said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the Report be correct that the Tariff value of Cotton Goods on importation into India has been raised from £100 to about £150; and whether the previous Duty of five per cent on £100 is to be raised to 10 per cent on £150, thereby fixing a Duty of 15 per cent in place of 5 per cent; and, secondly, if the Report be correct to ask if this excessive scale of Duties will be sanctioned by the Council of India?

said, he could not take upon himself to answer exactly the questions of his hon. Friend, as he had not himself received any account of the tariff arrangements which had been entered into. He was not, therefore, prepared to say what would be the effect of the changes made on the various descriptions of goods; but he might state generally what had been the course proposed by Mr. Wilson. It appeared that Mr. Wilson had found that there were different rates charged on the admission of manufactured goods into Calcutta, some being charged 5, some 10, and some as high' as 20 per cent, and he had thought it right to fix the whole at a uniform rate of 10 per cent, the effect of which would be to lower the rate of duty on some goods and raise it on others. But he (Sir Charles Wood) understood the question of his hon. Friend to refer not so much to the rate of duty as to the valuation, which was in some cases found to be too low and had been raised. He had had the honour to receive a deputation of manufacturers on this subject, who complained a good deal of the effect of the rate of duty as not sufficiently approximating to an ad valorem rate. His hon. Friend was of course aware that there existed a long standing controversy as to the comparative merits of fixed rates and ad valorem duties. It had been represented to him that there was considerable hardship in the proposed arrangements, and the manufacturers whom he saw had sent him samples of goods, ac* companied with a statement showing the inequality of the proposed duties. These samples, with the explanations, had been sent to Calcutta by the first mail which left after they had been received at the India House, with directions that the Indian Government should take such measures as would make the rates bear as fairly as possible on all descriptions of goods, and no doubt that injunction would be complied with. Indeed, they knew by a telegraphic message that the question was at that time under the consideration of the Government there.

I rise, Sir, to ask the permission of the House to propose the Motion of which I have given notice, as to the appointment of a Committee to search the Lords' Journals. I understand that the usual course is to move for such a Committee even without notice. If the House has no objection, I will move now that a Committee be appointed to search the Lords' Journals with the view of ascertaining what was done by the Lords with reference to the Bill sent up to them for the repeal of the Excise Duties on Paper made in the United Kingdom.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there would be any objection to the Slave Trade Papers of each year being published at an early period of the year following?

said, that the papers were not received by the Government in sufficient time to enable them to produce them at the commencement of the Session. But there would be no objection to have the information made up to the middle of each year, and laid before the House when Parliament met at the beginning of the following year.

said, he would move the insertion of a clause, of which he had given notice, the object of which was to place parties applying for wine licences under the same obligation with regard to notice as was at present incumbent upon public-house and beerhouse-keepers.

said, he rose to move,

"That, from and after the passing of this Act, section seven of the statute of the fifth and sixth years of William the Fourth, chapter thirty-nine, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."

said, he would admit that the law was at present in a very unsatisfactory state. Last year the provision of the Act of Parliament was suspended by a Treasury Minute, which was issued a short time after the passing of the Act. Afterwards the Minute was withdrawn, in his opinion on sufficient grounds, and the provision of the Act put in force. It was certainly desirable that legislation should take place on this subject. Some licence ought to be granted by the magistrates to theatres, or power should ^be given to the Lord Chamberlain to regulate the sale of liquors in such places. It was contrary to the practice in all countries but our own that spirits and wines should be consumed in theatres. He entertained a doubt, however, whether this question was at all germane to the Bill under consideration, and whether the introduction of such miscellaneous subjects might not be apt to create a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament. He would, therefore, suggest that his hon. and learned Friend should bring in a separate Bill to dispose of this question, and he would undertake, if he did so, to give him the best support he could, provided he concurred in the general provisions of the measure.

re-marked, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed the clause had this excuse, that it had as much connection with the present measure as the provision it was intended to amend had with the Act in which it was inserted. As the right hon. Baronet, however, had promised that a separate measure, on the principle laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman, would receive the support of the Government, he would recommend the withdrawal of the clause.

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not withdraw the clause. If the somewhat prophetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman should be realized, the clauses introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were much more likely to induce a dif- ference of opinion between the two Houses. This Bill, under the pretence of being a wine-licensing Bill, repealed the law, and laid down a totally different system of magisterial interference, and was, in fact, a species of compendium of the licensing system.

said, what his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary laid down was, that the clause was worthy of favourable consideration; and, in order that it might have such consideration, he proposed to give the hon. and learned Member an opportunity of obtaining it. That was the position in which they stood, but if the clause were pressed they should deem it their duty to meet it with a negative.

said, under the law, as it now stood, there was no limit to the consumption of spirits in theatres, or to the days and hours on which they were sold. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, instead of leaving the matter in the hands of a private Member, would bring in a Bill himself.

suggested that as they were all agreed that something ought to be done, and as it would be very difficult for a private Member to pass such a Bill through in the present Session, it would be very desirable that the Home Secretary should himself introduce a Bill on the subject.

said, he was, with the consent of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, quite willing to introduce a Bill to effect the desired object.

said, on that understanding, he would consent to withdraw his Motion.

said, he rose to move the insertion of a clause prohibiting persons who took out licences under the Bill from selling wine to children under sixteen years of age. It was not the first time that the question had been brought before the House. The Commissioners of Police were so convinced of the evils which arose from inducements to intoxication being held out to children that a clause in its wording, similar to that which he now proposed, had been introduced into the Metropolitan Police Act. At that time, however, the sale of spirits was the only thing which was contemplated, whereas the wine containing 40 per cent of spirits which was now spoken of would be fully as intoxicating in its effects as the diluted gin sold in public-houses. The desire of filling the coffers of the Government should not be suffered to operate as a motive for inducing young persons to drink wine, and he believed that the cause of morality and sobriety would be promoted by the course which he had suggested. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of the following clause:—

"Every person licensed to deal in Wines who shall knowingly supply wine to any boy or girl apparently under the age of sixteen years, to be drunk upon the premises, shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 20s.; and upon conviction of a second offence shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 40s.; and upon conviction of a third offence shall be liable to a penalty of not more than £5."

said, the only objection he felt with regard to the clause was as to the difficulty of carrying it into effective operation. But as a similar clause was contained in the Metropolitan Police Act he should not object to its introduction into the Bill.

said, he wished to point out that the clause of the Metropolitan Police Act was not co-extensive with that proposed by the hon. Member, inasmuch as its operation was confined to the Metropolis. In boroughs throughout the country the sale of spirits was regulated by municipal bye-laws, which could equally be applied to wine and sold under the new system.

said, he did not think it fair to the municipal towns that they should be called on to revise their bye-laws because a new Act had been passed by the Legislature, In manufacturing localities there was quite as great a necessity as in the Metropolis to impose restraints on young girls and boys. They began to earn wages at a very early age, and there was reason to fear that the money was dis- sipated in the worst practices. There was no necessity for increasing the facilities they at present enjoyed, and he therefore could not consent to the proposed limitation.

said, he wished to know with what operation the Act would be attended in the case of children going with their parents into a refreshment shop; or if the hon. Member for Greenwich, for instance, entered a confectioner's with a young lady of sixteen who wished to have a glass of wine. Was it intended that under no circumstances a person under age should obtain a glass of wine?

said, there were reasons why spirits ought not to be sold in the Metropolis to a child to be consumed on the premises, but it was quite a different question whether the rule ought to be made general throughout the country and applied likewise in the case of wines. It would certainly seem hard to punish a shopkeeper for selling wine to a child, even though it might be accompanied by its father. The effect of the clause, if carried, would be that, where no bye-laws to the contrary existed it would not be penal to sell spirits to a child under sixteen, although it would be illegal to sell it a glass of wine.

