said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to bring in a Bill during the present Session to alter the scale of Allowances to Witnesses at the Assizes and Sessions?

said, he could only repeat the answer he had given on a former occasion, namely, that he was ready to ask leave to bring in a Bill to enable the counties to make from the county funds any addition which the magistrates might deem fit for the purpose in question.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What proportion of the Fortifications Loan the Government proposes to borrow during the ensuing financial year?

said, it was impossible to answer that question at present. Whenever the plans and arrangements of the Government were matured they would, of course, be communicated to the House.

said, that in rising he did not wish to interfere at any length with the progress of the debate which might arise on this Motion. He rose for the purpose of repeating an attempt in which he had twice before been unsuccessful, but which he hoped would on the third occasion have that result which perseverance was proverbially said to deserve. His object was to accomplish what many hon. Members would agree with him in thinking one of the most difficult of human undertakings—namely, to obtain a direct answer from the Treasury bench. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that he had very lately during these debates asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers the present posture of affairs in the United States was not such as to induce them to apprehend that increased armaments might be required on the part of this country, and also whether the distress likely to ensue from a short supply of cotton would not in all probability act most unfavourably both on our Customs and Excise revenue? When he first had the honour of putting that question the noble Lord certainly avoided, if he did not evade the question; and, indeed, he afterwards admitted that his reply was not very explicit, because he said he thought he had answered the question" by implication"—a very unsatisfactory mode of meeting so important an interrogatory. The noble Lord went on to answer a portion, and only a portion, of his question, and finished by saying that he hoped the Customs' duties would not materially suffer in cousequence of the events now going on in the United States. The question went further and referred also to the probable diminution of Excise duties, and of that point the noble Lord entirely lost sight. When he first asked his questions he reminded the noble Lord that the whole aspect of affairs had changed since the earlier discussions upon the Budget, in consequence of the alarming news from the United States; and he still submitted that as a ground for putting the questions again to the noble Lord, and asking whether the intelligence that had arrived had or had not altered the views of the Government as to the propriety or the security of the financial arrangements which they had proposed. If the circumstances which intervened between the first discussion of the Budget and the day upon which he originally asked his questions were such as to alter the state of affairs and to justify him in putting those questions, the news which had arrived that day placed affairs in a still more remarkable position. On the last occasion when he put the questions, he asked the noble Lord his opinion as to the anticipated failure of the cotton crop; but he found this day in the second edition of The Times intelligence so alarming and decisive that it appeared to him that the questions which he had put three days since to the noble Lord had now acquired tenfold importance "Planting is neglected "—

Where does that news come from?

From America.

From what part—from the South?

The intelligence comes from America. ["Read,"] He was reading the telegram when he was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman. The telegram stated "planting is neglected in the South. The growing crops are in danger from want of cultivation." It ap- peared to him, then, that the danger which had so long threatened had at last arrived. It was quite clear, if that intelligence was reliable, that the time had come when they must fairly consider what would be the consequences to this country of a short supply of cotton from the United States, and he hoped neither the House nor the Government would overlook the magnitude of the question. On the strength of this intelligence he would now repeat his questions—whether the Government anticipated a probability, in the present state of affairs in the United States, of a necessity for increased armament on the part of this country, either naval or military; and also whether, in consequence of the news which had just reached this country as to the probable failure of the supply of cotton from the United States, Her Majesty's Government were or were not of opinion that the diminished supply of cotton was likely to produce great distress in the manufacturing districts, and to materially affect the revenue both from Customs and Excise? He hoped the noble Lord would not this time forget the question as to the Excise.

observed that the telegram quoted by the hon. Gentleman was of just three days later date than the intelligence last received. Did the hon. Gentleman really think that it was possible that in the space of three days the cultivation of cotton in America could have ceased. It was necessary to receive with great caution telegrams arriving at this moment, when the cotton market was in such an excited state. He ventured to say that the telegram which had been quoted was nothing else than a cotton market telegram, intended only to send up the cotton market.

