cannot conceive that any one, especially a constitutional lawyer, can suppose that, should Parliament be prorogued without any Bill being passed to alter these duties, a mere Resolution of this House could effect them. Should that be the case, the whole matter would fall to the ground, and the duties would not be reduced. The other questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman I may have occasion to answer on a later day.

said, that in pressing on the consideration of the Army Estimates which had only been delivered to hon. Members on Wednesday last, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was treating the House with great disrespect. These Estimates were larger than any that had ever before been submitted to Parliament in a time of peace, and would provide for a force in this country, including militia, yeomanry, constabulary, and rifle volunteers (a most important force), of 267,000 fighting men. With the navy which had been already voted he did not believe that any number of foreign troops could ever land upon these shores which would require one-tenth of that force to dispose of them. Moreover, the Estimates were composed of between 2,000 and 3,000 items, and therefore required most attentive and careful consideration.

said, he wished to state, in answer to a question of an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith), that the Commander-in-Chief had had under his consideration the subject of assaults committed by soldiers with their belts, and intended to deprive any badly-conducted man of that portion of his accoutrements. He also purposed to put in operation a military police, which had been attended with great success in some of our large garrison towns, and which it was hoped would put an end to all complaints.

Before I commence the statement which it is now my duty to make to the Committee, I will answer a question which was put to me by the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby), and I will answer it very shortly, because we shall soon have an opportunity of going into detail upon the subject to which it refers. He asks me whether any sum will be required to defray the expenses of the China expedition beyond the £850,000 for which a Vote of Credit is taken this year. First, let me say that I think the amount of force which is destined for this service has been greatly exaggerated. I apprehend that the General Order which we have seen will not be carried out to the extent which was contemplated at the time it was issued, when the Indian Government had not heard from home; and it must also be borne in mind that part of the Native troops mentioned in that order are not ad- ditions to the force in China, but are going out to relieve the three battalions which have hitherto been stationed at Hong Kong and Canton. With regard to the payment, I have, in the Estimates which I am about to submit to the House, included the pay and allowances of the European troops. There are two Votes of Credit which together will amount to between £1,300,000 and £1,400,000, of the first of which £600,000 will be applicable to the army, and the occasion on which they are discussed will he the best opportunity for going into the question whether or not they are likely to meet all the necessities of the expedition. [Sir H. WILLOUGHBY: Will there be any charge upon the Indian revenue?] The immediate charge will fall on the East Indian revenue, and we shall have to account to them at a subsequent period. To the questions which were asked me by an hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the militia I will not now reply, as it will be more convenient to announce the views of the Government with regard to the embodied militia when I am staling the amount of force which we are about to take. The hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. W. Williams) says that I am taking an unfair advantage in bringing forward these Estimates at so early a period after the Votes have been circulated. There was some delay in the printing which I regret, but for which I am not responsible, which delayed the circulation of the Votes; but I think that, looking at the state of public business in the House, and considering the necessity there was for the financial statement being made unusually early, the Committee will feel that it is for their convenience, and for that of the public service, that the Naval and Military Estimates should be brought forward as soon as possible. It is true, I believe, that these are the largest Estimates which have ever been proposed in time of peace. They are not, perhaps, so largo as they look, but I frankly admit that they are enormous Estimates. Let me make an accurate comparison between these Estimates and those of last year. There is a difference in the amount to be received in the way of deductions. Last year my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (General Peel) received from the East India Company £700,000. I shall receive only £450,000, which leaves me in a deficiency, so far as that goes, of £250,000. The Estimates for the present year amount to £14,842,275, as con- trusted with 12,859,297 in last year, showing a net increase of £1,982,978. The House naturally will wish to know what are the causes of this enormous increase. In considering the manner in which the sums that Parliament might vote upon these Estimates would be expended with the greatest advantage to the country, I had to determine whether it would be by the maintenance of an increased standing army, by the continued embodiment of the militia, or by laying in stores of those new arms and implements of war which the advance of science has introduced, which the neighbouring countries of Europe are rapidly adopting, and which we ourselves could not neglect without serious injury to the relative power and safety of this country. The object, then, is to expend a given sum in the manner that will be most likely permanently to increase the strength of the nation. I will not employ the whole increase in men, because when the money is paid at the end of the year, you are not more advanced in contributing towards the permanent strength of the country. You will not be the stronger in respect of arms or material of which you ought to have a large stock for the future, irrespective of your immediate requirements. Then comes the consideration as to the kind of stores and armaments of which we should lay in this stock. That in which we have been most deficient is small arms and rifled guns, which are necessary not only for the land but also for the sea service, and you will see in the Vote for stores of this kind an enormous Estimate—something short of a million—for rifled guns for the navy. And I do not think it possible—looking to the rapidity with which armaments of this description are being made abroad and the enormous strength which is thus added to the navies of those nations—that we can for one moment pretermit the manufacture of the best possible weapons. That is one reason for devoting so large a sum to a single item; a sum so large as apparently to account for the difference between the two Estimates—I say apparently, because my gallant Friend likewise took a large Vote for small arms last year. How necessary it is to hasten on the making of those rifled guns has been shown by their effects on the plains of Italy; and on board ships they may be of a value and importance which no one yet can sufficiently understand. I come now to consider what has been done with regard to the standing forces, The gallant Officer (Colonel Dickson), by combining the sum of £300,000 for the embodied militia with another Vote, has made a calculation, and says he is at a loss to understand the meaning of the Estimates. In the discussion the other night I tried to explain the manner in which these Votes were constituted, and I then alluded to what I think an error in form—which in future years it may be possible to remedy—according to which a distinction is taken between the Vote for the embodied militia and that for the line, though both, in point of fact, are for the same thing; both are battalions of infantry, performing exactly the same duty. In the mind of every Secretary of State for War the intention has always existed, to a greater or less extent, of disembodying some portion of the militia; he plays them off against the diminution or increase of the regulars, and between the two he maintains a force of average amount. In order to ascertain what we propose under this head, you must place together Votes 2, 3, and 4; and you will then find that we have got £4,846,843 last year, as against £5,498,428 in the present. I proceed upon the assumption that we are going to have a large disembodiment of militia; and I have placed upon these Estimates, the pay of the troops in China. If by some good fortune the troops engaged in what I agree in thinking a moat unfortunate and calamitous war should soon be enabled to return, they will come home to England without disturbing my Estimate, because they are already borne upon it. Let me now say why it is that the Government think it is better to maintain a force of regulars and to disembody the militia. The gallant Officer opposite (General Peel) expressed, I think in March last, his intention, to some extent, of disembodying the militia, and wrote a circular expressing that very proper decision; but circumstances occurred which led him afterwards to take a Vote for its continuance. To maintain an embodied militia in time of peace, however, is not according to a proper system—it ought to be a reserve, on which you can draw in case of war, or fear of war. I must express my entire dissent from the idea which has been advanced tonight, and which is very popular, that all the militia ought in turn to be embodied— according to some for a very short period, in the opinion of others for some little time longer—and then on the disembodiment of each regiment, that it should remain without further training for a very lengthened period. I cannot conceive anything more likely to be attended with all the evils and mischief of constant disembodiment, without the acquirement of any efficiency in return. I quite agree with the gallant Colonel (Colonel Dickson) that unless the regiments are embodied for a very long period the system presses with great hardship on the officers; but these frequent disembodiments after short intervals of service would affect them still more seriously. On every ground, I conceive the embodiment of militia in time of peace to be a wrong principle. You will say, then, why is it done? I certainly cannot afford to throw blame upon any person, for I was the first to embody the militia. But at that time we were engaged in the war with Russia; there was no dread of invasion, and the efficiency of the militia was not an object of consideration, but it was of the utmost importance, at all hazards and without any consideration of expense, to open a fresh channel for recruiting for the line. It may be said, and with truth, that this was a very expensive process—that the men received two bounties often without any increased efficiency, but still you got the men, and in cases of emergency you must have recourse to unusual proceedings, and you cannot stand upon rules. I believe the embodiment of militia was just tifiable under the circumstances, and that the same reasons held good when the Indian mutiny broke out. But recollect that in recruiting the line from the militia you are destroying the regiments of the latter as fast as they are rendered efficient by their officers. I can imagine nothing more heart-breaking to militia officers who take pride in their respective corps than to have all their best men draughted away; and I think the country has never appreciated the value of their services during the war, when, without a murmur, they suffered— what was sufficient to excite irritation in the mind of any man — the enlargement of the line at the expense of the force with which they themselves were connected. There is another objection to the continued embodiment of the militia, which is, I think, of a serious character. So long as a militia regiment is raised and trained in its own county, and does not go beyond its limits, and so long as the men have an assurance that they will never be embodied except in war a wholly superior class are to be found in its ranks. But as soon as a regiment is permanently embodied, the class of men who come in are those who want permanent service, and, in point of fact, exactly the same as those who are enlisted in the army; so that you are establishing a competition against yourself—you are narrowing and injuring the great recruiting ground for the army. For all these reasons, the Government have felt satisfied that the embodied militia ought to be dispensed with as soon as possible; but they feel, at the same time, that much hardship is entailed on the officers and men of the disbanded regiments, who enlisted for the sake of permanent service, and not from any feeling of local attachment to a particular corps. However much I object to volunteering from the militia into the line—which is very like cutting off one end of a blanket and adding it to the other—I feel that in such a case some consideration is due. There will be found a considerable increase in the force we propose to take this year. It will amount to 20,000 men. I do not mean in comparison with those now borne, but with those voted last year. We have raised two new battalions at home of field artillery to replace those who went from here to China. It is the intention of the Government, looking to the deficiency of artillery in this country, and to the improbability of any artillery being sent to us from India —because the melting away of the Native artillery and the losses of the local artillery render it hopeless to expect that the Indian Government can spare us any considerable force of this kind—it is the intention of the Government, I say, that some increase shall be made to this force, and they propose to add a brigade of garrison artillery and a brigade of field artillery, a brigade of artillery corresponding to a battalion of the Line. We also propose to make an addition to a small extent to the force of engineers. The reasons of the Government for this increase may be very shortly stated. We have at home one broken half battalion of engineers, but we have a very great increase in the works which require the superintendence of the engineers. We have found too this year, as we did last, that the scientific and skilled labourer of the sappers is not only very valuable, but also very economical. During the strike this year which took place at Woolwich when the works would have been stopped, they were carried on by soldiers at a less cost than the labour of the workmen. There is this additional reason, that the number of engineers is not sufficient to give a fair relief to those who are engaged in different works abroad; officers of the Engineers, too, are in such request on account of their attainments and skill, that nothing but a strong exercise of authority on the part of the Commander-in-Chief can keep them out of civil and upon military duties. The Government have therefore thought that they could not do better than make an augmentation of half a company to the present companies of Engineers. That will give us an additional force of two brigades of Artillery and a battalion and a half of Engineers. We propose to take the rest of the proposed augmentation in the manner in which it may be most easily reduced when the additional forces come home to us, and in a manner, too, which does not increase the number of officers. We propose to increase the strength of our battalions of infantry by raising the companies from 80 to 100 men. This is the mode by which the army may be most easily reduced, for after all we have got an army amply sufficient if we only see that it is properly distributed. If the prosperity and peace of India continue to be maintained, we shall, when the China expedition has accomplished its objects, obtain additional regiments thence. If we get them before, an equal amount of the proposed augmentation must be dispensed with. Therefore, if we were to propose to raise additional battalions at home we should have to disband those battalions, which is one of the most painful things a man can have to do. You have a number of officers who go upon half-pay, and who lose what they have learnt. All promotion is stopped, and for these and other reasons we think it better to proceed by raising men and adding them to the present infantry battalions, rather than increase the number of officers. When the troops now in India and China come home the numbers may be reduced, and by the cessation of recruiting you can bring down your establishments to the extent