said, it was clear the operation of the clause must be confined to the Metropolis; otherwise, in the country a child going into a public-house to get a glass of wine would be refused by the owner on the ground that by supplying it he would become punishable, but he would add, "I can sell you something that will answer your purpose better," and would then sell a glass of gin.

said, his only concern lay with the Metropolis, and if the representatives of the country did not desire the benefits derivable from his clause he would not press that portion of it upon the House.

said, that adhering to the statements which he had previously made, he believed the clause was superfluous, as there was already a provision to the same effect in the Metropolitan Police Act, and that the Bill would be much better without it.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion, as in his opinion it would be entirely inoperative.

said, he was unable to distinguish the difference in prin- ciple between Liverpool and the Metropolis. Legislation, he thought, would be looked on as ridiculous which would prevent a father who might bring a fine boy of fifteen up to town from giving him a glass of wine with his sandwich.

said, that on the part of the Metropolis, he must disclaim the advantage which the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) was anxious to secure for it. The clause referred in no way to the presence of parents or guardians, but made it penal under all circumstances to sell wine to a child under sixteen years of age. If his hon. Friend therefore went to a division he should feel compelled to vote against him.

said, he must deny all intention of preventing parents who might think proper to do so from obtaining suitable refreshment for their children. The cases which had been supposed would not arise upon the construction of the clause.

said, he would then move the insertion of the following clause: —

"That it shall be lawful for the owners and ratepayers of any place which, by the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1858, is entitled to adopt that Act, and for the owners and ratepayers of each parish within the Metropolis, as defined by that Act, to determine, in the manner prescribed by the said Act, that the provisions of this Act shall not be adopted within the limits of such place or parish; and thereupon no Licence shall be granted under this Act for or in respect of any house, shop, or premises within the limits of such place or parish."

said, that the Local Government Act of 1858 was quite different in its object from that which the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed. The object of the Act was to introduce certain local regulations of a municipal character, and was not intended to interfere with the general laws of the country. It could not, therefore, be applied in such a case as the present.

said, that however nicely it might be concealed, the Amendment was neither more nor loss than an attempt to impose the Maine Liquor Law without the authority of Parliament. Such a course would be against all public policy, and he could not suppose that his hon. Friend was serious in proposing the clause.

confessed that he sympathised with the views of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets as set forth in the clause. Without some such provision the inhabitants of a district who were opposed to the introduction of those houses would be left wholly without a remedy against what they considered to be a great evil. If the hon. Member pressed his clause he should certainly support him.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would not press the clause. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was certainly not prepared to assent to the introduction of the Maine Liquor Law into this country, particularly in regard to wine-houses, when the houses of licensed victuallers were allowed to go free.

said, he would then propose a further clause:—

"That no Licence to be granted under this Act shall be deemed or taken to confer any right or beneficial interest whatever in any person, so as to interfere with any restrictions being hereafter imposed by Parliament on the sale of Wine."

, in moving that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, said it might be convenient that he should explain the difficulty which had led the Government to ask for a Vote on account for Civil Services, and the extent to which they intended to ask the House to vote money on account. The House was aware that the system of keeping the accounts for the Civil Services was essentially different from that of the army and navy. In the case of the army and navy, where there were only a few large Votes, the Votes were taken for the service of the current financial year and if at the end of the year; there was a balance in hand it must be handed over to the Exchequer, but if there was a deficiency it must be met by a further Vote within the year, power being vested in the Treasury to transfer a surplus from one account to meet a deficiency in another. In the case of the Civil Services, where the Votes were much more numerous and of a more miscellaneous character, that system had never been adopted. In fact, where the Votes extended, as they did last year, to so large a number as 197, it was impossible to adopt such a system, especially as the House never found it perfectly practicable to pass the Votes for Civil Services previous to the close of the financial year, on the 31st of March. Those services had been conducted by having a balance in the case of each particular Vote, for as respected them no power was vested in the Treasury, similar to that which obtained with regard to the naval and military services, of transferring a surplus from one account to make good a deficiency in another; therefore in the case of the Civil Services, when there was a deficiency in any Vote in consequence of circumstances that increased the expenditure after the Vote was taken, recourse must be had to the House for a supplemental Vote, although there might be a surplus in hand on some other Vote, which, however, could not be transferred to meet that particular deficiency. The present was not an exceptional or isolated case. It would have occurred about this time last year if the Votes had not been obtained at an earlier period. The course practically had been to have recourse, when occasion required, to the Vote for civil contingencies; but that Vote had been limited to £100,000, and was not sufficient to meet the deficiency that frequently occurred in carrying out the numerous objects involved in the miscellaneous service. The necessity had arisen during the last five or six years of obtaining either a large sum of money on account, or of taking up and considering the various Votes at an early period of the Session. Last year the difficulty which then arose from the dissolution was got over by a sum of £1,854,000 being taken in March. In the previous year a sum of £1,952,000 was taken in April; in May, 1857, when the dissolution occurred, there was taken a sum of £1,500,000 on account; in 1856 and 1855, the large sums of £5,194,000 and £4,867,000 were taken also on account. This year it was known to the House that, owing to the state of public business, no money had yet, though they were near the end of May, been obtained for the Civil Service. The consequence was, that the balances of many of these Votes had become exhausted, while in others they were nearly approaching to a state of exhaustion. It became necessary, therefore, either to obtain a Vote on account, or to do that which was objectionable —overdraw particular accounts, and thus intrench on the provisions of the Appropriation Act. He had asked the heads of departments to go carefully over the various Votes, and to ascertain the outside amount that would be required to prevent the overdrawing of accounts, supposing the Session to be protracted to an unusually late period, and the Estimates not voted by the House of Commons till a very late period, as was the case last year. The result of their calculations went to show that a sum of £1,468,000 was required to prevent that course being taken on the supposition that the regular Votes were not passed till the month of August. There were several precedents for taking a large Vote on account in the way now proposed. Some of them he had already mentioned. In 1848, when the Committee on the Estimates was sitting, a Vote was taken on account, as it was not thought desirable to go on with the Estimates till that Committee reported. A similar Committee was now sitting, and therefore what was done in 1848 might so far be taken as a precedent; but the strongest authority for the course now proposed was to be found in the Report of the Committee on public moneys, which recommended that in difficulties similar to the present, a sum should be taken on account for such services as had been sanctioned by Parliament in a previous Session. When a sum was taken under that limitation the control of Parliament was to a great extent preserved, because, one the one hand, no new service would he begun under such a Vote, and on the other hand the Vote for the old services would never be more than was necessary to carry them on for the current quarter. In the Estimate now submitted to the House this principle was strictly acted upon. No Vote for any new service was introduced, and no more was asked than was required to carry on the service for the current quarter. The Government felt that there were considerations in the State of the public business this year which might render the present an expedient time to moot the larger question whether this system should be introduced as a general rule in future. They therefore limited the Vote to such a sum as was absolutely necessary to carry on the public service till after the Whitsun holidays. The Estimate had accordingly been accurately revised with that view, and all that the Government asked from the House was a sum of £400,000, which would be distributed over ten votes. These Votes were, on account of printing and stationery, £30,000; County Courts, £35,000; Irish constabulary, £82,000; Education in Great Britain, £100,000; consuls abroad, £54,000; prisons, &c, £20,000; sundry temporary commissions, £12,000; slave trade, £ 12,000; civil contingencies, £54,000; Dublin police, £7,000. On a close investigation of the accounts this amount was found to be indispensable in order to prevent the confusion that would arise from overdrawing the accounts during the holidays. He trusted there would be no objection to the House going into Committee of Supply.

said, he very much regretted the Government proposed to take that Vote, as he greatly objected to the system of taking money on account. Complaints had been made in former Sessions that the Estimates were delayed; yet notwithstanding all that had been said as to the propriety of laying the Estimates on the table at an early period of the Session every Government that was in power adhered to the practice of bringing them in late in the Session, so late that it was impossible to give them the attention which they deserved. Her Majesty's Government should recollect that the Estimates were not to be considered as a reason for voting the money required as a matter of course. He should feel it to be his duty to oppose the Motion for going into Committee, and he should take the sense of the House on the subject.

said, he agreed that the Government were taking a most objectionable course, for when a sum was once taken on account any discussion upon the Vote afterwards was useless. That I was quite a new practice, which had only obtained within the last three or four years. A few nights ago the Government obtained a large sum on account for the Army Estimates, and now they asked for another sum on account for the Civil Service Estimates. He thought that as the Government knew at the commencement of the Session what the requirements of the service were, they ought to be prepared to bring forward the Estimates at a period sufficiently early to prevent any such contingency arising as the present. He should support the hon. Gentleman in opposing so objectionable a course as that proposed, although it would, perhaps, be better to do so in Committee. The House ought certainly to express its opinion in respect to so objectionable a practice.