I wish to take this opportunity of making a few remarks as to the course of public business in relation to these Resolutions. It is always difficult to combine fair discussion with an equally fair consideration of the progress of public business which is due to her Majesty's Government. With respect to the question before the House, many hon. Gentlemen have challenged the policy of the Government as expressed in these Resolutions, and others have objected to the mode of procedure by which it is intended to carry out that policy; and some Gentlemen there are who object to both. I am quite alive to the inconvenience of entering upon a fresh discussion now, if the public interests require us to proceed ex- peditiously with these Resolutions, and after the opinion which has been expressed by the Government, that it is an object of importance to bring their Bill before the House, I am prepared, and would recommend to those of my friends who may choose to listen to my advice—if the Government will give a fair opportunity for discussing the Bill on its second reading,—in that case, we should not oppose the Report of those Resolutions; but it must be with a full understanding that Members shall have a fair opportunity of expressing their opinion, and of taking any course which they may think it their duty to take with reference to the policy of the Government. If the Government are prepared to meet us in that spirit, and will at once say for what day the second reading of the Bill when brought up shall be fixed, and if that be an occasion which shall be fair to Members on both sides, I should be quite disposed to assist the views of the Government in respect to the Report of these Resolutions, and will accept the occasion to which I have adverted as one upon which we can enter upon a full discussion of the whole policy and procedure of the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Government have stated that in their view it is decidedly for the public advantage to expedite the disposal of this question, especially after the delay which has taken place, which I do not seek to blame, but which certainly has been unusual, and, therefore, on that account I am desirous to get forward with the business. It is plain and undeniable that the House, or any portion of the House, is entitled, if it thinks fit, to demand a fair opportunity for debate upon the second reading. Upon this account, and as it is not probable that there will be a clear opportunity for the second reading to-morrow, we propose to introduce the Bill this evening, and to place the second reading for the first Order of the Day on Monday—a day which, I think, will be most convenient to all parties.

I think the proposition a fair one, and I shall not object to the Resolutions being reported.

With the permission of the House I should like to give a reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck). The hon. Member asked me first, Whether the Government are of opinion that the recent events in North America would lead to the necessity for increasing the present military or naval force of this country? I think I answered that upon a former occasion in the negative. I do not anticipate that anything now passing in America is likely to require any additions to our naval or military establishments. Then I am asked, whether the events now passing in America are likely to diminish the duties upon Customs below the amount calculated by my right hon. Friend? My answer is I do not anticipate that those events will have any such effect. The hon. Member then asks me whether, in our opinion, these events are likely to interfere injuriously with the Excise duties? I can only repeat a similar answer, and say that I do not anticipate that those events will have any such effect, so as to damage the calculations of my right hon. Friend.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a petition very numerously signed, and having reference to the Resolution respecting the allowing wholesale dealers in spirits to sell single bottles by retail. He should be glad to know whether he intended to include the whole of his financial propositions in one Bill; because, if so, although he should not at present take the sense of the House upon the subject of the petition, yet he should, when they were in Committee, propose to divide the Bill into two or more parts?

said, there was no intention on the part of the Government to include the Resolution referred to in the principal Bill. That Resolution, and the one relating to hawkers and pedlars' licences, although they were of a financial character and moved in Committee of Ways and Means, yet as they involved other matters, such as those of police, they would be placed in a second Bill embodying the administrative details, and then the hon. Gentleman would have a full opportunity of objecting to the proposition. He wished to inform the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir William Jolliffe) that what he stated on a former evening in reference to the consumption of spirits on the premises was quite accurate—namely, that the alteration would be confined to the consumption of spirits off the premises.