to which they are augmented by the arrival of troops from abroad. I ought here to mention a smaller matter—an old force which is rendering valuable service—the Invalid Artillery. They occupy stations upon the coast. They are selected for their good conduct from the regiments of artillery, they are composed of the best men, they are a not very expensive force, and are commanded by a major who entered the service as a private soldier in the artillery and who is a distinguished officer. This force is doing good service, for such is the demand for their assistance in train- ing the militia and volunteer artillery that all the officers and non-commissioned officers are thus employed. I am glad the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) is not now in the House, for he might have complained of the great amount of the increase we propose. Well, but is the force so very large that we propose to maintain, or is this whole army of 240,000 so very much disproportioned to the wealth and population of the British empire? I have looked to see what is the proportion of soldiers to the population, not only in this but in other countries. I have taken the numbers of our army two or three years ago, at the conclusion of the war, as a fair average test. Thus, in England, with a population of 28,000,000, you have an army of 220,000, being a force in proportion to your population of one to 128 persons. In France, with a population of 36,000,000, you have an army of 378,000 men, which, mind you, is the number taken from the Estimates, that hardly ever agree with the number actually borne on the army. That is one in 95. In Russia, with a population of 65,000,000, the army numbers 900,000, which is one in 72. In Austria, with a population of 40,000,000, there is an army of 587,000, or one in 68. In Prussia, with a population of 17,000,000, there is an army of 211,000, or one in 80. In Spain, with a population of 17,000,000, there is an army of 142,000, or one in 119. That comparison, it will be seen, puts England the lowest by a great deal in proportion of troops to the population; but that is not a fair statement of the case. The English army is not only the army of England, it is also the army of India, the army of Australia, the army of North America, of the West Indies, of the Cape of Good Hope, and other dependencies. And, therefore, in point of fact, to put the comparison fairly, you ought to see what number of troops you have got, and compare that number with the population of the whole Empire. If the comparison is made in that way we shall find that the army of England, as compared with (he population, is as one to 246, which is a proportion unknown to any other part of the world. Another question is well worth looking at. It is a very common notion, both in this House and the country, that the English army is very dear, in consequence of the great proportion of officers to the number of men. The English army, I do not deny, is a very expensive army. Our style of living is ex- pensive, our army partakes of the national characteristic, and both officers and men are higher paid than any others. But is the proportion of officers to the number of men so much larger in England than in other countries? In the infantry the number of officers to a company is in England three, in France three, in Austria four, in Prussia six, in Sardinia four. It is true that these companies become in the continental armies much larger at certain times, and then they are so unwieldy that the former proportion of officers is insufficient. In England there are 23 soldiers to each officer, in Prance 22, in Austria 26, in Prussia 19, in Sardinia 19. With the exception of Austria, England is at the head of the list in regard to the number of men to each officer. In cavalry the number of officers to a squadron is in England six, in Franco seven, in Austria six, in Prussia five, in Sardinia five. The number of men to each cavalry officer is in England 18, in France 13, in Austria 22, in Prussia 15, in Sardinia 17. In artillery the number of officers to a battery is in England six, in France four, in Austria four, in Prussia six, in Sardinia three. The number of men to each artillery officer is in England 36, in France 30, in Austria 29, in Prussia 19, in Sardinia 32. On the whole, therefore, these returns show that there is no excess of officers in the English army as compared with the army of any other countries. Now, Sir, I have mentioned the reasons why the Government think the militia should be disembodied. The augmentation which the Government now propose to make in the regular army will to some degree supply the place of the militia. The House, however, will recollect that without looking at the return force from China we shall have a very great diminution of the gross amount of troops by the exchange of 20,000 militia against the 6,000 or 7,000 proposed additions to our regiments. When we talk of disembodying the militia we do not altogether part with the whole of our force. You have the disembodied militia behind, which will, I hope, in the course of a few years be in a better state of organization, and which adds to the sense of security, as a means of augmenting your force upon any emergency. Deducting the Indian depôts, which are not paid for by us, we shall have, on the 1st of April, 87,722, and with the Indian depôts 100,701 men in our establishment, including the augmentation. With the dis- embodied militia I wish to deal according to circumstances. I hope I shall be able to dispense with almost all of it. Next year, in March, the Act expires under which, contrary to constitutional practice, the embodied militia is kept up in time of peace, and I am anxious to effect the disbanding within the year, because I doubt the practical effect of passing another Act to continue the service for a short period. If that were done, I doubt whether we should ever bring the peasantry to believe that in future the militia is to be a disembodied force. As to the regular army, I shall have to propose a change to which, though it may seem a small matter, I attach some importance. As the term of enlistment has been altered to ten years, I think it will be good policy to make some change in the period at which good-conduct pay shall commence. The extra pay earned by good conduct now commences at the end of five years' service, and there is a further increase at the expiration of every successive five years. A recruit joining the army feels, however good his conduct may be, that some years must elapse before it begins to affect his pay. It is obviously important to hold out every inducement to good conduct; I therefore propose to shorten the first period at which the extra pay begins, and give the first penny at the end of three years, with another penny a day at the end of five years more, and so on as now. This change, I think, will also form an inducement for men to remain in the service after the expiration of their first ten years' service. It is scarcely necessary for me to make any allusion to the number of field-guns. The change we are making in the artillery will substitute Armstrong guns for all the old brass field pieces. There need be no alarm about the twelve Armstrong guns sent to China, as before many months elapse we shall have obtained a sufficient number of guns for all our field batteries. The gun-carriages can be made to answer for the new guns with trifling alterations. Let me say, in passing, that these new guns were sent to China that they might be tested in the most complete manner by ascertaining how they worked in the field. If they have any defects we shall be sure to hear of them, and we shall obtain a much better report of any deficiencies than we should get from any trials at Shoeburyness or on Woolwich Common. I shall hare now to enter on a mass of details as to how the army is commanded, how it is armed, fed, clothed, and paid, and what is its state as to health. The first question is how it is commanded, and it arises on a Vote that has always excited much attention, jealousy, and complaint in this House—the Vote for the Staff. I do not wish to overrate the services of the Staff, and I know how very much depends on the regimental officers. But recollect this—if you destroy the Staff you destroy the brains of the army, and leave it nothing but limbs. At the commencement of the Russian war many complaints were made of the inefficiency of the Staff: how should it have been efficient when before that war it was never employed in the field nor anywhere else? No Staff officer had had any practice, and yet they were expected to do, for the first time in their lives, what they had never learnt, and to do it under the most trying and difficult circumstances. Such expectations deserved to meet—as they did meet—disappointment. Since that war every Government has wisely endeavoured to remedy this defect in our military system by employing officers of the Staff in places where they may learn as much of the art of war as can be learnt during peace. Let me state here that the Government has lately made two changes in the Staff of the army. The first change is in the constitution of the permanent Staff at head-quarters—the Horse Guards. We found, on looking back for a long period of years, that two officers had held the appointments of Quartermaster-General and Adjutant-General, one for forty, the other for twenty years. It seemed quite obvious that a system which left two men for such enormous periods of time almost at the head of the army, could not work well. They could know nothing of modern service, and must have existed only on the traditions, and been influenced by the feelings and practice of the time when they served in it. It must surely be a great disadvantage that the best Staff officers should not have an opportunity in turn of seeing the administration of the army from above, of seeing what no man can see who is not at the centre—how the army is governed, on what principles it is governed, and by what machinery it is moved. On the other side, it must surely be a great advantage to the Commander-in-Chief to have several officers passing through his office, that, by the change, he may know who are the best administrators; and be enabled to put his hand on men on whom he can rely in time of need. The newly established regu- lation, therefore, is that the Staff at headquarters shall be governed by the same rule as the rest of the Staff of the army, and hold their appointments for five years only. The Commander-in-Chief has cordially cooperated in that measure; he agreed entirely with the view the Government took of the matter; and I am glad to think that a change has been made likely to prove so beneficial to the army. At the same time, that there may be no mistake, I must mention that two conditions are attached to this change, which, I think, are only just and equitable. One is, that all the Staff officers should not be changed or leave at the same time, so that the Commander-in-Chief would be left with a Staff all unacquainted with the business of his office. It is desirable that the officers should quit at intervals as others are appointed. We also wish to give the Commander-in-Chief time to find Staff appointments elsewhere for those officers who had accepted appointments on the Home Staff, on the understanding that their employment was for life. In making changes of this description it is wise to be liberal, as it facilitates other changes of a similar character. Again, with regard to officers holding the command of brigades at out-stations, it has hitherto been the practice to give it to colonels with the temporary rank of major-general. The result was that the Commander-in-Chief was a good deal restricted in his choice of officers for this command. It is now proposed that brigades shall be commanded by colonels, not with the rank of major-generals, but of brigadiers. This rule will reduce the emoluments in some, but I hope not an undue degree, but it will give the Commander-in-Chief a wider selection of officers, and enable him to get younger men for commands,—always a good thing. The exceptions to the rule would be in such places as Malta and Gibraltar, where the chief in command is also the Governor, and much occupied by civil duties. One Major-General will also be preserved at Aldershot and one at the Curragh in case of the absence of the officer in command of the division. These two changes, I, hope will have a good effect on the whole Staff of the army, as it would enable the officers on it to see the working of the system at head-quarters, and give the Commander-in-Chief the power of placing younger men upon it. Last autumn there was a very general impression in this country that the French army had got some peculiar bayonet exercise which gave them a great superiority over every one else. There was the use of the sword-bayonet in those troupes d'élite which fought all through the Italian campaign; and it is perfectly true that a great deal more attention was paid in other countries than in England to the physical development of the soldier. I applied to the Commander-in-Chief to select an officer to go to Paris, and likewise to Berlin to see these exercises. He brought back a report on their nature and adaptability to our service. Colonel Hamilton, of the Guards, a very intelligent officer, was selected for the duty, and he discharged it with great ability. Well, Sir, it is doubtful whether there is any superiority in the sword-bayonet over the old bayonet, and the French officers themselves say they did not know till they read it in the English papers that there was any supposed advantage. They say it was topheavy and very apt to injure the musket to which it was fixed, and in the war there was a very large party who preferred the old to the new bayonet. But it is quite true that the French—I suppose for the same reason that their cookery is better than ours, because their material is not so good — not having the same sinew and stature, devote more care to the physical development of the soldier, and attach more importance to regular gymnastic exercises under the superintendence of regimental and even medical officers. No doubt the system must be greatly strengthened and the general health improved by such exercises. Nobody in the streets can help observing how much better a man in the cavalry walks than an infantry man. He is better set up, looks more active, strong, and muscular; and no doubt the great variety of his exercise, and especially his sword exercise, must contribute very much to produce that result. I see some dissent from an infantry officer opposite; but I do not speak from my own observation alone, I have heard many military officers make the same remark. Colonel Hamilton visited those places, and we mean to act on the report which he brought back. You will find that in these Estimates we take money for the erection of buildings, gymnasia, in which these exercises may be practised at one or two of our principal stations. The camp at Aldershot is a rather sore subject with a friend of mine behind, but after all it has been one of the most useful institutions for an army we have seen of late years. It has been useful not only for the purpose of exercising the troops, but in a different way in trying inventions. There have been in the course of five years no less than 150 different inventions tested there by use, and these tests have been of great advantage to the service, because they prevent you embarking, on à priori expectations, in some new form of material which may turn out on practical use to be insufficient. We have got among other inventions tested with success one in which the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire took particular interest. Again there has been at Aldershot less desertion than in the British army anywhere else; there has been a great diminution of it; there has been less crime at Aldershot, less disease. The returns of the mortality are so low that to me, having for a long time now been engaged in observations on this point, they almost appear fabulous. At the same time I am bound, on the other hand, to admit that the troops there being young, youth accounts a good deal for the small rate of mortality; but still I have no doubt, next to the healthiness of the situation, the main reason has been the amount of exercise in the open air which the troops undergo there. They have tried there with great success the sending out of flying camps—baking their own bread, cooking for themselves, and conducting all the operations that would take place in a regular campaign. I will not go further into detail on that point. With reference to the commissariat, I will read to the Committee an extract of a letter from Mr. Warriner, dated January 25, 1860, after lecturing at Aldershot. He says:—