Sir, I trust that the House will feel it to be its duty to give a strong expression of its opinion on this subject; but whether that expression shall be made on your leaving the chair, or when we get into Committee and know the particular reasons for proposing these Votes on account, I am not able to say. I think we had better go into Committee, but I am alarmed at the grounds put forward by the hon. Secretary to the Treasury for going into Committee of Supply with the view of voting this money on account. This is an entirely new proceeding on the part of the Government. The reasons given by the hon. Gentleman appear to me to be insufficient. The only precedents are two. One of them was made with the knowledge of the House when a great hiatus was likely to occur in the proceedings of the House in consequence of a dissolution. The other occurred when the House determined to take upon itself to examine the Miscellaneous Estimates, and when, therefore, the Government could not with propriety proceed with these Estimates until that examination was over. But what is it we are now asked to do? By the notice of Motion in the Supplementary Estimate recently circulated, the House was led to suppose that the Government was about to ask for not £400,000, but £1,400,000 on account; and I observed particularly that, when the Secretary to the Treasury was pressing this on the consideration of the House, he made out a case, not for voting money on account to meet a particular exigency, but to meet the possibility of the House sitting till August, and not being able to go on with them. This is what alarms me in the novel proceeding of the Government. I think it better not to oppose your leaving the chair, because the Government may have more reasons to give in Committee for voting this money on account; but when we get into Committee, we ought to scrutinize with the greatest minuteness the claims for these Votes on account. The Estimates ought to be proceeded with earlier in the Session, or this House will forfeit a much greater privilege than it is supposed to be about to hazard in another matter, for it is by these Estimates and by going into Committee of Supply alone that this House has an opportunity, before it grants a shilling of the public money, of demanding explanations with reference to all matters where they may be required. Postpone the Estimates and take money on account, and you deprive this House of the opportunity of bringing under the notice of Parliament any grievance that may require its interposition.

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) did not intend to support the Motion, which he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw, against the House going into Committee. It was most desirable that the Estimates should be proceeded with at an earlier period of the Session, and that it should not become the habit of the Government to ask for Votes on account. But the Secretary to the Treasury had limited the amount of the sums he proposed to take on account, and the House would run no risk in voting only what was essential for the public service. The present proposal was so reasonable that he hoped there would be no opposition to it, since the House did not pledge itself to vote the whole of the money of which it was now asked to vote a part.

said, he thought that the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had somewhat changed the position of this question. Since the Notice Paper had been presented the Government had determined to ask only for money on account of ten items, and for £400,000 instead of £1,400,000. But it was a question of principle, and the House ought to know the precise meaning of the alteration that had been made. If the intention was to ask for money on account merely to enable the Government to get over the Whitsuntide holidays, and if it were understood that after the recess the House were to be asked to consider the Civil Service Estimates, the proposal would be of a moderate character. But if these Votes were proposed merely to enable the Estimates to be postponed until late in the Session, it was not a question of £1,400,000 or of £400,000, but of principle and precedent. Although he should be most reluctant to throw difficulties in the way of the Government, they ought to understand on what principle this money was asked for. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had correctly stated that there were only three precedents for voting money on account—the dissolution in 1857, that of last year, and the appointment in 1848 of the Committee to revise the miscellaneous expenditure. Upon the last occasion the Votes were taken on account, in order to enable the House to deal with the Estimates after they got the Report of the Committee. There was, however, this difference, that it was not intended that the Committee which was appointed this year should express any opinion on the Estimates of the year. Their duty was to examine and report upon the Estimates only of the past year. The truth was that in all those three cases the ground on which the Votes were given on account was one, not of convenience, but of principle. When the House of Commons was about to be dissolved it would obviously be very improper for the House to proceed to vote all the details of the expenditure, and commit the country to their views. That was a duty which should be reserved for the now House of Commons which was to be elected. He understood, therefore, that the principle on which the Votes on account were taken in 1857 and 1859 was simply that, as the House was about to be dissolved, it was necessary that the settlement of the expenditure should be left to the following Parliament. Such was not the case at this moment. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury cited the authority of the Committee on Public Moneys for the course proposed; but the report of that Committee was by no means applicable to such a case. That Report recommended that the same principle should be adopted in voting and auditing grants for the civil service as for the army and navy. The grants for the latter services were voted in large sums to be expended during the year, as had been explained by the Secretary to the Treasury. It was suggested that the civil service Votes were taken so late in the year that to adopt the same course with regard to them as with the other Votes would have the effect of involving the Government in difficulties. The Committee, therefore, with reluctance, suggested that Votes should be taken on account, as the only way of getting out of the difficulty. Considerable hesitation was exhibited by the Committee in coming to that decision. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir G. C. Lewis) submitted a very able paper, which, to a great extent, formed the foundation of the Report, and in which he expressed some doubts as to the possibility of making any alteration in the mode of voting the Miscellaneous Estimates, because there was great difficulty in getting Parliament to pass all the Votes before the 1st of April. The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), stated his opinion that to vote money on account of the civil service, without specific appropriation, would be open to serious objection, and that to take part Votes for one quarter on each separate head would lead practically to a double discussion. But although, as he had said, that decision was come to with much hesitation, a certain object was to be gained by it. In the present case, however, they were asked to take the same course without attaining any object. In truth, on looking at the circumstances of the case, and considering the course which was proposed, it would be seen that by adopting it the House would be exposed to one of two difficulties—either they must discuss the principle of these Votes now— in which case nothing was gained except that they would have to discuss them over again — or the principle of other Votes, which it was desirable should be discussed, would be withdrawn from consideration. They were told that the proposal now made was very moderate, because they were asked to vote money on only one or two Votes. But some of these Votes were in class 7, which was not before them. That was a very important class, and one in which very large reductions had been promised—reductions to the extent of over £200,000. If it was really necessary for the Government to get money for these two or three services in that class, they ought to have the specific Votes before them, in order that they might discuss them properly. But if they were to give these Votes on account and leave the rest till the end of the Session, the consequence would be that they would be brought before the House at a time when they could not re- ceivc proper consideration. He objected, therefore, to giving these Votes on account in class 7. It was not to the amount, but to the principle involved, that his objection chiefly referred. He was opposed to passing such Votes on account, unless on the distinct understanding that they would have the Estimates before them immediately after Whitsuntide, to be proceeded with in the proper manner.

said, he objected on principle to Votes being taken on account, and he did not think that the Secretary to the Treasury had made out a special case for this occasion. A great deal of time had unquestionably been thrown away in the early part of the Session, not without due warning to the Government from himself and others that delay in the introduction of the Reform Bill would lead to a deadlock in the business of the country. It did not matter that the proposition now made was a moderate one. Unless the House of Commons made a stand, and protested against the practice of voting on account, they would find one Government after another announcing that they were pressed for money, and asking for a small sum on account, on the promise that the Estimates would be brought on afterwards. Every hon. Member who had spoken had objected to the principle, but it was of no use objecting to the principle unless something was done to prevent the practice. No one who listened to the speech of the Secretary of the Treasury could resist the conviction that it was not the intention of the Government to bring forward the Estimates before August; and if they were delayed till then, what opportunity would there be for properly discussing them? Another view of the question was, that the Vote of so much money on account was virtually a sort of Vote of Confidence in the Government. Now, the present was a very critical time. An important step would have to be taken by the Government in regard to a matter pending between this House and the other; and, for his own part, he could say that the confidence he would be disposed to place in the Government would depend very much on the nature of the step they took. The country surely could not be so completely short of funds that the Votes of Credit could not be postponed for a week or ten days, by which time the Committee which was to be appointed to-morrow would be enabled to report as to precedents. He would, therefore, press the Government to defer the taking of the Votes on account till at least after Whitsuntide.