It is not my intention to detain the House long from going into Committee; but I wish to offer one observation on a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the debate the other night, and at the same time to ask for some explanation of one of the papers mow on the Table, referring to the paper duty. I do not wish now to enter into any discussion of a question which we shall no doubt have ample opportunity of discussing in full—I mean the general question of the repeal of the paper duty; but the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, likely to raise a false impression in the mind of the House upon a very material point; that statement, therefore, ought not to pass unchallenged. The right hon. Gentleman said it had been contended that in past years the paper duty had been an increasing tax as a source of revenue; but this, he asserted, can be said no longer, as the return of the amount received last year from the paper duty now before us shows that the Revenue from this source is not largely increasing. The net amount received in 1859 he stated at £1,291,769, the amount received in 1860 at £1,305,991, showing an increase of less than £15,000—or £14,222. This, the right hon. Gentleman said, is but a small increase in the productiveness of the duty, and is an important fact, as showing that its increase has been arrested. But there are one or two observations which are important to make on this point. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the duty in reference to the amount of revenue to be sacrificed by giving it up, only took the amount yielded by the Excise duty; he altogether omitted to notice the amount derived from the Customs' duty on foreign paper. Now, by adding the amount of the Customs' duty to the Excise duty, the result, as to the total revenue from paper, is different. It is quite true that the amount received from the Excise duty stands nearly the same; but the amount received from the Customs' duty has nearly doubled. The result, adding the Excise and Customs' duty on paper together, is a total increase of £33,998, instead of £14,000. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, be received with a considerable qualification. The right hon. Gentleman says the small increase in the revenue from paper justifies his statement that the duty has arrived at a stationary point. I want to know whether that is really the case? To show that the increase in the revenue from paper in 1859, as compared with the preceding year, was £154,000; while in 1860, as compared with 1859 it is only £33,000, does not prove that the duty is stationary. We have heard a good deal of the elasticity of the Revenue from Excise, but I venture to say that if any one item of the Excise revenue is elastic it is paper. Looking to the progress of the paper duty I think the House will find that during the last thirteen years there has been no duty that has so steadily increased as the duty on paper. I have here a Return of the net produce of the paper duty for thirteen years from 1848 to 1860, and I find that it was £745,795 in 1848 and £1,305,991 in 1860. This is an increase beyond the proportion of the increase in other branches of the Excise. But if you were to look to single years in the series and judge by them, as my right hon. Friend now judges by the results of a single year, you might come to a conclusion that the progress of the revenue had been stopped long since. We are told that the productiveness of the duty is checked, because the last year's increase in the amount derived from it is only £33,000; but on many of these years I find the increase is inconsiderable, if only giving sums of £12,000, £8,000, or £20,000, while on two occasions, there was an actual decrease, in one case to the extent of £25,884, and in the other case £6,114. The fact, therefore, this year's increase being inconsiderable in amount proves nothing as to the duty being stationary. What kind of year was that of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking? Had there been a marked increase in everything else, some inference might have been drawn from the slight increase in the Revenue from the paper duty; but in the last year everything declined, and the paper duty was the only item of the Revenue that did not decline. What inference should be drawn from that? Look at the condition of all the rest of the Revenue; on the whole it was £2,000,000 below the Estimate; on the Customs the loss was £135,000; on malt the deficiency was nearly £800,000; on hops it was £300,000; on spirits, £900,000. On all these articles the consumption was checked; yet we are told that the paper duty, because it increased so little as £33,000, is an exception to the elasticity of all other duties, and as a source of revenue must be considered stationary. These are facts that materially modify the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it is desirable that these facts should be known to the House before we come to the discussion of the general policy of the Budget. There is another feature in this case to which I wish especially to refer, and on which I should be glad of explanation. The returns from which my right hon. Friend has quoted are returns laid on the Table of the House showing the quantity of paper manufactured and of duty received thereupon within a period of three years. Now, it is true that the Revenue from paper has been what I have stated it to be. But the House will, perhaps, be surprised to find that, although the duty has increased to so small an amount, the quantity of paper manufactured has largely increased, and I want to know how it is that the increase of duty has not kept pace with the increased quantity manufactured. In 1858–59 200,000,000lbs. of paper were manufactured; in 1859–60, 2l4,000,000lbs., showing an increase of nearly 15,000,000lbs. That is the time when the increased revenue from paper was nearly £150,000, and when the duty was progressive. Now, the increase in the quantity of paper manufactured between 1860 and 1861 was greater than that between 1859 and 1860; for, instead of being under 15,000,000lbs., it was 15,555,000lbs.; yet, although there is this increase in the quantity manufactured, the increase in the duty is comparatively trifling. Why is that? How does it happen that a large quantity of paper which ought to have added some £70,000 or £80,000 to our Revenue has not produced any such amount of duty? The only light upon the subject is thrown by my right hon. Friend in some observations which fell from him on the 16th of July last, when he was bringing forward his second Budget. In estimating the position at which he stood at the close of the year he had to consider the probable amount of duty on paper; and this is what he said—

"The loss which would have arisen from abandoning that duty, according to the terms of the Bill which passed this House, would have been £800,000. I cannot say how much of that will be recovered in consequence of the rejection of the Bill. I doubt whether the whole of it will; but I think it very possible that £600,000 may be recovered. Perhaps we may take it at £700,000."—[3 Hansard, clix. 1969.]