"I visited the commissariat, and I have great pleasure in saying that the beef contains at least 25 per cent more nourishment than that which I usually see supplied to the troops in London and its vicinity, and that the mode of distribution for the prevention of fraud is exceedingly good. The bread is likewise 20 per cent better, that is, four Aldershot loaves are equal to five London ones. I believe there are few places in the kingdom where such good bread can be obtained as that produced by the commissariat at Aldershot."

There is a change which has been introduced into the mode of rationing the troops which I hope will lay the foundation of very extensive and valuable improvements to the advantage and comfort of the soldier. The troops at Aldershot and two or three other stations—in the Mediterranean garrison and at the Cape of Good Hope—receive from the commissariat, not only bread and meat rations for a stoppage from their pay of 4½d. a day, but an additional quantity of bread and groceries, consisting of tea, coffee, sugar, pepper, and salt, at an additional stoppage of 1½d., and the effect has been excellent, because the commissariat, buying on a large scale, can supply the men for the same money with a larger quantity, or, if not a larger quantity, a superior quality of tea, coffee, and sugar, and, though the men looked at it at first with suspicion, the reports from all the camps are now fully confirmatory of the wisdom of the change. I hope to extend it further. I think it will ultimately be found of enormous advantage to the army, and having one rate of stoppage all over the world, leaving a net pay due to the soldier. In addition to the extension of flying camps, the brigades have been employed in the construction of field works, digging wells, embarking and disembarking in boats, getting carriages on the railway, and other works. The staff at the same time in each district has been employed by the Commander-in-Chief in making accurate surveys of the locality, and these surveys, with their notes sent in to the Commander-in-Chief, are placed in the Topographical Department, and may become of great value at some future time. With regard to clothing, I am happy to say there has been a great diminution of complaints, in consequence of the improvements initiated by my gallant Friend opposite (General Peel). Under the mode of clothing which formerly existed there were great complaints, not only of the material, but of the workmanship. I will read to the Committee an extract from the letter of the commanding officer of the 43rd Foot, He says—

"I have, however, the honour to state, for your information, that since I have been in the 43rd Light Infantry—upwards of twenty-two years—I do not remember having seen so good material supplied for the use of the privates, and the alterations required have been much fewer than in previous years. The sergeants' clothing appears to be very good, and that for the staff sergeants appears somewhat better than usual."

