said, there were only two Motions on the Paper on going into Supply—one in the name of the hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk), who was absent, and the other his own. He should not occupy the House many minutes. He intended to move for a copy of the plan and estimate of Captain Fowke for alteration of the National Gallery, and of any other plan for that purpose now under the consideration of the First Commissioner of Works; and of any Corre- spondence thereon. The First Commissioner of Works was in possession of two plans—one that of Captain Fowke, which he had rejected, and the other by the architect of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department. Captain Fowke was a man of first rate ability, of European celebrity, and of peculiar genius for architectural arrangement, and he had submitted to the Government a plan for the alteration of the National Gallery, involving an estimate of £34,000 only, of the utmost value and importance. The plan which was proposed to be carried out by the Government, on the other hand, would cost £200,000, and be infinitely inferior in internal arrangement. He (Mr. Adderley) could not conceive why Captain Fowke's plan had been rejected by the First Commissioner of Works. The only objection he had heard to it was, that it would be a breach of etiquette to take a scheme from a military man instead of the regular official architect. But the fact was that Captain Fowke was an architect by profession, as well as a military engineer. Captain Fowke's plan involved four alterations internally, and two externally. First, he proposed to raise the floor of the hall to the level of the rooms, by which means he would give full space for exhibition room; secondly, he would devote the basement to sculpture halls and schools; thirdly, instead of compelling the public to go up steps from the pavement external to the portico, he would enable them to enter the building at once from their carriages; fourthly, he would enlarge the Gallery by introducing into it the side rooms. Then, externally, he would raise the whole centre, and lie would do away with the dome, which he (Mr. Adderley) believed was in popular parlance known as "the canister." He would also bring out the front, now frittered away in no less than eleven facades, making it at present only three, besides the large centre. He had heard that the Royal Academy objected to this plan; but he would observe that he did not see what right the Royal Academy had to say a word about it, as they were only tenants there. Their objections, however, were—first, that there were no separate entrances for the two departments; but Captain Fowke's plan readily admitted that alteration, if it were required; secondly, they said it involved a transfer of their works of art that the spaces would be reduced, and that excavations would be necessary; but any one who examined the plan would find that it did not curtail their space one inch, while it I doubled the space for the National Gallery. They further objected, that Captain Fowke's plan did not make use of the pre-1 sent portico; but of what use had the portico ever been? Some old pillars of Carlton House were worked up to make it, and the public were forced to go up a flight of steps out of doors in all weathers to make use of it—covered by a huge unsightly wooden canopy to shelter them in the ascent. But what did the House think was the use to be made of the portico by the Government architect? The House would scarcely believe that, according to the plan about to be adopted by the Board of Works, it was proposed that the public should continue to go up the portico steps, descend into the hall, and then mount up again a flight of steps inside into the exhibition rooms. He (Mr. Adderley) hoped that the First Commissioner would spare the Government and the country from the ridicule of such a scheme. He did not wonder at the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to produce the correspondence; but having the highest opinion of Captain Fowke's plan, he begged to move formally for copies of the letters of which he had given notice.

could not but think that there was some occult influence at work in respect to both the National Gallery and the British Museum. Successive Governments bad pledged themselves that the Royal Academy should be moved from the National Gallery; it would now seem that there was an intention to keep it there. Four or five Cabinet Ministers seemed to be doing all in their power to knock up that very useful institution the British Museum. He hoped that nothing would be clone in the matter of the National Gallery till the House met again next Session, especially as a very large expenditure of money was involved. The whole question called for serious and minute consideration.

said, he could assure the House that nothing could be more baseless than the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Captain Fowke's plan had been rejected by him on account of official etiquette. He had rejected Captain Fowke's plan simply because he thought it a bad one. It was quite clear that the pictures of the National Gallery could not long be contained in the space now devoted to them, and that more room would have to be provided for them either in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere. In 1857, his noble Friend at the head of the Government visited the National Gallery, and after ex-examination, came to the conclusion that the great central hall should be made available as a picture gallery. It having been considered necessary to make other alterations, plans were prepared and given in by Mr. Pennethorne. Captain Fowke also sent in a plan; and he (Mr. Cowper) referred the question to the consideration of the Royal Academy, not merely because the members of that body were naturally conversant with the hanging of pictures, but because some of them were among the first architects of the day. They objected to some of the details of Captain Fowke's plan. He had the highest estimation of Captain Fowke's ability in designing picture galleries—if he were about to erect a picture gallery, one of the first men he should consult would be Captain Fowke. But his plan for the alteration of the National Gallery aimed at either too much or too little. It was too little if it was intended to make the building in Trafalgar Square a complete picture gallery; while as a mere improvement of the Gallery it did too much. Captain Fowke proposed to alter almost the whole building, beginning at the roof and ending with the basement. For himself, he thought the portico the best thing in the whole building, and the view from it was very fine; but, among others, of Captain Fowke's alterations, he proposed to make the entry, under the portico in the sides of the stylo-bate—about the most mean and paltry mode of entrance that could be devised. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the estimate for Captain Fowke's plan was only £34,000; but his impression was that, instead of £34.000, it was more likely to reach £50,000 or £60,000; and he certainly could not take upon himself the responsibility of proposing to expend the lowest of these sums upon a building which originally cost £70,000. He could not consent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; and, in fact, there was no such estimate as was there referred to; and, with regard to the plan of Captain Fowke, it was unnecessary that he should produce it, as it had already been published in the Cornhill Magazine. He was quite willing to produce the Correspondence, however, and if the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his Motion, he would consent to do so. As to the plan of the Government, he would he prepared to explain fully its nature when they came to Vote No. 7 in the Estimates relating to that matter, and, in the meantime, he hoped the discussion of the question would not be continued further.

hoped, on the discussion on Vote No. 7, the right hon. Gentleman would explain why the recommendation of the Committee of the House with respect to the National Gallery had not been attended to. The Committee of the House had recommended that the pictures should remain in the National Gallery, and that the Royal Academy should be removed elsewhere.

would recommend his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) to be satisfied with the Correspondence which the First Commissioner was pie-pared to produce. He must observe that the Government of Lord Derby was prepared to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee in respect to the removal of the Royal Academy to Burlington House, and devoting the whole of the building in Trafalgar Square to the purposes of a National Gallery. The Academy showed every disposition to meet the Government, and had it not been for the Ministerial changes, the transfer would, in all probability, have taken place. He thought it would be well for the present to postpone any extensive alterations in the National Gallery.

thought it desirable that some arrangement should be made by which the Royal Academy might be provided for elsewhere, and the whole of the space in the building in Trafalgar Square devoted to the pictures of the National Gallery; but even that would be only a temporary arrangement, as the increase of pictures in the national collection by bequests and purchases would soon more than fill the whole of the building. There was o Vote of £13,000 for the alteration of the National Gallery to be proposed to the House, and that sum would be sufficient for a number of years, at least, to provide the room that was required. Would it not be better, then, to take that course than to embark in a large expenditure at Burlington House to provide accommodation for the Royal Academy? He thought the best course would be to expend the small sum to which he had referred in the meantime, and to postpone for some time to come the expenditure of the more considerable amount that would be necessary for a permanent arrangement.

said, he had hoped that nothing more was to be done on the question this Session.

accepted the offer of the right hon. Gentleman to give the Correspondence, and would withdraw his Motion; but he should go into the whole matter on a future occasion.

said, he did not bring forward the Motion in the spirit of complaint; the subject was in itself complicated, and the changes of Government since the Committee had made their Report would excuse delay. He feared also that the bad state of health of Mr. Anderson, a most valuable public servant, had increased the difficulty. He wished only to obtain a declaration of the House, that the question was in an unsatisfactory condition and required early attention. The Resolution included two points, the audit and the appropriation. As to the audit, the House were aware that there existed a Board of Audit kept up at considerable expense, invested with great power of inquiry, responsible to Parliament, and holding their places during good behaviour, and he might add, performing their duties with great efficiency and independence. Common sense would say that all accounts should be examined by this Board. But it was not so. The civil services were an exception. By a Return laid before the Committee, it appeared that of the civil service Votes in 1856, £63,000 were only partially examined by the Audit Board and above £2,000,000 not at all. Among these accounts was included the expenditure of the Treasury and of other high offices—just the departments to whom the audit of a Parliamentary and independent Board should have been applied, instead of which they now generally audited their own accounts. The Committee, in their Report, recommended the application of the audit to these accounts. There were differences as to the mode of carrying this into effect. The Resolution did not commit the House to any opinion as to these details; hut, individually, he trusted that the audit might be carried on at Somerset House by the Audit Office, and not at the Treasury, as he thought with the Chairman of the Audit Board that it was not wise to entrust the check of the accounts of the Treasury to a subordinate clerk carrying on his business under the shade of those high authorities on whom his futurs might depend. With respect to the appropriation, there were many deficiencies in the present system, which were pointed out in the evidence; but he would only trouble the House by one example: A sum of £80,000 was voted for the Duke of Wellington's funeral. The whole sum was drawn out from the Exchequer before the 5th of April, 1853. But in 1856 it was shown, by Papers laid before the Committee, that £24,000 of this money had not been required for or spent on the funeral. It had remained floating in the Pay Office, and had been used for Army, Navy, and other requirements, by a system of payments and repayments, which was most confused and unsatisfactory.

said, that the difference between the Government and the right hon. Baronet in regard to this matter was really very small. It was undoubtedly true that the system of appropriation and audit was open to improvement according to the recommendation of the Committee on Public Monies. However, the difference between the cases of the Army and Navy Estimates, and the Civil Service was this: in the Army and Navy Estimates there were some fifteen or sixteen Votes of sums of a very large amount, with which it was very easy to deal; but in the Civil Service Estimates there were at least 200 Votes, many of which contained a very large number of minute items which were classed under different heads, and in consequence a rigid audit and appropriation of the moneys voted for the Civil Service was a matter of great complication and difficulty. A great many of the expenses were met from time to time by advances out of the Treasury chest, and as this expenditure was made in various parts of the world, it was only after long intervals that those accounts came in, and the appropriation of the sums traced to their final application. The matter was much more a question of detail than of principle. The Government had no objection to the Resolution, except on the ground that it was an abstract Resolution, and that abstract Resolutions, on matters of detail were not desirable, particularly when the Government themselves admitted the evil, and were anxious to apply the remedy. However, the matter involved a great deal of difficulty, owing to the multitude of arrangements that should be made. The illness of Mr. Anderson, at the close of last Session, prevented the matter being taken in hand at the time, but the question would certainly be attended to during the recess. One of the greatest improvements that could be effected, and which, above all, would facilitate the arrangements for the audit which was desired, was, if the Civil Service accounts could be wound up at the close of the financial year. One of the means which would facilitate that arrangement would be that those Estimates should be voted by the 31st of March. Another was, that large sums in account should be voted; but to this course the House had the strongest objection. As for voting the Estimates by the 31st of March, he feared in the present mode of conducting the business of the House that could not be done. He could assure the House that the Exchequer, from the Chancellor down to its lowest officers, would be only too glad to part with the auditing of those Estimates. One of the great difficulties, however, in having the work done at the Audit-Office was, that the items were so numerous and various that the audit had to he carried on from day to day and week to week. He hoped with the assurance which he had given, that the Motion would not be pressed.

thought the House was indebted to the right hon. Baronet for having introduced this subject to their notice, and for keeping it alive. He must say that he could not regard the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury as satisfactory. He said there was little difference between the opinion of the Government and that of the right hon. Gentleman; but he did not state what that difference was. He ad- mitted, in the very terms of the right hon. Baronet's Motion, that the system complained of was incomplete and unsatisfactory, but immediately thereafter he proceeded to show that there were all sorts of difficulties in the way of remedying the evil. He said the Treasury had no objections to the funds at their disposal being audited at the Audit Office, but concluded by showing that enormous difficulties stood in the way. The hon. Gentleman blew so hot and cold on the subject that he feared there was not much prospect of any satisfactory measure being adopted.

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) in thinking the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury unsatisfactory. The observations of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) were so conclusive, that if he divided the House—and he trusted that he would press his Motion to a division—it would be the duty of hon. Members to support him.

said, he should certainly support the Resolution, the propositions of which, he said, no one denied. He thought the Resolution should be passed, in order that future Governments might be warned that some alterations in the present system were necessary. The balance of the moneys voted for the funeral of the Duke of Wellington had remained unaccounted for from 1853 to 1856, and had been applied to purposes of which the House had no cognizance. It had been shown by Mr. Anderson, and other gentlemen who were examined, that money was spent in other ways than it was granted for; that money was spent without audit, and that money was spent before it had been voted by that House. When Mr. Anderson was asked whether this was a right course, he replied, "It is a great question;" and that was all the answer they could get. It was a great question, which the House of Commons should set right.

hoped the House would not allow the right hon. Baronet to withdraw his Motion, for it might happen that the Government would not be in office next year; but this Motion, if passed, would remain as a record of the opinion of the House. The Report of the Committee on Public Moneys ought, in his opinion, to be carried out in toto. There was no difficulty in putting the Civil Service accounts on the same footing as shose of the Army and Navy. It had been said that a great deal of the Civil expeuditure was made in va- rious parts of the world; but that was quite as true of the expenditure of the Army and Navy. If any merchant in London were to keep his accounts as the Government did theirs, he would never know in what condition his affairs were. The system of going on from year to year with unexpended balances, was a wrong system. It was a matter of very great disappointment that the Government should have shown so little sympathy with the recommendations of the Committee, though he admitted that the Audit Office had done something since the Report was submitted to the House.

begged to say, with regard to the Civil Service Estimates, that any alteration effected could only be an alteration of account. There might be some improvement made in that respect, though he was far from thinking that the existing audit of the Civil Service money was either a dishonest or inefficient one. He admitted, however, that the present system was a defective one. He was, indeed, not quite sure that he fully understood it, though he had had a good deal of experience at the Treasury. The recommendations of the Committee on Public Moneys were such as he could not but approve, and it was, no doubt, matter of regret that those recommendations had not been carried out. Several reasons might be given for this, and one of these was the illness of Mr. Anderson. As he understood, the Resolution moved by the right hon. Baronet did not refer to a state of things that had recently originated, but to one that had been of long continuance. It was not, therefore, a censure upon the present Government, and he felt himself at perfect liberty to support it. If the hon. Gentleman thought proper to press the Resolution, he should not, on the part of the Government, think it necessary to oppose it.

said, he was a member of the Committee on Public Moneys and a party to all the Resolutions which it adopted. He believed that it was within the power of the executive Government to carry out a large proportion of the recommendations of that Committee, and the Government had given the House assurances that without loss of time they would be so carried out. He regretted that the pledge had not been fulfilled. He regretted the illness of Mr. Anderson, who was, no doubt, a very able public servant; but he could not admit that the business of the Treasury was dependent on Mr. Anderson. They had a very able Chancellor of the Exchequer and a very able Secretary of the Treasury, and he did not see why the recommendations of the Committee should not have been carried out before this. If his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis), with his official experience and great judgment, did not understand the working of the existing system be (Sir James Graham) might well feel a difficulty in expressing any opinion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, admitted that the accounts of the Civil Service were not in a satisfactory state. That was a very large admission. What was of more importance than an account? An account was a record of anything that was done, and if it was imperfect it was worse than none at all, for it led to erroneous conclusions. There was no independent audit of the Civil Service Estimates; the audit was the work of those who spent the money. Now, he contended for the principle of an independent audit. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee, and he thought it was high time that the sanction of that House should be given to the recommendations. He was glad the Government had assented to the Resolution of his right hon. Friend, and he hoped it would not remain on the Votes a dead letter, but that during the recess the subject would receive the serious attention of the Government, and that early next Session some measures would be taken on the subject.

did not mean to say that the system of accounts now existing was incomplete, but that the method of accounting might be in some respects objectionable.

objected to the mode in which the Vote of £17,000 granted last year for purifying the water of the Serpentine was being expended. There was a great deal of unnecessary work—such as digging wells for water, &c.—that would create an enormous expense. He wished to know whether the First Commissioner of Works believed that a good supply of water would be obtained by the course now being pursued, and whether he imagined the contemplated work could he done for the sum of £17,000 voted by the House last year. He wished, also, to know how the First Commissioner of Works came to spend so much money in putting up a fence and making; other arrangements for the new ride in Kensington Gardens, without taking a vote in Parliament upon it. There was an item of £750 for fixing iron railings and doing other work in Kensington Gardens. He had very great suspicions in his mind with reference to these doings in Kensington Gardens, and, therefore, he would move that the Vote be reduced by this sum of £750. There was a memorial to be presented to the Queen on the subject of the new ride at Kensington. When it was presented it would show Her Majesty the great dissatisfaction that existed in the neighbourhood regarding it, and he trusted that it would have the effect of putting an end to a scheme so very unpopular. He wished also to know what was the meaning of the item of £1,800 for drainage in Richmond Park, and of another item of £250 for the improvement of the herbage there? The hon. Baronet then moved that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £750.

complained that the Committee appointed to inquire respecting the civil service expenditure had done nothing. The Committee had made a Report, but a more inefficient Report he had never seen. He drew attention to the item of £8,000 for the improvements in the Regents Park, and to the estimate for Kew Gardens, on which an amount (£15,000) was expended that was totally unnecessary.

thought the public had cause to look with much suspicion on the increasing mania for iron rail- ings and hurdles in the Parks. These railings and hurdles were, generally speaking, introduced very insidiously. A few were put down first on one side, and then on another, and gradually extended till the use of the Parks was very much interfered with. The Green Park, for example, was set out with these iron obstructions in such a way as to make it resemble a cattle-market more than anything else. The space set apart for the enjoyment of the public was thus nibbled away, and a great hardship inflicted on the working classes. A park was a park, and a garden was a garden, and he did not see why the large spaces intended to he parks should be dealt with as if they were gardens. What was the object of the enclosure between the Palace wall and the road on Constitution Hill? He thought, too, the public had reason to complain of the number of fine trees which had been killed through the ignorance of those who carried on the works.

said, there was a Vote of £750, a considerable portion of which had reference to the new ride in Kensington Gardens, He agreed with the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) in his views of the new ride. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner was, no doubt, actuated by the best intentions in forming that ride, hut he had no hesitation in saying that he was acting in a wrong direction. It was quite clear that the ride could not remain in its present state;—it was more like an approach to a cattle pond than anything else. If it were proposed to make it a permanent ride he must express the strongest condemnation of the whole scheme. Though exceedingly fond of equestrian exercise himself, he was hound to say, after giving the subject the fullest consideration, that the new ride was uncalled for, and would be a source of inconvenience and annoyance wholly incommensurate with any advantages that it might be supposed to confer on the public. Kensington Gardens were open to those of the public who chose to enter them on foot; why should those people be annoyed and exposed to danger from persons on horseback? Let the Parks he as open as they pleased to those who rode, but let Kensington Gardens be retained for the use of pedestrians. Who had ever heard of any gentleman opening his gardens to persons on horseback? To enter the ride it was necessary to cross the most pleasant path in the whole Gardens; and yet it was said that the public suffered no inconve- nience by the Gardens being cut in two. The right hon. Gentleman could have no idea of the way in which the public are now incommoded. He had himself seen an elderly female in a wheeled chair, drawn by two men, who were vainly attempting to force the chair through one of the apertures which had been made adjoining this ride. The aperture was too small, and there was this unfortunate lady, apparently an invalid, with her chair half in and half out, exposed for a considerable time to the gaze and amusement of the passers-by. It was impossible for old people and children to enjoy Kensington Gardens as they used to do. Even as regarded riders, unless the new ride were made an unbroken continuation of Rotten Row, it would be of no advantage. In no respect could it he made a fit place for equestrians. In winter it would be a detestable swamp, and in summer every blade of grass would be obliterated, and the ground would become hard and intractable. If the £750 included in the present Vote were intended to make the new ride permanent, he should certainly vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Westminster.