That was natural. My right hon. Friend considered that on account of what took place last year, and the derangement of the trade created by the Bill, the paper duty would certainly yield less than it was expected to yield; and he thought it might fall off by £100,000 or by £200,000. Now, what was the extent of his disappointment in other sources of revenue? The Customs fell short of his estimate by £135,000; malt, by £800,000; spirits, by £900,000; hops, by £300,000. But the paper exceeded his estimate by £114,000. This was in a year when everything else was falling off; and yet we are told that the paper duty is not now an increasing one. I have thought it right to call attention to these facts, though there may be a perfect answer with regard to them. When a Minister says to the House of Commons," I told you a short time since that this was a valuable and a rising duty, but now I can assure you, from official data, that that is no longer the case," such a statement must have great weight with the House, and we are bound to look into it. Of course, if my right hon. Friend can show us that, in spite of the statement I have made, the paper duty is a declining one, I shall own my mistake; but I think that, under the circumstances, the mistake is pardonable. If, however, my criticisms are correct, and the paper duty is not declining, I say that the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question weaken instead of strengthen the case of the Government; because if such statements can be broken down the House will necessarily suppose that other statements made by him would also break down if we had the means of criticizing them. I do not wish to pursue the subject, but think I have adduced sufficient reasons for calling attention to it. All I desire is information, and that we should not legislate in the dark on this question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he answered the question of the hon. Member for Stamford, whether his attention had been called to a paragraph in the newspapers of this day reporting a conversation which occurred in the French Chambers yesterday, and in which the Protectionist members of that Assembly were represented as grumbling at the conduct of the French Government in reference to certain provisions of the Franco-Belgian Treaty, recently concluded, respecting the export duty on rags and drills? Could the right hon. Gentleman state to the House the nature of the arrangements which had been entered into between these two Governments, and whether the result would be in any way favourable to the papermakers of this country?