The clothing, however, is not well made on our system. There is an advantage in a certain degree of competition; it kept everybody up to the mark. There was a new establishment in Pimlico, conducted by Colonel Hudson, where the clothing was made cheaper and better than anywhere else. There is an establishment at Woolwich where the Artillery clothing is made. Still there was a very great deal done by contract, each being a check on the other. It is certainly very difficult to deal with this question of contract, and I was very-much struck by a statement made the other day, that in France they had done away with the system of open tenders. During the Italian campaign it was found that a vast number of shoes had been sent out there, not made of bad leather, but not made of leather at all, but of pasteboard, so that the foot went through it in two days. Then comes the question, how the troops are armed? I believe, upon the whole, that they are the best armed troops of any nation in the world; but that is no reason why their weapons should not be improved if possible. I will say a few words on this subject, because since the volunteer rifle movement hon. Gentlemen have had their attention much turned to it At Hay the, General Hay, a most distinguished officer, and an excellent judge, prefers the Whitworth rifle to all others, and he is right; but it cost £10, instead of £2 17s 6d., the price of the Enfield. When you deal with an army that, of course, implies an enormous outlay, and the question of expense becomes important. You are bound to show that a rifle that costs three times as much as another, is three times as efficacious, and will kill three times as many men. But I am afraid the distinction between the two classes of weapons is not so great as that. To equip an army of 100,000 men with the Whitworth rifle would require a million of money, and for the whole of the army it would require a supply of nearly five times that amount; so that it would be impossible for any Government to face such an expenditure as that. One officer with whom I conversed on the subject, observed that nobody could doubt that a chronometer was a better thing than a watch; but who would think of carrying a chronometer in his pocket when a watch would answer his purpose; and the risk of loss, or damage was not so great? But there is another question that has been raised here, and that is as to what is the right bore for the rifle. In 1858 a few En-fields were made experimentally with the bore reduced to half an inch, and this was found to carry the same description of ball much further than with the larger bore, and even to make a good show with the Whitworth. This leads one to suppose that the question of (he bore is much more important than has generally been supposed. No doubt, the great fault of the Enfield rifle is the weakness of the barrel, and a charge, with the bayonet driven home, would not improve the weapon for purposes of shooting. With a reduced bore, however, the same weight of barrel may give greater strength. As the question of the bore is felt to be exceedingly important the Government have appointed a committee of officers to inquire, and to test with accuracy the different sizes. What we want is the decision of practical men, who will devote their energies for a short time to the consideration of the subject. You may perhaps say, "How will you be able to effect a change when you have got so very large a stock on hand of rifles of the existing bore?" My answer is, that the introduction of two ammunitions is not a thing so inconvenient as not to be got over. We have peculiar facilities for changes of that description. Our troops are scattered all over the world, in India, the Colonies, and Great Britain, and you may divide your ammunition in the same way. There is no reason why the ammunition should be mixed. If it were mixed, no doubt inconvenience would be felt; but, supposing the committee of officers I have referred to should come to the conclusion that it would be wiser in future to work with the smaller bore, the inconvenience would be got over. Admitting some inconvenience, however, that is no reason why we should go on working with an inferior weapon if a better one can be found. Passing from this topic let me proceed to one in which I have always taken a deep interest—the health of the army. The mortality of the troops abroad is, generally speaking, greater than the mortality at home, because abroad there come into play the injurious effects of climate and other onuses, which tell against the health of the soldiers. But even abroad there is a great improvement in the health of the troops, except in India, where during the war they suffered much exposure, which caused consequent debility and death. I turn, however, to the mortality at home, about which there has been so much discussion in this House and elsewhere, it being much more possible to attend to the health of the soldier at home by judicious interference on the part of the authorities than it is abroad. I should add that I have a strong reason for not dwelling on the mortality abroad, and that is, unless you take long averages you cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion regarding it. Take, for example, the case of the West Indies. You may have for a time a low state of mortality among the troops there. Then there comes a terrible epidemic that decimates your regiments, and unless you take one of these epidemic years into the average your calculations will be unsatisfactory. In England, with more supervision and better climate, the sanitary state of the army was not so variable. I find, taking the average of the fifteen years previous to 1856, and comparing the mortality then with that of the last year, that we have the following results:—The mortality of the Household Cavalry, which was ten per 1,000 in the former period, is now 8·24; cavalry of the Line, former average 13·3, now 7·92; Royal Artillery, former average 14·4, now 8·09; Royal Engineers, former average 11·2, now 7·19; Foot Guards, former average 19 and a fraction, now 7·74; Infantry of the Line, former average 17·9, now 8·05. In the depôt battalions the average is higher than in the others, being for last year 1228. Let me guard the House against a too strict deduction from those figures. I have no doubt that the improved health of the troops is to a considerable extent owing to their being dressed better, fed and housed better; but it must be remembered that the army is a great deal younger now than it was previous to the Crimean war. At the termination of that war many old men left the army, and their places were supplied by younger lives, and probably the improved health of the army is principally owing to the diminished ages of the men, though it is satisfactory to think that a part of the improvement has been caused by our sanitary reforms. This is proved by the fact that in the case of the Household Cavalry, which were neither in India nor the Crimea, and therefore never exposed to the causes that rendered it necessary to supply the places of old men with young, the mortality has fallen from ten to 8·24 in 1,000, now eight per 1,000 is the average mortality of the healthiest class in the country—the agricultural labourers; if we can bring the mortality in the army to be no greater than that among agricultural labourers we shall remove frour it the stigma of being an unhealthy profession, and make it more popular than it now is. At Aldershot the rates of mortality have been as low as five and a fraction, or excluding casualties, 4·6 per 1,000, which certainly is a very low rate indeed. I now pass on to the subject of volunteer corps. There are many gentlemen present who will quarrel with me for having this year taken no Vote for the training of yeomanry corps. My reason is, that at a time when the Estimates were becoming so large thought I ought to reduce everything that could he reduced without prejudice or injury to the public interests; and, as these corps have been out regularly and been brought to a high state of efficiency, I thought it better to omit the Vote for their training this year. It will be observed that I have introduced a sum for the payment of adjutants for training rifle and artillery corps. It is important to give as regular and as military an organization as we can to those bodies. It is impossible to over-estimate the value of the feeling these corps have displayed. There are great difficulties, however, in their way. I see one in particular with regard to which I think it is wise to raise a warning voice— namely, the ambition on the part of volunteer corps to excel in point of numbers, to make their corps as large as they can, irrespective of their permanence. I have seen it asserted that those corps should be composed of all classes; that people should stand in them shoulder to shoulder, irrespective of rank. Nobody can object to that. Certainly the Government would never in any way oppose such an arrangement. But there is something to look to beyond that. The question is, will such corps be permanent? I believe that corps, left to extraneous support, will not stand the test of time. You will sometimes find two or three gentlemen put their hands in their pockets, and in the excitement of the moment associate themselves to equip men who are not able to equip themselves. Now, I believe it will be found that there is a great defect in corps where all the men are not able to equip themselves. When the first excitement dies away, the zeal of those who have contributed to the funds will vanish, their subscriptions will diminish, and the numbers of the corps will diminish too. On the other hand, when a man finds his own outfit, Government providing him of course, with arms, he will naturally become fond of the corps to which he belongs, and of the exercises of the soldier; and the corps supplied with such men will be a permanent one. I may refer to another error which ought to be avoided. The money subscribed is frequently not expended in a way that is advantageous. Sometimes it is laid out on uniforms that are too expensive, sometimes on bands, and in other ways not beneficial for the corps. There is a doctrine which I see often put forward— namely, that solidity is not a thing which is required in troops, and that loose order is at once the most effective and the most easily acquired. Now, speaking in the presence of military men, I apprehend that the duty of irregular troops is more difficult both to learn and to do well than that of regular troops. When persons talk of loose order they think it means less drill; but, on the contrary, it implies more drill. A man can stand with his shoulder against the shoulder of his neighbour, and may be kept in that way from straying out of his place. But when men have to act separately, when they have to take advantage of the ground, to have an instinct, not only of what the enemy but of what their own comrades are doing; when they are not all attempting to maintain the same regularity of proceedings, but each has to he master of himself and of the position in which he is individually placed, depend upon it a much more thorough knowledge of military matters is required than is necessary for going through the ordinary movements of an infantry corps. Therefore, those who take an interest in these corps will do wisely in insisting as much as possible on every kind of drill. The drill need not be complicated or difficult, but it ought to be systematic, and the men should be made perfectly acquainted with the movements they do learn. It is sometimes said, if the volunteers can shoot well, that is enough. But there is one great instance to the contrary which I think almost settles the whole question. I have always heard from the highest military authorities, not connected with this country, that the best skirmishers in the world are the French tirailleurs. Yet this preeminence of theirs is combined with the character of being the worst shots. They know how to cover themselves, how to get out of the way of the enemy's fire, and how to act against him with effect; and Russian and Austrian officers assure us they are about the very best skirmishers in the world. If that, then, be the case, I only hope that the appointments we have made of inspectors with that experienced and energetic officer, Colonel McMurdough at their head, will be of great assistance to these volunteer corps. I now come to the manufacturing department, and the Votes for the wages of labour and cost of materials. I will shortly state what has been done in this respect. At Woolwich, the old Royal Gun Factory has been closed. I bad great hesitation in taking that step; among other reasons, because of the very able and distinguished officer at the head of that esta- blishment, Colonel Eardley Wilmot, for whom I have a high regard. But no considerations of private feeling or of disadvantage to any individual can weigh for an instant against the interests of the public service; and it seemed to me that the Royal factory at Woolwich, to cast guns that can be cast elsewhere just as well, and possibly, for aught I know, just as cheap, was a mistake. On the other hand, we have been anxious to press forward as rapidly as we could the creation of the matériel which must be manufactured by the Government, because we cannot get it from any private firm. We have thought it best to go to the trade for what the trade can make, and to confine ourselves to producing what the trade cannot produce. We have, therefore, enlarged the factory, and obtained additional machinery to a large amount; and we hope by this means, and by the aid of Sir W. Armstrong's works at Elswick, to have, between the 1st of January last and the end of the next financial year, something not very far short of 3,000 rifled guns. We are also anxious, as soon as possible, to issue Arm-strong guns for the navy, and we hope soon to be able to place a considerable number on board of Her Majesty's ships. The last gun made by Sir W. Armstrong and sent to be tried, was a 12-pounder. The following was the result:—Forty consecutive rounds were fired from the new 12-pounder field gun of 8 cwt., with the minimum charge of 11 lb. 8oz. of slow powder. Experiment shows that we have been wrong for some time in using powder of so quick a detonating nature for artillery practice, and especially for rifled cannon, which require slower powder than that suited to other arms. At seven degrees of elevation in five rounds, the range being from 2,465 to 2,495 yards, the difference in the range was 65 yards, and the greatest difference in width three yards. Then at eight degrees of elevation, the range reaching 2,797 yards, with 60 yards of difference between the five shots, and only one yard of difference in the width. Again, at nine degrees of elevation the range comes up to 3,000 yards and upwards, with 85 yards difference between the five shots, and three yards as the greatest difference in the width. In point of fact, almost all of these shots but three or four would have struck within a 9-feet target. The rapidity and accuracy with which small objects are hit at a great distance in the practice made at Shoeburyness, is something marvellous. We have to day an account in the newspapers of the success of a gun, in which I have long taken a great interest, and with respect to which I have been in constant communication with Mr. Whitworth, The effect of that gun seems excellent. People may be much excited if they see it surpass Sir W. Armstrong's weapon. It has not, in fact, yet surpassed Sir W. Armstrong's gun, which may, however, shoot a little short. But recollect that Sir W. Armstrong has not yet made a gun with a view to the special object of range. He has always made shell guns, and a very great range is got by a small bore. Sir W. Armstrong has never yet tried firing at an enormous distance alone, but has sought to send a shell that will do the greatest destruction to the enemy; and he observed to me a few days ago, speaking of the Whitworth gun, "That gun will, no doubt, beat mine in range, if it is made for range; but I can make one for range also, and you will then see whether my gun is equal to Mr. Whitworth's." And that is perfectly fair. But we have this assurance, that Sir W. Armstrong's gun has now been tested for a long time; we know its durability. There is one of his guns now at Shoeburyness that the expert ments were first made with. Some guns have burst after 200 rounds have been fired with them; but this gun has fired more than 2,000 rounds; and if you put your finger to the rifling, you will find it just as sharp and perfect as when it left the factory. Then you have the test of lightness and durability. The durability of the Whitworth gun has, of course, yet to be proved, though the material should guarantee that quality. There is great alarm lest Sir W. Armstrong's gun is beaten, and people ask, "What are you to do in that case with all his guns?" But we have Mr. Whitworth's testimony that the Armstrong gun is undoubtedly of the right construction; and the difference between them lies not in the make, but in the manner of rifling them. The question is rather one of the shape of the rifling and of the projectile, than a question of construction; and whichever of the rival inventions is the better we are perfectly safe. We have got a weapon which has not been surpassed, if indeed it has been equalled, and which, moreover, is capable of being adapted to the new process. But Sir W. Armstrong is not the man to be daunted by a difficulty, and there is no doubt that, whatever happens, we shall have from him the best and most admirable weapon that can be made. May I be allowed, on behalf of a valuable public servant, to contradict, as I have been asked to do, a statement which has gone forth respecting the Armstrong guns sent to China? It has been said that the wood of which the carriages were made was so rotten that the screws fell out. Now, these carriages were duly made of the best teak which the carriage factory at Woolwich could produce. I will not speak of the evidence of the men, hut the captain of the ship, who had no interest in the matter, said there was no sign of decay-about the limber; that the whole weight of the limber pressed upon an iron bar, which was not meant to bear it; and of course it gave way. I may state, as we are now on the subject of arms, that the Enfield rifle is now in the hands of all our regular troops, and of all the embodied militia. It is also available for all the disembodied militia, a considerable number of whom have applied for it, and for volunteer corps. It is available, too, for all pensioners the moment they apply for it, and likewise for the Irish Constabulary, should application be made for it from that quarter. The Enfield is now produced at the rate of 2,000 muskets a week, so that we shall have a good stock on hand, and therefore we stand very well on these points. I go back to the subject of Woolwich, because it involves a very important question. Attention has been called to the fact that it is the only great arsenal and depôt we have; and it has been urged that not only should Woolwich be fortified, but that another depôt should be established. I have no doubt we might select some central place for stores, but I do not wish to see another arsenal made. We have already the arsenal of Sir William Armstrong at Elswick; that of Mr. Whitworth at Manchester; we have another on the Mersey, another at Birmingham, and also those of Low Moor and Gospel Oak. There is, in fact, no country in the world so rich in arsenals as England. So great is our repute in this respect, that foreign Governments — the French, the Austrian, and the Russian Governments—all send over here to have munitions of war of all kinds constructed, including rifled guns. Many persons, indeed, have felt greatly alarmed at those proceedings. They say, in fact, that we in England are making weapons that may some day be turned against ourselves. Now, I, for one, do not share in that feeling. In the first place, those foreign Governments, in sending to this country for their munitions of war, are in reality giving practice, skill, and perfection to our arsenals, and not to their own; and the result would be, if a war were to arise, that they would be without the means of augmenting their matériel, and we should stop into their shoes and find ourselves immensely benefited by the facilities they have afforded us in this respect. My view is, that we want a central depôt, but not an additional arsenal. The great mass of the items in the large Vote for Miscellaneous Stores have reference to other munitions of war, including shot and shell. In former years the manufacture of stores in the manufacturing departments at Woolwich for supply to meet outstanding demands, for home and foreign service, were two, three, and even four years in arrear, but by the great exertions which have been made during the past year, these arrears will be all, or nearly all, cleared off, and the demand of the year 1860–61 alone to be met. The amounts are very large, but they make provision for all the different materials that are necessary for the construction of our rifles at Enfield and great guns at Woolwich. I pass over all the Votes in which there are reductions, with the remark that wherever I could fairly make a reduction I have done so. Those reductions have not been large, but I have honestly done my best in that respect. Perhaps I had better say here that Vote 12, for fortifications, has been inserted in a lump sum; but when I come to the Vote I shall only ask the Committee to agree to a small sum on account. Vote 14 is for barracks, and there is one item of it to which I attach some importance—namely, that which provides for a new range at Fleetwood, with the view to the establishment of a school of musketry for the north of England similar to that which exists for the south at Hay the. The great increase in the resort to Hythe of the members of volunteer corps and the militia for practice has rendered that place, as a school of musketry, altogether unequal to the demands upon it; and therefore it is in contemplation to establish another in the north of England, which will be the means of saving a great deal of expense now incurred in moving troops from the northern parts of England and from Scotland to Hythe for the purpose of musketry practice. The Vote also includes a considerable extension of the practice ground at Shoeburyness and a new range at Graves- end for the use of the troops. We have also made provision for gas-works, and for the erection of a gymnasium at Aldershot; for the erection of a new hospital at Woolwich, which is much required, and which will give an increase in the barrack accommodation at that place; and for an experiment which is about to be tried at Colchester, as to whether or not we cannot build huts of brick of a more durable character than the wooden huts now in use, and yet cheaper than barracks The calculations for this purpose look very well on paper, and I have every confidence in the judgment of Captain Galton, who has undertaken the erection of the huts. It is also in contemplation to increase the barrack accommodation at Nottingham and York, with the view to lessen the inconvenience of troops being broken up and scattered in detachments, a system which is now generally condemned. Provision is also made for the erection of new barracks at Chelsea, and when they are erected, the Portman Street Barracks will no longer be the opprobrium of the metropolis. It is also the intention of the Government, in the case of small, inconvenient, and unhealthy barracks, which are often surrounded by buildings of a worse character, to sell those barracks,— an arrangement by which there can be no doubt the country will derive great advantage on the score of economy, as well as of the increased health and comfort o-the troops. I have come now to the end of everything which appears to require explanation. On the Royal Military College I make no observation, because the plans for its improvement and organization, though they may be expected when carried out to have a beneficial effect on that institution, came in too late to receive due consideration. The Votes for the non-effective service require no comment, as they show a slight decrease. In conclusion, these Estimates, I am conscious, are of enormous magnitude, but I trust the Committee will believe that the Government have done their utmost to relieve as far as possible the burden which they entail on the public consistently with a due regard to the efficiency which the country requires. The time in which we live, however, in some degree accounts for the large increase. We are now in a transition period, involving the employment of the most expensive matériel; I have endeavoured as far as possible to make these Estimates suitable to this transition-time; and, while conscious of their weight and burden, I firmly believe there is such a determination in this country to see its defences put on a safe and sound footing that the Committee will not hesitate to Vote the necessary Supplies, and what is more, that the community at large will approve the conduct of their representatives. Motion made, and Question proposed,—