said, that he, like the noble Lord, was attached to equestrian exercise, and had been many years a frequenter of the ride at Rotten Row, and therefore he would naturally be favourable to an extension of the ride; but he must say that he did not very highly estimate the advantages of the new ride. He did not think it was worth much, and on many days it could not be used at all. He did not hear that it would be of any advantage except that on sultry days persons might obtain shelter under the trees there. He was a great walker in Kensington Gardens, and there were few things he enjoyed more than a walk there on Sundays; and few walks were more pleasant than the walk on the south side parallel with Rotten Row. Meetings, very numerously attended, had been held to object to this ride, and petitions very numerously signed were adopted against it, and he must say it was not a thing that should he done in opposition to the wishes of a large portion of the community. The ride was not worth having, at the expense of violating the feelings of a great number of people. A very large portion of the population were known to be opposed to it, and he would venture to say that if they were to poll all the parishes lying to the west of the Haymarket, they would find that there was a majority of the whole population against it. He was an inhabitant of Belgravia, and had heard a great number of people expressing their opinions. Some few persons, particularly young ladies, were in favour of the new ride; but four out of five of the people he heard speaking on the subject were opposed to it. ["No, no!"] What then was the meaning of the meetings—what was the object of the deputations that waited upon the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cow-per)? There was scarcely any one living in the neighbourhood of Kensington who was not opposed to it. ["Oh!"] He cautioned Gentlemen below the gangway who were such admirers of popular suffrage, how they trifled with the public feeling on this subject. It might be agreeable to some persons to get under the shade of the trees, but the feelings of the majority were not to be neglected for the private convenience of those persons. He did not act upon that principle. He should be glad to use the ride, but through respect for the feelings of his fellow-countrymen he should not require to have it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was in error, but that he acted from the best motives. He thought it was merely intended to see this season how it would work, and he (Mr. Malins) would not object to that; but if a vote were taken on the Amendment, he would feel bound to vote in its favour.

said, the Vote contained an item for iron railings. One portion of these were to be employed as a substitute for the high brick wall that ran along a portion of Kensington Gardens. Another portion of the Vote was to go for a gateway, and there was an item of £250 to provide hurdles for the new temporary ride. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Shelley) might, therefore, fairly take the sense of the House on the subject of the new ride by proposing the reduction of the Vote by this sum of £250. They had been told in the course of the discussion that parks were parks, and that gardens were gardens. He denied that that proposition supported the argument of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), that because Kensington Gardens were gardens they were therefore unfit for the purposes of riding. It arose from a mistake as to the meaning of the word "gardens." Of course, they could not make a ride in a flower garden, but these were not flower gardens. They consisted of 268 acres of park scenery, sheep were grazing on them, and the avenues were adapted for horses. Not so many flowers were to be found there as in Hyde Park. But would the House say that the grounds called Kensington Gardens were to be preserved for one class of the public, and that no other class was to be admitted? He believed the House would agree with him, that the mere fact of Kensington Gardens having hitherto been kept for pedestrians was no reason why people should not be admitted who took recreation on horseback, provided only they could do so without inflicting any material discomfort on other classes. This ride, he believed, secured that object. It was an immense advantage to a large portion of the public, while the inconvenience to the remainder was as slight as it possibly could be. The people who went to the flower walk never need cross the ride at all. Certainly the entrance was not such as he could wish, but he had only taken advantage of an existing entrance. It seemed to him that the whole collision was between persons who preferred quiet and retirement and those who preferred publicity. One body of the people of the neighbourhood had presented a petition in which they stated that they liked quiet and retirement, and another body of respectable inhabitants at Notting Hill said that they had a vested right in the possession of quiet and solitude. It was certainly a new thing to hear that privacy was to be the characteristic of public gardens, and that the House of Commons was to be called on to choose between the two—publicity or privacy. He could not but think that there was something selfish in the views of those who demanded exclusively the possession of Kensington Gardens for the enjoyment of solitude. There were portions of those gardens in which, even with the existence of this ride, those persons might enjoy as much solitude as they pleased. But this had been called a question between the higher and lower classes of the community. Nothing could be more untrue, for as regarded the working classes they were, generally speaking, earning their bread by their labour at the time when the riders were there. On Sunday the ride was shut. It was not the custom in this country for persons to ride in the Park on Sunday, and he should be sorry to open Kensington Gardens for the use of riders on that day. The truth was that the persons who opposed this scheme were quite as rich as those who were in favour of it. But the question had assumed its present impor- tance from the agitation of members of the five vestries of the parishes adjoining the gardens. At these vestries strong resolutions had been passed against the project, and still stronger language used. One gentleman, who took a special interest in the appointment of the First Commissioner of Works, declared that his (Mr. Cowper's) place should be made too hot for him. He did not object to that mode of discussing the question if the gentleman liked it, but it was not calculated to have great weight with the House of Commons. He had only to repeat that the Vote contained an item of £250 for hurdles for the temporary ride, and he hoped that, on the whole, the Committee would consider this a proper use of the public money.

said, he would amend his Amendment according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, by moving that £250 proposed to be expended on the ride should be deducted from the Vote. His right hon. Friend had made a violent attack on the Vestry of Marylebone. He wished to remind his right hon. Friend that he had challenged public opinion on the matter; and had said that, if he found public opinion was strongly against the Vote, he should not persevere with it. How was that public opinion to be expressed but by the representatives of public opinion in the various parishes? The question was now fairly before the House, whether Kensington Gardens were to be thrown open to equestrians? Was his right hon. Friend justified in taking a course of this kind, when no one instigated him to it, and when he did it of his own accord?

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not yield to agitation.

said, that the declaration of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster, reminded him of the three tailors of Tooley Street. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not yield to clamour. The vestry orators would soon find another subject on which to expend their rhetoric. Rotten Row had evidently become quite inadequate to the number of equestrians who frequented it; and since the ride in the Gardens had been opened, the number of pedestrians had greatly increased.

must say he had not heard any argument which would induce him to think that there was that tremendous infringement upon the liberty of the subject that had been assumed by the Vestry of Marylebone. Had not a proposition been made by that very vestry to cut a carriage road across Rotten Row, and to appropriate a large sum of public money for the purpose? If that proposition was made by them, did nut the objection to the ride come very ill from that quarter?

said, he totally differed from the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) on this subject; and was sure that the great body of equestrians who made use of the Park and Gardens were grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner of Works, for what he had clone. He hoped he would persevere, and not give way to the cry that had been raised against him.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India Whether any arrangements have yet been made with the Nizam for a concession of territory on the banks of the river Godavery, to enable the Indian Government to render that river navigable; and what steps the Government have already taken in respect to the removal of the obstructions to the navigation of the Godavery, and when it is probable the works will be completed.

said, that some time ago instructions were sent to the Indian Government directing them to endeavour to make some arrangement with the Nizam with a view to their being put in possession of one complete bank of the Godavery. He had not yet received any report as to the reception which the Nizam had given to that proposal, but it was obvious that until the Indian Government were in possession of the land they could not be certain what it might be in their power to do. All the necessary arrangements had been made for carrying on the work, and operations would be commenced immediately after an agreement had been come to with the Nizam.

(in the absence of Captain Gray) said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will recommend that an English Consul be appointed to the City of Lyons, in accordance with the suggestions contained in the Letter of the hon. Mr. Howard, Secretary to the British Embassy at Paris, dated the 22nd day of September 1857?

said, he had not received any application from British subjects connected with Lyons desiring any change from the present state of things; and as he was unwilling to increase the public charge no such appointment would for the present be made.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland Whether twelve out of the twenty-three Grand Jurors of the county of Fermanagh have lately signed and presented an address to Chief Justice Monaghan, repudiating some advice which he had given in his Charge against party emblems and banners by the use in such address of the following terms,—that "they firmly believe that unless owing to the remarks of his Lordship, no possible collision could occur between parties of different creeds of this county," and that his "Lordship's strictures would only lead to a more determined stand upon their legal rights on the part of the Protestants, and to an aggravated idea of moral injury on that of their Catholic fellow-countrymen;" whether at Londonderry and Enniskillen Orange flags had not been hoisted and party tunes played by the bells of the churches during the presence of Chief Justice Monaghan and Baron Hughes at the duties of the assize; and, if so, whether, in the opinion of Government, gentlemen who could offer such an address to a judge of assize, and thereby encourage such party proceedings on a judicial occasion, have shown them- selves to be fit to be intrusted with the commission of peace in Ireland?

moved the adjournment of the House, with a view of making a statement in relation to the Question of the hon. Member for Devizes. He had hoped, he said, that the rebuke administered to the hon. Member by the Foreign Secretary the other night would have satisfied him for one Session; but there were some men whose sole claim to notoriety depended upon the pertinacity with which they forced their remarks, sometimes laughable and sometimes tedious, upon the notice of the House. He rose on the present occasion because he happened to have been the foreman of the grand jury whose very grave offence, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Devizes, entitled them to be stripped of their magisterial offices, and he, therefore, wished to state what had really taken place. It was notorious that Fermanagh was one of the most peaceable counties in Ireland, and it was also one of the most tolerant. The High Sheriff, the Clerk of the Crown, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, the Inspector of Prisons, and the Deputy Inspector-General of Constabulary were Roman Catholics, and upon the occasion referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Devizes, the Judge of Assize and the whole of his staff belonged to the same religious persuasion. The gentlemen of Fermanagh had never cavilled at those appointments, though they could not fail to remark them; on the contrary, instead of considering the religious creed of the men, they had looked simply to their efficiency, and had given them their warmest co-operation upon all occasions, The state of Fermanagh could best be described in the words of Chief Justice Monaghan himself. He stated in his address to the grand jury that,—

"The crimes are few in number and of a light character. It is satisfactory to find such a state of things here at this season of the year, when elsewhere crimes of a serious character are undergoing investigation. Were I to judge of the state of your county by the calendar before me, I should think it indicative of a very favourable condition; but I have deemed it my duty to inquire into the state of the county for myself"

Chief Justice Monaghan thought it his duty to inquire into the state of the county, and he found that there were only four trivial cases to be tried, that the 12th of July had passed off with perfect peace and quietness, that there had been no party feeling exhibited, and no insult offered to the Roman Catholics. Such was the oc- casionl which Chief Justice Monaghan selected to tell the loyal Protestants of Fermanagh that, although they had kept within the letter of the law, they had broken it in spirit; that they had intentionally offered insult to their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects; and that they had been guilty of desecrating the churches by permitting flags to be hoisted thereon—things with which they had nothing whatever to do. Upon that occasion he felt it his duty, as foreman of the grand jury, to make a few observations to the Judge in court, assuring him that insult was never intended by the Protestants of Fermanagh nor considered by the Roman Catholics to have been intended. His Lordship replied that, although an insult might not have been intended, it was nevertheless calculated to produce that impression; that he himself would not have considered such a thing as the hoisting of Orange flags an insult, but it had been so deemed by others. The grand jury felt that the remarks of the Judge might lead to mischief; they consequently drew up an address, which was signed by twelve of their number, some of the others stating that they would not sign it because they were satisfied with the observations made in court by the foreman. The facts were that the Judges went into Enniskillen on the 16th of July, and that where an Orange flag, which had been hoisted on the 12th of July, was hauled down at the commencement off the assizes, and was not again hoisted during the presence of the Judges in Enniskillen. It had been stated that the bells were rung, but he did not know whether or not that was the fact. He did not think that the grand jury would have done their duty if they had not remonstrated with Chief Justice Monaghan on account of his remarks, and pointed out the mischievous effects they were likely to produce, and which, indeed, followed in the hoisting of a flag at Londonderry.

seconded the Motion.

hoped he should be excused from entering at length into the discussion just raised, and the more so as there was a Bill before the House which dealt with this subject, and which would afford an opportunity for further observations. He would now proceed to answer the Question put to him. With respect to what passed on the occasion he had no official information, but only such information as every hon. Member had access to. Whatever might be the opinion of the Government on the subject, it was not the intention, as far as he knew, of the Government, or of the Chancellor of Ireland to take any such steps as those suggested in the Question. He had official information that party tunes were played at Enniskillen. At Londonderry an Orange flag was hoisted at Walker's monument, which flag was most properly taken down by the mayor.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any application has been made to admit Spain to the rank of a First Rate Power; and, if so, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withhold its consent, so long as the Government of Spain continues to tolerate the Slave Trade, and systematically to disregard its Treaties and engagements with this country?

said, it did not yet appear that Spain herself had made application or expressed any desire officially to be admitted to the rank of a first-rate Power in association with the Five Powers of Europe who were usually so denominated. The Government of France, however, had expressed an opinion that it was desirable that Spain should be added to the five Powers, and in reference to that proposition, or suggestion, the Government of Austria had answered that the Emperor of Austria would have no objection to see Spain placed in the same rank with the five Powers, but he thought the case ought not to be turned into a precedent for the admission of any other Power. The Government of Prussia, on the other hand, had expressed an opinion that it would be injurious to the Protestant States of Europe if the number of the great Powers were altered by admitting another Roman Catholic Power, and that if that were done it would be desirable that Sweden likewise should be admitted. It was also to be considered that Portugal, as well as Spain and Sweden, signed the General Treaty of Vienna, and it would not be desirable that Spain and Sweden should be admitted, and Portugal, which always entertained jealousy with regard to Spain, should be excluded. If all these States were admitted there would then be eight great Powers instead of five. But it must also be considered that Sardinia, a very thriving country, might put in her claim too, and in that case there might he nine great Powers instead of five. Now, considering that since 1815 the concert of the five Powers had on the whole very well preserved the peace of Europe—and the preservation of that peace was the object of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle—it appeared to him very undesirable to change the present state of things in this respect. At all events he assured the hon. Gentleman that before the next meeting of Parliament the Government would not consent to any change for the admission of Spain among the great Powers.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Low Moor Company (Iron-founders in Yorkshire) are making smooth-bored Guns for Her Majesty's Government, and for what purpose? The same Company having made cast-iron Guns, to be afterwards strengthened by Sir William Armstrong, how many were made, how many burst upon trial or failed, and how many succeeded? Did Guns made by Colonel Wilmot on nearly the same plan in Woolwich Arsenal succeed? Is not the Secretary of State for War aware that Guns made after the same plan have been adopted and are perfectly successful in Prance, and if not placed actually on board ship, are ready stacked for that purpose, both at Cherbourg and Toulon? Is he aware that the Russians have adopted that gun, and are at the present time manufacturing it in Liverpool?

said, he would reply to the Questions seriatim. First, the Low Moor Company were making guns, 68-poundcrs and 32-pounders, for the use of the navy. These guns would probably never be displaced by any rifled guns that could be made. The hon. Gentleman next asked whether the same company, having made cast-iron guns to be afterwards strengthened by Sir William Armstrong, how many were made, how many burst upon trial or failed, and how many succeeded? Upwards of 300 cylinders had been made for the purpose of being strengthened by iron hoops; five had been tested, and three of them burst; and that being a largo proportion, it was evident that there was something defective in the manner in which they had been hooped. It had, therefore, been resolved to await the result of further inquiry; and he did not doubt they would succeed in finding a way in which they might be hooped more successfully. As to the next Question, did guns made by Colonel Wilmot on nearly the same plan in Woolwich Arsenal succeed? Colonel Wilmot hooped a gun which had been made by one of the great founders, and it burst at the thirty-ninth round, but showed considerable strength before bursting. He might remark that specimen guns were always tried to destruction, in order to ascertain what pressure they would bear. With respect to the last two Questions, was not the Secretary of State for War aware that guns made after the same plan had been adopted, and were perfectly successful in France, and if not placed actually on board ship were ready stacked for that purpose both at Cherbourg and Toulon? and was he aware that the Russians had adopted the gun and were at present manufacturing them at Liverpool? he had to reply that there certainly were guns at Toulon, which the French Government, it is said, had so little confidence in that they would not, unless using very low charges, place them in ships, but in places where, if they burst, the consequences would not be so disastrous as on deck. There was great doubt whether we did not apply too severe a test to our guns. Our powder was much stronger than that used on the Continent; and, consequently, guns might stand the test applied to them in France, and not be able to stand the same nominal test here. As to the last Question, his reply was that the Russians had not adopted that gun, but they had adopted guns made at Liverpool by the Mersey Company, which were of wrought-iron.

said, that he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice; and he trusted that in a matter involving the expenditure of so enormous an amount of public money, the House would pause before authorizing the expenditure of that large sum for such a purpose. The Bill proposed to authorize the expenditure of no less than £2,000,000 on account of the whole expenditure in respect of fortifications. He would not go into details, but he would take the sense of the House whether such an amount should be voted without further information. There had been no information given whereby the House could distinguish between the cost of land fortifications and other defences. He, therefore, moved

"That, before proceeding further with this Bill, it is desirable that this House should be in possession of further information as to the entire cost of the construction and efficient maintenance of the Sea Defences, and the proposed land fortifications, distinguishing the expenses necessary to be incurred by the country in respect of such proposed Sea Defences and Land Fortifications."

