said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what steps have been or are being taken to abolish purchase in the Army above the rank of Major, as recommended by the Commission of 1856?

said, the House would probably recollect that it had been stated that the new regiments to be formed in consequence of the abolition of the local Indian European Army would be constituted without the system of purchase. The system of selection would be applied to the promotion of field officers in those regiments, and under these circumstances Lord Herbert considered it advisable, previously to the introduction of any general system into the Army, that the Government should have the opportunity of seeing how the system worked in the new Indian regiments.

moved for—

"Returns of the Estimated Cost of the receipt and of the payment of a single deposit, or of any certain number or class of deposits, and of the remittance thereof to or from the Central Office, under the Post Office Savings Banks Bill:

"Of the Estimated Cost of keeping the account of a single depositor, or of any certain number or class of depositors, under the Bill:

"Of any Estimate of Cost upon which the Bill is based:

"And, Copy of any Report of the Post Office authorities on the proposed Post Office Savings Banks."

said, he could form no estimate whatever of the compensation that might be received from the new Banks; but the Post Office had formed an estimate of the cost of the system on the supposition that no profit would be made. The hon. Gentleman could have that Return if he chose.

assented to the offer.

, in rising to bring forward a Resolution in favour of Sailors' Homes, said, he felt he owed an apology to the naval Members of the House for taking up this question. But he represented a large maritime constituency, and it appeared to him doubtful whether any naval Member was likely to take up the subject, while it was a question on which he had himself taken strong convictions, as not only tending to the benefit of the sailor but also to the manning of the navy. It had now been satisfactorily proved that sailors' homes had improved the physical and the moral condition of the sailors, and consequently had rendered them more fit for their duty, and it was his wish to show that in manning the navy they afforded material aid. The House might recollect that last year he moved for a Return of all the sailors' homes in the country, with a view to ascertain their constitution and how they were supported. By the Return he found that there were thirty-one homes in all, and that five or six of them received a portion of the grant of £1,600 annually made by that House; but these were all, as the terms of the grant required, in the neighbourhood of the dockyards. He thought that the founders of these sailors' homes had every reason to be proud of the success which had attended their experiment. They were under different systems of management; though all of them had the common character of asylums for seamen, but some of them were also refuges for shipwrecked mariners. Some added infirmaries to their other institutions; some had schools for navigation; most of them had shipping offices, and some had attached to them the excellent and useful feature of a savings bank. Out of the whole Returns which he held in his hand, he would select two or three, which would sufficiently explain their varying constitution, and he hoped the House would receive them non numero sed pondere. The first of the sailors' homes was established in Well Street, in this Metropolis, in 1830, and in 1835 it was opened for the reception of 300 boarders. That home owed its establishment to a very benevolent and energetic officer, Commander Elliott, who de-voted the greater part of his life to this object. He believed the idea first suggested itself to Captain Elliott and Captain Gambier, on their discovering knots of sailors one night standing at the corners of the streets in a state of the most abject wretchedness, and that, too, only a short time after having been paid off from ships in the navy, while they had either spent their money in dissipation or been robbed. Soon after the establishment of these homes the greatest improvement was observable in the boarders. They were not only cleanly and orderly in their appearance, but a new phase was developed in their character by the establishment of a savings bank—the phase of thrift. As a proof he might mention that in 1842 there had been paid into the savings bank in that home the sum of £23,261, a sum which had increased as confidence increased until it amounted last year to £69,104. That, he thought, was a strong proof of the efficacy of these savings banks. But there was another point in the sailor's character equally developed, and that was generosity. For that character, indeed, sailors had always been remarkable, but it was only since the establishment of savings banks it had taken the form of remitting money to their friends. In the year 1842 the sum of £3,029 had been remitted from the home in question, while last year the amount remitted was £30,000, and in some years it had been still higher. He might next be permitted to refer to the sailors' home at Great Yarmouth. That home was established by Mr. Harcourt, a gentleman who had formerly held a seat in that House, and which constituency was now so honourably represented by the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the party of which he was a humble Member. He had on other subjects shown his zeal and ability; he had established a code of signals by which 4,000 vessels were reported; and he was also in the habit of transmitting information to Admiral Fitzroy, at the Admiralty, as to the weather. The sailors' home he established differed from others in its character in this respect, that it was a refuge for shipwrecked mariners. Those who knew Yarmouth, and the dangerous sands which lay in front of the coast, would readily agree that there was no place in the kingdom where such a refuge was more necessary. It had been ascertained from Parliamentary Returns that one half of all the shipwrecks taking place on the coast of England, occurred on the Eastern coast. Last year 71 vessels were wrecked at Yarmouth, and the crews of those vessels, to the number of 706, were received there. As many as 41 had been received in one day, and in the course of two years, no fewer than 37,320 persons had in different ways availed themselves of the advantages it presented. He would next refer to the sailors' home at Falmouth, which had an infirmary attached to it. The home had received 700 sailors, and the infirmary had received 130 sick, and 136 shipwrecked sailors, and the Report complained that they were much in want of a permanent nurse, but had not the means to provide one. Now, it appeared that there were on the average from 10 to 20 sick persons always in the infirmary, many totally helpless, among whom one nurse could not be sufficient, and yet even one nurse could not be obtained. He would not further allude to sailors' homes, but he might mention that sailors' homes, and the sailor himself, had one terrible enemy to contend with, and that was the crimp, whose great object was to obtain in some way or other the means which the sailor possessed. No sooner was a ship paid off than the hand of the crimp was felt on the sailor's shoulders. He appeared in the most enticing form; his countenance beaming with hospitality, with a bottle of drugged spirits under one arm, and generally a female accomplice on the other, and it was no wonder that the sailor, fresh from the sea, full of health and flush of money, should fall, not only a willing but an easy victim. Although the sailor was gallant and enduring at sea he was soft and yielding on land, and the great object of homes was to save him from temptation ashore. No sooner did he yield to temptation than he was at once taken to a crimping house, and there drugged and plundered. The great object of