Sir, I have no wish to mix the question now before us with any other. I will confine myself, therefore, to the proposition which the Government have submitted to us. On occasions like the present, notwithstanding the constitutional suspicion with which the House ought to view propositions of this kind, I am myself always inclined to facilitate the course of public business, and to give any Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury bench that fair assistance in conducting the affairs of the House which they have a right to expect from Parliament. It is impossible, however, to assent to this proposition without some consideration. The House should clearly understand the proposition that is made, because I cannot at all agree with the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord H. Vane) in his view. The noble Lord seemed to entertain objections of a very serious character to any course of this kind, provided the demand had been a large one; but as it was, comparatively speaking, so small in relation to that originally asked, and positively speaking, so trifling in itself, he did not see how the House could properly refuse the application. To my mind the small amount of the proposition would rather add to its objectionable character, in case I felt it my duty on the whole to offer no opposition to the plan of the Government. Because, what is the view of the public business given to us by the Secretary of the Treasury? He certainly, as has been observed by the noble Lord who spoke last, and as was generally felt by both sides of the House, conveyed the impression that there was no immediate prospect of the House forming itself into a Committee of Supply to consider the Civil Service Estimates. Well, what will be the position of the House if, a fortnight hence, when this supply is exhausted, a similar proposition, equally small, is made? The House may be occupied at that time with business, supposed to be of great interest and importance, and an appeal may then be equally successful if it is urged as to-night, that surely the House has sufficient confidence in the Government to supply them with funds to carry on the urgent business of the country for another week or fortnight? Therefore, although the application may be small, the precedent may be large; and therefore it is only as a precedent, involving a principle, that the House has really to decide upon the question be- fore it. I entirely assent to the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole. I agree with him in all his arguments, and the only part in which I do not agree with him is the conclusion at which he arrives. It appeared to me that every reason urged by my right hon. Friend would have induced him to arrive at a conclusion the reverse to that which he reached; and, so far from thinking that this is not the opportunity upon which the House should come to a decision, whatever that decision may be, I am of opinion that it is upon the question that you, Sir, shall leave the chair that—a principle being involved, and we being called upon to establish a precedent—the House ought to treat the matter frankly and fully, and arrive at their decision upon it. Upon the subject of precedent I need hardly touch, because I think the admission of the Secretary to the Treasury is conclusive. All the precedents which he adduced proved that it was a course which the House adopted only under extraordinary circumstances, such as impending dissolutions of Parliament, changes of Ministry, references to the House itself of the Estimates; and in the present Session none of those extraordinary circumstances exist. I therefore think that we may fairly throw aside all precedents. We are called upon to-night to make a precedent. On the subject of amount it does not appear to me that it is of the slightest consequence whether the application of the Government be for £500,000 or £1,500,000. As far as the Government is concerned it is a question of confidence. I and every Gentleman sitting on these benches are perfectly prepared to give them that confidence, provided there is a clear understanding of the terms upon which that confidence is to be given. If the public service is in such a state that there really are not in the Exchequer funds to carry it on from day to day, I am disposed to come to the assistance of the Government. I will not go out of the way to inquire whether a great deal of time has been wasted. I will not read the list of the meetings of the House to show that, although Parliament was called together in January, a fortnight passed before any business was transacted, or that even on one or two nights the Government did not take advantage of opportunities to go into Committee of Supply. I will not stop to inquire why we have not yet been regularly in Committee of Supply. If the service of the country absolutely requires it, I will not enter into any discussion whether the sum shall be £500,000 or £1,500,000. The condition which I make with the Government, and which I think it right to make, and which I think the House of Commons ought to make, is this,—If we are ready to extend this fair confidence, will they engage that we shall have fair opportunities and legitimate occasions of entering into that criticism and examination of the Estimates of the Government which is our right and privilege? To ask us to enter into an investigation of the Estimates in August, as the Secretary to the Treasury tells us, or even in the month of July, is not a fair constitutional fulfilment of the conditions which, I think, the House in giving its confidence to the Government has a right to demand. That is the real point, and if the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman will rise and tell us that it is impossible, for want of Supplies, to carry on the business of the country until next Thursday, when we meet and can, if the Government please, go into Committee of Supply, every one will be perfectly willing to grant that which they require; but we ought to make a constitutional condition. When they ask this unusual assistance from the House, they ought to say: When the holidays are over we will go as early as possible into Committee of Supply, continue to take Supply, and give to the House the legitimate opportunities of investigating the expenditure of the country and of bringing before the consideration of Parliament those grievances which it is the privilege of the House of Commons to bring forward under those circumstances. If Her Majesty's Government frankly tell us that they are prepared to do that, which I conclude a Minister of the Crown cannot hesitate for a moment in doing—if they will enter into a clear engagement that when the holidays are over, next Thursday, we shall go into Committee of Supply, that these Estimates shall be submitted to us, that we shall not be deprived of our constitutional right to examine the Civil Service Estimates, and to see whether in our minds they are of the proper amount and character, and that we shall have the opportunity on those occasions of bringing subjects under consideration which it is usual to bring forward when Estimates are moved, I shall support the proposition of Her Majesty's Government. But if that offer be not accepted—if we are called on to establish a most dangerous precedent, and to go on through the remainder of the Session voting aids and credits without the advantage of going into Committee of Supply, thereby risking the loss of those privileges which are most valuable, and of which we are most proud, then I shall feel it my duty to support the hon. Gentleman. I only ask the House to remember the position in which it is placed. Certainly two-thirds, if not more, of the usual Session has already passed, and we have scarcely gone into Committee of Supply as far as the exercise of any real control over the expenditure of the country or of the privilege of obtaining redress of grievances is concerned. There is also, from the admission of the Secretary to the Treasury, a prospect that the remaining portion of the Session will also pass without the House having the enjoyment of those advantages. I trust that I have placed the question fairly before the House, and treated it in a constitutional point of view. As I have said, I shall support Her Majesty's Government if they enter into that engagement, but otherwise I shall support the hon. Gentleman who has moved the Amendment.