Many persons of competent authority entertained different opinions upon this question. Some thought that the Government were justified in asking for a Vote to complete the sea defences of our arsenals and dockyards, as distinguished from the land fortifications, but entertained grave doubts as to the expediency of embarking in any large expenditure on account of land defences, for which so large a portion of the money now asked was to be applied. He thought it would be wise to fortify our arsenals and dockyards by sea defences, if the House could be informed of the probable expenditure. For himself he believed that the notion of invading this country had never entered into the mind of the Emperor of the French, and that it was one of the wildest chimeras ever suggested to ask the House, under the influence of a French invasion panic, to agree to an expenditure for fortifications without any information as to the probable cost of manning them when constructed. He could believe that in the event of a war, which might be brought about by the complication of affairs in Europe, France would no doubt take a part in any great European war, either as the ally or the enemy of England, and in the latter case it would be well that our arsenals and dockyards, which the noble Lord at the head of the Government properly called the cradles of our navy, should be protected by sea defences. We knew very well that the Dutch burnt our ships at Chatham, and thus humiliated England; and, in case of a war, if our arsenals and dockyards were not protected, England might again suffer a like humiliation, which it might take years to efface. Conceding, then, the desirableness of protecting our arsenals and dockyards, surely the noble Lord ought to give the House some esti- mate of the expenditure which that protection would involve. The whole thing was totally vague and indefinite. The expenditure about to be entered upon was certainly uncalculated, if not incalculable. The House was asked to vote in the dark an enormous sum of money towards the accomplishment of a most wild and undigested scheme brought forward at the end of the Session; but of how much was this amount the instalment? The object of his Amendment was to place on record his solemn protest against incurring an enormous expense of which no estimate had been laid before the House. It appeared from the Report of the Commissioners that they proposed an expenditure of £11,000,000 for the construction and armament of these fortifications; but not a word had been said by them, or by Her Majesty's Government, as to the enormous cost that would be required to man these fortifications when constructed. It was supposed that about 68,000 men would be wanted to man the works efficiently; and, taking the cost of each man at £60 yearly, it was evident that the country would have to pay some millions yearly to maintain these fortifications. This showed the necessity of further information, both of the ultimate cost of completing the Government scheme, and the annual charge it would lead to. He would not enter into a discussion about the desirableness of constructing a central arsenal at Cannock Chase, but the House should recollect that they had been asked to sanction an expenditure of £150,000 merely for the purchase of the land that would be required for that arsenal; and before they sanctioned that expenditure they ought to insist on being informed what the works at Channock Chase would ultimately cost, and what would be the annual expense of maintaining them. The Commissioners said that the works, which were to be constructed at Channock Chase for the defence of Woolwich, would cost £700,000, but everybody knew that, as in the case of the estimate for the New Houses of Parliament, the cost would be three or four times £700,000. There were many hon. Members who would willingly vote a definite sum for the construction of sea defences to protect our arsenals and dockyards, but who would hesitate to vote an enormous sum for land fortifications. The House would stultify itself in the opinion of the country and of Europe if it voted £2,000,000 as the commencement of an expenditure, the limit of which was altogether unknown; and he therefore hoped Her Majesty's Government would inform the House more definitely on this subject.

said, he seconded the Amendment. If he thought there was the smallest chance of either £2,000,000 or £10,000,000 being the limit to the outlay required, he might be inclined to take the proposals of the Government into consideration; but he was quite sure, looking at the character of the works proposed, and that we had already spent £1,500,000 with so little to show for it at Portsmouth, that £2,000,000 would go a little way towards completing them. At Portsmouth the Commissioners proposed works for the defence of the harbour to prevent an enemy from running in and burning our ships and destroying the dockyard. Now, the most ignorant waterman on Portsmouth Hard would tell you that when the buoys and marks were taken up it would be perfectly impossible for the pilots themselves to run a ship into Portsmouth, Every one who had ever entered Portsmouth harbour in a yacht must he aware that the entrance was so narrow and so shallow that no three-decked ship could go in or out with her guns on board; and if an enemy's fleet should enter the harbour, of what use would they be without guns? The variation in the tides and the strength of the currents was another difficulty, and even the most experienced pilots often ran ships ashore. Now that such large ships were built—some of them 350 feet long—the best pilots were nervous about taking ships in or out of Portsmouth Harbour, where the slightest wrong movement of the helm would put a ship ashore. He could hardly help laughing at the idea of an enemy's ship ever entering Portsmouth harbour. Why, it would only be necessary to fire two or three guns loaded with powder to make a smoke, and both sides would be invisible. The Commissioners next proposed to erect fortifications to prevent an enemy landing to the east- ward of Portsmouth between Browndown and Cumberland Fort, and thence destroying the arsenal. For this purpose it was intended to build forts on certain shoals; but the Commissioners did not say whether those batteries were to be one, two, three, or four-deckers. The Commissioners themselves said it would be impossible to prevent ships going at eight or nine knots an hour from running past those batteries. If batteries were built both to the eastward and to the westward, ships running twelve, fourteen, or sixteen knots an hour with the tide, would run past them, and would anchor in the Solent out of range of these batteries. The enemy could then land any force he pleased on the Isle of Wight, from which place ho would command Portsmouth with such guns as those of Armstrong or Whitworth. It could not be imagined that the French would ever invade us unless they had the command of the sea. If we were as careless as we had been when a cold fit was upon us, and neglected our navy, then we should be in danger. That might be if we were as careless as during the Syrian war, when the French outnumbered us in the Mediterranean, and during the administration of Sir Robert Peel when the fleet was reduced to twelve sail of the line. He must say for the credit of Lord Auckland that he put the navy in a more efficient state, and created a Channel fleet which he (Sir Charles Napier) had the honour to command. The history of the navy for many years past had been a succession of hot and cold fits of economy. When he was on the coast of Syria he received orders from Sir Francis Baring, then First Lord of the Admiralty, to send the ships home, in order that they might be paid off before the end of the financial year. That economy lasted for about a year. The Government then found that they had made a mistake, and they commissioned two or three sail of the line, and got up a small Channel fleet. That Government was turned out of office. At this time he felt the defenceless state of the country so strongly that he waited upon Lord Derby, whom he had never seen before, and represented the matter to him. Lord Derby got up the Channel fleet: and a fortunate thing it was, because when the country was overtaken by the Russian war, the Admiralty were able by great exertions to get up a tolerable fleet, which became in time an excellent fleet. In an evil hour, alter the War was over, the Government took fright again at the expense. Sir Charles Wood, who was then First Lord, came to the Admiralty and told them the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted on the fleet being paid off. That was done, and a fine fleet was sent to the winds—a fleet well manned, with plenty of petty officers, and in other respects well officered. The Whigs then went out of office, and in came the Tories. Sir John Pakington was not satisfied with the state of the Navy, and said, "We must get up the fleet again." The very ships that had been paid off by the preceding Government were then commissioned again, at an outlay of £70,000 or £80,000, or £100,000 more than had been saved by paying them off. Sir John Pakington deserved great credit for what he did. But although he gave a bounty to the men, he was unable to get men enough; and then it was found that there were no petty officers or midshipmen, and the ships were consequently not commissioned so soon as they ought to have been. This was owing to the bad policy pursued by previous Governments in paying off the fleet so frequently, and thereby destroying the confidence of the officers in the stability of their positions. However, they had got a good fleet at last, although there was a paucity of officers. The Mediterranean fleet was equal to any fleet we ever had in those waters, except in regard to the number of men and officers. But instead of improving its efficiency in these respects the Government were now going to fortify the whole country. Well, whom were we to fortify against? It was impossible we could be invaded except by France and Russia combined, for France had not a sufficient force for the invasion of this country. How could the French come here as long as we possessed our maritime superiority? He confessed he thought there was great danger of France being assisted by another Power, and he hoped that the agreement would not be cemented in Mount Lebanon. What would France do if she proposed to invade us? She would collect a fleet either at Cherbourg, Brest, L'Orient, Toulon, or some other port. But we should collect a fleet too. If our Government neglected their duty the French might bring their ships to Spithead. They might anchor any number there, and throw their shells into Ports-month Harbour. We could launch our gunboats, take out all the old blockships, how of no use whatever, and anchor them with heavy guns on the shoals where it was proposed we should build batteries. That would be only ship against ship, for the French could not sail stone batteries, and the old blockships would defend the country just as well as fortifications. The House had been told that the batteries would be necessary in case the ships were away; but where were our ships to be? They must be sent off the ports where the French fleet were. If the French fleet came out it would he their duty to take them and bring them home. If they remained in harbour they would try and get at them, if possible. That was what we used to do, and what we must do again. As France had an army of 500,000 or 600,000, which was greater than England had or ever would have, we must trust to our fleet, keep it well manned, and attend to our reserves. They might erect fortifications, but where would they get soldiers to man them? But in time of war large numbers of seamen would be thrown out of employment, and would be glad to escape starvation by entering the navy. We should then only have to put them on board of the ships, old and new, which we now had in our harbours, and which we had an excellent custom of keeping always ready for sea, and a force would be ready at once to protect our shores and repel any invader. He could not for the life of him understand what necessity there was for spending all this money on fortifications. It might be as well, perhaps, to complete the works at Portsmouth which had already been commenced. The Commissioners had very cunningly concealed from the public the fact that an extensive series of new batteries had been constructed on Portsdown-hill at a great expense, and had shadowed them forth in their map only as a part of the old lines. If the enemy got hold of these new batteries they would have the command of all the rest. He asserted that since the invention of rifled ordnance Cherbourg harbour offered no security to a fleet. With the Armstrong and Whitworth guns, and the molten lead which they could throw into the place, every ship in the harbour might be destroyed. To render Cherbourg safe a new basin must be built in a more sheltered situation, for the present one was far too exposed to withstand the battering of Armstrong guns. Yet we were now asked to commit the same mistake at Spit-head and Portsmouth. It might have been very well to do so before these rifled guns were invented, but now nothing could be more futile or absurd. We ought to be warned by the mistake France had made. During the Russian war Cronstadt was partially protected by the shallowness of the water round it, which kept our ships at a distance. The north side of the place, however, was perfectly exposed to our mortars, and the damage we were able to do even with the old guns showed how little reliance was to be placed on fortifications. With the new rifled guns Cronstadt might be swept from one end to the other. The scheme now before the House was utterly absurd, and he agreed with his lion. Friend the Member for Birmingham in thinking that they must be lunatics if they carried it out. If the French had the upper hand of us at sea they could land where they liked; and, if they once got a footing on our soil, it would not be at Portsmouth or at Plymouth that they would point, but at London. What would be the use of the fortifications at the dockyards then? It would not be southwards, but northwards, that the inhabitants of the Metropolis would have to retreat. Tierney once said in that House, "Give me a well-manned fleet and a full Exchequer, and I will defy the world." He said the same, and lie warned them that if they pursued the course on which they were now entering, they would soon have neither a well-manned fleet nor a full Exchequer. If Louis Napoleon seriously intended to invade our country, would he wait three years till our fortifications were ready? A more absurd or useless scheme he never heard of. Let the Government redress the grievances of the seamen and make the service more attractive, let them use every effort to keep up the strength of the navy and of the Reserve, and they would provide the best protection for our shores. Why did they not enlist in the Reserve the bargemen and lightermen of the Thames, who were bound in return for certain privileges to serve when called upon? During the last war we had sea fencibles all round the coast; the whole country, in fact, was covered with seamen. Now, however, our force of seamen was miserably inadequate; but he firmly believed that plenty of men would come forward to defend their country, if proper encouragement were given to them.

I am grateful to the lion, and learned Member for Marylebone for the brevity with which he put the House in possession of the arguments in favour of his proposition, and shall endeavour to follow the good example he has set us in that respect. He thinks it important the House should know what arc the sums which are to be taken for sea defences as contrasted with land defences. Upon a former occasion I entered at some length into the subject of the cost of the different works and gave the figures in some detail. I stated that the works to be commenced under the present Bill would ultimately cost about £5,000,000. Of that sum you may say, in round numbers, that one-half is for sea defences and the other for land defences. I may mention, however, that included in the land defences are some which ought, perhaps, to be called sea defences. For example, the works at Dovor are reckoned as land defences, though, from their connection with the harbour, they ought to be considered rather as sea defences. The lion, and learned Member also wants to know what will be the cost of maintenance. The only way in which you can arrive at the probable cost of maintenance is by looking back at the fortifications made during the last ten or more years, and ascertaining what has been the cost of their maintenance in proportion to the sum originally expended upon them. I find it amounts to about ¼ per cent of the original outlay; but, of course, as the works become more aged the expenditure for their maintenance must be expected in some degree to increase. The hon. and learned Member asks what additional force do we expect to be obliged to raise on account of the fortifications. My answer is that if you ask me to capitalize the cost of the new battalions, you must set against that the cost of the still greater number of additional battalions which you must raise for the defence of the country if you have no fortifications. The Defence Committee call attention to the fact that in case of war we must have a larger standing army than at present; but if we have no fortifications that increase to our standing army must be much greater than otherwise would be necessary, because we can use the Militia and raw levies behind works, whereas for manoœuvres in the field we must have regular troops. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) thinks that the proposed works at Spit-head are quite unnecessary; but in the course of his speech he gave a satisfactory answer to his own argument. He says that if we take up the buoys and destroy the marks at Spithead nobody will be able to come in. Captain Sullivan, on the other hand, tells us that if all the buoys and marks were removed a fleet could be brought in without the least difficulty. I cannot venture to decide between two such high authorities; but the House will see that if the gallant Admiral's views are correct that our own ships would be just as much excluded by raising the buoys as the enemy's would be. In another part of his speech the hon. and gallant Admiral said that if the buoys and marks were removed it would still be possible for an enemy to creep in. Next lie said that the channel was so narrow and tortuous that ships were obliged to work in very slowly, and a little further on he talked of vessels coming in at fourteen knots, and passing through our works without buoys and marks. His statements, in short, were so contradictory that they thoroughly answered one another. The hon. and gallant Admiral then alluded to a possible combination between France and Russia, in which case he seemed to think all fortifications useless. He then referred to the case of Cronstadt, which he said might have been taken, if it had not been so surrounded by shoal water that we could not get at it. The gallant Admiral spoke as though he thought that the sole use of our fleet was for the defensive, and that their skill and energy was to be employed solely in defending our arsenals and dockyards. In his main argument, that because it is possible to destroy Cherbourg, therefore it would be possible to destroy Portsmouth, he leaves out of sight the enormous difference between the two places. Cherbourg can be destroyed because it has no outworks, but Portsmouth may be defended by outworks—and, in fact, that is the very thing we are proposing to do. I may state that the chief expenditure for land works will be at Portsmouth. The only other place where there is any great necessity for land defences is Plymouth, which, owing to its remote situation, must to a great extent be self-dependent. Chatham is entirely a case of land defences, and ought to be made strong on account of its vicinity to London, I may say, in conclusion, that we have tested our estimates by existing contracts, and, as they have been purposely made large to cover any unexpected contingencies, I am satisfied they will not be exceeded.

wished to state. his reasons for supporting the Amendment of the lion, and learned Member for Marylebone. He regarded ns unjustifiable the proposed outlay on land defences, which could be only needed in the event of a successful invasion, which he looked upon as wholly impossible and absurd. When he saw such a sum of money as this proposed to be spent, he must say that the Commissioners had arrived on this point at a most lame conclusion, on totally insufficient evidence. The instructions issued to them proceeded on a wrong principle, one of those instructions having been to take into consideration the small amount of the forces usually maintained in this country, and in particular the limited number of Artillerymen that would be available. He held that on such a subject efficiency and not expense ought to be the primary consideration. On looking over the list of witnesses examined, he found that Admiral Dundas, Admiral Bowles, Sir Michael Seymour, Sir Thomas Maitland, Captain Sullivan, and many others connected with the naval service had given their evidence, while Sir John Burgoyne was the only military officer whose opinion was taken upon the scheme, and that he was totally opposed to it. Sir James Scarlett, the commanding officer of the district proposed to be fortified, who was thoroughly acquainted with the neighbouring country, over which the forces under his command marched perpetually, and on the character of which the subalterns under his command were bound to report, was merely questioned as to the supply of water which could be brought to Portsmouth. The same point was the only one submitted to Colonel Forster, who was in command of the Royal Engineers. Was the country to expend millions on the faith of a Report based upon such an imperfect inquiry? If the works recommended were carried out, he believed that not two, nor five, nor twenty millions would suffice; and if they were really required, it was only throwing so much money into the dirt to expend one shilling less than the total amount that was needed. The Commissioners, he believed, had arrived at a foregone conclusion, and had been actuated by the feeling that it was necessary for the satisfaction of the country, and to make their Report popular, that defensive works should be recommended. It was but natural that the nation should feel uneasy, when told by Secretaries of State and by the Prime Minister that it was necessary to be prepared to repel invasion. The spirit and devotion which had been shown could not be too highly appreciated—it ought to be encouraged by every means; but it should at the same time be judiciously controlled. When invasion was talked of, reference was, of course, made to one particular quarter, and it therefore became important to consider whether it was the desire of the Emperor of the French to quarrel, to invade, and to make war upon us. He firmly believed that ho had no such intention; and, though he did not stand up as his advocate, he could not imagine that a man who had exhibited the great qualities which rendered him one of the foremost men of the day, would be guilty of such an act of insanity as the invasion of this country must necessarily be. The Emperor of the French had lately written a letter in which he asserted that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, "knew that what he said he meant." He should like to test the sincerity of that distinguished personage by the opinions of the noble Viscount. The noble Lord had not merely dealt with puny and inexperienced statesmen, but while in office had ample opportunities of studying thoroughly the characters of those masters of diplomacy and intrigue who for so many years had guided the counsels of the different countries in Europe. The noble Viscount was well able to form an opinion; every Member of the House was delighted to see that in point of intellect he was as vigorous and able as he had ever been; he was not likely to be deceived by mere appearances;—and he therefore put it to him—Did he believe that the Emperor of the French was playing us true or false, or that he was not acting up to those peaceful professions which he had always made from the first moment when he ascended the throne? At the same time we must not overlook the character of the people over whom the Emperor reigned. Although the Emperor did not intend to deceive us, there might be persons on whom it was necessary for him to practise a slight and innocent deceit. The martial character of the French nation must be remembered, and the difficulty which necessarily lay in the way of guiding them into those peaceful occupations which were the real basis of a nation's greatness. It was impossible to break off all at once the ties and feelings which bound France to the traditions of former centuries, and he believed that Napoleon was flattering them with a little glory, and at the same time coaxing them to allow him to inaugurate under his sway a new reign of peace and commerce, lie was not blind to the under-current of dis- quietude and want of confidence which was percolating through the stream of politics, and which might at any moment eventuate in combinations that would require us to exert our utmost force. But times were changed since invasion had been threatened by the first Napoleon. One master mind no longer governed European politics, but each nation thought and acted for itself. he put it to the House whether the Emperor of the French was likely to he unaware that the first man who unjustifiably disturbed the peace of Europe, would at once make himself the common enemy of mankind, and that a war, wilfully commenced by him in defiance of right, would expose his country to another defeat and another disgrace, which must recoil upon himself, and sweep him and his family from the throne of France? Without exposing himself to the taunt that there was "nothing like leather," he thought he might fairly urge upon the Secretary for War that a gradual increase of the standing army was required. The Commission, in their Report, put down the force in the United Kingdom at 60,000; but it had on a former occasion been shown that we could not depend on a larger manœuvring army than 28,000 to 30,000. The noble Viscount had urged as a reason against the Volunteer force in Ireland that there would he 30,000 regulars and 30,000 Militia to defend that country; but any person who believed that in the event of war more than 7,000 or 8,000 troops could be spared to Ireland, or that an amount at all approximating to 30,000 Militia would be available, made a grievous mistake. He contended that at least 20,000 additional troops of the Line were required for the defence of the United Kingdom. The increase in our standing army ought not to cause any great increase in our Estimates, for a very small proportion of those Estimates went to the rank and file. About £600,000 he calculated would do it. If 10,000 or 15,000 additional regulars were raised, and about 5,000 of the Militia regularly trained every year, with the assistance of our Volunteers, we should always be able to muster a strong force on any emergency. But how were we to be invaded? It was not to be supposed that if ever an invasion did come we should be taken totally unawares. We should not go to bed one night in perfect security and wake next morning to find a lot of French steamers off Brighton or some other part of the coast disembarking troops as fast as- possible. We had consuls in every port, who would surely give us information of what was about to happen. Suppose the Emperor of the French to have resolved on such a piece of insanity, it would take him some time to bring his men down to the coast and to embark them, and surely we should have a steamer or two about to embarrass the operation a little. We should be certain to have plenty of warning, and by means of our railways we might easily get a lot of navvies together and throw up earthworks wherever they might seem most likely to be wanted. In regard to camps, he thought that instead of one monster camp at Aldershot, we should have half-a-dozen other camps in different parts of the country. It was not fortifications we wanted, but a fair, reasonable, and well-disciplined standing army, with a regular business-like disposition of the resources which the country had placed at the disposal of the Government. In this manner, without giving way to panic in the slightest degree, ho was for putting the country into a thorough state of defence. In discussing this question, the great interests which were at stake ought not to be lost sight of. Not only our own liberties, but the liberties, the happiness, and the prosperity of the whole civilized world might be said to depend on the power of England to repel an aggression on her shores.

said, he entertained a strong opinion upon this question of the National Defences, and he tended his hearty thanks to the Government for the course which they had pursued on the question, and trusted that they would not be deterred by any of the carping criticisms which had proceeded from various hon. Members in the course of the debate from placing the country in a thorough state of defence—an object which was not only desired in this country, but which the lovers of peace throughout all the world would rejoice to see accomplished. Dining the past year we had seen the peace-loving people of this island voluntarily engaged in organizing and drilling themselves, until there had sprung up an effective Volunteer army of some 138,000 men. That force had already proved its efficiency and patriotism, and had received the warm approbation of all who had inspected them. What was the cause of such an army suddenly springing into existence? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite attributed it to panic.