sailors' homes was to save the sailor from the temptations to which he was exposed. Captain Hall, so well known from his connection with the Nemesis, who had established more homes than perhaps any other man, had graphically described the crimping houses, and he had done so from personal observation; and he had shown that in them were enacted scenes of debauchery and drunkenness fearful to contemplate. After describing a visit of his to the sailors' home in Well Street, he mentioned that on the evening of the same day he took a walk in the direction of Ratcliffe Highway, Shadwell. There he found groups of half-intoxicated women and drunken men. Accompanied by a policeman he entered several of the long rooms of the crimping houses, which were removed from the street. The attempt to describe the scenes he there witnessed, he said, would be as difficult as it would be painful. Sailors, blind with drink, were accompanied by women who induced them to part with everything they possessed. Could they not find some remedy for that state of things? He believed they could, and that the best remedy was the establishment of sailors' homes. It was a gratifying fact that where homes existed crimping houses were on the decline. No doubt the sailor suffered most on shore, but a great deal might be done for him before he landed. It was the opinion of experienced captains that, if the commanding officer of any vessel approaching the shore were liable to be heavily fined for allowing unauthorized persons to come on board his ship, in all probability the crimp would be prevented from exercising his noxious influence over sailors before they landed. But he was anxious to prove that homes, besides affording a comfortable and safe refuge for seamen, were of considerable importance in the manning of the navy. Since the establishment of the Naval Reserve in January, 1860, the Home in Well Street alone had supplied no fewer than 458 volunteers, and since January last 111. During the Russian war an office was opened in the Home, at which officers of the navy attended, and where many seamen were enrolled. The same thing took place in other Homes. Upon one occasion the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphin-stone), having received orders to sail on a certain day, and having already obtained his full complement of men, found to his surprise that a large proportion of his crew had fallen into the hands of the crimps. While considering how he should fill up the vacant places he received a communication from the crimps to the effect that he should have all his men back again for £5 a piece. The hon. Baronet, of course, indiguantly spurned the offer; he went to the Home, and there he found not only a sufficient number of men, but men so good that he sailed with them for a considerable time after. It appeared from a recent report that the Dover Home especially had proved highly serviceable in the manning of the navy. That fact was known and acknowledged at the Admiralty, for "their Lordships," to quote the lan- guage of a public document, "recognize the value and importance of these admirable institutions, and are sensible of the assistance rendered by many, and the Dover Home in particular, in manning the navy." All would agree that large bounties and indiscriminate recruiting could not produce an adequate supply of good seamen. There was a great difference between a sailor and a seaman, but there were times when sailors were most acceptable, and when we were only too anxious to have them and to make seamen of them. Those were the times when war stared us in the face, and at the present moment he would be a bold man who would guarantee the continuance of peace even for six months. The want of good seamen was urgent as well as great; but to acquire the services of good seamen they must gain their confidence and good will, and that could be done chiefly, if not only, by encouraging and supporting the Homes which sailors prized so much. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, on a former occasion, said the sailors were a suspicious class. They were, however, clearly not suspicious of sailors' homes; for it was a remarkable fact that there was hardly an instance in which a sailor who had once enjoyed the comforts of a Home did not return to it when on shore. The Homes, indeed, were liked so well that it was sometimes impossible to take in all the men who applied for admission. It was no uncommon thing now for men to join their ships from these homes with £10, £15, or even £20 in their pockets, whereas formerly they did so in a state of almost beggary. To show the moral improvement of which these institutions had been the instruments he might mention that at the Tyne Sailors' Homo there had been actually sold no less than 1,653 Bibles and Testaments, and 55 Prayerbooks. Perhaps he might be told that the ultimate object of his Motion was money, and he was glad to observe that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, did not wince when money was mentioned. But, although the wording of his Motion did not bear on money, there was plenty of money available; and, although there was only a small amount required, it would do an infinity of good. There was such a fund as the Merchant Seaman's Fund, with a balance remaining unclaimed of £60,662 18s. 5d. in the hands of the Paymaster General. That fund was made up to a certain degree by the voluntary contributions of masters and seamen; the amount of such voluntary contributions being £3,306 1s.6d. If a small proportion only of that amount—or say one half—were distributed among the twenty-five or twenty-six sailors' homes now in existence, some of which were in extremely destitute circumstances, and were anticipating actual dissolution—if a few drops only from this great river of wealth were scattered amongst them it would ensure not only the vigour but the actual life of these institutions. It was impossible that such institutions could be self-supporting, when they gave men their subsistence at prime cost, besides lodging, firing, in many instances clothing and washing, with the benefit of reading rooms. The North Shields Sailors' Home was said to be self-supporting, but what were the facts? The Duke of Northumberland had built and furnished the institution at his own expense, and the £3,000 intended for the building had been invested and was yielding handsome interest, of which the home got the benefit, together with a considerable amount of annual subscriptions. It could not, therefore, be fairly considered self-supporting. The noble Lord, the Prime Minister, had recently become president of a kindred institution at Southampton; and, having acknowledged the advantages of sailors' homes out of the House, it was to be hoped he would not refuse his testimony in their favour in the House, if a Vote should be required in their favour; and, therefore, he was sorry not to see the noble Lord in his place that evening. He had seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time since. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was a favourable time and moment for everything. He (Sir Henry Stracey) thought the present was a favourable opportunity for dealing with this subject. He thought he might venture to assert that sailors' homes bad conferred a national benefit on the country. No florid speech on his part was necessary on behalf of the merits of the sailor. They had conferred great national benefits on the country, which Parliament ought not to be slow to recognize. But for them what would have been the state of our colonies? Without our sailors we never could have reached our present commercial prosperity. What was our naval supremacy—what the safety and security of our Channel and our shores without them? He did not, then, ask too much of the House when he called upon them to acknowledge that sailors' homes, which had so entirely won the confidence of seamen, were worthy of the favourable consideration of Parliament.