"That a sum, not exceeding £4,499,636, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of the Pay and Allowances of Her Majesty's Land Forces at Home and Abroad, exclusive of India, which will come in the course of payment from the 1st day of April 1860, to the 31st day of March 1861, inclusive."

expressed his opinion that before the Vote was granted time ought to be given for the consideration of these enormous Estimates. He had intended to move a reduction of this Vote, but, as he did not expect to receive any great amount of support, he should not waste time by proposing any Amendment.

said, that he had been much gratified by the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he felt assured that the Committee would cheerfully vote the amount asked for, inasmuch as the carrying out of the proposed works would render the national defences far more secure than they had hitherto been, although they might regret that such an immense expenditure was necessary, at a time when the Government assured them that arrangements were in progress which would lead to a settlement of European affairs upon a more peaceful basis. He was glad to find that the increase of the army was to be in rank and file, and not in officers. The right hon. Gentleman had instituted a comparison between the number of officers in the English and in foreign armies, but it must be borne in mind that so many officers were not required in the English army, because we possessed such an excellent body of non-commissioned officers. There was, however, one class of officers which predominated in the British army, as compared with Continental armies; he meant the class of field officers. The English army was the only army in which a battalion was called a regiment. In foreign armies several battalions were included in a regiment, and the consequence was a large increase in the field officers as compared with foreign armies. He rose, however, for the purpose of saying a few words on the subject of the militia. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have mistaken what fell from him earlier in the evening on that subject. What he asked the right hon. Gentleman was, whether it was his intention to embody from time to time regiments of militia? It never occurred to him that a militia should be a sort of supplementary army. On the contrary, it should be retained, except upon emergencies, as a local force. He hoped, however, attention would be paid to filling up the regiments of militia, for at present commanding officers were refused permission to strike off absentees, so that the establishment in most regiments was thirty or forty per cent below the number borne upon the books. He would also ask whether it was intended to arm the militia with rifles before issuing them to the volunteer corps.