What I said was that by injudicious management of the movement the idea had been created that a panic had prevailed.

disclaimed any such motive for the part which he had taken in the movement. It was a deep sense of shame that the country should be liable to such panics which had actuated him. In one respect there was a foundation for these panics. It was not that there was the slightest immediate danger of the Emperor of the French or the Emperor of Russia, or any combination of Powers attacking us, but there was a consciousness that in the event of our being attacked by any Power or any combination of Powers we were not in that state of preparation in which we ought to be; that we had been living in a fool's paradise, which was rather calculated to invite aggression than to repel it. In this respect there was some foundation for a panic, and it was in a determination that England should for the future rest for her security on the forbearance of no foreign potentate, and on no system of precarious alliance; but on her own strength, that this movement had taken its rise. The same feeling which had given rise to the Volunteer movement ought also to induce the House to support the Government in the steps which they were about to take on the recommendation of competent authorities on this question of fortifications. In the course of the debate the House had been favoured with all sorts of professional and amateur-professional criticisms on the scheme. The gallant Admiral the Member for Southwark, forgetful of certain forts which it was unnecessary to name, maintained that fortifications were of no use to defend a dockyard, and that ships were the only defences. The gallant Officer who had just sat down was all for soldiers, and the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone, coming out in the new capacity of an engineer, declared that land fortifications were unnecessary.

I gave no opinion. I merely asked for information as to the expense.

maintained that the hon. and learned Member, by putting a Motion on the Paper with reference to the relative cost of sea and land defences, which inferred that the sea defences might be necessary, but the land defences were unnecessary, had committed himself to an engineering opinion. Notwithstanding all these different criticisms, he could not help feeling convinced that the people of England would feel nil the safer for the assurance that the dockyards were perfectly safe from attack. Was there anything in the present position of Europe which should induce us to relax our efforts with regard to the question of national defences? Much had been said of a recent letter of the Emperor of the French. He (Lord Elcho) was of opinion that the proper answer to be given to that letter should be a cordial union with the Emperor in any judicious measures which might be adopted for the interests of humanity in Syria, and in any endeavours which he might make to build up a strong kingdom in Italy. Towards the end of the previous Session ho had taken the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the foreign policy of the Government. If the Emperor of the French really wished to establish a strong Italian Power, then it was the duty of England to join with him in so doing; and he wished to see England strong, so that she might say that no one should now interfere in Italy, but that the Italians should manage their own affairs. On referring to the despatches'—especially to those of M. Thouvenel it was apparent that the policy of the French Emperor was at one time in that direction; and, if that was still his policy, it was the duty of England to join cordially with him in carrying it into effect. But England must be on her guard, for the aggressive tendencies of the French people at the commencement of the present century, which inflicted such terrible calamities in Europe, could not be forgotten. Neither could it be forgotten that the Empire began in peace and afterwards engaged in bloody wars, and that Nice and Savoy had been absorbed. What he wished was to see England strong, and nothing would more tend to that object and to the removal of all temptation to aggression than the fortification of the dockyards and the existence of an efficient army, aided by that great army of Volunteers, which had sprung into existence in so short a space, and which rendered England equal to any emergency. Let the House free and untie the hands of the Foreign Secretary, so that it might be felt that when the Foreign Secretary wrote despatches he wrote them influenced by what he thought right, and by no meaner motive. On these grounds ho should cordially support the original Motion.

said, that he did not understand the terms of the Resolution proposed, and he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman would explain it. It appeared to him that all the information with regard to the expenses which the hon. and learned Member desired could be obtained in the Report of the Commissioners. If those were not the details he required, he (Captain Jervis) was unable to make head or tail of the Motion. The simple question was whether this country was to maintain its way in the progress of the science of engineering. The whole of the coast had been fortified by Martello Towers,—a description of defence which originated in the repulse, in 1794, of 1,400 British troops, a line-of-battle ship, and a frigate by a Martello tower in the island of Corsica. Those Martello Towers answered very well at that time, but were totally inadequate to the requirements of the present day, owing to the progress of artillery. Only the other day a Martello Tower was knocked to pieces in half-an-hour by a few guns brought to bear upon it. A more effective kind of fortification was now necessary to meet the great improvements that had been made in the science of artillery. The hon. and learned Member objected to the removal of the Arsenal of Woolwich to Cannock Chase; but if the arsenal were not removed it must be fortified, and in this respect the removal effected a saving of £555,000.

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to misunderstand the actual question at issue. Everybody was desirous that this country should be placed in a position of security, but the question was whether the system proposed by the Government was founded on sufficient authority, and was the most effective that could be adopted. The great majority of the Members of the House felt that they were incompetent to decide this question themselves, and the hon. and gallant Member himself, who now declared against the fortification of Portsmouth, nevertheless on a former occasion voted for it.

said he had not voted for it, but he would not put his individual opinion against that of Sir Howard Douglas.

said, that many military men in that House had spoken against the plan, and the lion, and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith), whose authority was of great value, in an admirable speech, urged strong objections to the hind fortification of Portsmouth and Plymouth. With respect to the Martello Tower referred to, which the hot), and gallant Member had spoken of as though it had been blown to pieces in half an hour, he (Mr. Monsell) was informed that the fact was that three large guns were firing at it at only 1,000 yards distance for two days, and though they made a breach, they did not produce such an effect as to knock down the place where the gun was situated. If that was all that could be done in that case, it might be concluded to be impossible for any great harm to happen to Portsmouth unless an enemy placed a great siege train on Portsdown. With respect to the propriety of defending Portsmouth and Plymouth against a coup-de-main, there was no difference of opinion; but it would be desirable that the Secretary for War should take more military evidence before involving the country in an enormous expense. Almost all the evidence taken before the Commission was naval evidence. It was incomprehensible that, although three artillery officers were examined before the Commission, they were not asked a question on the fundamental point at issue. What he wanted was that the Government should not spend enormous sums of money without really knowing whether they were going to lay it out in the right way. His opinions might be erroneous; but, having consulted with the highest authorities, he confessed that he regarded with doubt the proposed land defences. The Commissioners were no doubt anxious to give a fair estimate of the amount of expense to be incurred on account of the works they recommended; but he feared that the expenditure had not been carefully calculated. For example, they stated that 2,500 guns would be necessary, and that these would cost £500,000; but how much would the ammunition cost? Reckoning 300 or 400 rounds a gun, though 500 pounds would probably be nearer the mark, the ammunition would cost more than £1,250,000. Now, nobody objected to such an expenditure, or to double that amount, if it were necessary; he only wished to show that the Commissioners had not gone into details which would at once have suggested themselves to the minds of Artillery officers. There was only one member of this branch of the profession upon the Commission, and this officer, who was a friend of his own, had not had that experience of actual service that was so desirable. If more Artillery officers had been on the Commission, they would have origi- nated inquiries on points of detail which it was not likely would suggest themselves to the Commissioners without them. It was true that the House was referred, in confirmation of the Commissioners' Report, to a Committee presided over by the Commander-in-Chief; but, although the authority of individual military men was valuable and reliable, yet when you got a number of officers together, presided over by one occupying so distinguished a position, their aggregate authority was not of so much value as the opinion of any one of them when taken separately. That disposed of the only point which made any real impression on the House in favour of these land fortifications. He repeated that no one grudged the money which was asked for. All he wanted was that before spending it on land defences, to which the highest military authorities were entirely opposed, the Government would make further inquiry, so that they might not embark in an enormous outlay, which, after all, would fail to conduce to the security of the country.

said, that he had had no intention of addressing the House on that occasion; but the observations of his right hon. Friend obliged him to say a few words. He was not sure that that House was the best arena for the development of opinion on such a question; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. Monsell) had stated that every military man in the House was opposed to the plan. [Mr. MONSELL: Every military man who has spoken.] Now, he was under the necessity of saying that he should feel in an awkward position if he was to acquiesce in that statement, because he was the individual who proposed the Commission, and it would be extraordinary if he should shrink from the amount of responsibility which rested upon him for that Motion. On the first day that the present Government was in office, he went to the War Office, with the view of informing the Secretary for War of two Motions which he intended to submit to the House. The right hon. Gentleman was at that time absent in Wiltshire engaged about his election, and so he (Sir De Lacy Evans) went again on the 1st of July, laid the Motions before him, and inquired whether there was any time at which he should wish him to bring them forward. The one was for the abolition of purchase in the army, and for that lie counted upon the right hon. Gentleman's support; the other was for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the whole state of the national defences. The right hon. Gentleman requested him not to propose the Motions until he should have an opportunity of consulting the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and week after week he renewed his request that the Motions should not be brought forward. At last, on the 25th July, he (Sir De Lacy Evans) insisted on bringing the Motion forward, and to his surprise the right hon. Gentleman then announced that he was entirely of the same opinion as himself. Such was the history of the appointment of the Commission. With regard to its composition, he agreed with his right hon. Friend that, although there were excellent men upon it, there might have been persons of greater weight. He also agreed with his right hon. Friend that the Artillery portion of it seemed to have been almost forgotten. Nor was it on that occasion only, but on many others also, that the important professional assistance which the Artillery officers could afford was entirely overlooked. He attributed that to the accident that the officers of the Engineers were more in communication with Members of the Government. There was one clover Artillery officer on the Commission, but, though an officer of great talent and great science, and likewise a great astronomer, he had never seen an enemy, and, therefore, he thought it a mistake not to have placed one or two Artillery officers of experience on the Commission. His right hon. Friend had referred to another Commission to which the decision of the former had been submitted; but there did not appear to be any officer of more experience on that Board. Nevertheless, no professional man could venture to criticise with severity any portion of the Report without having gone down to examine the various localities, which he believed none of them had done. He had looked over the scheme, and he believed it to be the Report of men of sense, and he felt that Government were entitled to a general support upon the intentions they had announced. The Secretary for War told them that Government had not adopted the Report in all its parts; for instance, they thought that five forts instead of eight on Portsdown Hill would be sufficient. He thought, then, if Government did carry out the Report, that considerable reductions in the expense might be made.

also com- plained that the Government had not consulted several of the many distinguished Artillery officers whose evidence would have been invaluable on this subject. With regard to the present Motion, he thought the Secretary for War had to a certain extent answered the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because the schedule did show what the land and sea works were estimated to cost, and works so solid would not require much for maintenance. But, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed to omit altogether the land defences, he had no doubt the Motion would have been carried. Although a great majority were ready to vote large sums of money for the defences of the country, and many Members would vote largely for sea defences, he believed that there were many who were not disposed to give their full assent to the proposition for land defences; and he thought there were very good grounds for not doing so. The question with regard to the defence of the dockyards was an Artillery question, and no Artillery officers of eminence had been asked their opinion upon it. His gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) did not intend to limit the inquiries of the Commission to the dockyard defences; he intended that these inquiries should take a wider scope, and include the defences of the realm; but neither his gallant Friend, who had commanded an army, nor any Generals of equal authority, had been asked their opinion upon the subject. It had been assumed that the Government endorsed the Report of the Commissioners; but it was not so—they had in fact declined to adopt a great portion of the propositions of the Commission. They had had recourse to a Committee to examine the Report of the Commission, and with the exception of the illustrious Duke at the head of the army, the Committee was composed of men of not greater authority than the Commission. No man was more willing than he was to vote money for the sea defences of Portsmouth; but the whole of those proposed in the Report of the Commissioners were not necessary, and the Secretary of War had reduced them. The points to which he most objected were the works at Portsdown Hill, and he objected to them for more reasons than one. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) knew very well that if a war broke out to-morrow works could be made in a fortnight on Portsdown Hill which would effectually keep an enemy from bom- barding Portsmouth, and that it could be done for one-tenth of the expense now proposed for the forts to be constructed there. If, again, the works were only required in the event of an enemy having made a successful landing, he said that, unless they had no Volunteers, no standing army, and no Militia, an enemy could not make the march to Portsdown Hill and thus expose his flank and rear. Where were the enemy's supplies to come from? He could not capture Portsmouth by siege in less than a fortnight or three weeks. Every head of cattle and every stack of corn would be removed, and what would there be for the invaders to live upon? Did they suppose that an enemy could keep the command of the Channel for three weeks? He believed that was utterly impossible, and that the idea of the enemy sitting down on Portsdown Hill was the greatest nonsense ever talked of by military men. Even if Plymouth and Pembroke were taken for a time, the naval power of the country would not be lost while they had Portsmouth and Chatham. Chatham was the easiest defended from its situation. It would require a march of two days, with the enemy's rear and flank exposed, to attack Chatham, and therefore that could not be done. If, then, they took care of Portsmouth and Chatham, without making enormous land works, they would do all that was necessary. He should not vote against the measure of the Government, because the responsibility was upon them, but he hoped they would apply the money to the sea defences, and leave the land defences for any occasion which might arise to render them necessary. The Secretary for War could use the blockships until the solid works were constructed in the Solent. Five works had been proposed by the Commissioners, but the Government had knocked two on the head and retained the three best. As to building works on Portsdown Hill, he hoped the Government would take the opinion of such men as Lord Seaton and of his gallant Friend the Member for Westminster, who knew what it was to command armies in the field. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion to a division, but would take another opportunity of proposing that the land works be postponed. If the Government only wanted to do something as far as £2,500,000 or £3,000,000 would go, they should lay out the whole in sea defences. The sea defences required a long time to erect. They could not be begun too soon, and they could not be carried on too rapidly. When finished and armed with large guns it would be quite impossible for an enemy to pass them. Let the Government lay the money out in that way, and take further advice about Portsdown Hill. If they did take further advice he was convinced they would give up that part of the scheme altogether.

I do not wish to add to the length of this debate, because after the large majority the other night on the Resolutions it is not for me to stand between the deliberate opinion of the House and its execution. But some things have been said to-night which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. My noble Friend the founder of the Volunteers—and I say that not in a spirit of carping, but in a spirit of compliment—my noble Friend has talked of the carping criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Marylebone in moving this Amendment; but I must say that is rather unfair to my hon. and learned Friend, because, so far from pretending to give any engineering opinion, my hon. and learned Friend expressly guarded himself from even hinting one. He has undertaken the duty which he owes to the country as a Member of Parliament of expressing his opinion as to the imperfect estimates of the Government, and I think he is perfectly justified in giving that description to the estimates before the House. If hon. Members refer to the blue-book, they will see that these do not profess to be correct estimates. There is no estimate for the howitzers, mortars, and light guns, and no estimate for alterations in the water supply of Plymouth, which it is said can be cut off by an enemy. The estimate is most imperfect and most unsatisfactory, and nothing is so natural, if the House of Commons is worth anything at all, which I am very much inclined to doubt—-I mean as controlling the expenditure of the nation—nothing is so natural as for a Member of Parliament in the position of my hon. and learned Friend to demand further information. The information is to my mind excessively scanty. I took the liberty of asking why, after all our financial arrangements had been made, this matter was brought forward at the end of the Session. The noble Lord joked the matter off, and led people to suppose that I wanted the dockyards to be in the middle of the country. I merely recommended that some portion of the store of timber should be removed inland, and brought thence to the dockyards by railway. It has been recommended a thousand times, but the noble Lord feigned not to understand me, because it did not suit him to tackle my question—why is this plan brought forward at the end of the Session? I should like some answer to that question. There is another question to which I should like an answer. The most natural person to take up this question of £11,000,000 is the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but—you may call it carping criticism if you will—why is lie never present, why has he never given an opinion upon this subject? Then, again, why is the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. M. Gibson) never here when this subject is discussed? Why, in 1858 he brought in a Motion to cut down the Estimates altogether, and yet now, whenever this question comes on, he "cuts his stick." The man who is for "peace at any price," neither opposes this enormous expenditure nor offers us any explanation. Nothing can be more natural when the House is asked to vote £9,000,000, than that we should ask for every information, and therefore, instead of talking about "carping criticism," I should have been astonished if my lion, and learned Friend had been satisfied with these Estimates. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) —who, of course, has an interest in the question, for, if it be proved that fortifications are of no use, "Othello's occupation will be gone,"—the noble Lord tenders his thanks to the Prime Minister for only asking £9,000,000. I also tender my thanks, although for a different reason—I am thankful that in the present spirit of the House of Commons, and that which prevails out of doors, he has not proposed to erect a complete Chinese wall round the island. Now, how has this panic been caused? Clearly by the speeches of Cabinet Ministers. A pamphlet has been put into my hands, written by a distinguished General officer, Sir Duncan M'Dougall—French Invasion, in defiance of the Defences of Great Britain. This is the way panics arc created:—" The revelation I am now about to make upon authority will show the necessity of no time being lost in completing our national defences." No time to be lost—mark, these fortifications are to be finished in four years! "A committee of French officers have worked out a special plan for an attack upon London, a copy, or a sufficient extract, of which was placed in the hands of one of the Ministers in October last." I should like to know whether that is true, for it would make a material difference in my vote. He goes on to say that "in 1863 the French plan is to come over here, take London, and stop here three days." You see he knows the whole plan. But what does that gallant Officer say of the plan of the Commissioners? He says,—" Instead of spending enormous sums on expensive fortifications in your arsenals and your dockyards, all that is necessary is to put them in a sufficient condition to resist a coup de main." But they are going to build forts upon Portsdown Hill. I say nothing against the sea defences; but after the speech of the gallant Officer opposite (Sir Frederic Smith), one of the most distinguished Engineer officers in the service, I hope wo shall hear no more about "carping criticisms," for we have the highest professional authority to justify us in asking for further information. I think the House ought not to be run away with upon this subject, and ought not to be expected to take the Report of the Commissioners as decisive upon the matter. When we are talking about Estimates, let us remember that this House, which was to cost £750,000, has really cost £3,000,000. And so it will be with these fortifications. We know that at the beginning of the Session the Estimate for the Chinese War was £800,000, and already it has run up to £3,000,000. Precisely the same thing will happen with the Estimates for these fortifications. We cannot get any information upon this subject, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here. I say he ought to be here to defend his plan. I ask what is the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this plan, and echo answers "Nothing." Now, I have shown how-panics arc created—how these estimates are imperfect. I was astonished the other night to hear the Secretary for War say that Sir John Burgoyne, who had been against these defences, had changed his opinion. I was struck by that at the time, and the right lion. Gentleman accused me of not having read the blue-book; but will the House believe that Sir John Burgoyne changed his opinion about the Volunteers, and that was the reason why he changed his opinion upon this subject. But he changed his opinion to my side of the question, because the document quoted by the Secretary of War was a Report signed by the Duke of Cambridge, Sir John Burgoyne, and others, on the 22nd of February, 1859, while the evidence of Sir John Burgoyne was given in November, 1859. When he gave that first opinion the Commission had not been issued and therefore I think the right lion. Gentleman was rather misleading the House into a false issue. The opinion, in fact, is one of those which are given under certain circumstances. No officer likes to dissent from his General; but when he was examined before the Commission Sir John Burgoyne gave his opinion hostilely to land fortifications. All criticisms, foreign or English, have been against the Commissioners, whose authority and whose data have alike been questioned. I can add nothing, but I think it is incumbent upon the House, before involving us in a ruinous expenditure for land fortifications, with the evidence before the Commission showing us that they will be of no avail, which all the Engineer officers in this House tell us are not called for, I think we should have further information. We are a House of Commons to control the expenditure of the nation. You may talk of throwing responsibility upon the Government, but, if these fortifications are built, what will be the responsibility of the Government if, at the end of eight years, they are found to be of no use? Their responsibility is nothing. All will be forgotten, but the people will say, "What fools the House of Commons were in 1860." The hon. Member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) referred to the Martello towers, and gave a long story of something that occurred in 1794; but every Engineer officer knows that those towers which the House of Commons of that day were so ready to vote money for—some millions were spent upon them—have been found to be perfectly useless for national defence. Surely that makes it very necessary that the House should pause before committing themselves to this ruinous expenditure upon Ports-down Hill. Mind, I draw a distinction between the seaboard and the land fortifications. I think, also, it behoves the Government to pause before committing themselves to this plan. It is the plan of seven respectable gentlemen, but still I think we have further information, further Engineer and Artillery evidence, as well as evidence from General officers of experience. What better man could there be to be examined than the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster? (Sir De Lacy Evans.) He has seen the greatest siege of modern times, and yet his opinion was never asked. We are not come to this pass yet that England is to be defended by Portsdown Hill. I repeat that upon the last evidence—that taken before the Commission as well as that of men of the greatest experience and highest reputation—I have no hesitation in saying that the House should be wary before committing itself to these gigantic fortifications on the land side.