In answer to what has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), I entirely repel his charge of unfairness. I was speaking of the Excise duty; I was understood to be speaking of that duty; I was speaking not upon official authority or credit at all, but was referring to figures in the hands of every hon. Member at the time when my hon. Friend said I practised an unfairness on the House of which he feels it his duty to complain. I did not deal also with the Customs' duty because that was a totally different question. What I said, was strictly, literally, and accurately true, and it involved nothing whatever relating to official authority. My hon. Friend says he desires information. In that desire he entirely forgets the rule which, so far as my knowledge of this House goes, is established, not less by a regard to courtesy than to public convenience—namely, that when an hon. Member wishes to question a Minister upon some statement embodied in a public Return which did not proceed from the Minister, but from others, to whom he has to refer, that hon. Member, before going into minute and detailed criticism, shall give some notion of his intention, so that the Minister may be in a condition, at least to hold the paper in his hands and to understand the statement made. The desire of the hon. Baronet for information leads him to pursue an opposite course, and without making any previous communication to me he asks me what is the meaning of an apparent discrepancy in certain figures. That is not the best mode of obtaining information, inasmuch as it compels me to give to the House a hypothetical answer upon a paper which is not in my hand at the moment, and which I do not carry in my recollection. My hon. Friend says that the increase in the paper duty during the last year is an exceedingly remarkable one, in a smuch as the duties upon hops, malt, and spirits, instead of increasing, actually fell off. He there entirely confounds, as it appears to me, two classes of questions which are absolutely distinct. Happily for our Customs' laws, and happily for the country, the paper duty is an entirely exceptional one. Thanks to the policy which has been so stoutly resisted on one side of the House and so warmly supported on the other, every Excise duty at all analogous to paper has disappeared from our tariff, and this industry is the only one, being of the nature of a trading industry, which is burdened with Excise. The hon. Baronet commits the gross error of confounding paper, by an entirely false analogy, with those articles immediately dependent on popular consumption. What does it signify for the illustration of the matter in hand whether the duty on malt, which depends immediately on the harvest, has fallen off considerably? Upon what does the paper duly depend? One-half of the whole paper manufacture depends immediately and directly upon the export trade of the country. My hon. Friend in his desire for information has forgotten that, thanks to the measures adopted by this House last year in face of his opposition, the export trade of this country was the largest recorded in history, and as long as that trade increases no doubt the paper duty must increase in some way or other, if not from Excise from Customs. Paper is a commodity which is almost entirely an accessory to other articles of consumption. Nearly one-half the paper manufactured is sold in connection with our manufactures. I see present my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Paget), who was at one time connected with Coventry, and he will know to what a degree paper enters into the production of manufactures in both those cities. As long as our export trade increases a large branch of the paper manufacture subject to duty must increase also. What is the case also with regard to the other branch of the consumption of paper—cheap literature and the press? What has the House done with regard to the consumption of cheap literature and the use of letters? It has sacrificed a revenue of nearly £2,000,000 for the purpose of promoting literature, which necessarily had an effect in raising the proceeds of the duty on paper, On postage we sacrificed £1,500,000, on advertisements £200,000, and on stamps half or three quarters of a million. We have given that stimulus to the production of paper, and my hon. Friend thinks it is advanced in a wonderful degree, drawing therefrom an inference favourable to the continuance of the Excise. But considering that our export trade has increased three or fourfold, considering that the postage has increased five or six-fold, it is no great triumph to me to discover that in the same period the proceeds of the paper duty have increased only between two and three-fold; in fact, it appears to me to be marvellous that the paper duty can have increased so little considering the stimulus which has been given to it. At the present moment the Excise duty on paper is actually—I will not use the epithet which was used opposite, but I will say, is not making progress. I do not deny it. Either through the Excise or through the Customs, by home or foreign productions, it must he got—it is impossible to do without it—but the increase is not in proportion to the increase in the purposes to which it ought to be applied, and I read in that the oppressive effect of the Excise. I never stated that the paper duty was not a continually progressive duty—on the contrary, it must, under whatever pressure, force itself forward. It would have been just as ridiculous to pretend that the consumption of corn did not advance before the corn laws were repealed. Of course it advanced with the advancing wealth and population of the country, in spite of the corn laws; and so will the consumption of paper, but it will advance in a much less degree than it would under a system of freedom of trade, and it will do so with great distress and suffering to those concerned in the production of paper. If my hon. Friend doubts the correctness of that statement, let him consult a considerable number of those who are concerned in the trade and they will tell him what they told me—that with regard to a certain portion of the trade, who are exposed in a particular degree to foreign competition, it is a fact that, with the foreigner on the one side and the Excise on the other, they are compelled to employ a larger capital than would be the case if they enjoyed freedom of trade. I have been assured by a gentleman who took an active part in opposing the remission of the duty last year that their trade has fallen off from 10 to 20 per cent. I think, therefore, I was perfectly accurate and fair in the statement which I made. With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord opposite (Lord H. Lennox) I cannot give the noble Lord opposite any full and clear exposition of the very succinct allusion conveyed in the form of a telegram, nor am I able to say absolutely and positively what is the present condition of the negotiations between France and Belgium on the subject of a treaty of commerce; but what I understand to be their condition is, that whether the instrument has been finally signed or not there is no difference of opinion between them as regards that article in which so much interest has been felt on this side the Channel, the exportation of rags. I cannot pretend to give any official information, but I understand that the French Government were perfectly willing to establish entire freedom of trade with Belgium—which, of course, would extend to England—in the article of rags. But the Belgian Government not being prepared to go so far, the export duty upon rags has been reduced from the prohibitive point to 12f. per 100 kilogrammes, or between £4: and £5 per ton—being a rate ad valorem of 20 per cent. That will be a great and material reduction of the duty which now prevails. I also believe that there would be no disposition on the part of the Belgian Government to establish any exceptional system, or to withhold from England and other countries the privileges which she has afforded to France by this treaty. I certainly, therefore, do cherish a hope that both this arrangement and its effect upon other countries will be beneficial to the paper trade of England.

The right hon. Gentleman has mistaken the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford. He was controverting an authoritative statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the paper duty was a falling and failing branch of our revenue, and he gave reasons and adduced facts and figures which I think entirely disposed of that assertion. If there were any doubt on the matter it would be entirely removed by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for his address consisted entirely of ingenious illustrations of the fact that the paper duty was not a failing branch of our revenue, and he gave a number of practical reasons why there must be necessarily an increase. The right hon. Gentleman says there is no analogy between the paper duty and the duty on malt and hops. There is no analogy between them. These duties do depend on the harvest; but my hon. Friend drew quite a dif- ferent inference from that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew. My hon. Friend said is it prudent to part with a branch of our revenue which is a rising branch of the revenue, and which, in a moment of distress and difficulty, when other great branches of Excise have been affected by the badness of the harvest and the diminished consumption of the people, bad continued to be a progressive one? My hon. Friend would prefer that you should continue to have two strings to your bow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given no explanation of the discrepancies to which my hon. friend called his attention.