observed, at a time when every benevolent purpose meets a ready response from the nation, it would not be necessary he should hope to recommend at any length the claims of naval homes upon the generosity and consideration of the House. The easy thoughtless habits of the common sailors were attributable to the sudden revulsion from the salutary discipline of a man-of-war and its restraints to the independence, free liberty, and licence of shore. He is in a moment transplanted from a position where every necessary, home, food, and clothing, is provided for him, to scenes of temptation where the most reckless, designing, and abandoned persons prey upon his ignorance. To save him from these dangers naval homes have been established. The Admiralty gave support to those at Portsmouth and Devonport, but all the other sailors' homes were maintained by voluntary contributions, and happily with signal success; and he might be permitted to do justice to a meritorious officer, Captain W. B. Hall, of the Royal Navy, he having devoted much valuable time as well as unceasing exertions in the good cause, and had spared neither his money nor his influence in bringing these institutions into notice and support. The seaman gladly availed himself of the comfort and security afforded him in those institutions, and deposited his money in them. At the Portsmouth sailors' homes during the last three years the number of boarders (at a small daily cost in contribution upon their part) was £1,703. The sum of money taken care of was £7,859, the amount placed in the savings banks £772, and the sum remitted to the seamen's families £248. These institutions were not only useful to the sailor in good diet, healthy and well-ventilated rooms, but other consequences too obvious to require any comment from him which conspired to promote the value of the sailor to the service and the country in connection with the manning of the navy. Sailors, he could assure the House, fully appreciated kindness and consideration; they were peculiarly open to generous influences, and never forgot any act of kindness that was done them. A remarkable instance of that occurred not long ago, when having lost a stanch friend and advocate in that House by the death of the lamented Sir Charles Napier, the sea- men of the navy immediately came forward of their own accord with the offer of one day's pay to raise a memorial in testimony of their gratitude to that gallant Admiral. He trusted that the Government would not refuse its support to other sailors' homes as well as those at Portsmouth and Devonport; and sure he was that if the country was, unhappily, ever again involved in any danger, its seamen would make it a return of more than a hundredfold for any consideration that might now be shown them.

Sir, the House will, I think, have concurred in a great measure in the speech of the hon. Baronet who has moved this Resolution. They will have agreed with him in the description which he has given of these sailors' homes to which he has alluded, and also I am certain that he will receive the general assent of the House in the praise he has given to those philanthropic individuals who by their voluntary contributions have established sailors' homes in many parts of this country. I entirely agree for myself in the remarks of the hon. Baronet; but I am afraid that, although the House may be willing to concur in the praise he has given to sailors' homes, and those who have supported them by their subscriptions, they will hesitate before they pledge themselves by this Resolution to subsidise those institutions generally throughout the country. And although the hon. Baronet has indicated not very clearly where the funds are out of which sailors' homes may be established and maintained, I am afraid, if he wishes to obtain money for that purpose through the instrumentality of this House, it must come out of the Consolidated Fund. The practical question, therefore, before us is whether we are to pledge ourselves by a Resolution to give an annual subsidy, under some sort of regulation to sailors' homes. I confess for myself—and others will agree with me—that it would be more satisfactory that institutions of this kind should be either self-supporting or supported by voluntary contribution, and placed under local and independent management, rather than that they should be maintained by Government aid and subjected to Government inspection. Therefore, I cannot concur, and I think the House will not concur, in this Resolution. There was one passage in the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Motion, if I understood him correctly, from which I must dissent. I do not think the whole sailor class are so reckless as he represented.

rose to explain. What he had said was that the reckless habits of the sailor were mainly attributable to his being suddenly thrown upon the free liberty and independence of a life on shore. He denied having described all sailors as reckless.

I believe that sailors are as capable of taking care of their own interests as any other class of labourers. More than that, I think that no class of labourers in this country have so weak a claim to general charity, for the simple reason that no class are better paid, or if they please, may be so constantly employed. I therefore think that there is no need that the State should find board and lodging, for it comes to board and lodging, for the whole class of sailors. With regard to shipwrecked mariners—I allude to those who may be thrown upon our shores, in a condition to require relief—I think the relief very properly afforded under such calamitous circumstances is supplied, and will continue to be supplied, from the voluntary subscriptions of the public, who were always ready to support such philanthropic objects. The grant of subsidies from the State will only deaden the zeal of private benevolence. It may be said we have already broken in upon the principle 1 am advocating by making grants to certain sailors' homes. But it should be observed that the grants now given to a few institutions of that kind existing in our naval ports are not given as general charity to sailors, but as contributions from the State, as a large employer of sailors and specially interested in their welfare, just in the same way as Mr. Green, of Blackwall, having a great many seamen in his service, has established a sailors' home, and thrown it open to all others besides his own men. The institutions which the Government thus assist are in immediate contiguity to their own dockyards. Since the hon. Baronet gave notice of his Motion I have caused inquiry to be made in the various ports of this country as to the means the sailor has of obtaining board and lodging in common with other independent labourers. I am informed that, although to some extent sailors are open to the seductions of profligate characters to whom the hon. Baronet alluded, and although there are disreputable houses in London, and in the other chief ports, there are many respectable lodging houses where sailors can find all the necessaries and comforts; they may require. I do not of course include those shipwrecked sailors who may be thrown ashore without any means of providing themselves with board and lodging, I must ask the House not to pledge themselves by this Resolution to a general system of subsidising of sailors' homes, but; at the same time I am anxious to express my approbation of those institutions and my gratitude to the benevolent individuals who have established them in various parts of the country.