thought the last speaker had only asked for such an inquiry before the money was voted as the case demanded. The House had not heard anything like approbation of the Government scheme from any one military or naval authority that had addressed them. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) had expressed an opinion that the defences around Portsmouth should be composed of earthworks, and that they need occupy but little time; and if so experienced an officer expressed such an opinion, was the Government justified in asking for a Vote of Money for purposes antagonistic to such an opinion—antagonistic also to the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne? The course which the Government should have pursued should have been, not simply to take the Report of the Commission, but they should have had the evidence of all the first men in the country, and upon that evidence they should have presented to the House a complete scheme of fortifications of our dockyards and other places. They should not come and ask for a sum of money on account on estimates acknowledged to be incomplete, and therefore not deserving the confidence of the House. During the ten years he had had a seat in the House he had seen abundant proofs of the mischief of voting money without the security of distinct and carefully prepared plans, and particularly in the matter of fortifications. Take the Channel Islands for instance. The estimates were never sufficient, nor were the works worthy of the country. If the Government only showed that they had some mature plan the House would, he was sure, readily grant them all the money necessary for carrying it into effect. He believed that as regarded the defence of our dockyards from the land side a well-trained body of men would be able to raise in fourteen days earthworks sufficient for that purpose; and with respect to our defences from the seaside it should be remembered that no one could at present state what works of that description would prove efficient. We were now expending £1,500,000 in constructing ships which it was supposed would be perfectly shot-proof; and if that supposition should be realized the whole of the proposed expenditure along our coasts would he almost completely useless. He hoped the House would not embark in that outlay before they had some carefully prepared plan, with its various details, under their consideration. He found that they were asked to vote a sum of £150.000 for the site of an arsenal in some central part of the country; but he thought that they ought not to sanction a proposal which was brought before them in so vague a manner. He felt persuaded that there was nothing in the present state of France which called for any haste on our part in dealing with that subject. He had been in France last week, and a gentleman connected with him had been in Cherbourg, and had told him that the only thing being done in that dockyard was the repair of Prince Napoleon's yacht. He believed that we had three times as much work being performed in any of our great dockyards as the French had in all their dockyards at the present moment.

said, the opinion of people out of doors was, that this measure had been brought forward to divert public attention from an evil more imminent than a French invasion, namely, the invasion of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons by "another place." Looking at the measure itself, he was of opinion that the experience the House and the country had had of Government expenditure on previous occasions was not such as to induce the House to place much confidence in them for the proper application of the money the House was then called upon to vote. He would not refer more particularly to the expenditure at Alderney, Dovor, Portland, and other parts of the coast, than to say that the disclosures which had taken place fully justified hon. Members in holding that opinion. He would, however, allude more at length to the expenditure during the last four years on the south coast, contiguous to the borough he represented. The application of public money there had been of the most wasteful character. A constituent of his, in writing to him on the subject; said, his opinions being confirmed by an Artillery officer who had served with distinction in India:—

"I do not hesitate to assert that the whole of the money expended in coast fortifications on the Sussex coast during the last four or five years, amounting to more than £100,000, has been all wasted. At Littlehampton the fort is built on a boggy foundation, and the whole structure is now so insecure that the guns could not be fired if wanted. At Shoreham, the fort, costing, I am informed, nearly £20,000, mounts six heavy guns; the parapet of the western side is brought so close to the gun, that it will not traverse; and a foe landing to the west could not be touched until he landed on the shore. At Shoreham and New-haven the guns could not be worked, from the fact that the beach is so near the guns, that a round shot striking it would have the effect of a discharge of grape shot. At Newhaven the range of the guns is not sufficient to prevent a landing at Seaford Bay, between Newhaven fort and Blatchington battery; and the parapet is so low that no protection is afforded to gunners working the guns."

Another reason why he (Mr. White) had not confidence in the measure proposed by the Government was the lack of knowledge of the subject displayed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War. For instance, in the course of the last debate on this question, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the Emperor Napoleon I. as having said that the art of fortifications was the only art which had not changed for 2,000 years. He (Mr. White) was very much struck with that remark; but, on referring to the real statement of the Emperor, found that what he had said had reference to field-works, and not fortifications, and was to this effect:—

"This important branch (i. e. field-works) of the art of war, has made no progress since the times of the ancients; it is even inferior to what it was 2,000 years ago. Engineer officers should be encouraged in bringing this art to perfection, and in placing it on a level with the rest."

With regard to the fortifications, it was well known that the strength of a whole must be considered as the strength of the weakest part; and that one weak point in the whole range of works would be the very part of which the enemy would be first informed, and to which they would direct their attention. He deeply regretted one aspect of the question, which was this: that the noble Lord and others seemed to repose greater confidence in these stone works than in the people of England. It would appear from the speeches of certain noble Lords, that to put arms in the hands of the people, would be a calamity more terrible than a French invasion. He did not believe that the antecedents of the working classes justified the distrust that was felt of them. Put arms into their hands, and they would defend all that was valuable in our Constitution. Before the House was called upon to vote this grant, the Militia ought to be developed to the utmost degree, and every assistance given to the Volunteer movement. It was a sound and statesmanlike observation of the noble Lord, that "the power to aggress frequently gave the desire to aggress;" and he was afraid that that would be the effect of the present scheme, and he should give his support to the Amendment.

I had hoped that after the manifestation of the opinion of the House the other evening, we should not to-night have been led into a renewed discussion of matters which were then fully debated; but, of course, those who entertain strong opinions, have a perfect right to express them. "We have to-night heard expressed the greatest possible diversity of opinions in reference to this question, and if it be the fact that truth is one and error is infinite, I may with great satisfaction contrast the settled opinion of Her Majesty's Government with the discordant and various sentiments of those who differ from us. My hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne) complains of our delay in bringing this matter forward, and of the conduct of those Members of the Government who did not, out of respect for him and others, come down to hear the debate upon a question on which their minds are fully made up, and on which they had recorded their opinion in the recent division. He also found fault with me for bringing this question under the notice of the House myself. It appeared to me that this was not a Departmental, but an Imperial question. It turns upon considerations of a more general nature than are included in any one Department, and I therefore thought that it was a question which the head of the Government was bound to submit to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury takes a different line. He complains of the precipitation with which we had brought this subject forward, and says that we have no definite plan. Now, so far from having brought this measure forward precipitately, without due consideration, or without a definite plan, we have had the subject investigated in the most accurate and deliberate manner by those who are competent authorities; and it was not until after repeated examinations that we brought forward that which is a definite plan, and which does contain in great detail all the arrangements which we think fit to recommend for the adoption of Parliament. It is curious to see how differ- ently different Members have looked upon this question. Almost all are of opinion that defence is necessary. Even the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick (Colonel Dickson), who, as I understood him, began by saying that no defence was needed, and that we might trust to the good-will and friendship of foreign Powers, and that there was no danger of a hostile attack upon this country, admitted, towards the conclusion of his speech, that some additional defence was required, but said that he preferred an addition to our regular troops to the erection of fortifications. I may, therefore, assume that he is no exception to the general concurrence of opinion that some further defence is necessary. It is amusing to see the different views which different Members take of this subject, according to their different lines of thought. Military men, and those who have chiefly directed their attention to the manœuvres of troops in the field, say, "Do not give us fortifications, give us an important addition to the regular army:"—forgetting that a great addition to the regular army would be, perhaps, quite as expensive as these fortifications; that it would be good only for the single year for which it was voted, or that we must go on year after year maintaining in time of peace a disproportionate military establishment to stand in lieu of the permanent fortifications which we propose to erect. Military men are for troops. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark and other naval men are for ships. He says—"Don't tell me of men on land—don't tell me of works—give me ships. If I have ships enough I will anchor them off Portsmouth and Plymouth, and will take care that those ports shall be safe whatever may happen to our interests in other parts of the world." Then come the lawyers. They have been modest, and have not stated their remedy. I suppose they would meet the enemy with an injunction, or issue against him a writ of ne exeat regno to prevent his leaving his own dominions. These are all mighty good methods; but, upon the whole, I am inclined to think that the majority the other evening were right when they voted that permanent defences will be the cheapest and most effectual for the purposes for which the are proposed. My hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne) said, "You might as well propose to surround the whole island with a Chinese wall." We do not pretend to defend by fortifications all the coast of the island. It would be absurd to think of such a thing. What we propose to do is to defend by fortifications the most vulnerable points, those dockyards and arsenals which are the cradle of the naval power of the country, and the destruction of which would place you at the mercy of any Power that could arm a fleet and send it to sea. It is said, however, "Oh, we admit that you may defend them from an attack by sea; but we protest utterly against the attempt to defend them against an attack by land." Is there any sense in that argument? If these dockyards are important, and if it is essential to defend them, you must defend them at all points at which they may be attacked; and, therefore, to say that you will defend them on the sea but not on the land side is the greatest possible absurdity. My hon. Friend who has just addressed us said that nothing was stronger than its weakest part. I thank him for teaching me that word. It is perfectly true; and it would be useless to protect the dockyards from an attack by sea if you did not also defend them against an attack by land. Is it or is it not possible that they may be attacked on the land side? Why, everybody has admitted that it is impossible that we can prevent a landing upon our shores. It has been stated that there are 300 or 400 miles of coast upon which an enemy may land. We do not pretend to place works or troops all along that line of coast to prevent a landing. One of the arguments against these fortifications has been their insufficiency. We have been told that we ought to fortify and defend London. But what does that objection imply except that London may be attacked by an enemy landing upon the coast? and will it not be far easier for an enemy to attack on the land side Portsmouth or Plymouth, which are upon the sea, than London, which is inland? Will anybody in his senses pretend that it would be impossible for 10,000, 15,000, or a smaller force, to land within easy distance of Portsmouth or Plymouth, and if they were undefended, march and attack either of those places, and do that which they could not have done if they had approached it from the sea? It is said, however, that in a fortnight a certain number of men would throw up earthworks and fieldworks sufficient for the defence of those places. Now, military men will tell you that field-works are very good when there is a sufficient force behind them, but they will not prevent a large force from overpowering a small one. Fieldworks are run over, and earthworks are taken by storm. What you want are works constructed upon a scientific principle which shall enable a small body of troops to maintain its position for a certain time—say two or three weeks—against a large force. That is the difference between fieldworks and regular fortifications; and no man who has read the history of war, and I am sure no man who has been engaged in war, will tell you that fieldworks can supersede these more regular works, which are intended to prevent a superior force from overpowering a smaller one. But great objection has been made to-night to the works at Portsdown Hill. I would ask any man who knows what the range of modern artillery is, and what is the distance to which shells can be thrown, to take the map and find out how far it is between Portsdown Hill and the dockyard at Portsmouth, and he will at once see that an enemy gaining a footing at the former point would be able to destroy Portsmouth by shells. It has been said that the experiments made at the Martello Tower at Eastbourne show that it is impossible from Portsdown Hill to inflict damage upon Portsmouth. I am unable to see the force of that argument. The damage to be done to Portsmouth from Portsdown Hill would not be done by trying with round shot to batter down or make a breach in the walls, but by throwing shells into the dockyard; and I say there is nothing to prevent the destruction of the dockyard if an enemy were to get to Portsdown Hill. I am astonished, Sir, at the difference of opinion expressed here on this matter; because, all those with whom I have spoken upon it out of doors agree that the want of works at Portsdown Hill was a weak point in the defence of Portsmouth. Unless, therefore, you strengthen Ports-down Hill against an enemy landing at a short distance either to the eastward or the westward, you will not have sea defences sufficient to protect that great and important naval arsenal. We are told that this scheme is the result of an undignified panic—that we ought rather to trust to the good will of neighbouring Powers—that our plan implies suspicion of the ruler of a neighbouring State, and apprehension of an immediate attack. Why, Sir, it does no such thing. I stated distinctly that the proposal which Her Majesty's Government are making is not founded upon any distrust of any particular Sovereign or nation, but upon the deliberate conviction that this great country ought to be in a condition to defend its important and vulnerable points—that unless you are in a position to repel attack, you may at any time be exposed to it—and that your only security for the continuance of peace is the conviction on the part of those who might under any circumstances be led to assail you that you are able to defend yourselves. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) says that the Government have shown a distrust of the people, and that if we would put arms into the hands of the people they will be able to protect themselves. Why, that is a very strange as well as a very unjust accusation to bring against us, at the very moment when from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, thousands of Her Majesty's subjects arc enrolling themselves and receiving arms from the Government; when we already have 130,000 Volunteers, and are very likely to have perhaps double that number in the course of another twelve months. Nothing can be more unjust or unfounded than such an attack. But men are not sufficient unless you have works to defend those positions which can be most easily assailed. The object of these fortifications is, that a small number of men—perhaps not the best trained, or those who are the most capable of meeting an enemy in the field—may be able, behind those works, to defend the dockyards, and thus to be instrumental in supporting your naval superiority, while the rest of our forces are ready to meet the enemy in the field. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said again to-night, as has been said before, and as appears in these Reports, that, if you have not these fortifications, you must have a far larger force to defend in the field those dockyards which we propose to defend by protecting works; and that, so far from this arrangement being an expensive one, it is the one which, either in peace or war, will lead to the most economical application both of the resources and military means of the country. I trust, therefore, that the House will not to-night reverse their previous decision, or in any way impair the Vote which they passed the other evening; but that, if the hon. and learned Member should insist on pressing his Amendment to a division, they will show that it is their emphatic and deliberate conviction that these important works should be sanctioned and carried out in as short a time as money and means will enable the Government to execute them.

rose to move that it is expedient to discontinue the Ordnance Survey on the 25-inch scale till the Survey on the 1-inch shall have been completed and published. In 1857 the question was discussed in a very full House, when it was decided by a very large majority that the 25-inch scale should be discontinued; and the noble Viscount, then, as now, at the head of the Government, stated that he regarded the vote at which the House had arrived as implying an opinion that no further survey should be made on the 25-inch scale:—where a survey had been already made on that scale, as in the case of Durham, it would of course remain as a matter of record, but ho interpreted the vote of the House to mean that no further survey ought to be made, or should be made on that scale. Since the House came to that decision upward of £250,000 had been voted, and the greater part of it had been spent on the 25-inch scale. He held that when Parliament deliberately recorded its decision, it ought to be held binding by the Government, and acted on; and he did not doubt that the noble Viscount would assent to that principle. But now a Vote of £90,000 was asked for on account of the Ordnance Survey, irrespective of the expenses for military services, and a great part of that also would no doubt be spent on the 25-inch scale. That scale, which he had the authority of the late Mr. Stephenson for saying was perfectly useless, and ought not to be proceeded with, had been applied to seventeen counties, notwithstanding the pledge of the noble Viscount. The 1-inch scale had been commenced in 1784, and was not yet completed, the attention of the surveyors having been from time to time diverted to channels of minor importance. Looking to foreign countries, there was no instance of any general survey of the size of 1 in 2,500. In France the scale was 1 in 80,000; in Russia 1 in 120,000; in Bavaria 1 in 50,000; and in Germany 1 in 200,000. The map of England and Scotland would measure about 600 yards by 300, and would be larger than the London Docks; twice the size of Lincoln's Inn-fields; it would take the whole century to complete it, and would cost between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. It was not required in England, and could not be compared with the Tithe Commutation map, which was perfectly sufficient for every purpose. The size was so great that the alterations which must take place before it was completed would render it perfectly inefficient for ordinary purposes. It represented not only every hedge in the country but every tree; on which side of the hedge the drains had been cut, and the side on which every field gate opened. Ten miles square of the country to be mapped would cover twenty feet square. It would be impossible to examine the map of a county without a ladder, and of the country without a balloon. The 1-inch scale map was amply sufficient for every public purpose. He did not think it necessary to go into further detail. He hoped to receive a distinct assurance from the Government that this expenditure would no longer be proceeded with. He should ask that the decision of the House in 1857 should be registered in the Journals, so that if there was a change of Government the new Ministers might be bound by the recorded decision of the House.

seconded the Motion.

said, that would perhaps shorten the discussion of the question if he were to state what the Government proposed to do. His hon. Friend seemed to mistake the object of the 25-inch survey. It was one thing to form I a map and another tiling to form a cadastre. The latter is the object of the 25-inch survey. Ho did not see why this expenditure should be in the Army Estimates at all, because it would be chiefly valuable as affording facilities in courts of law, and for the valuation of estates, a purpose for which the 1-inch scale was insufficient. With regard to the question of expense, it should be borne in mind that the expense of proceeding on the larger scale was considerably reduced by the invention of machinery, and the extensive application of photography to mapping, and that in consequence the 25-inch scale would be little more costly than the 6-inch scale, whilst it would be more effective for its purpose. The 25-inch scale contained within it the 6-inch scale to which it could easily be reduced, whereas you could not enlarge the 6-inch scale to the 25-inch. What the Government proposed to do was to discontinue this year the opening of any new ground, whether upon the 6 or the 25-inch scale, inasmuch as the full force of Colonel James' establishment would be required for the purposes of military survey. It was therefore proposed merely that he should complete the survey of the counties which had already been begun, which were, he believed, the four northern counties. It had been proposed to commence the survey in the south of England this year, and to work on to the north, but that the Government proposed to arrest now. Between this and next year the Government would have time to consider the question, and Parliament could pronounce a deliberate opinion as to whether the survey on the larger scale should be proceeded with, and to what extent.

said, he did not think the case was quite so clear with regard to the advantages of the 25-inch survey as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine, inasmuch as strong evidence was given against it some years ago by some very eminent men. It had been carried out to a considerable extent in Scotland, and he thought it was desirable, before it was universally applied to England, to ascertain whether it had proved successful in the case of the former country or not.