Sir, it is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there is a financial necessity for a Vote for these services,—not that the Exchequer is empty, but that we have not yet Parliamentary authority to apply the money; and unless Parliamentary authority is given the services must suffer great inconvenience, and the public interest be seriously prejudiced. That is the simple ground upon which, we apply to Parliament for these Votes on account. I cannot admit that an application to Parliament for a Vote on account of Estimates already presented is at all a matter without precedent. It is a matter of almost annual occurrence. Nor do I see any great distinction between these Miscellaneous Estimates and Estimates for the Army and Navy, except that perhaps the latter are more important and present a greater number of subjects upon which it is desirable opinions should be expressed. There is nothing unparliamentary or unconstitutional, when the necessity arises, to ask for Votes on account of the larger services of the army and navy; and I cannot see what Parliamentary or constitutional objection can be raised in principle to a Vote on account of consular establishments, education, or any of these different heads of the Miscellaneous Estimates, which are infinitely less important than those upon which Parliament by practice has acquiesced in the principle of Votes on account. It has been stated that the necessity for Votes of account on these Miscellaneous Estimates does not often occur, and why? Because these Estimates—and here I may appeal to the recollection of hon. Members to bear me out—come on late in the Session, and are frequently not finished till late in July, and the House has usually found nothing in that advanced period of the Session to prevent it giving the necessary attention to the details of these Votes. We are accused of negligence in not having brought these Vstimates sooner before the attention of the House, but I beg to recall to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that we called Parliament together ten days earlier than usual. We showed no disinclination at all events to meet Parliament at the earliest possible period consistent with the convenience of hon. Members—in fact we were somewhat blamed for having anticipated the usual period for its assembling. Have we, during the period which has elapsed from that time to this, abstained from submitting to Parliament measures of importance and general interest deserving their consideration? Parliament, in fact, has been uninterruptedly occupied by measures of the greatest national importance. I am not at all disposed to cavil at the length of time which the House has thought fit to devote to the consideration of the weighty measures submitted to them—the French Treaty, the Reform Bill, the Budget, and the financial measures springing out of it. They were perfectly justified in discussing them at length, but a great deal of time has, in fact, been occupied by these discussions, and they have so far interfered with the ordinary course of public I business in regard to the Estimates, that at this moment we have not been able to give to the Army and Navy Estimates, which generally take precedence of the Miscellaneous Estimates, sufficient time to enable us to complete them. If the Miscellaneous Estimates, therefore, have been postponed to the present time, it is not our fault, but the result of that course which the House of Commons in the performance of its duty has thought fit to adopt with regard to the measures of first-rate importance which were submitted to it, and which deserved all the attention bestowed on them. Blame ought not to be thrown on us for a result which is no fault of ours, but which has arisen from the length of time the House has, in the discharge of its duty, thought fit to give to important business. The right hon. Gentleman opposite made very light of the observation of my noble Friend, that the objection to this course is diminished in proportion to the diminution of the sum asked for; but I think, even in his own view of the case, that observation had great force. The amount of money to be voted is equivalent in meaning to a certain portion of time, and those who object to these Votes on account to carry on a certain service, on the ground that they place the remainder of the Vote in a certain degree out of the control of Parliament, ought to feel that the diminution of the sum voted on account, as it involves the necessity of an earlier recurrence to Parliament for the remainder of the services, very much removes the objection to this course. The right hon. Gentleman says he is quite willing to agree to this Vote provided the Government will undertake that the details of these Estimates shall be submitted to the House at a time and in a manner which shall enable it to give to them the full and fair consideration which is necessary for the due discharge of its constitutional functions. Undoubtedly that is an undertaking which we are perfectly ready to enter into. Indeed, it seems to me to follow as a matter of course from that power which the House of Commons has over the Government. It is an engagement to which we can scarcely be said to be parties, because the House has the matter entirely in its own hands. The Votes now asked for will enable the Government to carry on the services till about the middle of June, and beyond that time nothing can be done without the sanction of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, asks us to enter into such an arrangement, he is rather derogating from the constitutional power of the House, because we are in the hands of the House. No further money can be issued without the authority of the House, and that authority, of course, the House will not continue to give, unless it has an opportunity of entering fully and fairly into a discussion of all the details for which the money is required, and exercising their undoubted right of control.

It would be more satisfactory if the noble Lord would state in what manner he understands the engagement into which he professes his readiness to enter. When does he propose that we should go into Committee of Supply?

It is perfectly impossible to fix the exact day.

The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir S. Northcote) referred to some suggestion of mine in reference to the Public Moneys Committee; but the Report of that Committee has, in reality, nothing whatever to do with the point before us. It related exclusively to certain arrangements which were proposed, but which would have necessitated a change in the mode of voting the Estimates, and the question with the Committee was how to get over that difficulty. But the real question before the House is this:—The Government state to the House that they require certain sums for the public service to carry them on till after the holidays, and I confess I am surprised to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite that their principles are such that they refuse to go into Committee to ascertain whether those moneys are actually required by the Government or not. If the Government were prepared to ask sums which would throw off the consideration of the Estimates to an unreasonable extent, I can understand that sum being cut down in Committee to a proper amount; but, when the Government have stated that the public service requires certain sums to be granted, I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they will take on themselves the responsibility of refusing to go into Committee for the consideration of the votes asked for.

The right hon. Baronet has misunderstood the feeling which prevails on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that we have no desire to cause any public inconvenience. The speech of the noble Lord was directed entirely to an attempt to draw the House from the fact that the proposal of the Government is intended to establish a precedent, and that one of a very objectionable and dangerous character; and in guarding against that precedent, the language of my right hon. Friend and the general feeling on this side of the House showed that we had no desire to cause any public inconvenience. We have asked the Government to state distinctly whether there will be any injury to the public service by delaying this grant to Thursday evening next, and, if the Government will give us that assurance, we are ready to go into Committee at once; but they ought not to call on us to go into Committee without some assurance of that sort. If there is any necessity for the grant being made immediately, it is the Government who are to blame for bringing us into that condition. Parliament certainly did meet earlier than usual this year, but for the first fortnight nothing was done. We rose every night at eight or nine o'clock for the first fortnight, and, therefore, we have a right to blame the Government for making this Vote on account necessary, if necessary it be. Without some assurance of the sort, I should object to setting a precedent, for I deny that one already exists. The only way in which we can guard against that precedent being established, is by voting now against the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the chair, unless the Government will promise that they will bring these Estimates before us on Thursday next.

I am unwilling to interpose between the House and a division, but having received a letter from an hon. Gentleman opposite informing mo that he intended to make a statement affecting me on going into Committee of Supply, I think I may claim from him that he should make the statement with which be has threatened me on the occasion on which he said he desired to make it. I received the following letter this morning: —

Mr. Lygon presents his compliments to Lord Clarence Paget, and has the honour to inform him that it is his intention, on going into Committee of Supply this evening, to call the attention of the House to the reports which are current respecting his connection with the house of Messrs. Green & Co. of Blackwall."

I am quite in the hands of the House. I can assure the noble Lord that it is not my intention to bring forward this question in a hostile spirit. The question is not one with regard to which it will be necessary for me to detain the House at any length; and, in common with every other Member of the House, I shall rejoice if the noble Lord, as no doubt will be the case, should be enabled to give a satisfactory explanation. I entirely disclaim all hostile feeling towards the noble Lord, and I can assure him he entirely mistakes my object if he supposes that my inquiry is made with any such purpose. But everybody, I am sure, will agree that under the circumstances which have taken place, when contractors have publicly acknowledged that they were the builders of certain gunboats which have suffered very severely from decay, and when it is reported in commercial circles that the Secretary to the Admiralty was a partner in the firm at the period when the gunboats were built—every hon. Member of this House will see that it is for the advantage of the service, of the House of Commons, of the Board of Admiralty, and of the noble Lord himself, that these circumstances should be explained. I, for one, have no doubt that they are capable of a satisfactory elucidation; and so far from the Motion being received by the noble Lord in a manner implying that he regards it as one which is brought forward in an unfriendly spirit, it ought, I think, to be matter of gratification to him to have the opportunity of meeting the reports which are current as to his being largely connected with Messrs. Green and Company. Such a report has gained notoriety, and must, it is evident, be most pre-judicial to the public service. It is needless for me to enter into the question of the gunboats or the culpability of contractors. I have simply discharged a public duty of a very painful character. But the importance cannot be overrated of clearing up and setting at rest all misapprehensions which may exist on a matter so vitally affecting the credit of all public servants.

I must ask the indulgence of the House, having already spoken on this question, and very few words, I think, will suffice for the purpose I have in view, which is to clear ray character from any imputations which may have been made upon it. The hon. Gentleman opposite I understand to state that he has heard it confidently reported that I am a partner with Messrs. Green of Black-wall?

That you were connected with them at the period when the gunboats were built.