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that no surer mode could be adopted of destroying these sailors homes than to make them dependent in any considerable degree or, indeed, in any degree whatever on Government grants. He believed that under such a system they would in a very few years be completely knocked up. But he could not agree in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that sailors were the best paid class of labourers in the country. On the contrary he was prepared to maintain that the merchant seamen were worse paid than any class of skilled labourers that could be named.

said, he had only meant to state that seamen were well-paid labourers.

said, he could not admit that they were even well paid. He believed that they were worse paid than any other skilled labourer who had to serve an apprenticeship to learn his business. Every sailor had to serve a long apprenticeship, during which he had to undergo greater hardships and incur more dangers than attended most other pursuits. If the earnings of seamen were compared with those of other skilled labourers, it would be found that the sailor was the worst off. Then, again, few seamen could go to sea before the mast after forty-five. A few old sailors might become cooks, but as a rule after forty-five seamen became unfit for the more active duties of a seafaring life. But a carpenter or a bricklayer could go on working at his trade until sixty or sixty-five, and obtain the same wages as at first. It was only the hope of becoming a mate or master of a vessel that induced lads to enter the merchant service, and without the stimulus of that hope few boys would be tempted to seek a hard life with indifferent wages. He wished to take that opportunity of stating that he believed a great deal of the good which had been ascribed to sailors' homes was to be attributed to the shipping offices. He had only to add that he hoped the House would not pledge itself to make any grant to those establishments.

said, he did not think the comparison between the mechanic and the sailor was so much to the disadvantage of the latter as the right hon. Gentleman had stated it to be. Seamen were usually constantly employed, and in the navy the wages were from £2 10s. to £2 12s. 6d. a month, with a provision in old age and in sickness. Mechanics, upon an average, earned 25s. a week, and were not constantly employed. In the merchant service a sailor got £2 15s. a month, or about 12s. 6d. a week, out of which he had to find his clothes. But the mechanic had to find house, fuel, food, and other necessaries, which were provided for the sailor without charge. The sailors' home was his ship, and his food was found for him. Though a seaman's life certainly was a hard life, it had its advantages and enjoyments, which were attractive to a great many of the rising generation, and he hoped would continue to be so. He believed that if the sailors' homes were subsidized, instead of doing any good it would do harm to the cause it was meant to advance. Those who now subscribed would think that they were released from the necessity of doing so when the matter had been taken up by Government. He hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the matter to a division, and for this reason. It would then go forth that the homes had refused a vote of approval of the sailors' homes. Now the feeling of the House was that the homes had done and continued to do a great deal of good; and it was not that there was any objection to the words of the Motion, but that it would be injudicious to pledge themselves to a subsidy. He hoped the hon. Baronet would be satisfied with the discussion, which was likely to do a great deal of good by calling attention to the excellence of these institutions, and which, therefore, would promote the objects in view, and that he would not press the Motion to a division, which would really injure the cause he had at heart.

said, he also hoped the hon. Baronet would not divide the House on his Motion, as it was the first time the subject had come before the House. He believed the value of the sailors' homes was immense, and had not been at all exaggerated. But it would rather be retarding the object now to excite expectations which, in the present state of the finances, could not be realised, and which might induce persons to withdraw the support they now gave.

said, that the comparison which had been drawn between the wages of artisans and those of sailors was not very accurate. The wages of artisans in large towns averaged 36s. a week, and first-class men even got as much as £2 10s., and those wages were spent under his immediate control, he himself living with his family; but in the case of sailors it was very different. Their wages were not nearly so large, and they had not the same opportunity of sharing their earnings with their families. In his opinion the question was entirely one for the Admiralty, and not one in which the Board of Trade were interested. The Board of Admiralty knew perfectly well that they could not get the Naval Reserve and Naval Volunteers to come forward readily, and simply for this reason—that the men had no feeling whatever in common with the Admiralty. All they knew of the Admiralty was in connection with line of battle ships' drill and flogging. He did not want the Government to subsidize the institutions. All he wanted was that some common feeling of fellowship should be created between the Admiralty and our commercial marine. Unless they held out the hand of good fellowship to the seamen by encouraging such institutions as these, something in the same way as they did in the dockyards, they could not expect the seafaring part of our population to show any great amount of enthusiasm in coming forward to join the service. It is true that when actually entered on board they did their duty manfully, and if asked to fight were always ready to do so, but still there was very little feeling in favour of the Royal Navy on the part of the commercial marine. He should be glad to hear a few words on the subject from the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, who had always shown a disposition to do what he could to promote the welfare of our sailors.

said, the gallant Officer who had just sat down had stated that the question had more reference to the Admiralty than to the Board of Trade. That might be true to the extent that the Admiralty made certain allow- ances to the sailors' homes at Portsmouth, Devonport, Cork, and Dover. But if the gallant Officer imagined that the Admiralty subscribed to them as a matter of charity he was very much mistaken. The fact was, when the sailors of the Royal Navy were on shore at these places they made use of the homes, and the grants made by the Admiralty was a return for the services rendered to the sailors of the Royal fleet. The gallant Officer had also said that it would make the Admiralty more popular if they were to assist sailors' homes throughout the country.