They are armed with them, or they can be had upon application.

He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that great difficulty was found in getting new and improved rifles. It was true that the militia were promised rifles, but they were of the pattern of 1853, and not the new and improved pattern which was to be supplied to the volunteer corps. He thought that the militia being of a more permanent character than the volunteers, they ought to be furnished in the first place with arms of the best description. He knew in his own regiment they were promised rifles, but they had not got them. It was only by supplying the militia with good rifles, so that they could go through a course of good musketry drill, that they could attain their full efficiency. Another point to which he wished to called attention was a remark which had fallen from an hon. Member on the subject of the Staff. He earnestly hoped that the Staff would be made as efficient as the other branches of the service, so as to be worthy of the army itself. He could not, however, allow the kind of slur which had been passed upon the old Staff to pass unnoticed. He considered that when the British army was in the trenches before Sebastopol, taking into account the limited number of men at its disposal, it was a wonder how that Staff had accomplished so much as it did, and the censure lavished upon it was wholly undeserved. He would only add that he felt great satisfaction at the promises held out of increased barrack accommodation, which would considerably improve the heath of the men, a subject in which no one took more interest than the officers themselves.

said, he wished to know when the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the national defences would be laid before Parliament, and when the country would be made acquainted with the determination of the Government consequent upon that Report. He understood that it was intended to recommend that a sum of £10,000,000 should he expended upon the improvement of our defences, and therefore it was a question of great importance.

said, he did not think the Commissioners would thank him if he were to publish nakedly the proposals they had made, without giving the House and the country the advantage of knowing the arguments and opinions by which they were supported. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he only received the signed and complete Report on Saturday last, and it was impossible for any department to have a more important and grave subject of consideration. Not only defensive, but financial questions were involved, and the best military science was required to decide as to the proportions to be maintained between works and men. It was altogether a subject of great interest, and, while conscious of the great desire which the right hon. Gentleman felt to press his own views, he (Mr. S. Herbert) must ask him not to urge upon the Government to bring forward a premature and crude scheme, but to allow time for a deliberate and careful investigation; so that when they laid a proposal before the House, they might do so with the greatest weight and authority. [Mr. HORSMAN:— When shall we have the Report?] He thought nothing would be more unsatisfactory than to throw the Report upon the table without at the same time giving some indication of the views of the Government and the military authorities. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir J. Fergusson), he could only say that the pattern of 1853 was the class of the arms now in use. As fast as the rifles came in, the War Office issued them, always keeping, of course, a sufficient stock on hand. The volunteers were promised a short rifle in substitution of the long one whenever enough were in store; but some corps had come to the conclusion, which he thought was a sound one, that the long Enfield was a more accurate and better weapon. As to the militia regiments, some of them had already got the rifles, and no time would be lost in sending down arms when applied for. He admitted that the state of the disembodied militia was very alarming, the nominal force being greatly above that actually available. The reason why commanding officers were not allowed to strike off the names of absentees was that this, it was found, only added to the number of fradulent enlistments and desertions. He trusted, however, that by adopting some portions of the Report of the Commission of last year this evil might in some degree be rectified, though he did not pretend that it could be altogether cured. Some legislation would probably be required on this subject, and he should shortly state in detail the proposals of the Government.