said, lie would make use of that opportunity of apologizing to the House for an omission of duty on his part when he wa3 Secretary for War in not making a statement of the course which Lord Derby's Government had deemed it advisable to take in proceeding with the 25-inch scale. A Resolution had originally been moved by the House that the survey should be conducted on the 6-inch scale; but a Commission had subsequently been appointed whose members had come to the conclusion that a 25-inch scale was that which ought to be adopted. That being so, the Government of Lord Derby had come to the decision that the survey of a few of the northern counties should be carried out on that scale, but that nothing more should be done without the House having had the opportunity of coming to a decision. Afterwards the question having arisen as to whether a scale reduced from 25 to 6 inches would be sufficiently accurate he had appointed a Commission composed of eminent scientific men to investigate the point, whose opinion was that the proposed method would be found to be most correct, the variation, he believed, not exceeding the 400th part of an inch. It was under those circumstances that the alteration was made, and he must again apologize to the House for not having brought the subject under its notice before.

said, portions of this country had been surveyed on the 1-inch and portions on the 25-inch, while Ireland had been surveyed on the 6-inch scale, and that, if the House were to embark on a plan of re-survey on a 25-inch scale, they must be prepared for an expenditure of over £2,000,000 sterling.

thought a 25-inch survey would be a useless expenditure. The 6-inch survey had been found perfectly satisfactory for all practical purposes, and it might, if required, be enlarged by photographic operations without much expense.

thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it gave them no assurance that when the military surveyors had completed their work in the four counties he had mentioned, the civil engineers who would succeed them would not go over the same ground for the 6-inch or 1-inch survey, which he thought would be a useless expense.

said, he would state the proportion which the un-surveyed bore to the surveyed parts of those counties when the Estimate relating to the point was before the House.

said, that inasmuch as the expense of the survey would be partly reimbursed by the sale of the maps, he wished to point out that in remote and thinly peopled districts the sale of the new maps would be likely to be extremely limited, while, if the survey were confined to districts important because of the amount of their population, the extent of their commerce, or other causes, the contrary might be expected to be the case.

said, that having been a Member of the Commission to which reference had been made, he was desirous of reminding the House that the recommendation of that Commission was that no further expense should be incurred in respect of either the 25-inch or the 6-inch survey until the 1-inch survey had been completed and had received the approval of Parliament.

said, that after the assurance which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) that no fresh ground should be broken until the 1-inch survey had been completed he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Amendment.

asked, Whether the expense of the military surveys was to be considered additional to the Vote for fortifications.

replied in the negative.

said, that in proposing a Vote for what was known as the Galway Subsidy, as the subject was one of considerable interest, and as notice had been given of an intention to oppose the Vote, he might be allowed to state shortly the precise position of the Government with respect to it. On the 21st of April last year the late Government entered into a contract with a company called the Atlantic Royal Mail Company for the conveyance of mails across the Atlantic. That contract was duly signed and executed between the representatives of the Company on the one hand, and the representatives of the Government on the other. It was in the usual form, with one exception—it contained the words "out of moneys to be voted by Parliament." In all other respects it was a perfectly valid and binding legal document, as much so as any contract ever entered into by any Government. It excited a good deal of public interest at the time, and immediately on the assembling of the new Parliament after the dissolution it became the subject of considerable discussion in that House; but no Resolution was brought forward either affirming or negativing the particular contract in question. On the motion of the Government, however, a Select Committee was appointed for the purpose of investigating the whole subject of contracts, and reporting to the House recommendations as to the manner in which such contracts should be carried into effect in future. That Committee entered into a very lengthened investigation, and in the case of one contract—the Dovor contract—it made a specific recommendation to the House that the money should not be voted. In the case of the Galway contract the Committee made two reports, but in neither did it offer any specific recommendation with respect to the withholding of the Vote. The Company, the contract being executed, and no proceedings being taken in the last Session of Parliament to stay its progress, in the usual course entered into contract for the building of four large steamers, at a cost of about £480,000. Those contracts proceeded. One of the vessels was completed and was now performing the service between Galway and America; another had been launched, and would be ready to start in the beginning of next month; the third would also be ready in the course of next month; and the fourth was in a state of great forwardness. Just before the contract commenced an arrangement was proposed for transferring it to the Canadian Government; but that arrangement was not sanctioned by the Government. They felt strongly the importance, if possible, of attending to the interests of Canada, which had been overlooked in the original contract; but on going into the details of the proposed transfer it was found to involve so much new matter-—the substitution of screw steamers for paddles, the alteration of some of the ports of arrival and departure, and the alteration of the times of sailing, penalties, and so on,—as to make it substantially a new contract. The Government felt so pledged to the House and the country not to enter into any new contract of this description without putting it up to public competition, that they could not with propriety sanction a transfer which might otherwise have been desirable. That proposal, therefore, fell to the ground, and the House must deal with the case as if that episode had never occurred. Under these circumstances the position of the Government was very simple. They had a contract which, beyond all question, was legally binding upon them. A Select Committee, which, after a lengthened investigation, had made a specific recommendation in the case of another contract, had concluded its labours without any recommendation to the House affecting the validity of the Galway contract. The Company had entered into engagements involving nearly half-a-million of money, and was in a position substantially to fulfil its part of the contract. The contract was not literally carried out as regarded the vessels, but the vessels were so nearly ready that the Government felt they could not propose to carnal the contract merely because a Company which had entered into an engagement for seven years was a few weeks behind, especially since it was ready to provide other vessels of sufficient size and power for performing the service in the meantime. If the contract was to be broken, it must be upon some broader ground. With a binding contract before them, with no Report adverse to it from the Select Committee, and with a substantial compliance with its terms on the part of the Company, the Government obviously had no course open to them, except to fulfil the legal obligations of the contract. They therefore proposed this Vote to the House, and intended to give it by their votes an honest and bonâ fide support. As far as the Government were concerned he might stop here; but as he served on the Select Committee, and concurred cordially with the majority of its members in refraining from recommending the cancelling of the contract, he might be permitted to say a few words to justify the conclusion at which the majority of the Committee arrived. It would he admitted by every Gentleman in the House that when a contract had been entered into which was legal and valid, and in connection with which an outlay of nearly half a million of money had taken place, a Committee could not recommend the House to cancel such contract without some specific grounds for its proceeding. On what grounds, then, had it been suggested that such a recommendation might justly have been made? The first ground offered for breaking the contract was that of the general policy, or rather impolicy, of the engagement. In the present case the conclusion of the Committee undoubtedly was that the Galway contract was an impolitic and improvident arrangement. He did not say so in any party spirit, or for the purpose of imputing undue blame to the Government by whom the contract was made, because the evidence given before the Select Committee showed that neither party in that House had much to boast of with respect to mail contracts. It showed also how matters had got into an unsatisfactory condition. During the long and able administration of Mr. Wilson as Financial Secretary to the Treasury this description of business had fallen so completely into his hands that, on his removal owing to the frequent changes which subsequently took place, the record of such transactions in the Department had not been kept as it ought to have been. "When he called the contract impolitic and improvident he should also say that it was a good contract in its general purport and object; for he thought, if there were to be any subsidies for the conveyance of mails across the Atlantic at all, that Ireland, which contributed one-third of the whole postage, and which, from its geographical position, afforded the nearest, and therefore the speediest, point of departure, might justly demand to have its claims considered. Admitting that as the nearest point to America Ireland was entitled to a packet service, the mode in which that service had been created might still be unsatisfactory. Persons might say that the contract had been made in violation of distinct pledges which had been given to Canada, that her interests should not be overlooked; that it had been made in violation of pledges given to an independent body of steamboat proprietors at Liverpool that nothing should be done without giving them full liberty of making tenders; and also in violation of the interests of British taxpayers, who were entitled to have services of such a nature put up to public competition. But admitting, to the fullest extent, all those objections, he was bound to express the strong feeling which he entertained that arrangements of this sort could not be set aside on mere grounds of general policy or impolicy. If a man for a long series of years trusted the conduct of a particular class of business to an agent, who ultimately made a mistake, it was not for the principal to turn round and repudiate what had been done at the expense of innocent parties. The practice of the House, whether rightly or wrongly, for a long period had been to leave the executive Government the arrangement of contracts of this description; and although many of these, no doubt, might have been impugned on grounds of general policy, there was no instance, he believed, in which the House had ever refused to vote the estimate for a contract entered into by the executive Government, on the ground merely that they had made a bad, or an impolitic arrangement. A conclusive reason why the House of Commons, even if upon the evidence they thought themselves justified in cancelling this contract, could not now do so with any justice or propriety, was that last year would have been the time for doing so, and not the present. The general circumstances were equally well known then, and at that time the Company had not entered on the execution of their engagements by which they had incurred heavy pecuniary liabilities. It might have been possible to negative the contract then without injuring the parties concerned; but to do so now would be to entail upon them ruinous loss. There would, however, be no justice in cancelling the Galway contract on the ground of general impolicy, unless the House was prepared to take the same course with regard to the Cunard contract, which stood on precisely the same ground and was open to precisely the same objection. It seemed to him entirely beside the question to discuss whether the contract was more or less impolitic, unless some specific ground could be shown for setting it aside. A question had been raised whether that specific ground might not be found in the words—"out of moneys to be voted by Parliament;" and, undoubtedly, if the construction put upon them last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had been the correct one—if those words could have been held to mean a complete suspension of the whole proceedings until the judgment of Parliament had been obtained upon them—if they were, in fact, equivalent to the recommendation since made by the and Select Committee on Packet Contracts, adopted by the House, that there should be an express proviso that every contract should be subject to the judgment of Parliament—that, indeed, would have been a perfectly valid ground on which the House might have proceeded to exercise an unbiassed judgment on the policy of the Government. If that construction could have been maintained, it would have saved the Select Committee a vast deal of trouble; and, instead of sitting for three months, it might have arrived at a conclusion and terminated its labours in three days. But when the meaning of those words and the object with which they had been introduced came to be accurately sifted before the Committee, it was found that they really had no such purport at all. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), who was then "Financial Secretary of the Treasury, stated that he had introduced them to save the Members of the Government personally from actions, which might otherwise be brought against them in the event of Parliament, for any reason, declining to sanction the contract. The internal evidence of the contract showed clearly that such was the case; because, according to the terms of the contract, it was to take effect from. June in the present year; while the estimate for the contract could hardly have been voted before June or July: and, therefore, if the construction sought to be attached to it were valid, this absurd conclusion would have been arrived at—that the Company would have been obliged to incur an expenditure of £500,000 to build vessels, and to pay forfeiture, if they were not ready to perform their engagements by June, 1860; whereas, till July or August, as it proved, it would have been entirely uncertain whether or not Parliament would proceed to ratify the contract. To show that these words could not be carried further than to negative the possibility of an action against the members of the Government individually, he might appeal first to the judgment of the Committee, by whom the evidence had been investigated with great pains and minuteness, and, in the next place, to the plain and obvious construction of the document itself. The House might, of course, negative the contract if they thought fit; but they must do so for sufficient reason and not upon moral grounds merely. In the Dovor contract these same words, "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament," were inserted; and it was held by the Dovor Committee that those words did not of themselves justify the House in repudiating the agreement; unless it could be shown that there was a specific intention of corrupt or collusive action on the part of the contractor. The decision which the House came to in that case, rested distinctly on the ground that, if they believed the evidence given before the Committee, there had been a specific charge of attempted corruption against the contractor. Another ground put forward as a possible justification for refusing to sanction the contract was, that the Company, from its first formation, had been in pecuniary difficulties; and that the certificate given to the late Government on which the contract was founded, had been probably an insufficient document. There, again, he thought the objection entirely beside the present question; for the Government had acted as the agent of Parliament; and if it had made a mistake in not fully investigating the solvency of the Company, previous to granting the contract, that mistake could not now be visited on innocent parties who had invested money in the undertaking. It was possible that if the circumstances of the Company had been investigated more rigidly in the first instance, grounds might have been found for not proceeding further with it; but as that had not been done, as the contract was executed, and as the Company, whatever its difficulties or embarrassments, had struggled through them, and managed to get their vessels built and in readiness to start, he did not see that Parliament had a right to go back to the previous condition of the Company, and to make their previous embarrassments a ground for refusing to fulfil the contract. The sole remaining ground was the only one which, in his opinion, could be fairly urged to excuse such a violent and extreme step; he referred now to the matter contained in the second Report from the Select Committee. It there appeared that an agreement had been entered into by the hon. Member for Gal way (Mr. Lever), one of the promoters of the Company, with certain parties, according to which Mr. Lever was to pay a considerable sum of money to a gentleman named O'Malley Irwin, in consideration of his influence and good offices in assisting to obtain the contract. Subsequently a dispute arose respecting the payment, and an action was brought against Mr. Lever, who pleaded that he had been induced to enter into this agreement, by representations of the great influence possessed by Mr. O'Malley Irwin and Mr. Holmes, with whom he was associated. He had no wish to bear at all hardly on the hon. Member for Galway; and he thought it right to recall the fact that Mr. Lever was not at that time a Member of that House. That Gentleman stated before the Committee that he was somewhat inexperienced in these transactions. He certainly had no difficulty in admitting the plea; for that any man, and still more a Manchester man, should have believed that the influence of Mr. O'Malley Irwin was worth £5,000 in hard cash, argued an amount of Arcadian simplicity for which he had been by no means prepared. The House, however, could not hesitate to come to the conclusion that agreements of such a nature deserved serious reprobation; and, however ridiculous contracts of that sort might appear, it was incumbent on the House to set its face resolutely against practices, which, if carried out on a large scale, would be productive of dangerous consequences. For these reasons he adopted heartily the recommendation which the Committee had unanimously made, that if the contract had been entered into with Mr. Lever personally it would have been proper to apply the same rule in his case as in that of Mr. Churchward upon the Dovor contract, and to refuse to sanction the Vote of money for its execution; but that the party contracted with being an independent Company, and the rights and interests of innocent individuals being involved, the question assumed a totally different aspect. The agreement was dated June 2, 1858, but the contract was not entered into until the 21st of April, 1859, almost a year subsequently. That was important, because if Mr. Lever had got the contract under that agreement, and had subsequently made it over to the Company, then it might have been held that they took it with all its consequences. If it was bad in Mr. Lever's hand, it could not have been good in theirs; but the fact was that the contract was made not the least in the world with Mr. Lever individually, but with the Company, comprising a number of independent directors and shareholders, represented by a chairman —the hon. Member for Sheffield ho knew the Spartan virtue of that hon. and learned Gentleman would say that he was the last man in the world to have anything to do with a transaction of that sort. Whether the contract was rightly or wrongly given it was apparent that it was given not with a view of conciliating Mr. Irwin, but to conciliate very important interests in Ireland. This part of the case was thoroughly sifted before the Committee, and nothing could be more ridiculous than the attempt to show that the parties to the agreement had ever given value for the money stipulated to be paid. The confidential interview with Lord Derby turned out to be a waylaying of his Lordship at the bottom of the Duke of York's steps on his way to the Treasury, and hanging on to him with considerable pertinacity until he found refuge in the friendly portals of his office. All the rest of the case broke down in a similar manner. Whatever, therefore, might have been the intention of the parties no one could say that the contract was obtained by the corrupt influence of Mr. Irwin or anybody else. It might have been made hastily and improvidently, and without due consideration to English or Canadian interests; but there was no pretence for saying that it was made corruptly. The ease then came to this—was it fair to hold the independent shareholders of this Company responsible for the acts done by one of the directors more than ten months before the contract was obtained, and before the Company was formed? There was nothing in the contract itself to give the shareholders any warning that it was tainted with corruption. It was not as though any extravagant sum was to be given for the services performed. The bargain itself might be a bad one for the public; but, assuming that any subsidy was to be given, looking to the manner in which the service was to be performed, and the rate of mileage which was paid to the Cunard line, it was impossible to say that the sum which the Company was to receive was extravagantly high, or, in fact, more than it was necessary should be paid. It was argued that the rate of payment was altogether extravagant because the Canadian Government were ready to give a bonus of £30,000 a year to have the contract handed over to them; but the reason why they were in a position to do that was, that they were already paying a subsidy of £85,000 for a line of their own, and it was clear that by consolidating the two contracts and performing the two services with one line they would make a very good bargain. There was nothing, therefore, in the circumstances of the contract or the amount of the subsidy to lead the Company to suspect that the contract was a corrupt one. They saw a contract entered into in the usual way—they saw that no action was taken against it in the last Session of Parliament, a strong appeal was made to the national feelings of Irishmen to take shares in the undertaking, and a very large number of gentlemen, about 1,750, did come forward and subscribe money towards the undertaking, believing it to be for the interest of their country. It would be very hard, therefore, to sacrifice their interests, because a man over whom they had no control had made an imprudent and an improper agreement many months before. It might be argued that it would be possible to cancel the contract and give compensation to the shareholders; but such a course would be utterly out of the question, looking to the magnitude of the compensation which would be required. It would be impossible to draw a distinction between different classes of shareholders, and the compensation required would be to meet a capital of £450,000 to £500,000, which would be depreciated by at least one-half. The loss to be incurred by any attempt to compensate the shareholders would be far larger than any loss under the contract. The question, then, came to this—whether the House of Commons would submit to the loss which would be incurred by the difference between the amount of the subsidy and the postage which would be received—a loss in round numbers of some £48,000 a year—or whether they would incur the odium of repudiating a binding engagement. He hoped the question would be considered fairly on its merits by English Members without any reference to its being to some extent an Irish question. The time was come when no distinction ought to be drawn between England and Ireland in such matters. Ireland was entitled to be treated on the same footing as England. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen would not be prejudiced in judging the question by any attempt to represent this as an Irish job. He put it on this footing—that a bargain is a bargain. He could imagine nothing worse for the character of the country than that under any possible pre- tence the House of Commons should sanction a breach of faith, and thus set a precedent for future transactions of a similar character, which might end in the adoption of the American practice, which we had so often stigmatized, of repudiating inconvenient obligations.