Only so far as regarded the Naval Reserve and the Naval Volunteers.

said, that would be tantamount to building them everywhere, as there were Naval Reserves and Volunteers all round the coast. With regard to the reserve he was glad to inform the House that there was no doubt that by the end of this year there would be a good body of Naval Reserve men. All he (Lord Clarence Paget) could say was that he looked with great sympathy on the sailors' homes throughout the country; but he entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), that it would be a disadvantage to sailors' homes to subsidize them. The result of such a course would be to alienate from the homes much of the charity of individuals, and he thought it much better for seamen that they should know that the homes provided for them were maintained by individual benevolence rather than by the nation at large.

, in reply, said, that he could not understand the argument that Government help would be disadvantageous to these institutions. The noble Lord knew that there were £1,600 voted by the Admiralty for Sailors' Homes at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and elsewhere, but the directors of these homes would be very much surprised to hear that they were in consequence subsidized. He (Sir Henry Stracey) never mentioned the word subsidized; he only asked the House to acknowledge that the sailors' homes were worthy of encouragement and support. There was no parallel between the cases of the labourer and the sailor, who was subject to night as well as day work, and to every kind of trial of the constitution, from which the labourer was free. The labourer was generally in a healthy condition, but the sailor's health was so severely tried that the average life was forty years. He thought the subject had now been sufficiently ventilated. The feeling in the House had certainly shown that sailors' homes were worthy of encouragement, and he would not press the Motion to a division, but would take an opportunity on a future occasion of bringing it forward in some other shape.

said, he rose to move for certain Returns of arms and military stores made at the Government manufactories, or procured by contract, in each year from 1852–3 to 1860–1. He understood the Returns were to be opposed, and if the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War had given any reason to convince him that they ought not to be granted, he would have either withdrawn his Motion, or so altered it that it could not have damaged the public service. He thought the fullest information should be given on these subjects before the Estimates were voted. If those Gentlemen who had gone to the First Minister of the Crown, asking him to practise greater economy, would support him (Colonel Dunne), they would show that they were in earnest. But that they never were on that subject. He contended that no injury could possibly arise from granting the Return. There could be no objection to it from apprehension of giving information to foreign Governments; it was very probable they were better acquainted with the slate of the military stores than our own authorities. But the Return was most essential for the purposes of examining and explaining the Estimates with respect to arms. He found that since the abolition of the Ordnance Department between four and five millions of money had been devoted to small arms. Now what had been done with all those small arms? The only operations in which any great number could have been destroyed was in the Crimea and India; and yet in the Crimea at first only the Fourth Division had been armed with the Enfield rifle, and was had in none but the regiments who came out from home, which were completely armed with this weapon. After careful inquiry he could not make out any destruction there commensurate with the enormous sums granted. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) might say that it was imprudent to give this Return; but such Returns used to be given for the purpose of basing the Estimates upon them. Take for instance the clothing of the army, it was surely necessary to know what it cost before they voted money for it. Another reason for the granting of the Return was that in a comparison of two papers which had just been laid upon the table of the House on the subject there were great discrepancies. For instance, in one Return the cost of a certain department was set down at £51,840, while in the other Return the same thing was set down at £79,379. Now, if the Returns he was asking for were granted, an opportunity would be afforded of seeing which of these Returns was right. It was far from his wish to lessen either the amount voted for this object or the efficiency of the service; all he wanted was that the money should he properly laid out, and should not be applied to other purposes. He had been told it, and he believed that by careful scrutiny a million of money might be saved in these Estimates without injury to the efficiency of any one of the public establishments. If they did away with all useless establishments, useless staff and other things, they might at the same time increase the efficiency, while they reduced the expense of the military departments. There was now a deficiency in the revenue, and the country stood in need of economy. Within the last thirty years there had been twenty changes in the Estimates. Before the Commission which sat in 1849 the Estimates were said to be obscure, but they were infinitely more obscure now. He would consent to any modification in the Returns which the hon. Gentleman might think proper, but he thought the country was entitled to explanation, and he demanded it from the Government.

seconded the Motion.

said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that there was no desire on the part of the Government to conceal anything; on the contrary, it was their desire that every information in regard to the Army Estimates should be laid before the House. There was no objection on the part of the Government to furnish the information asked for as far as that was concerned, but there was a very simple reason why it would be inexpedient to furnish these Returns. The account asked for was, in point of fact, the whole store account of the War Department for the last nine years, including, of course, the period of the Crimean war; and this was not only to be printed and published for general information, but was to be re-arranged in a form which would give very considerable trouble to the department. Was it likely that such a mass of details could afford to the House information which they could make practically available? It was hardly possible to represent the enormous mass of items asked for, but the papers which they embraced would hardly pass through the door-way of the House. For the simple reason that the Returns would be of such a voluminous character, and would be attended with very little practical advantage, he did not feel justified in assenting to the Motion. With respect to the cost of the clothing for the army, a return had been but very recently moved for, which in a few days would be in the hands of every Member of the House. With regard to one portion of the returns moved for by the hon. and gallant Member—the account of profit and loss of the several manufacturing departments for the eighteen months preceding the 1st January, 1861—he would remark that there would be a great deal of difficulty in framing an account for that particular period, because the accounts of those departments were kept for the financial year. The Committee appointed by the House to inquire into the reorganization of the War Office had gone into the matter, which was one of great importance, and Lord Herbert had devoted considerable attention to the subject, and before long accounts framed upon what he (Mr. Baring) trusted would be considered a good system for the manufacturing departments would be presented to Parliament at the end of each financial year. With regard to some portion of the separate Returns moved for by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, no doubt it would be found that in Returns which had been and would be furnished, they had been included.