said, he had listened attentively to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, and could not refrain from availing himself of that opportunity of entering a very respectful, but most earnest protest against the enormous extravagance of our national expenditure, and more particularly with reference to the established instruments of our national defences. Year by year these Estimates increase with so little apparent hope of diminution, that within a short period the effective of the British army had more than doubled, and yet when any attempt is made to introduce or recommend an improved supervision of our public expenditure, as was the case the other night with the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) it is sure to be met with a cold supercilious sneer, which even the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening condescended to endorse. It is true the Bill, as the French would say, is tres bein dorée with exquisite refinement, and our senses are lulled into forgetfulness by the eloquent appeals which are addressed to us; but it wont do any longer—we want something more than eloquence to induce us year by year to go on voting these immense sums of money which not only affect the rich and wealthy, but which tend to tax the poor man's food, and without reason and justice enhance the burthens we all must share. Therefore, it was, that although he was as anxious as any man in the House, whether military or civilian, to see the comfort of the army, as well as its discipline, placed upon the most efficient footing; yet he thought the time had come when the House should determine not only to protest, but to act in this matter with that spirit and decision which the circumstances of the case absolutely require. Eloquence alone wont do. The House has now had the opportunity of considering the three financial statements which have been so recently submitted to it, namely, the financial statement, the Navy Estimates, and now the Army Estimates; and with reference to the first of these three, if anything could induce the House, even were it otherwise disposed, to vote all the provisions of the Budget, it was the eloquence and power with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tickled our imaginations and insinuated himself into our pockets. Then, again, as regards the Navy Estimates, if anything could persuade the House to accept without a murmur the official statement of the Secretary for the Admiralty, it was the straightforward frankness and professional skill and ability with which my noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) handled his subject. And now, if anything could induce us to forget our sufferings and burdens, and accord a willing approval to every item of these Army Estimates, it is the clear and interesting statement, and the grace with which the right hon. Gentleman has detailed the wants and requirements of the service. But these are the financial field-days of Parliament; it is not very difficult to dress up a statement in gaudy attire, calculated to make us look upon it for the time being with kindness and sympathy even to applaud the performance; but, alas, this is soon over; the stern realities of life soon bring us to our senses, and here we are, at peace with all the world, with a deficit of near £10,000,000 to meet our current expenditure, and with Estimates for the army and navy amounting together to nearly £30,000,000. Perhaps the House would allow him to state one or two facts on this subject. The Army Estimates of 1859–60 showed a decrease in comparison with 1858–9 of £9,695; whereas in the present year (one of peace, be it remembered) Parliament was called upon to vote an increase of £1,982,000. Last year the Navy Estimates showed an increase of £961,810 in comparison with 1858–9; whereas this year there was a net increase over those of 1859–60 of £1,025,000. This was a most serious and almost an appalling state of things. Can we any longer tolerate such an abuse of extravagant expenditure? The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to an estimate of population as bearing on this question, but nothing could be more falla- cious than any such test. He had taken some pains to ascertain the sums spent by the Powers of Europe upon their national defences, from which it would appear that France and England were consuming about one-half of their national revenue; Russia, one-third; Austria, as every one knows, is entirely crippled, and in a state of financial bankruptcy; Prussia, about one quarter of her revenue; Belgium, one-third; Sardinia, at least 40 per cent of her resources; Holland, one-fifth; Switzerland, one-tenth; and as to Spain, it was almost impossible to form any estimate of the expenditure of her organization, when we know she took about three months to go about fifteen miles. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the French Budget. Now in the Budget of 1861 the effective of the French army, like that of the year previous, was 392,000 men, and 83,000 horses. Her total military expenditure amounted to £13,800,000, about £260,000 more than the Freuch Budget for the previous year, while the English Army Estimates were £14,842,000 without the militia, showing an excess over the French Estimates of £1,042,000. This proved the extravagance of our expenditure. The French army contained 56,000 men and 58,000 horses more than the effective of the British army, and yet we spent £1,042,000 more than our neighbours. In 1835–6, the effective of the British army was 80,000 men; in 1850, 99,000; while this year the number was 143,000 men, exclusive of India. Now, it was very remarkable that in 1850 the British soldier cost at the rate of £41 per man, whereas in the present year, taking the whole of the charges for the land force and the number of rank and file, the cost was about £46 per man—£5 more than in 1850. This surely was a fact which required the attention of his right hon. Friend. Notwithstanding our present costly armaments, the Report of the Committee of Public Safety, just alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), declared that £10,000,000, if not £20,000,000 would be required to place the country in an efficient state of defence. Now, after the enormous sums of money annually granted by Parliament, it was too bad to come down in a time of peace and ask for such enormous additions to the Estimates. It was constantly affirmed that up to 1850 the state of the country was most satisfactory, and never in a better state of defence. We voted 14 to 16 millions a year, and it was all well; but all of a sudden afterwards they have been constantly told, up and to the present time, that all was wrong, that the country was absolutely undefended, and although Parliament had, in consequence, voted money without grudging, and although we have a larger regular force than ever, yet still we are not only unprepared but absolutely unprotected. He must say that they ought to give credit to those to whom credit was due for the defenceless condition in which the country was stated to be, and the country, at this important crisis of its political history, had a right to demand some explanation of those who for the last fourteen years had, almost without interruption, held political power in this country. He said that they were at peace with all the world; but, at all events, he was correct in saying that they were at peace with all Europe. He would not look to China — they had been asked not to mention that subject—but, though he did not allude to it, the House must feel the confident assurance that as long as the present President of the Board of Trade was in the Cabinet, there could not be any fear of a war with China. He knew that the right hon. Member for Ashton was no longer the Member for Birmingham, and no longer sat in those cheap seats below the gangway, but occupied a more luxurious and dignified position on the Treasury Bench; but still he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman considered all the emoluments and patronage of his office as mere dirt in comparison with the maintenance of his political morality. It was impossible, then, so long as the right hon. Gentleman was in the Cabinet, considering the powerful way in which he attacked in this House the noble Member for Tiverton on precisely a similar subject, that there could be any serious disturbance with China. While they were at peace with all the world they were voting away £30,000,000 for warlike purposes. He believed, indeed, that there had been some little uneasiness with respect to France, perhaps more so than for the last ten or twenty years. He recollected that a very few months ago the whole country was seized with panic and rang with rumours of invasion and attack, which even Ministers of State and the Minister for War condescended to promote. Now in common with so many people of all classes and all parties in the country, quite irrespective of polities, he entirely disapproved of the system of getting up excitement n the country by means of these rumours of attack; and if really any danger existed, surely the Government ought to have duly warned the country instead of endeavouring to shunt upon the shoulders of the people a responsibility which properly belonged to them in their capacity of Ministers, and he believed that those Ministers were worthy of the gravest censure, who, with groundless and inconsiderate zeal had promoted these panics of invasion and attack which, to say the least, were quite unbecoming the dignity and character of our country. He would just ask the House to turn over to Vote No. 5, which had been so lightly touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman. There was a great deal more than met the eye in that Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War said he would not take a Vote this year for that old-established force, the Yeomanry, though he was obliged to take £68,000 for the purpose of adjutants' forage, and so on; but let the House consider that these Volunteer Corps would cost the country ten times more than £68,000. Here was a lot of country attorneys and easy-going provincials costing the country a great deal of money, with a loose way of drill, as he had no doubt it was. He had the utmost contempt for that, for he liked smartness in a soldier. In 1804, when the Volunteer Corps were enrolled, they cost the country £1,000,000; and Mr. Pitt obtained soon afterwards £500,000 more for them. Let the House take care that the same thing did not occur now; for if support were given to these Volunteer Corps, the House might find that they were costing the country a great deal more than they were worth. It would be a fine thing to sec these gallant young men come forward if there were danger, but there was no danger. The other day he met a stout young friend of his, who was a volunteer rifleman. He told his friend that he was too stout; but his friend replied that it was capital fun. "Capital fun!" he exclaimed, and mentioned to his friend that he had been in Switzerland, and had seen the volunteer riflemen there crawling along on their bellies by the hedgesides for miles, and that he recollected being out during the war of the Sonderbund with a corps of volunteers who passed the whole night in the trees. Nevertheless, his young friend rejoined that it was capital fun— that they had their afternoon parade and patriotic lunch, and were going to have a ball, in full dress uniform, for the ladies, an expensive band, a dinner, and in fact all kinds of conviviality quite unsuited to the rigid habitudes of the army. Now, if there existed any danger he would ask the Committee to increase the regular army and navy, for he concurred in the opinion of the noble Lord the late Commander-in-Chief in Scotland (Viscount Melville), that they could not trust to these men. He honoured him for the manly and fearless way in which he had expressed his opinion. He observed that that noble Lord was no longer the Commander-in-Chief in Scotland, but he hoped that his resignation had nothing to do with the expressions he had used with regard to the volunteer force. One reason in his (Sir R. Peel's) mind for preferring an increase in the army and navy to these Volunteer Corps was based upon grounds the very reverse to what Earl Grey said somewhere in the country. The noble Earl stated that the reason he supported this volunteer force was, because it was an anti-military movement. Such an idea was quite unworthy the noble Earl's position and the office he formerly held, and it was precisely because he (Sir Robert Peel) looked upon the movement as an anti-military one that he so thoroughly disapproved of it. But was there any necessity at the present moment for these Volunteer Corps? What did the Earl of Derby say in 1852 when asked whether he would countenance them? The noble Lord said — and this was a manly way of looking at the matter instead of humbugging about it—"that his Government was not prepared to give aid to the formation of Volunteer Rifle Corps, and he (Lord Derby) conceived that the conclusion which had been come to by the (then) late Government (that of Lord John Russell) not to give aid to rifle corps, was a sound and reasonable decision. Were the circumstances of the country different now? He imagined they were not; but at any rate there was the old established force of the country — the militia, with which the institution of the country had been familiar since the days of Charles II., and which might be increased, if need be, instead of being disembodied. This question of national defences had always been one of great difficulty with Ministers. He well recollected that in 1852 the noble Member for the City of London brought in a Militia Bill, and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton came down with his Amendment, and without the slightest desire to displace the noble Member for London, nevertheless ousted that noble Member from office on this very question of national defences. It seemed to be different now. The Government had thought right to give full swing to the Volunteer Rifle movement, and here we are at the present moment under the influence of the provisions of the Act of the 44th Geo III., c. 54. He hoped the Committee would allow him to read — he would not, using the language of the hon. Member for Birmingham, say the "rubbishing trash," but—the extravagant talk uttered throughout the country for the purpose of keeping alive the fever in favour of the Rifle Corps movement. At Melton Mowbray the chairman of a meeting said —"The time has come when every Englishman will be found employing his leisure hours, whether in town or country, in practising with his rifle." Another gentleman proposed a fox-hunting corps, on the ground that the French dragoons or cuirassiers would not be able to follow them. There was a meeting at Stock-well, at a place called the Swan—an inn, he supposed—in which a gentleman, called in the newspaper report Mr. D. Seymour— he hoped not his hon. Friend the Member for Poole—expressed the opinion that the volunteer movement was a sort of millennium. Heaven forbid that it should last quite as long as that! Mr. Seymour delivered his oration at the beginning of December, and he calculated that at that time there were 400,000 volunteers in the country, and that in a few days the number would reach 1,000,000. Surely the Minister for War did not mean to spend £10 upon each man in so vast a host. Upon the same day there was a meeting of the Pimlico Fencibles. The chairman, more moderate than the millennium gentleman, thought the enrolled volunteers then numbered 150,000, while The Times of the same date had no doubt that in the aggregate they were more than double what they had been three months before, when the number was calculated at 22,000. An hon. Friend of his towards the close of the year made a most amusing speech at a place called Eye. The poet had well said—

"Where ignorance is bliss 'tis folly to be wise;"