felt as strongly as the hon. Secretary to the Treasury the importance of the House not earning for itself that character which attached to some of the Legislatures on the other side of the Atlantic; but the House owed it to its own dignity not to sanction transactions which would not bear investigation. He hoped that the hon. Gentlemen from the sister country would believe that in moving a direct negative to the Vote he was actuated by no feeling of hostility towards that portion of the kingdom. He trusted that his past votes and conduct in that House showed that he never was one of those disposed to treat Irishmen differently from the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. The present proposal was to vote £60,000 as a first instalment towards what was commonly called the Galway contract. The contract was for an annual payment of £78,000 for seven years; so that they were now asked for the first time to give their sanction to an arrangement which would involve an expenditure of public money to the amount of £546,000. If this Vote were passed no further opposition could be taken; and they must therefore be careful how they took the first step in the matter. If it were true that the House was bound by the contract, there would be no occasion to argue the matter, though they might grumble about being saddled with the payment of this large sum of money; but he was at issue with the Secretary to the Treasury on this point. This Galway contract was the first in which were inserted the words that the money was to be paid to the contractors "out of moneys to be provided by Parliament;" and there was the authority of the hon. Member who inserted those words, the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), to the effect that they were introduced with the distinct object of giving to Parliament an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on the subject. Nay, more; the hon. Member told the Committee last year that the contractors in the Galway case objected to these words being introduced, but nevertheless took the contract subject to that condition. The Secretary to the Treasury stated that it was too late to dispute the matter now— that it ought to have been disputed last year. He (Mr. Bouverie) did dispute it last year; and then the proposal was made that the facts should first be ascertained by the appointment of a Committee, and that when the Committee reported that would be the time to discuss the matter. How, then, could the Secretary of the Treasury have the face to say that it was too late—that the matter should have been disputed last year? The right hon. Member for Bucks told the House, on that very occasion, "that it might be satisfactory to him (Mr. Bouverie) to learn that it would be in the power of the House, when a Vote of money was proposed, to reject it entirely." He hoped, therefore, they would hear nothing more of that argument. Let them deal with the question on its merits, and decide whether it was right to saddle the country with this expenditure for the next seven years. He wished to submit that this expenditure was, in the opinion of the best authorities, needless. It could not be considered by itself, for the taxpayers of this country were already saddled with the payment of £191,000 per annum for the very same service. Sir Samuel Cunard, who for twenty years had carried on the service with a skill and regularity which could not be too highly praised, had a contract which would expire in 1862; but in 1857 he applied to the Government, of which the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was then the head, for a renewal of his contract, and, after careful consideration, the Treasury in March, 1858, passed a Minute, which though lauding Sir Samuel Cunard's services, expressed on the part of the authorities their determination that the time had not come when they could fairly consider the question of the renewal of the contract. A change of Government took place, and in the same month Sir Samuel Cunard renewed his application, and that application was favourably entertained by the then Government—that of the party opposite; and in May, 1858, Sir Samuel Cunard obtained the renewal of his contract for five years from the expiration of the existing one. So that the country was already engaged, apart from the contract now under consideration, to pay for postal service to New York and Boston no less a sum than £191,000 per annum for seven years to come. Thus it was proposed that the two sums of £191,000 and £78,000 a year should be paid for a service which the Post Office authorities stated only produced £112,000 a year, and something like £150,000 a year would be paid by the public in pure loss for this postal service. Therefore, on general grounds the present Vote was objectionable, as being a needless expenditure not required for the postal service. Nothing could more clearly show how scandalous the whole thing was than the statement of Sir Rowland Hill, the Secretary of the Post Office, who said that he considered that both these contracts were unnecessary in a postal point of view for the public service; and even the Committee said that they could not but record their conviction that it was quite practicable to dispense with subsidies in such cases, and that no such subsidy as that with North America was required in order to secure a regular and efficient postal service. But that was not the ground on which he objected to the Vote. He objected altogether to the way in which the contract was entered into. It appeared from the statement of Mr. Stephenson, who was the head of the department connected with these matters, that it was the universa practice for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to deal with these questions; so much so that this great question respecting the Cunard contract was stated by Mr. Hamilton to have been decided by himself alone, as Secretary to the Treasury, in spite of the previous contrary decision. With respect to the Galway contract, did it go through the regular course? Did the Secretary to the Treasury consider it? Nothing of the sort. Sir Stafford Northcote had nothing to do with it, and Mr. Hamilton likewise declined any responsibility connected with it; but it appeared that Lord Derby had sent to Mr. Stephenson to communicate with him on the subject, and had requested a memorandum from that gentleman on the matter. That memorandum was prepared, the tone of it rather implying that the thing ought not to be done; and then, contrary to all official practice, in breach of the invariable custom followed at the Treasury, Lord Derby wrote a Minute, directing that the contract with the Galway Company should be entered into. This was also in opposition to the deliberate advice of the Postmaster General, Lord Colchester, to whom the application for the contract had in the regular course been referred, and who, in a carefully reasoned paper, showed conclusively the inexpediency of entering into it upon general and special grounds. Lord Derby's Minute was, moreover, in direct contravention of engagements made be- tween the English and the Canadian Governments. Only two months before the Treasury gave a distinct pledge that this postal service between Galway and America, if carried out at all, should be put up to public competition. Canada complained, and he (Mr. Bouverie) thought with justice, of these subsidies. The Canadians had spent altogether, the shareholders and the province, some £20,000,000 of money, with a view of making a great line of communication by railway and ship canals between Western America and Europe. The line terminated at Portland, in Maine, in the United States, and the object of the Canadians was to attract the vast trade between Western America and Europe to that line; but they complained that the English Government were positively giving a bounty to lines of communication to the United States. In' 1856 they urged these facts, the Governor of Canada bringing them under the notice of the home authorities, and the Treasury and the Colonial Office then practically pledged themselves by a Treasury Minute and by a letter of Mr. Labouchere's to the Canadian Government, that the Cunard contract should not be renewed without giving the Canadians an opportunity of representing their case. Not only, however, was the Cunard contract I renewed without any such opportunity being given, but a fresh Company was subsidized and a fresh line of communication opened other than that wished by the colony. Lord Derby stated before the Committee that he knew nothing what ever of these things; but then what business had he to deal with the question? There was evidence that the papers were before him. Mr. Stephenson said, so; Mr. Hamilton said he received the papers back from Lord Derby; and, though it was true the Treasury Minute and Mr. Labouchere's letter were not among them, it was equally true that the same day that the application was made for the Galway line, there was presented the long letter addressed to the Treasury on the subject of the Galway contract from the Montreal Shipping Company, whose line was subsidized by the colony, entreating to be allowed compete. That letter ought to have been among those papers if the Treasury had done their duty, and ought to have called Lord Derby's attention to the subject. Lord Derby further disregarded the pledge given by the Treasury itself. There was a large ocean line of steamers which for many years had carried on an independent service between New York and Liverpool The manager of this line, seeing in the papers that communications were passing between the Treasury and the Galway Company, wrote to ask for permission to tender. This was not a very unreasonable request, and on the 9th of November, 1858, Sir Charles Trevelyan replied that it was the practice of the Treasury to invite tenders in such cases, thereby giving an opportunity of competing for the service to individuals who complied with the prescribed conditions. On the 18th of January following, the Galway Company sent in their application. On the 22nd of February, without the slightest reference to the promise given in Sir Charles Trevelyan's letter, Lord Derby's Minute authorized the contract between the Galway Company and the Government. Now, he was not going to impute to Lord Derby a wilful disregard of this pledge. No Gentleman could have so failed in his duty if he had been aware of such an undertaking; but he did complain that Lord Derby, taking the matter out of its ordinary course, and dealing with it in a manner never before known, should have been so regardless of his duty as to have neglected the fullest consideration of every document which could have been placed before him. What was the next stage in this transaction? He had stated that Mr. Hamilton and Sir Stafford Northcote repudiated having anything to do with it, and it was due to them to say that they seemed rather ashamed of the whole business. The Treasury Minute directed that the contract should be entered into provided proper security was given that the Company were able to perform their engagements. It was necessary, therefore, before the contract was formally concluded, that security should be given; and here came another strange part of the transaction. It was stated by Mr. Stephenson that the invariable practice of the Treasury had been to require from the parties contracting reasonable evidence of their ability to perform their undertaking. In this case the capital of the Company was £500,000. The Treasury wrote to say that the ordinary practice was to require proof that the nominal capital had been subscribed for, and 20 per cent paid up; but that in this particular case they would be satisfied with £200,000 being subscribed for and £100,000 paid up. The Company did not like this, and wrote to suggest another arrangement, which was that a certificate should be given that 6,149 shares had been subscribed for and £3 paid upon them, which would amount to £18,400, representing a capital of £61,000; and, to make up the £100,000, that there should be a certificate showing that the full amount of £10 per share had been paid up on 11,100 shares, the same having been paid as cash for the purchase of ships, the nominal value of these shares being £111,000. Upon that certificate the Treasury Minute issued was,

"Write to the Admiralty, and state that my Lords have satisfied themselves of the financial position of the Company; the contract may be entered into."

My Lords were uncommonly easily satisfied. Of this money £18,000 only was paid up, and £111,000 was represented by the ships of the company. What was the value of such a security, and what reliance was to be placed on a certificate which was in fact merely a letter written by one of the directors? He did not impute to the hon. Member for Galway that he knew it was worthless, but he had tested its value by calling for a return of the copy of the register of ships at the Custom House. The Return was laid on the table yesterday, and if hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble to look at it they would see these startling facts—that, with regard to two of the ships stated to belong to the Company the names of which wore given to the Committee by the hon. Member for Galway, the Company had nothing to do with them; and that with regard to the others they were, it was true, in the hands of the Company at the time the certificate was given, not indeed wholly unincumbered, while on the very day after the contract was signed they were all mortgaged to persons who were clerks to great capitalists in the city, as security for a current account. Was not that a proof that up to that time it was a bubble Company and perfectly incapable of performing the obligations which it had undertaken? It also appeared by the Returns that the new ship which was now on its passage from America to Galway, the Connaught, was mortgaged to the builders to the full value. What explanation could be given of these transactions? He was not going to blink the matter. He could not understand why Lord Derby had taken this matter out of the ordinary course, except upon one explanation which he would state to the House. What was the date of this contract being entered into between the Company and the Treasury? It was the 21st of April. What took place on the 19th of April? Parliament was dissolved, and he did not scruple to say that this was an election job, on a gigantic scale. Every hon. Member who, with an impartial mind, carefully attended to the evidence, would see that it all pointed that way. If this Company had been a bonâ fide concern, the House would have been bound to fulfil their engagement. They might condemn their agent, but they would have no right to avoid the contract. But then came the further part of the transaction to which the hon. Secretary to the Treasury had referred—namely, the disclosure of the conduct of one of the parties to the contract, the hon. Member for Galway. It was all very well to try to distinguish between the Galway Company and the hon. Member for Galway; but he could not make that distinction. Until within the last week or two the hon. Member was one of the directors of the Company, taking the most active part in its management, and negotiating on its account, and at present, according to his own statement, he held one-fourth of the shares. They were asked to implement a transaction with respect to which, in open Court, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, trying an action of "Irwin v. Lever," held this language. He asked the jury what they found. They said, "£1,000." [An hon. MEMBER: What was the action for? for work and labour on the part of Mr. Irwin for Mr. Lever in obtaining the contract from the Government. [An hon. MEMBER: How?] They would judge how from the words of the Lord Chief Baron. He said, "My direction would be the other way. In point of law, I very much doubt whether such an action can be brought at all." The jury said, "We leave that in your Lord-ship's hands." The Chief Baron: "In point of law it is an attempt at corrupt practices. This kind of bargains must lead to the greatest possible mischief in public and political life." This was the gentleman who, they were told, was the life and soul of the Company—who, they were told by the Parliamentary agent, was until very lately the presiding genius of the Company—who entered into negotiations last year with the Montreal Company for a transfer of the contract. He said that, with this Report before them, they would stultify themselves were they to confirm the contract. He lamented the position of the innocent shareholders; but it would be more to the public advantage to pay them whatever was fair, and to free themselves from this seven years' engagement. It appeared that the Irish shareholders, though a numerous body, did not hold any great number of shares, and therefore the compensation to them would not involve a very large amount. But it should be borne in mind that the whole capital of the Company was only £500,000, not nearly all paid up, and that the payment under the contract would amount to £546,000, so that if they paid up every share in full they still would pay less than they would have to pay under this engagement. He had endeavoured to compress the facts into as narrow a compass as possible. This transaction, in his judgment, appeared to be shapen in iniquity, and conceived in fraud and corruption. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not, by giving its sanction to the contract, make itself a party to so culpable and disgraceful a transaction.

said, the right hon. Gentleman made the same charge last year in another instance, and signally failed; but to-night his failure was more conspicuous, because, having made the allegation with which he closed his speech, he had forgotten, in his zeal, to offer any proof by which it could be supported. The clear statement of the Secretary of the Treasury dispensed with the necessity of any lengthened address. He had looked over the list of subscribers, and he found they were as responsible and as independent gentlemen as any in the kingdom; and they had not subscribed the sum which had been stated, but four or five times that sum which had been paid up since the subsidy was granted. The first point which the right hon. Gentleman took was, that the contract was improvidently made, and he asked what business Lord Derby had to make it. His answer was, because Lord Derby was then First Lord of the Treasury. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Secretary ought to have made it—that the First Lord of the Treasury had no authority—that when the Secretary did it. It was all right, and when the First Lord did it it was all wrong. They had heard a very curious fact—that the late Secretary of the Treasury, who appeared to have managed all these matters as he thought fit, had, now that he had gone to hold high office in India, left no record of certain transactions.

explained that what he had said was that, owing to changes in the Department, some of the papers might be overlooked.

thought it was a very extraordinary statement to be followed by the right hon. Gentleman's strong allegation that the Secretary managed as he thought fit; that he was not controlled in these matters by the First Lord, and that he left no records behind him. But here was a specimen of the management of the right hon. Gentleman who was now in India when he was Secretary to the Treasury:—

"The case, likewise, of the contract with the European and Australian Company, formed in 1857, strongly illustrates the defects of the existing system. That contract involved a yearly subsidy of £185,000, of which one-half was to he paid by the Australian Colonies, who had no opportunity of being consulted in the framing of the contract; so that special circumspection was required. The offerers preferred were a new company without previous experience, and who had no ships fit for the work. One of these, the Oneida, which was reported against by the professional officer of the Admiralty, and had not the horse-power or the tonnage required by the contract, broke down on her first voyage. Time was not kept, and, although the Colonies complained, no steps had been taken to insure the fulfilment of the contract with suitable vessels. The company in one year lost their capital (£400,000); the service proved a complete failure, and great risk of an interruption of the postal communication was incurred. This contract had been entirely arranged by the Financial Secretary, whose acts in such matters, according to the usage of the Department, require no confirmation by any other authority."

He wondered how that transaction had escaped the vigilant eye of the right hon. Gentleman. What were the facts of the present contract. That from the very day it was made the service had been faithfully, diligently, and well performed, and that time had been better kept than on the Cunard line. He believed that time was expected to be fully kept by the last ship which had been constructed. [Laughter.] It was not a subject for laughter. The speed of the vessel had been tried, and he believed the result was all that could be desired. The new vessels from Holyhead had been built to travel twenty miles per hour, and if vessels could do that across the Atlantic they would make better passages than the Cunard ships. The Great Britain, the Africa, and another vessel had met with accidents, but between Galway and America there had been no instance of failure although the attempt was now made to condemn the Company and their ships. The Post Office authorities had the power to enforce the performance of the contract, and they had done so in one instance by exacting a penalty for the substitution of a screw vessel for a paddle steamer. They were quite right in exacting the rigid observance of the engagements, and the Company could not complain of their doing so. When there was a contract capable of being enforced by penalties, when the ships to perform the contract were in running order, and when since the subsidy a sum of £175,000 had been subscribed by solvent men, it was ridiculous to talk about the Company beginning without the means of performing the contract when, in fact, the contract had been performed. Then as to the contract having been granted by Lord Derby, did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that the idea of a packet communication between Gal way and America was taken up suddenly upon the eve of an election? [Mr. E. BOUVERIE: Decidedly so.] The right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a complete delusion. The subject had been actively debated in Ireland for nine or ten years. About seven or eight years ago there was a committee formed in Dublin, of which he (Mr. Whiteside) was a member, to consider the best mode of establishing a communication between Galway and America. During the existence of that committee an American Gentleman called upon him and said, "You will never get what you want, for England will never allow you to do anything that will be prejudicial to her own interests. Give me the contract to work in New York, and I will get it done; but you will never have it from England." He (Mr. Whiteside) did not like that statement, and moreover did not believe it, for he was sure that if a thing were really for the benefit of Ireland it would not be opposed in England. He would just mention what an eminent manufacturer of the North of Ireland said in answer to the question of how a packet communication with America from Galway would affect him. He said, "We have little trade with France or the Continent, and under the treaty we may have less; but we have a large trade with America, and there is no chance whatever of the regular Atlantic traders calling at any of the ports of Ireland, unless a direct communication were established between Ireland and America. Every ship from thence passes our shores; our bills, our moneys, our letters, all go past our shores, and if we had a local Parliament we should not be refused a communication with America." If the right hon. Gentleman had made his speech in an Irish Parliament there would soon be a vote of "no confidence" in him. Surely the answer of the merchant he had quoted was a sensible one. It was stated that there were 4,000,000 persons of Irish descent in the United States, one-half of them having been born in Ireland. The postal communication between the two countries was enormous, and why was that not to be considered? There was a belief in Ireland that the opposition to the contract arose, not from a desire to benefit the country, but to withhold the advantage if possible. The Committee reported that they did not question the advantage to Ireland of a direct steam traffic to America, nor the advantage to the country generally, as long as there was no telegraphic communication, of a speedy transmission of messages. The Committee reported also that the price was moderate, and the same thing was said by Mr. Stephenson, to whom the right hon. Gentleman had referred. It was common sense to say that it was of great advantage to Ire. land to have speedy communication with a country with which she had greater intercourse than with all the rest of the world. Then they were told of corruption. If there were corruption the Committee ought to vote against the contract; but where was the corruption? It was always easy to catch at small points, and so it was said the contract was signed on the 19th of April and the dissolution occurred shortly afterwards. But the exertions to get this contract had been going on for months and years, and the arrangement was actually concluded on the 22nd of February. The right hon. Gentleman said the dissolution occurred shortly after the signature of the contract, and thereupon charitably concluded that the two circumstances were connected. Lord Derby made the contract and did not disguise it; but it was sent to Mr. Stephenson, who made a report, he being the officer to whom such matters were usually referred. He said, "The question, after all, is an Irish one." The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps understand the importance of the matter better if he were to bear in mind that the railway from the West to the North of Ireland would be speedily completed, and the distance from Belfast to Galway would be accomplished in three hours. Thus all the linen trade of Belfast might pass to America by the "West. Scotland, too, would be a gainer by having a speedy communication with the western world. The ships which had performed this contract had carried four times the number of passengers that had been carried by the Cunard ships—in some of them 600 at a time—and that more cheaply and more conveniently. To be sure that was not a matter of political economy, and mere human life and comfort did not interest some gentlemen. The undertaking was viewed with such interest that the gentry of Galway were only prevented by a rule of the House of Lords from levying a tax upon themselves to improve the harbour and provide accommodation for the steamers. Surely, as they were now voting large sums for fortifications, it might be thought very desirable to have the means of speedy communication along our coasts. Where was the fraud that was imputed? There were a dozen pamphlets, written by most respectable men, of good position, all in favour of the contract. The Post Office authorities were watchful—nay, hypercritical, and had actually enforced a penalty stipulated in the contract. Then there was a talk about there having been no competition. He remembered a Gentleman complaining that a contract for stamps had been accepted without any competition being allowed, and the Treasury said then, "We are not bound always to admit competition." He had read over the case to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred—of Irwin v. Lever, and a more absurd one lie never heard of. No corruption, however, was proved on that trial, and the verdict was not worth a farthing. [Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE: £1,000.] It was not worth 6d., he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock. It was, taken altogether, a ridiculous case; but to repudiate on such grounds a contract as against shareholders, who knew no more of these transactions than of the man in the moon, would be most unjust. That was not a case either of legal, moral, or personal fraud. Mr. Lever was a man of great activity, zeal, and energy, and Ireland had a right to such a contract. Years ago the great scheme of Lord George Bentinck for making railways in Ireland was unfortunately rejected by the House. The railway to Galway was afterwards made, and the present contract was a natural sequence to the railway. If the Committee now confirmed the contract, and that it was judiciously acted upon, it would be admitted in after years that a more wise, beneficial, and valuable improvement was never made than the speedy communication now proposed between Galway and the opposite coast of the Atlantic.