said, the hon. Gentleman had given no answer whatever to his Motion. It was not a mass of details which he required, but an intelligible Return. The officers of the departments were perfectly able to supply the information if they were called on to do so. They knew perfectly well what they were doing; if anybody was ignorant it was the Government. He denied that the Returns he had asked for were at all of the voluminous character the hon. Gentlemen chose to give them, nor could any one conversant with the subject imagine they were so. These accounts should always be kept in the War Department and be accessible when called for; and he contended it was not advisable for the Government to conceal them from the House. The War Department would do well to be cautious in this matter, because a Motion not to proceed with these Estimates until sufficient information had been laid before them was one which the House was very likely to assent to. Of course it was useless to contend against the refusal of the Government to grant the Return, in the then state of the House, and he would not, therefore, go to a division; but he hoped that on second thoughts the hon. Gentleman would give the information he asked for.

said, he was sure there could be no objection on the part of the War Department to give every information in their power, and if the hon. and gallant Officer would alter his Return, no doubt, the hon. Under Secretary would agree to it. He was glad to hear that it was the intention of the War Office to give annually regular statements with regard to the manufacturing establishments.

said, he rose to move that, on any division in the Com- mittee of Supply, so soon as the voices have been called the doors be closed after strangers have withdrawn. The object of his Motion was to make a practical improvement in and to remove a scandal from the proceedings in Committee of Supply to which his Motion would exclusively apply. During the recess a number of Members—habitual supporters of the Government—wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, in which they remonstrated strongly against the increase of the expenditure of the country, and called for some decided measure to put a stop to it. They received a reply from the noble Viscount the Prime Minister, very civil, no doubt, but which did not lead to any practical result. But they had another answer, which, though not quite so agreeable as that of the noble Viscount, contained a great deal of good sense and practical wisdom. That answer was given them by The Times, which told them that it would be well if, instead of criticizing and attacking the Government, they themselves discharged their duties in the House by exercising a vigilant control over the public expenditure and over the voting of public money. That was practical sound advice, because if there was one privilege of the House which had always been more highly valued and considered more important than another it was the privilege of holding the public purse-strings, and it was on the power of considering every item of the expenditure and of granting or refusing the money that almost all the other privileges enjoyed by the House were founded. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the hon. Gentlemen who wrote the letter had some excuse for it, and also some answer to the arguments of The Times in the manner in which business was done in Committee of Supply. Generally speaking, some twenty or thirty Members, perhaps forty, were present when the House was in Supply. The business was not of a very exciting character and hon. Gentleman did not care much to come down. A Member walking down from his club to the House would meet another Member coming from the House, and would ask him "Well, what's going on down there?" the other would reply, "Oh, nothing but Supply;" and then both of them would go off about their own amusement. The twenty or thirty Members would sit discussing the various Votes, an objection would be made to one particular item perhaps, whereupon a discussion would arise, in the course of which hon. Gentlemen who had applied their minds to the subject, either professionally or otherwise, would give a great deal of valuable information, and the Government in their turn would defend the Vote and explain their reasons for objecting to its reduction. In that manner very instructive and interesting discussion took place on matters of detail not involving generally any public principle. Then a division would be called for, the bell would be rung, and 100 or 200 Gentlemen who had been in the library, the coffee-room, or some other place would rush in, crowd about the door, make a great confusion, each asking the other "What's it all about? What are we going to vote for?" Perhaps they would get an answer, perhaps not, but would simply follow some leader whom they saw going before into the lobby; but either way they would vote blindly, without any consideration of the merits of the case, and without having heard the arguments and the information which had been advanced on one side and the other. Consequently it was impossible, by argument of any sort whatever, to effect a reduction or alteration of an item in Supply. That was a great scandal, and it made Committees of Supply a perfect delusion and a farce. What he proposed, therefore, to remedy such a state of things was, that for the future, when a question was put and a division took place, in consequence of some Member challenging the decision of the Chairman, the doors should be shut as soon as strangers were withdrawn. Such a measure would allow those hon. Gentlemen to come in who were standing outside about the doors; but it would put a stop to the rush of uninformed Members from all parts. He had to deal with two objections. One was that, in consistency, they ought to apply the same remedy to the case of Committees on Bills. He admitted that there was a good deal to be said in favour of that proposition. An illustration of the argument was to be found in the proceedings of the other House, where Peers, although they might vote by proxy, on the different stages of a Bill in the House—which were presumed to depend on some general principle—were not allowed that privilege in Committee where votes were taken on matters of detail. And thus, no Peer could vote in Committee unless he were present. Although there might be reasons for imposing the restriction which he proposed in the case of all Committees, those reasons applied with much greater force to Committees of Supply, because discussions in Committee of Supply were more particularly on matters of detail, and if they were not fully discussed in that House the House of Lords could not set right any mistake or omission, as there was no such thing as Committee of Supply in the other House. The other objection was that the rule which he proposed would give a great advantage to the Government. If that were so, he hoped he should have the votes of the right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury bench. But he rather expected they would oppose the Motion, and, if they did, he might content himself by saying that their votes gave a sufficient answer to the objection. It was stated that the Government could keep their friends in the House to vote, whereas the Opposition and independent party could not. If it were true that the Government could keep hon. Members to vote anything they chose, and that other hon. Members had no regard for the interests of the country, but would go away and not care about voting, proceedings in Committee of Supply became a farce an absurdity. He did not think so meanly of hon. Members as to believe that they could not be induced by motives other than those which were usually held out to supporters of a Government to do their duty to the country. No doubt, many hon. Members talked largely about economy on the hustings and did not attend to economy when in the House. His proposal would have the advantage of showing the constituencies who were present in Committee of Supply, and hon. Members would not be able to boast on the hustings of a vigilant care for the public interests if they sat in the coffee-room, the smoking-room, or some other place of recreation, until, on the bell ringing, they rushed in to vote, without knowing what they were voting about, merely to have their names appear in the division lists published by the newspapers. Many hon. Members voted for the Government in Committee of Supply because they had not heard the arguments against particular votes, and, therefore, the regulation by necessitating their presence would lead to more useful and practical discussions. He should leave the matter upon its own merits to be dealt with as the House should deem fit, but at the same time he felt bound to express his opinion that if the Motion were carried the public interest and the public purse would be more efficiently and properly protected. He would, therefore, conclude by moving—