That I was a partner with them when the gunboats were building. I do not make any complaint of the hon. Gentleman for having called the attention of the House to this subject; on the contrary, I think that he—having been a Member of the department with which I have also the honour of being associated—if he heard any reports of a nature which he considered derogatory to my honour, either as an officer or a Member of this House, was quite right in bringing them forward. If I were disposed to make any complaint it would be that he had not placed the matter on the notice paper, in order that any hon. Member, if he had desired, might have come down to the House to deliver his opinion upon it. I might answer the accusation very much in the same vague way in which it has been made, because the hon. Gentleman brings no proofs, but merely states that lie has heard certain reports, and I think I might satisfy the House by giving my word of honour that those Reports are utterly without foundation. But it is always best to be perfectly frank and fair in all matters where the personal honour of individuals is concerned. All thoroughly ingenious stories have some sort of foundation, by which a great deal more may be made of them than they are really worth, and, therefore, in order that there may be no misunderstanding — although I really; scruple to take up the time of the House with a. matter of this sort—I still think it my duty, holding as I do a very high and honourable position in Her Majesty's Government, to state exactly the circumstances of the case. It is perfectly true that for many years past I have been—alas! a very small, but still a shareholder to some I extent in certain ships in the Australian trade. In 1857 my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for India, did me the honour to invite me to take a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I will not quote his letter, because it was in terms rather complimentary to myself, and I wish to confine my observations exactly to the point in issue; and if I read my answer to that communication, at least that part of it which relates to these transactions, it will, I think, be quite sufficient to dispose of this charge. I should state that previously in that same year my right hon. Friend, through his private secretary, Captain Drummond, also an intimate Friend of my own, expressed his desire that in the event of a vacancy taking place I should hold myself in readiness to fill a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I told my Friend, Captain Drummond, that I had great scruples of conscience in the matter; for, although I had nothing whatever to do with shipbuilding, or with any vessels likely to be taken up by contract for the Government, yet, nevertheless, to hold a seat at the Board of Admiralty, and at the same time to retain a connection with shipping concerns, was what I thought would not be fair or proper. This, therefore, was the reply which I wrote to the very flattering letter of my right hon. Friend:—

As my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Lygon) has spoken already, he is not therefore at liberty again to rise. But I hope the House and the noble Lord will allow me to express what I am sure is the feeling at this side of the House, and which I am glad to believe is shared in by the House at large, that if it be the fact—of which I confess I was not before aware—that rumours of the nature alluded to have been current regarding the noble Lord, it is matter of satisfaction that in this place, where alone opportunity can be given to the noble Lord to meet those rumours, the subject should have been brought forward, and we must all rejoice to feel, after the full and frank explanation which he has given, that neither in nor out of this House can any such rumours continue to prevail.

asked whether that sum of £100,000 would include the department of science and art?

explained that the Vote of £100,000 did not include the Vote for science and art, but was merely a payment on account of public education. It would be applied to meet the charges that were running on for public education—for the salaries of schoolmasters and so forth. The total Vote for public education would be £798,000, while last year it was £800,000. They were running into a fifth quarter, and the sum of £100,000 was wanting to keep up the current payments.

said, he understood that the Government merely required a sum on account to take them over the holidays. He should like, then, to know why they asked so large a sum for that purpose as £100,000, when the whole Vote would only amount to £798,000.

said, the Vote for national education was already overdrawn out of the Civil Contingencies, to the extent of £40,000, and heavy payments were to be made in the department before the 10th of June.

said, that this latter was hardly an item to be put into a Vote of credit. At any rate a Vote should only be taken for what was absolutely required at present.

explained that the necessity for the Vote arose from the fact that the amount for the service was overdrawn out of the Civil Contingencies. Under the head of Temporary Commissions, there were extensive Commissions connected with military matters. It was necessary to make provision for the running Commission, and that was done out of the Civil Contingencies; and a sum of £10,700 was required to repay the debt to the Civil Contingencies. The Vote for the Slave Bounties was in a similar position.

said, he did not consider the explanation of the hon. Gentleman satisfactory, inasmuch as there was a sum of £50,000 to be asked for on credit for the Civil Contingencies. He thought the whole of the Votes in Class 7 of the Civil Service Estimates required peculiar consideration, and should be discussed in their order. As, however, the whole of the accounts were not before the House that was not then possible. There was a Vote, for instance, for the Serpentine? What was the state of that matter? Last year £17,000 had been voted for a certain plan with reference to the Serpentine; but, after that Vote had been passed, and the works commenced, a Committee of the House was appointed, which reported against the plan. Upon that the Government stopped the works; and, not content with that, they had begun to spend money for a different plan. It might now turn out that, when the House came to the discussion of the matter, they might disagree with the Select Committee, and disapprove of that expenditure of the public money without the sanction of the House. If certain items of that class were agreed to, then, of course, the House would lose the power of checking them afterwards.

said, he must enter his protest against the enormous sums spent on the Military Commissions, and he wished to call particular attention to the case of the Weedon Military Commission. There had been an enormous sum of no less than £9,000—£8,700 rather was the exact amount—charged for professional accountants employed in the investigation of the accounts of the establishment. The Treasury, he believed, had objected to that large amount, because the Commissioners had had the assistance of the clerks of the Commissariat, and of Mr. Commissary General Adams, an officer in the pay of the State. That £8,700 did not include the military clerks, so that altogether the expenses would come to over £10,000, an expenditure perfectly unjustifiable. He wished to know if the present Vote was to include that sum, and also when there would be an opportunity of discussing that Vote, and also the very singular proceedings that had followed the Report of the Commissioners.

said, he should wish to put the question whether one of the Commissioners of the Weedon Inquiry was not a police magistrate of Loudon, and whether he did receive an allowance for his services on that occasion, though as he (Colonel Dickson) believed, his duties as a magistrate only occupied his time about six months in the year. He quite concurred in the remark of the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Dunne) that the expenditure was quite unjustifiable, and the House was bound not to throw away the public money in that way without inquiry. Hon. Members opposite were constantly charging Gentlemen on his side of the House with being opposed to anything like Reform, and yet he was astonished to find that those hon. Members on the Liberal side, who were invariably preaching economy in the public finances, went out into the lobby and voted away large sums of money in the lump, and without a murmur. What was the use of talking about economy unless the question was brought to some issue?

said, he wished to know whether the Berwick Bribery Commission had yet commenced its sittings?

said, an attack had been made on the Weedon Commission which he thought was altogether unjustifiable. He should, when the proper occasion arrived, be able to justify the conduct of the Commissioners; at present he would leave it to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to answer the question which had been put to him on this subject. He would only now say that, after the immense la-hour these Commissioners had undergone, he felt it his duty to protest most strongly against the insinuation that they had been guilty of any unjustifiable act.

explained that he had used the expression solely with regard to the expenditure of the Commissioners on Accountants, and he thought he should be able to prove it was so when the subject came fairly before the House.

said, he thought the sums due to the Civil Contingencies ought to be voted separately, otherwise it might be spent along with the rest, and the public would never know anything about it. Votes taken in that manner might be made the means of cloaking over other matters not thought desirable to be brought to light, which was very objectionable. He wished to know when the details of the sums they were then asked to vote would appear under Civil Contingencies.

said, he would beg to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Pomfret (Mr. Childers), that the sums under the Civil Contingencies List would be explained when the full Estimates were submitted to Parliament. As to the unfortunate Weedon Commission, he was willing to admit that there had been a large expenditure with an inadequate result. The present Vote, however, did not touch any part of that sum. It might perhaps include some portion of the expenses, such as the salary of the secretary, and other minor sums, but not the large claim of nearly £9,000 sent in by the accountants, respecting which the Treasury had felt it to be their duty to take legal opinions on the fact whether they were liable to the whole amount. They had not yet got a decided opinion from their solicitor on that point, and while matters were thus pending he could hardly give a distinct answer as to whether those expenses would or would not be included in the Estimates. Of course if they were they would come under class 7, and there would be an opportunity of discussing them. Hon. Members would not be committed by the present Vote. In reply to the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), he begged to say that, in order to reduce these two Votes to £400,000 he had gone to the lowest point at which it was possible to conduct the public service up to the 12th of June, without fear of overdrawing. That was the only fund that they had to meet claims that might be made during the next two or three weeks. He should think that the result of the Committee now sitting would be to alter the constitution of Class 7 very considerably. As regarded Class 7, he was ready to give a pledge to the Committee that it should be printed at the earliest opportunity.