for the enthusiastic rifleman, addressing the Suffolk yokels and bumpkins, made their hair stand on end by stating that there were hundreds of thousands of troops on the other side of the Channel waiting to come across. Really, when such extravagant language was used to excite a national zeal for Volunteer Corps, the sooner a stop was put to it the better. Schools were turned to strange purposes now-a-days, and he was not surprised that a rifle meeting had been held in St. Peter's School, Pimlico. One of the speakers, waxing very eloquent indeed, declared that he hoped to see the day when every man in England, like the Swiss, would have a rifle hung behind his door. [Cheers.] No doubt, there were a great many riflemen in Switzerland, but those who cheered should recollect that we paid upwards of £30,000,000 for our army and navy. For his own part, he should like to see the stalwart youth of England turning their attention to some legitimate and useful pursuit, instead of hankering after firearms and knickerbockers. But the climax was still to come. At the same meeting in Pimlico, a Mr. Penman informed his auditors that in 1797 a body of 1,400 French troops landed in Pembrokeshire, but were immediately dispersed by the red petticoats of the Welsh women seen on a distant hill. He must say that Mr. Denman did not offer a very flattering suggestion to the gallant Pimlico Fencibles. "But," continued the orator — uttering an anachronism which the Pimlico fencibles failed to observe—"Mr. Fox declared that England did not recover from the effects of that descent for twenty years." It was certainly high time to "show up" meetings at which such speeches were made. Perhaps the Committee would derive a little amusement from the names of some of the rifle corps. The leaders of the movement, judging from their absurd nomenclature, seemed to have gone mad. It was a fact. Certain gentlemen, who had evidently been reading Carlyle's Life of Frederick the Great, were advertising daily in The Times on behalf of a corps, to be called the Six Foot Guards. There were corps composed of the stokers and pokers of the railways. He had already mentioned the Pimlico Fencibles, but what did the Committee think of the Westminster Volunteers of St, John the Evangelist? What in the world St. John the Evangelist had to do with rifle corps he could not for the life of him understand. It was really too bad that so venerable a name should be associated with a band of idle striplings playing at soldiers. There was the Volunteer Corps of the Aldermen and Corporation of London, and last, but not least, there was the Rifle Corps of the Inns of Court. He admired the patriotism of lawyers, but nothing could well be more absurd than the idea of a lot of barristers from the Inns of Court bundling out of chambers with the view of meeting the Cuirassiers of the Imperial Guard in deadly conflict. Serjeant Parry seemed to be an active member of the corps. No doubt that distinguished legal luminary would earn a grade, and become Sergeant-Major Parry. The Serjeant was kept in countenance by Dr. Ball of the Divorce Court or Ecclesiastical Court—a capital name for a soldier—Counsellor Butt, and his old friend of the time of the French Conspiracy Bill, Lawyer Bodkin. These gentlemen, and many more of the same kidney, leaving the study of Coke and Blackstone, were devoting their days and nights to Plutarch's Lives, Cœsar's Commentaries, and The Rifle, How to use it. How heavy lawyers expected to be able to crawl along hedges upon their bellies and climb up trees, he could not comprehend, and he hoped they would not be very much offended if he applied to them the somewhat apt quotation"In medio tutissimus ibis," which, being literally translated, meant "You are a good deal safer in the Middle Temple." It appeared that some of the riflemen had attained great proficiency in shooting; and the other day General Hay, addressing a body of Rifle Volunteers, told them that the French troops as compared with them were mere skirmishers, complimented them upon the accuracy of their shooting, and told them they were really becoming too expert. At Hythe the first prize was carried off by a genuine Cockney. Upon being asked how he had acquired his extraordinary skill and precision, "Oh!" said he, as reported in the columns of The Court Journal, I live in London, and have had considerable practice in shooting at the cats of my Brompton neighbours. "It was not, perhaps, of much consequence in the depth of winter, but no man could tell what a scene London would present at the height of the season. Everybody would be shooting at his neighbour's cat; there would be the stokers of the Railway Rifles poking at the funnels of the North Western, and we should have the Finsbury Filibusters fluking over Cripple-gate. He trusted, however, that before that time a stop would be put to the volunteer movement. In order to get up the excitement, one gentleman said," Let us get up a Rifle Derby by subscribing £10,000. Switzerland does it; why should it not be done here? You have the Epsom Derby and Lord Derby's Toxopholite. Why not have a Rifle Day at Epsom with Dorling's correct card of the volunteer sportsmen?" But this was not the way to deal with this subject. If there was danger to this country, why did not the Government come forward and say so, and instead of the Minister of War subscribing £10 to the movement, let him give his official salary of £5,000 at once, as one instalment, and call on the country; and they would find the movement general in defence of the institutions of old England, He had followed this movement from its commencement; and if there were any danger of attack the Royal Family, who had the greatest interest of all in the welfare and stability of the country, would be amongst the first to come forward and back up the movement. At present the Royal Family had not patronized it beyond giving their names to a patriotic ball; whereas if danger threatened, the Sovereign of these realms, as of old, would rally the public feeling and exhibit a spirit which would vibrate with one unanimous impulse throughout the length and breadth of England; he believed they would exhibit a spirit that would indeed animate the country. He entirely disapproved of the Vote; and he hoped that when the time came for it to be considered the House would make a gallant stand against this dribbling away of the resources of the country. He had no doubt that in case of attack these men might be very useful. And let it be understood that, in speaking of these volunteers and the collection of large bodies of inhabitants armed for purposes of defence, it is the system and the time of its application that the country appeared to disapprove of, and not, of course, that individual patriotism and zeal which, if necessity required, and indeed under any circumstances, was worthy of the warmest public commendation; but we can never make regular soldiers of the volunteers under the system of loose drill which the Minister of War recommends; and to his (Sir Robert Peel's) mind, it would be infinitely preferable to increase the standing army, enormous though its present proportions are, and to enrol men who, by the force of discipline, would be able to become familiar with the strategy of military tactics, and who would be ten times better able to execute the operations of their general, than we can ever hope to expect from a junction of the Railway Rifles with the Finsbury Filibusters. Therefore he entirely disapproved of this movement, got up under false rumours and the influence of panic. He was prepared to increase the resources of the country and its means of defence; but he believed that the army and the navy, animated by the character of their officers, and by the spirit of patriotism and zeal of the men, were sufficient for all emergencies, for all reasonable purposes of defence, protection, and safety. He wished Gentlemen would get up and induce the Government to reduce these Estimates, and give the House some assurances as regards the future. He believed that he spoke the sentiments of the House, and of the people out of doors, when he said the country was willing to drain themselves to any extent for the defence of the land and for the maintenance and the discipline of the army and navy; but he believed that the resources of the country were being squandered, and he boldly stood up in his place to protest against what he believed to be a most extravagant expenditure of the public money.

said, that as a military man he entirely differed from the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) as to the value of the volunteer movement. The rifle corps, though the hon. Baronet might please to call them Pimlico Fencibles and Finsbury Filibusters, were all volunteers, whilst the French army, though all conscripts, were an actual charge upon the revenues of the State. One question which he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he had turned his attention to the deficient constitution of the line regiments? At present the establishment consisted of 950 men in 12 companies; but this was a very extravagant number in time of peace, and quite inefficient in war. Considering the large proportion of officers to this small number of men, this was a very extravagant establishment for the army.

said, he could not but thank the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the War Department for the care he had taken of the volunteer movement. He was silly enough to take a very great interest in the affair from the commencement. The hon. Baronet was a yeomanry officer. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I was once.] He thought the ire of the hon. Baronet might have been turned upon him, for sometimes he had to bear reproaches for his having doubted the efficiency of the yeomanry.

I am so entirely I of the hon. Gentleman's opinion that I left the corps in consequence.

said, he thought the volunteers were very properly disciplined, and if they took pains with themselves they would prove as useful a corps as any from their greater attention to drill, and their practice of the weapons of the day. They went through their evolutions with great spirit, and a more efficient and useful body of men could not be found in any country. He further thought the volunteer movement, useful as being a constitutional movement, tending to put down large standing armies. They might now look for a reduction of the army establishment in time of peace, but this could not be done unless the people were accustomed to the use of arms. They tend to put down those periodical panics arising from fear of an invasion which were the disgrace of the money market and the country. The hon. Baronet had said that this movement had not been encouraged by the Royal Family. But was not the hon. Baronet aware that a Royal Duke was a colonel of one of the London corps? Surely there was some encouragement in this; or let him look at the Levee, intended for the reception of volunteer officers alone. This alone would prove that Her Majesty looked with favourable eyes upon the movement. For himself, he thought that every one who wished well to his country would wish well to the Rifle Volunteers.

said, he entirely agreed with his gallant Friend (Colonel Herbert) as to the expediency of increasing the strength of our infantry regiments. The Staff was much under number, and it would be impossible to keep regiments efficient in the field unless their numerical strength was augmented. When the army went out to the Crimea they were 1,000 strong, but they left nothing behind—no depôt; and it was only by extraordinary exertions that men could be got together in sufficient numbers to be sent out to replace the casualties. As to barrack accommodation, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War when the promised barracks in London, the site for which he believed was fixed, would be built? He also wished to know whether the Vote formerly taken for barracks, and not expended, was to be brought forward again, or diverted from that object to make up deficiencies in other matters. As to the volunteer force he would have liked to see it continue self-supporting, as at first proposed, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War would resist the pressure brought to bear on him to pay sergeants of companies, and incur several other incidental expenses in connection with these corps. He regretted that the yeomanry were to be set aside for the new volunteer force; and thought it would have been well to arm them with the breech-loading carbine, and make them as efficient as possible.

remarked that he could not say that there was no extravagance in the Estimates. He saw several items which he was sure might be reduced without any diminution of the efficiency of the service. He would suggest that it would be a convenient course if the right hon. Gentleman would take the Vote for the number of men that night, and postpone the other Votes to a future occasion.

said, he wished to ask when the disembodied Militia were to be called out for training this year?

said, he had stated already that they would be called out nearly at the same time, but that allowance would have to be made for the different times of harvest in the several districts.

asked whether the Adjutant-General and Quartermaster-General of the Army were not considered as the personal Staff of Her Majesty, and whether under those circumstances they were liable to be removed in the same manner as other officers? The Staff of the army had been referred to as having proved a failure during the last war, but the opinion of the French and Sardinian armies in the Crimea was that the British Staff was excessively efficient.

observed, that the education of the staff officers in the French service was much superior to that formerly given to the Staff of our army. Even the soldiers were taught to make their own clothing and shoes, and this materially lessened the cost of the French army. They were also taught to build their own dwellings. He was glad to hear that there was a prospect of improvement in the English army in these respects.

said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not proceed any further with Votes of so much importance at that time of the night. Out of the fifteen millions-and-a-half to which the whole military Estimates amounted, less than five millions were for officers, men, and horses. The remainder offered a wide field for economy, and the Votes ought to be carefully considered. He (Colonel Dickson) did not think that there was a person in England who might he more emphatically termed, "the right man in the right place," than the adjutant-general of the army; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his plan of changing officers so often that they really had not time to learn their duties.

said, he also must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed with this large Vote to-night.

said, the adjutant-general and the quartermaster-general held their appointments under an instrument somewhat different from an ordinary commission; but there could be no question as to the power of the Queen to say whether she preferred to change them or not. If anybody supposed that he had meant to speak of the Staff in the Crimea as inefficient, he had not succeeded in conveying what he really intended to say. What he wished to state was that the Staff in the Crimea were not at first so efficient as the country had expected them to be, forgetting that they had had neither experience nor instruction. They soon, however, taught themselves in the best of all possible schools—that of actual service.

said, that if the Crimean Staff were not efficient, it was the fault of those who had selected them, for there were plenty of officers in the service that had both knowledge and experience. There were many questions raised in this very Vote, which the House ought to have the opportunity of discussing. There were, for instance, the depôt battalions, which were very costly, and which every officer would join in condemning. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Vote that night.

expressed a hope that the Committee would allow the Estimates to he proceeded with.

said, he could not permit £4,500,000 of the public money to be thus dealt with at near one o'clock in the morning.

explained that the cost which this measure would throw upon the Consolidated Fund did not exceed £5,000 a year; but from the greatly improved valuation returns, a direct benefit equal to at least £50,000 or £60,000 would be derived.

said, he would not oppose the Second Reading, but he had several Amendments to propose in Committee.