"That on any Division, when the House is in Committee of Supply, so soon as the voices have been taken the doors be closed immediately after strangers have withdrawn."

seconded the Motion.

The hon. Baronet who has made this Motion assumed that every member of the Government who gave his vote upon the question would necessarily be determined in that vote by the consideration whether or not the Motion is likely to prove advantageous to the Government in divisions in Committee of Supply. I hope that his supposition is altogether unfounded. I trust that I may have the credit of forming a dispassionate opinion on this question, and that I may not be supposed incapable of looking at it as a general question affecting the proceedings of this House without reference to the party interests of the Government for the time being. Indeed, my own opinion is that if this Motion were carried it would be advantageous to the Government for the time being in divisions in Committee of Supply. That is my opinion of the effect of it; but I hope I am capable of forming an opinion upon the propriety of adopting it without looking to this consequence. I think the hon. Baronet is influenced by his forensic habits. He assumes, in making this proposition to the House, that it forms a judicial tribunal—that it constitutes a sort of jury who simply sit here and listen to arguments addressed to them during debate. That is not the view which our ancestors took of the habits of a deliberative assembly. In the other House it is even permitted to Peers to send their proxies, and to vote without having been present at any portion of the debate or hearing the question put. The rule of this House is different. No Member is entitled to vote in a division unless he is present in the House when the question is put. The restriction, however, does not go beyond being present at the time when the question is put. The hon. Baronet attempts to introduce one practice for Committees of Supply, and another on all other occasions. I think it must be evident that if the House granted the proposal with respect to Committees of Supply they must speedily introduce the same practice with regard to other Committees. It is impossible to establish any practical distinction between Committees of Supply and Committees on Bills, for example. The hon. Baronet gives the impression that the ordinary course in Committee of Supply is for some twenty Members to be present, and some 200 or 300 Members to rush in from the lobbies or elsewhere for divisions. I will appeal to the experience of hon. Members whether this is anything like a correct description of the state of the case? I have held the office of Secretary of the Treasury, and it has been my duty for several years to move the Miscellaneous Estimates. My recollection is that during the discussion of the Miscellaneous Estimates the House is extremely full, and much fuller than in Committees on Bills towards the end of the Session. I should say that if any hon. Member walks down to a morning sitting when an Irish or Scotch Bill is in Committee he will find the attendance not at all larger than the hon. Baronet describes as usually assembled during discussions in Committees of Supply. No doubt, during the consideration of technical questions relating to the army and navy, which are not very interesting to the majority of Members, there is rather a small audience; but it is my impression that, in general, the discussions in Committee of Supply are well attended. If, therefore, the proposed rule were to be laid down with regard to Committees of Supply, it is clear that it must be extended to other Committees, and, likewise, to other measures of importance. But if the rule be established, what will be its effect? It will be this:—No Member would be allowed to take part in the division on the reduction of a vote in Committee of Supply, unless he had heard the whole discussion, while on such a question as the second reading of a Reform Bill, which may affect the whole Constitution of the country, a Member might give his vote without having heard a word of the debate. It is obvious that a distinction of that sort cannot be preserved between the two cases. I do not think that the Resolution of the hon. Baronet would effect his purpose. He does not state in his Resolution that the presence of a Member during the whole of the debate is to be a condition of his voting; and, therefore, it is clear that the rule might be evaded. Supposing a Member came in five minutes before the division he would be entitled to vote, although practically he would have heard no more of the debate than if he had not entered the House till the bell rang. To carry out the hon. Baronet's view, no Member should he permitted to vote unless he has heard either the whole or a considerable portion of the debate. But how are you to decide how much of the discussion a Member is to hear? Is it to be measured by the number or by the length of the speeches, by the excellence of the oratory or by the force of the arguments? I think the hon. Baronet would have to lay down the same rule in regard to the House that is applied to juries. A jury is compelled to hear the speeches of counsel, the evidence of witnesses, and the summing up of the Judge, and is not allowed to quit the box until the close of the trial. In the same way, in order to carry into effect the proposal of the hon. Baronet, we should be given in charge to the officers of the House, to be detained here until we have delivered our verdict. It is, of course, very desirable that hon. Gentlemen should not vote on questions of which they are entirely ignorant; but it is quite possible that a Member may form a very clear and correct opinion on a question without hearing all the arguments adduced in this House. I should certainly be extremely slow to lay down the doctrine that an hon. Gentleman who has not heard the whole of a debate should not be entitled to vote, although he hears the question put by the Chair. It is assumed that every one who hears the question put is capable of forming a rational judgment on it, and I hope the House will retain that wholesome rule and adhere to its present practice.