asked, if he was to understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laing) as giving a pledge that it was not the intention of the Government to draw again on the amount voted for Civil Contingencies for the purpose of preventing the House from duly considering the Civil Service Estimates.

said that, after a very short period, the Government would be entirely in the hands of the House, because they would have no money in hand to enable them to delay taking the Votes in the usual course, but he could not pledge himself not to ask for a further Vote should there be occasion for it.

asked, what were the Election Commissions the expenses of which they were called upon to vote?

said, that there were the Commissions for Gloucester and Wakefield.

said, he considered the system very objectionable of borrowing certain amounts for the Civil Service from Civil Contingencies. He had never been able to understand the application of the money. The details did not appear in the public accounts, and in point of fact the House knew nothing about them.

said, that the Vote was a practical illustration of the objectionable course of asking for Votes of credit, or on account. He confessed he did not know what he was asked to vote £12,000 for. He did not know what any of the Commissions had cost, and when therefore he was asked blindly to vote such a sum of money, he, for one, should enter his protest against it.

said, he, too, thought it extremely inconvenient to be called upon to vote away money without knowing what it was called for, where it was to go, or how it was to be paid away. There was much mystification in the accounts.

said, it was quite clear that the Government had sufficient money to carry them on beyond June, and if the present Vote were granted, they would not be furnished with details before the end of July.

said, the first duty of the House was to take cognizance of every shilling they voted, and if they gave one shilling on account they virtually abandoned all control over the details. That point, however, it was useless then to dwell upon. He desired now to have it distinctly under stood whether, on the arrival of the 10th or 12th of June, there was any chance of Government declaring that the time had not yet come when the House should have access to the Estimates, and should go into a consideration of the details.

said, he hoped that some explanation would be given as to the application of the £12,000.

said, the necessity for the Votes arose from the fact that there had been large drafts on the Civil Contingencies for several Commissions, which came on at too late a period to be included in Class 7 of the last year. Of course, those conversant with the accounts must know that Civil Contingencies were the only fund that Government had to meet any miscalculations or mistakes which might have been made in the 197 Votes which were asked for, or any new expenses which might arise during the recess, or during the last few weeks of the sitting of Parliament. A variety of Commissions had originated during the interval, and the amounts had to be drawn from Civil Contingencies. He could assure the Committee that the full details would be brought forward when the complete amount came to be voted. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), he begged to say that the Government had no mysterious funds hoarded up in order to meet emergencies. There were ample funds in the Exchequer, but there was no power of applying them without a specific Vote, and he thought no Secretary of the Treasury, or Member of the Government, was likely to take the responsibility of applying them without the authority of the House. Therefore, by the 10th or 12th of June, or at all events within two or three days more or less of that time, the Government would find themselves in the position of being obliged to come to the House and declare that their authority was exhausted, and that they must either have a further Vote, or else proceed in voting the Estimates in the usual way.

said, that the House had already voted £40,000 for Civil Contingencies, they were now asked for £12,000, and they would be asked by-and-by for £50,000 more. Thus the Civil Contingencies which they were asked to vote in this way had risen within a few years from £70,000 to about £100,000. The only conclusion he could draw from the Vote before them was, that it was for the payment of sums which had been withdrawn from the Estimates, and which it was now intended to pay out of this money.

said, if they had only the ordinary demands upon the Civil Contingencies, no doubt the sum of £100,000 would be more than what would be necessary for that department of the public service. But they were now arrived at a period far beyond that at which the Votes wore usually obtained. A great many balances were now exhausted; but it was thought to be convenient to the House to reduce the sum required for the present to the lowest amount possible.

said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had dealt frankly and fairly with the Committee. Having listened attentively to all the hon. Gentleman had said, he (Mr. Walpole) was satisfied that the sums asked for were really wanted. The Civil Contingencies Fund was that from which all those small sums must be paid that were not otherwise provided for. The discussion had, however, strongly confirmed the statement of his hon. Friend (Sir S. Northcote) of the great disadvantage of taking Votes on account where the Estimates had not been laid before the House. What had taken place would, he hoped, be considered a warning, not only to the present, but also to all Governments, that the House had acceded to the proposal on the ground of exigency, and that it was not to be repeated without a stronger necessity than had been shown to exist in the present year.

said, he concurred with his right hon. Friend as to the frankness with which the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had dealt with those Votes. He could only say that if that explanation had been given at an earlier period of the evening he should not have gone out into the lobby against the hon. Secretary's proposition.

said that the present Vote had become necessary, in consequence of an agreement entered into with the Maltese Government for the construction of certain works in the Harbour of Malta, which would prove most advantageous to the Navy as well as to the Island itself. The reason why this Estimate had not been laid on the Table of the House at an earlier period was, because the Maltese Government had not come to a decision in regard to it until a short time ago. An outline of the plan of the proposed works had been placed in the hands of Members, in order to enable them to form an accurate opinion of their details. Ever since the Island had belonged to the Crown of England, the limits of Merchant Harbour, and that for the men-of-war, had never been clearly defined. The result was, that the merchant vessels had encroached upon the best part of the harbour; so that the men-of-war sometimes had great difficulty in finding a berth. The great addition in the number of ships frequenting the harbour, and the increase in the size of vessels of war, made it imperative to improve the Harbour of Malta, which was in a most unsatisfactory state; although Malta was our head-quarters for repairs, &c. in the Mediterranean. An engineer on the part of the Admiralty had surveyed the harbour in the company of the engineer selected by the Maltese Government, and they had come to the conclusion that the only plan was to deepen the head of the harbour, which was now a swamp, and to give it up to the merchant vessels, while French Creek, which was safe for vessels of war, would be given up for the navy. It was necessary to bring this vote before the Committee tonight, because the work was to be done at the joint expense of the two Governments; and the parties who owned the land around French Creek wore only under contract to wait until the middle of June, when the agreement, unless previously confirmed, became null and void. The total estimated expense of the work was £111,000, but he only proposed to ask to-night for £2,500, in addition to the £2,500 which would be found in the Estimates already before the House.

said, he quite concurred with the noble Lord in the importance of the plan proposed. It was well known that Malta was the key of our position in the Mediterranean. He should have been pleased if the noble Lord had doubled his demand at present, in order that the works might be carried on as rapidly and efficiently as possible. He wished to know whether the quarantine harbour was to be made available.

I fully concur in the value and importance of the proposed works; and regret that the subject did not receive due consideration many years ago, when, I am persuaded, the Government could have procured the land on more advantageous terms. I am rejoiced at the manner in which the noble Lord has so honourably vindicated his reputation and character from the charges which have been insinuated against him. Having enjoyed for several years the acquaintance of the noble Lord, I can testify that his character is above reproach; and he can well afford to treat such rumours and imputations with indignation and contempt.

said, he wanted to know what proportion of the entire amount of £111,000 was to be defrayed by the Colonial Government?

said, he saw a sum of £60,000 put down for the purchase of property around the French Creek. That sum, however, was not to be taken immediately, but to be paid in future years. He wished to know how that amount was arrived at, and what security they would have for obtaining the property in question at the sum mentioned?

said, the contracts had been drawn up with great care. The arrangement was that, as soon as French Creek was deepened, then the property in question was to be paid for and to revert to the Government. As regarded the quarantine harbour, that was not to be made available; inasmuch as it was exposed, and could not be occupied with safety by large ships.