said, that as a Member of the Committee upstairs he was anxious to draw the attention of the Committee to a point which had had considerable weight with him. This contract was dated the 21st of April last year, and one of the conditions was that the Company bound themselves in the sum of £20,000'by way of liquidated or ascertained damages if their ships wore not ready by the month of June, 1860. Power was reserved to Parliament to withhold payment of the amount if it should see fit to do so. But Parliament had not been called upon until this time to exercise the option of voting the money or not. He maintained that the two things were inconsistent. If Parliament were to exercise its option, it should have done so before the Company were called upon to find the money for the building of the ships. He should not go into the general question, but he entirely concurred in the argument that the people of Ireland were entitled to a direct communication between Galway and America. He should give his vote for the Motion, on the ground he had mentioned, that if Parliament were to exercise the option referred to, that option should have been exercised anterior to the time that the Company were bound under heavy penalties to raise money for the building of the ships.

regretted that the Chairman of the Select Committee was not present; but, in his absence, he felt bound to set the right hon. and learned Gentleman right in regard to the opinion of the Committee. He had led the House to believe that the Committee had expressed an opinion in favour of the contract. That was not so. The Committee had carefully reported the facts, and had as carefully abstained from expressing an opinion on the affair, either one way or the other. He wished it to be distinctly understood that he, and those who thought with him, had no objection to a direct communication between Ireland and America. On the contrary, they thought it very desirable if it could be properly effected; but they objected to this contract on the substantial ground of its demerits. If the Committee should repudiate this contract, he should expect that the Government would put it up to competition, and give either to Galway or any other Irish port the opportunity of competing for it. All he asked was that if, instead of spending £78,000 in this contract, the work could he done for £35,000 the saving should be made. The parties who wished to compete for this contract had been promised it should be put up to competition, but it had not been done. When it was known that the capabilities of Galway harbour were being considered, Limerick put in a claim, and was promised that its advantages should also be considered. That promise likewise was not kept. In the same way, Canada was not allowed to be heard. Then again, Lord Derby promised that there should be a searching inquiry as to the solvency of the Company; but so far was that from being done, that even ordinary precautions were omitted. A distinct declaration was also made that the subject should be fully discussed in the House, and yet they were now told they had no discretion in the matter. The law proceedings which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) had described as so ridiculous and so unworthy of credit, made so deep an impression on the Committee that they unanimously decided that if the matter rested with Mr. Lever alone, they would recommend the House to throw up the contract. The declaration which Mr. Lever himself put in, charging Mr. Irwin with having fraudulently represented himself as having great political influence when he had none, satisfied the Committee that an attempt had at least been made to procure the contract by improper means. He owned that the transfer of Mr. Lever's interest in the concern to other parties, complicated matters. He thought the ease of the parties to whom the contract had been made over a very hard one, and deserving of consideration, but he warned the House that it would be highly dangerous to lay down the rule that, although a contract had been in the first instance obtained by intrigue, they were precluded from discussing it, when transferred to another party. He feared very much the House had not yet learned all the circumstances pertaining to the Galway contract.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) cannot accuse me of having defrauded him of the opportunity I promised him of discussing the question. The interpretation I place upon those expres- sions which were introduced into the contract was offered to the House last year. They appear to me perspicuous and precise, and I do not in any way shrink from attaching to them their full force. I cannot for a moment doubt anything that was said by my hon. Friend and late Colleague, the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Nbrthcote), who, unfortunately, is not now in his place. I have no doubt he made use of the expressions which he is reported to have employed before the Committee as to the motive which induced him to recommend the introduction of the terms in question. I assented to it, because I had for some time been of opinion that from the change, which had been made in paying the gross revenue into the Exchequer, which before afforded the means by which a Government could fulfil a contract without applying to the House, it had become absolutely necessary that some expressions of this kind should be introduced into these documents. But I have no wish that this question should be decided on any technical points whatever. I wish it to be considered on its merits. I had the opportunity of making myself acquainted at the time with the merits of the question, and it was from a sincere conviction that the course taken by the Government with regard to steam communication between Galway and America was a judicious and politic one, highly beneficial to both countries and especially to Ireland, that I recommended its adoption. It is said it was a hasty and improvident arrangement. If these expressions were used by the Secretary to the Treasury in an apologetic vein as to the conduct of the late Government, I, for one, cannot assent to them. The arrangement was not a hurried one. To my mind it was not an improvident one. The matter was long and well considered; and it was after a mature decision on our part that it was greatly for the advantage of Ireland in particular, and of the kingdom generally, that the contract should be entered into, that we assented to it. Neither can I admit that it was an improvident contract; because every one whom I consulted at the time, or with whom I have since conversed, has agreed that its terms were by no means of an excessive, but of a moderate character. Nor have I heard to-night, or during the prolonged accusations of last year, that any one asserts that the terms of this contract were in any degree of an unusual character. But it was said that it was made in an unusual manner. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) says that the way in which these contracts are usually managed is that they are left entirely to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury. I say that as describing the general manner in which the business of the Treasury is conducted, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is entirely inaccurate, and is refuted by the very gentleman by whose testimony he endeavoured to support it. What was the evidence of Mr. Stephenson upon this point? His answer to Question 438 is,—

"The application would be addressed, in point of form, to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Financial Secretary would be the principal organ of the Government acting upon it, under, of course, the order and direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury.

"Ultimately the decision rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury?—Undoubtedly."

That evidence does not justify the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

Question No. 1846, Mr. Stephenson was asked:—

"Then, there was nothing new in the practice of Mr. Wilson when he was Financial Secretary?"

And his answer was:—

"There was nothing new so far as the business of the Treasury was concerned. That class of business has always been exclusively in the hands of the Financial Secretary."

That evidence is of a partial and limited character, and refers only to an individual mode of conducting business; but that which I have quoted refers to the general method of transacting business, the responsibility resting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury. It is not accurate to say that business of this kind is left entirely to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury. I fully admit that for some time previous to our accession to office this business had been exclusively left to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury; and great dissatisfaction—I am not now discussing what were the results of that system—great dissatisfaction was produced by its being so left to him. And what happens under those circumstances? Why, the First Lord of the Treasury says, "When a case of this kind occurs I will look into the matter myself." And this is brought forward as a charge against Lord Derby that he absolutely would not trust the examination of this business to a subordinate officer, but would himself look into it. There are many men opposite to me who have been colleagues of Lord Derby, and know that he is, above all men, a man of detail and inferior to none in his power of working. Lord Derby sent for these papers, and. I have no doubt that he read them all, thoroughly examined, and well considered them. Unfortunately, there were papers wanting to complete the case when the documents were sent to the Earl of Derby; but I never bad any information that those papers referring to the understanding with the Canadian Government were to be found, nor am I now informed that they are to be found in the Treasury. I can only explain their absence by that expression, afterwards explained, which was made by the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the imperfect record which, unfortunately, upon this kind of business, has been left in the Treasury. No information ever came to my knowledge, nor have I heard that any has been found at the Treasury with respect to that understanding with the Canadian Government.

Mr. Hamilton produced the Minute.

But it did not come from the Treasury. We ought to have found that record in the Treasury. There was an imperfect record in the Treasury; and though one regrets that the understanding with the Canadian Government should not have been literally fulfilled, I cannot regret the consequences as regards the undertaking now before the House, because I maintain that it was impossible that this country could have made an arrangement more advantageous, considering the great objects that were involved than this Galway contract. Well, then, it is said that the Treasury had published a letter addressed to an American company, promising that in case any new operations of this kind were determined upon they should be open to competition. Nothing of the kind occurred. An application was made at the Treasury, and a formal letter was written in answer, stating that the practice of the Treasury was that when these contracts were entered into they were open to competition, but it said no more. It did not engage that these contracts should be open to competition. Every Government has reserved and ought to reserve to itself the right of entering into any contract which they think for the public benefit without throwing them open to public competition. There may be special reasons which render it of the utmost importance that contracts should be so entered into, and very frequently the Government have acted upon that principle. They act upon their responsibility, and if you can afterwards show that the terms of the contract are extravagant, and beyond what would have had to be paid if it had been granted by competition you have some ground of complaint; but in this case that ground does not exist, because all are agreed that the terms of this contract are reasonable and moderate. So much for the reflections which have been cast upon the manner in which this contract was negotiated. But there is one other point which I ought to notice under this head. It is the corrupt motive by which we are said to have been influenced in signing this contract. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, who has a great desire to use strong language, but has not improved upon his declamation of last year, has, in what is erroneously called strong language—because it is a mistake to suppose that because expressions are violent they therefore possess strength—but what I should call very weak language—asserted that this contract was signed on the 20th of April, and that the dissolution of Parliament immediately took place; and upon that assertion he founds a charge of corruption. But the Treasury Minute authorizing the contract, which every one knows is virtually the contract, was signed on the 22nd of February, and every one also knows that at that period nobody dreamed of a dissolution of Parliament. Under such circumstances the right hon. Gentleman is not justified in making such a charge. It was not a hasty charge. It was one which was made last year. He has been brooding over it since then, and now repeats it. "What will he do next year? Will he, when the next Vote is asked for, repeat the charge? Will he, in the teeth of the fact that the Treasury Minute was signed on the 22nd of February, assert that the only motive for that signature was the dissolution of Parliament, which did not take place till months afterwards? I have now touched upon all the points, so far as I can recall them, which are imputed against the Government in regard to this transaction. But what really was the conduct of the Government? In looking at small points of detail we are forgetting the great object which was at stake. I have here a memorial from merchants and bankers of almost every city in the empire which was presented to me in Downing Street, and of which I will read only three lines—

"And your memorialists submit that the port of Galway, from natural and other advantages which it possesses, offers unrivalled opportunities for extending such means of communication."

Who signs that memorial? I find that the first name is that of Messrs. N. Rothschild and Sons, a firm represented, I believe, in this House, by two Gentlemen who, probably, will not vote against this contract. I am surprised that I do not see,—but it may be here—the name of the house with which, at least, the ancestor of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) was connected; but there is hardly a great merchant or a great banker in the City of London whose name is not to be found appended to this memorial. There are also signatures from Birmingham, Bolton, Dukenfield, Hull, Hyde, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield of course, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Shields, Stockport, Staleybridge, and Wolverhampton; and then, coming to Ireland, from Armagh, Athlone, and, in fact, from every town in that country—there must be thousands of signatures, representing the whole commercial and banking capital of the United Kingdom; and then we are told that this is some job to gain a vote at an election—some invention of adventurers, who have taken in a ministry who themselves acted from a corrupt motive. If there ever was any plan more sanctioned than another by that enlightened public opinion, which, on such a subject, should influence a Minister, this surely was that plan. Sir, I can say most sincerely that in entering into this contract we were actuated, after mature deliberation, by the conviction that we were taking a step which would be eminently advantageous to Ireland. I was perfectly aware at the time, and also shortly afterwards—and we have very obvious evidence of the fact—that there were bodies in this country who would be dissatisfied with the course we adopted. There is, no doubt, very great jealousy in some communities and among some bodies in this country against what I may call Irish enterprise. There is very great jealousy in more than one great town in England if you at all sanction anything like commercial enterprise in Ireland. I think such a feeling most unreasonable; for if you come to consider the matter you will find that Great Britain has the lion's share of contracts of this nature. Surely Southampton, with its £600,000 a year in subsidies; surely Liverpool, with its hundred thousands a year in subsidies—need not grudge distant Galway—so happily situated for the object, as is universally admitted by the great body of merchants of the United Kingdom—this assistance from the State, which is calculated to develope the wealth and commercial spirit of a country where it is of the utmost importance to encourage those qualities. I should say this opposition has arisen too much from local jealousy. And I think the Ministry have taken a wise course, although I cannot entirely agree with all the little criticisms offered upon our con-duet, in supporting this contract, and in not sanctioning imputations originally brought forward, perhaps, to damage a Government at the risk of seriously prejudicing a great national interest.

I promise not to occupy the time of the Committee more than five minutes; but, after the way in which my name has been mentioned, it will not be thought wonderful that I should now rise. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) has accused somebody—it is not certain whom—of corruption. It has been stated before that the contract which we are now discussing was mainly negotiated by myself; so that, if there be corruption, I must have something to do with it. Then the person on the other side, representing the Government, is Lord Derby. Thus the two persons entering into this corrupt bargain are, first of all, Lord Derby and myself. Now, Sir, what motive had I? I recollect stating some time last year that my motive was a general motive—that I thought a great object was to be attained, and a great benefit conferred upon Ireland. And I remember the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) looked on me with perfect astonishment, which he expressed pretty much in words—to think that anybody could act upon such a motive. He gave the House to understand that he fancied I must have some personal object. [Sir FRANCIS BARING: No.] "Well, if there be no personal object in myself, who negotiated this contract—if there be no personal object in Lord Derby, who, as it is stated, also negotiated it—where is the corruption? "Oh," but it is said, "Mr. Lever has had a corrupt motive." Now, Sir, there is nothing in a case of this sort like getting hold of some one who can be made a scapegoat. Mr. Lever is that scapegoat, and he is to carry all the sins of the people into the wilderness. How does he show his corrupt motive? Why, having expended a large sum of money in ships, he sells those ships to the Company. Does ho get money for them? Not a bit of it. He gets the shares of the Company, and if the Company failed his money is lost. I want to know how a man can better evidence his perfect belief in the feasibility of the adventure into which he is entering than by advancing his own money and that of his friends entirely in the concern, and not receiving back the money from the Company, but taking its shares that can only be of value if the Company succeed? What harm has been done by this contract? I will tell you where the harm is done. There may be persons competing for this business in Liverpool—there may be competing Companies, and the advantage to be derived by Ireland from the route between Galway and America may involve the diversion of the trade which now goes by Liverpool to Galway. Therein lies the secret of this opposition. I entered into this affair not at all foreseeing what I was about to meet; but I found out pretty quickly that I had, as it were, thrust my hand into a hornet's nest. I was stung on every side. Imputations were cast upon me of the foulest description, and it was supposed when this subsidy was obtained that I had made a great fortune. Sir, it was stated—and I can hardly now repeat the imputation without laughing—that I acquired thereby £5,000 a year. This was seriously believed, and people distinctly asked me whether I had not made a great sum of money by this subsidy being given to the Galway Company. Now, I want to know, if we look at the whole proceeding as men of common sense, whether there is anything in the transaction but what is done every day in this trade, and without which the trade can never be carried on. You have gained communication with America much more rapidly than you could have it without this subsidy. That is what I assert; and I should like to have a distinct denial of it. To obtain that rapid communication you must go to great expense; the ordinary returns of the trade would not pay for it. The whole community deriving a great benefit from this improvement, you come upon them for a portion of the expense. That is the whole sum and substance of the matter. It thus becomes a commercial transaction, and there is no corruption in it. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) talks of the strong language employed on this occasion. Strong in one sense it is, for it is very abusive. That is the right word to use. And I say that anybody who can come forward and thus shower down the epithets of "corruption," "baseness," and "disgraceful" upon a transaction of this kind must himself be utterly incapable of judging of what is truly disgraceful. There is, I think, a disgrace attaching to unfounded imputations. There is also a cowardice in them. And it is very easy behind the shield of great virtue to shoot the poisoned arrow at a man with the hope of doing him an injury when he cannot do an injury in return. Now, I call that cowardly. Sir, after a life spent as mine has been, I can afford to bear imputations of this sort. "When this contract was entered into, I being one of the parties chiefly concerned in negotiating it with the Government, I say I had never heard of Mr. O'Malley Irwin—I say I never saw him—till I went into the court of justice, and that he had no more to do with this contract than I now have with the moon. He is now known to be a convicted forger. 'To think that that man should be brought into competition and should be placed here as a sort of means of wounding me, I say is disgraceful to those who have used such poisoned arrows. I am in a position to laugh them to scorn, as I now do laugh to scorn both those who have shot the arrows and the arrows themselves.

explained that he had not the slightest intention of throwing any imputation upon the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. And the inconvenience and annoyance which that hon. Member had suffered, probably arose, as he himself said, from his having put his hand into a hornet's nest.

who spoke amid much interruption, assured the House that he had no wish to deprive Galway, Londonderry, Dublin, or Limerick of any beneficial contract; because he was perfectly assured that what was good for Ireland, was good also for England generally, and for Liverpool in particular.

said, that having been a Member of the Committee, and having had no opportunity of expressing his opinion to the House upon this subject, he trusted that they would now hear him. He must first take exception to the opening speech from the Secretary to the Treasury, which he heartily trusted did not express the opinions of the Government. He must say one word in reference to the Dovor contract. He could not approve of the grounds on which that contract was cancelled, for although ample and valid reasons might have been alleged, the only one put forward in the Report of the Committee was an imputation of political corruption in the intention of the contractor—a most insufficient reason, as he thought; but in the case of the Galway packets, the contract was, in his judgment, void from its very origin, for it was obtained through gross misrepresentation. The contract was executed in virtue of a memorandum issued by the Prime Minister in the teeth of an adverse opinion from the Postmaster General, and without any communication with the Admiralty. The Earl of Derby had stated in his evidence before the Committee that the contract was granted because the interests of Ireland and of England required it, and it must be admitted that Lord Derby was fully justified in forming an opinion to that effect, if the mass of evidence referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks was to be depended upon. But that evidence—that series of memorials and deputations, was it reliable? How was it procured? In March, Mr. Lever meets casually a Mr. Irwin—a man (as he represents himself) of extensive influence, a bosom friend, of Mr. Walpole, and an intimate of Lord Palmerston's, and he enlists him as his agent. In June, he executes an agreement to give Mr. Irwin and his ally, Mr. Holmes, £10,000, on the condition of their procuring for his Galway Packet Company a subsidy of £170,000 from the Government. Was it astonishing that, stimulated by such a bait, Mr. Irwin should move heaven and earth to obtain the subsidy, and that he should by activity and perseverance procure the numerously-signed memorials which had influenced the opinion of the Prime Minister? The history of the City memorial may serve to illustrate the character of all the rest, Mr. Irwin, who was certainly not embarrassed by excessive modesty, plies so pertinaciously the secretary of a great capitalist, that to get rid of his importunity the capitalist is induced to sign the memorial prepared by Mr. Irwin. This talisman secured, the rest is easily managed; plenty of men are found to follow so eminent a leader, and at Lloyd's Coffee House the under-writers unhesitatingly attached their names. The example of London is irresistible in the provinces, and Mr. Irwin earns his commission by presenting a mass of memorials in favour of the Gal-way Packet scheme, most formidable in bulk, but utterly valueless, as a ground for opinion in such a weighty matter. The original memorandum of the Treasury conceded the contract, conditionally on the financial power of the Lever Company being satisfactorily proved; but the statement by the Company for that purpose was most illusory; it treated expected subscriptions of capital as actual subscriptions, and ranked among their means six vessels, five of which were unserviceable for the purposes of the contract, and some of which, being largely mortgaged, were not realty the property of the Company. Lord Derby has specially disavowed having wished to relax the stringency of the stipulation as to the means of the Company; hut it is only by degrees that the whole extent of the deception involved in their financial statement has transpired. He did not find in the course of the investigation to which he had been a party any evidence whatever which could warrant an imputation to the late Government of having acted from corrupt or dishonourable motives; they had been deceived, but as they had reserved an appeal to the House by specifically stipulating that the subsidy should be "payable out of monies voted by Parliament," there was yet time to remedy the evil result of their incaution. The Irish Members seemed very generally anxious to confirm the contract, but he submitted to them that they should vote upon this contract, not as an Irish but as an Imperial question; for they might be assured that if the contract took effect the bulk of the subsidy taken from the national Treasury would be wasted as effectually as if it were literally thrown into the Atlantic, while the miserable fragments which Ireland alone could gather would ill compensate for the reproach of profiting by a bargain, injurious to the State, and obtained through most discreditable means.