said, he presumed the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was intended to abrogate the standing order, which was designated as the two minute rule, and which had been so usefully established on the Motion of his late lamented friend Mr. Muntz. He (Mr. Newdegate) hoped the House would forgive his recalling to their recollection the circumstances which had induced that salutary change in the standing orders, or rather the establishment of that salutary alteration. On the occasion of a momentous division, after the Earl of Derby came into office for the first time as Prime Minister—a division on the question of free trade and protection—it happened that a large number of the Members of that House came to the conclusion that they would avail themselves of their undoubted privilege—either to vote or abstain from voting, and had formed the determination not to vote in that division; of these forty-seven had to his personal knowledge left the House. This occurred upon a Motion made by the noble Lord at present at the head of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Newdegate) himself went back into the House, with the present Duke of Richmond, to communicate to their friends the decision at which those who had left, had, arrived. There was then no rule as to the time that should elapse between the question being put and the doors being locked. Before the Duke of Richmond, then Lord March, and he could leave the House—before they could reach the door—without any notice, the doors were closed, and they were shut in, and by that means deprived of that which was their undoubted privilege, the option of voting or not voting. If a Member voted against what may be considered his party, his vote counted on a division two—one abstracted from his party and one added to the other party; but if he left the House he would only count one. It was in consequence of the surprise to which he had adverted that his lamented Friend (Mr. Muntz), who saw what happened, said to him immediately afterwards, "This shall never occur again, for I am confident the House of Commons does not intend to entrap Members into a division;" he represented these circumstances to the House, and the House then established the rule which had operated so advantageously in facilitating and securing the freedom of the deliberate expression of opinion on the part of the House. It was the only effectual safeguard against surprises—against hon. Members being locked in against their consent—and he trusted the House would adhere to a rule which had operated so well.

said, he thought that the Resolution contained a reflection on the House by the imputation that Members did not do their duty. It was, however, well known that a great part of the business of the country was done by hon. Members, not in that apartment where their debates took place, but at their own homes, or in Committees upstairs. Many a time he himself had not left the House from twelve at noon until two o'clock the next morning, being occupied the whole time upon public business; but was be to be told, as he was by the Resolution, that unless he heard every word of a debate in that particular room, he was to lose his privilege of voting? The Resolution was framed upon the principle of compelling every hon. Member, however much he might be otherwise engaged upon the business of the country, to listen to the eloquence of the hon. Baronet. A vast number of speeches were made in Committees of Supply, but they produced very little effect. One hon. Member had last Session made no fewer than seventy-nine speeches in Supply, but he had not saved a single shilling of the public money. Other Members had spoken nearly as often, but not a sixpence was knocked off the Estimates; and the hon. Baronet had himself made some clever speeches in Supply, but nothing had been gained by his eloquence. The proposed rule would be disadvantageous to the public service, and it would be disadvantageous to the character of the House, because it would imply that if Gentlemen were not listening to the speeches of the hon. Baronet they were neglecting their duty. As nothing could be more unfounded than such an imputation he should oppose the Motion.

said, he thought that the Motion was not without some cause. It frequently happened that some forty or fifty Gentlemen had listened to a debate and had become almost unanimous in support of a certain view, and when the division was taken there came a hundred and fifty Gentlemen who voted against them without having heard a word of the arguments on which they had formed their opinions. At the same time he perfectly agreed with his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) that it was impossible the Resolution could be carried in its then shape, and that it would be unwise to pass any Resolution on the subject pending the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the best mode of expediting the conduct of public business, and which Report, let him add, was being a long time delayed. He should recommend his hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a division.

said, that, as the feeling of the House appeared to be against him, he would not trouble hon. Members to divide. His object was to apply a practical remedy to an admitted grievance, and to give additional effect to those speeches in Committee of Supply which the hon. Member for Derby said produced so little result, and which must continue to be equally without avail as long as twenty or thirty members rushed into the House for a division so ignorant of the subject under consideration that they had to say to all their friends round them, "What the devil is all this about?"

said, that after a Motion had been discussed it did not lie with its introducer to withdraw it without a division. If he went out alone he should insist on the hon. Gentleman not being allowed to withdraw his Motion.

complained that under the Bill the accounts of money received in Scotland and Ireland would be kept in London, instead of, as the accounts of the money-order offices in those countries were now kept, in Edinburgh or Dublin respectively. To remedy this he proposed that in the first clause the word "offices" should be substituted for "office," and that after London the words "Dublin and Edinburgh" should be inserted.

said, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. It professed to amend the language of the Bill, but it really made it worse. Nothing could be more absurd than to create three centres of investment and three centres of management of money; but such would be the effect of the Amendment, for England, Scotland, and Ireland. It would be just as rational to provide that the money deposited in Yorkshire and Lancashire should be invested in Yorkshire and Lancashire. That was not the intention of the hon. Gentleman, but it would certainly be the effect of his proposition if it were adopted. He admitted there was some objection to specifying that all the transmissions should be made to London, and therefore he proposed to strike out the word "London," and thus the question would be left quite open. The whole operation of investment must be central, but that would not interfere with the system of accounts and transmission which now existed in Dublin and Edinburgh.

said, he was quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, he thought it would be better to strike out the words "in London," with- out inserting the words "Dublin and Edinburgh."