said, he had heard with great pleasure the explanation given by his noble Friend opposite in reply to the charge that had been made against him. The honour of each Member was dear to the House, and they must have all heard the noble Lord's statement with the most unalloyed satisfaction. He (Mr. Bentinck) had certainly listened to it with a double interest, arising from personal friendship towards his noble Friend, whom he had known for many years. He could only say, and he was confident the whole House would confirm it, that no man could have listened to the explanation of his noble Friend without feeling that it removed all doubt—if, indeed, any such doubt existed —as to his noble and gallant Friend having been implicated in any transaction in a way inconsistent with his high character.

asked if the merchants of Malta were satisfied with the arrangements which had been made.

said, it appeared from the plan of the proposed alterations that it would be necessary to remove an enormous amount of mud. He wished to know what was to become of it—whether it was to be removed to some other part of the island to create a pestilence, or was it to be carried out to sea.

said, the merchants of Malta were perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made, which had, in fact, originated from their own Government. An estimate had been framed which was based on the probable cost of conveying the mud clear outside the harbour.

said, he regretted the short notice that had been given of so important a subject coming before the Committee. The sum, though small, pledged Parliament to an expenditure estimated at upwards of £100,000. Experience showed that the limit at first proposed did not always turn out correct. The noble Lord stated that the thing was narrowed down to this—that if the bargain was not concluded by a certain day in June, it would go off. Now, however desirable it was that the proposed works should be carried out, it was impossible for those who had not a personal knowledge of the harbour to give an opinion upon the subject, from the short period the papers in connection with it had been supplied to hon. Members.

said, he wished to know whether the contract with the Maltese Government was, that they were to pay half the expense of this work, no matter what might be the amount, or whether the arrangement as to their contribution of a moiety only extended to the estimate before the House.

replied, that unless the Admiralty had it under hand and seal of the Maltese Government that they would pay one half the whole expenditure—no matter what that might be—the contract would fall to the ground, and the work would not be undertaken. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that it would have been desirable to give the House an earlier intimation of this scheme. At the same time he must observe it was no new thing. The late Government had considered it, and the preparations had been making for several months, but it was only a short time previous that the scheme had arrived at a sufficiently matured state to justify its being placed on the Estimates.

asked whether the noble Lord would lay on the table the agreement which had been made with the Maltese Government, and the contract for the purchase of the land that was to cost £60,000.

said, that as soon as the contract was concluded, he would lay it on the table.

observed, that this plan had been before the late Government. The Admiralty under that Government were fully convinced of the necessity of some such work as that now proposed, but they had not arrived at any accurate calculation as to the expense, for they had not ascertained what would be the cost of the ground. There was, however, no doubt that, if they had remained in office, they would have brought forward some such scheme.

complained that Members should be called upon to vote sums of money upon Estimates which had not received sufficient consideration. The first thing which ought to have been done was to furnish the Committee with the various items of the Estimate, and then to have given hon. Members a chance of seeing whether the sum was proper or not. This was the case of a new work, and there was nothing before them to show whether it was a fit thing to do or not. They ought at least to have had the name of the officer who made the Estimate as a guarantee of its soundness.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that the Civil Engineer employed by the Admiralty to prepare the Estimate was a gentleman of much experience, and that the calculations had been made with the greatest care.

said, he thought that as the Government had employed an engineer to measure and calculate the work, it would only have been reasonable to have given a little further time to the House to examine the details, before coming to a decided opinion on the matter. He was afraid the fact that the Admiralty were bargaining against an excess in the Estimate warranted the suspicion that they expected an excess.

said, that no doubt the engineer had taken the exact measurement, and made a correct calculation, leaving a margin for contingencies or extras.

said, that very scanty informatiom was given to the Committee. There was no account of the acreage of the work or the amount of accommodation to the navy. He wished to know whether there were to be any docks for the merchant service, and whether the expense was included?

said, they expected to get accommodation for six line-of-battle ships and two frigates, but if they grew much larger there would be room for only five line-of-battle ships. As to any new merchant yards, in lieu of those which the Government purchased, the Government would have nothing to do with any buildings on shore. Their business was to deepen the harbour. The purchase of the French Creek, and all the buildings which surrounded it, was included in the Estimate of £60,000.

inquired whether it was certain that the depth in the new harbour would be sufficient for the larger ships?

said, that this had been ascertained.

observed, that there were no soundings given on the map.

said, that the small map presented to the House had been prepared since the previous evening. The large map from which it had been prepared had on it a great amount of detailed information that had not been copied on the smaller one. As to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), he should observe that the Government would have given more ample notice, but there had been many references from the Admiralty to Malta, and they found by experience that when it became known the Government intended to purchase, the property trebled in value. If the estimate were postponed to a future day, the agreement to sell the property would become void.

said, he had to propose a Resolution requiring the makers of British wines to take out licences for either making or selling the same wholesale, the amount of which was fixed at half the amount which the venders paid. The right hon. Gentleman moved—

"That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty there shall be charged and paid the following Duties of Excise, that is to say—For a Licence to be taken out by every maker of any kind of Sweets or Made Wines, or of Mead or Metheglin, for sale or by any dealer who shall sell the same in any quantity amounting to two gallons or upwards, or in one dozen or more reputed quart bottles at one time, £5 5s."

thought the right hon. Gentleman was taking effectual means to prevent the public getting good wine at all. As far as he could discover, before dealing in wines a trader would have to pay £19 19s. for licences, which was a large tax to impose on a person before he could embark in business. The greatest chance of the public having good wine was in the establishment of many traders who would deal in it wholesale and retail, and he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have proposed one consolidated charge, after payment of which the dealer would be able to sell any quantity, large or small, as long as it was in bottle. With regard to British wine, it was much purer than a great deal of that which came from abroad. The process of manufacture here was, that dried grapes were placed in a vat with water, the juice being pressed out of them and allowed to ferment; and the wine thus produced was consumed in large quantities by people who were above the vulgar prejudice of thinking that that which came from abroad and had a high-sounding name was better than home productions. The whole tendency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals was to force the sale of wine upon the premises. It was his impression the other evening, on coming out of Committee, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended the Bill to extend to British wines. The night after the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was to be confined to the sale of foreign wine. Did the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask, intend, according to promise, to bring in another Bill regulating the sale of British wine to be drunk on the premises? As the case stood Parliament was called upon to alter our municipal law to promote the consumption of a foreign commodity, while it did nothing to extend the consumption of an article made in our own country.

said, he must really decline to follow the hon. Member into a discussion of the Wine Licences Bill. It might have been supposed that the hon. Gentleman had spoken long enough during the course of this discussion, but he seemed quite in- satiable. As to the necessity of a new law respecting the consumption of British wine he was not aware that any such necessity existed, nor did he remember to have promised the introduction of any measure on the subject. What he said was that the sale of British wine might be regulated by the existing law. With regard to British wine, which the hon. Member seemed to think was made much more legitimately here from raisins than by expression from the grape in the country of its birth, it was to be remembered that these raisins were imported at a low duty, whereas the foreign wine paid a high rate of duty. The hon. Member, of course, could not be expected to sympathize with the exchequer in such a case; but the two articles contributed to the revenue in very unequal degrees, and this was an element which could not be entirely left out of consideration. A difference was recognised in the amount paid for licences— namely, ten guineas for a wholesale foreign wine, and five guineas for a British wine licence; but he should have no objection to allow persons who paid the higher amount to deal in both kinds of wine.

said, he thought it would be difficult to interpret the expressions "sweets" and "made wines" to be found in the Bill. Would "sweets" include "bitters?" Then a large proportion of port and sherry was manufactured in and about London, elder wine and logwood being prime ingredients in the former concoction. Within a short distance of that House there was a manufactory of champagne from rhubarb. Would those be "made wines" within the meaning of the Resolution?

said, that the expressions objected to were certainly not to be justified upon abstract grounds, and fell short of the standard of purity which the hon. and learned Member wished to set up in the wording of the Act. But they were in accordance with usage, and would be, he believed, adequate for the purpose. "Sweets," he was informed, was the legal description of British wines, and "made wines" would comprise any of the other miscellaneous compounds sold under the name of wine.