I beg pardon, I quite forgot it. If the figures spoken of were in one column—the weights of the paper made, and in the other the net revenue received—I entertain no doubt that the difference must be accounted for by that portion of our paper on which drawbacks are allowed.

I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in the complaint he made of want of courtesy in my hon. Friend's proceeding. Certainly, when an hon. Member wishes to obtain information from a Minister, it is our custom to give notice of that intention, and of all Members in this House, my hon. Friend, I think, would be the least likely to fail in that courtesy. But this is not the case of an hon. Gentleman rising and asking for information. We are in a debate on the Report of Resolutions, and it is not in debate the custom of this House before you make a speech to go over and tell the Minister all the facts and arguments you are going to rely upon against him. There never would be an end to our debates, adjournments would be perpetual, if that fatal frankness were to prevail. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is not justified in complaining that my hon. Friend has broken the salutary rule which always regulates our proceedings.

wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before proceeding to further legislation in respect to the Customs' duty on foreign paper, he would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation and effect of the system of export duties on foreign rags upon the paper-making trade of Great Britain and Ireland?

begged permission to give an answer to one of the questions of the hon. Member for Stamford, which has escaped the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Baronet referred to a paper which be held in his hand, from which it appeared that a proportionate increase of duty had not Mowed from the increased quantity of paper that had been made; and he (Mr. Norris) could explain how that arose. All the paper made came under the observation of the exciseman, but it did not all pay duty. From time to time, during the development of their manufacturing industry in various branches of trade, there had been good reasons urged upon the Board of Inland Revenue to exempt from duty the paper used by them is consequence of the restrictions thus imposed on the operations of trade. That remission was made to certain trades in Birmingham, to the clothiers in Yorkshire, and to many other persons; so that a large increase was going on in the manufacture of paper that did not pay duty, while there had not been a similar increase in the proportion that paid duty. That was an answer to the hon. Baronet, and was an incontestible reason that certain persons should not bear the weight of the duty from which those who were exempted had escaped.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the trade of a portion of his constituents—namely, the inhabitants of Coventry, and had stated that the remission of the paper duty would be a great relief to them:—He would, therefore, with the permission of the House, lay before them a statement with which he had been favoured. He would premise that he would not have voted the other night for a reduction of the tea duties in preference to the repeal of the paper duties could he have believed for one moment that the remission of the latter would have conferred on his distressed constituents the benefit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated would be its result. He had in his hand a statement drawn up by a person well qualified to form an opinion on the subject. He stated that the weight of the slips of white paper of the quality used in making up six pieces of riband, of 36 yards each, of a 3-inch wide riband, including the waste in cutting into slips, would be 1lb. 14 oz., which, at 8d. per lb., came to 1s. 3d. The weight of a white paper box made to contain six pieces of 36 yards each of a 3-inch wide riband, including the waste in making up, would be 14oz., costing 9d. each. The brown paper and paper for rolling up ribands and packages for six pieces, 4oz., which, at 6d. per lb., would be l½ d. The average price of six pieces of 36 yards each of a 3-inch wide riband, at 27s. per piece, would be £8 2s. That riband would be worth that package of riband would be worth £8 2s. The cost of the paper used in packing it would be 2s. and 1s. 2d., that is 3d. on each £1. value in silk (of which the duty is 1s. 2d.)—the remission of duty would be just ½ d. in the pound. He thought it due to his own position, and to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he should state to the House that the effect of this remission would be an almost infinitesimal part of the value of the package; and when he heard it spoken of as a measure of relief to a trade that was suffering this deep depression, he really felt it to be his duty to state to the House that the relief was less than infinitesimal. He did not wish to undervalue the advantage the remission might be to other trades where the articles were bulky, such as cotton yarn; there the remission of the duty would amount to a considerable sum. In order to inform himself as to what branch of manufactures would really benefit by this remission, he inquired into the case of the cotton spinner. Now, the cotton spinner—a man having a large mill—would reap a very considerable advantage from this remission, and, with permission of the House, as the subject was now before it, he would state how this advantage would be gained. He had no ill feeling to the cotton trade, but, at the same time, there had been such a marked favouritism towards that trade that when he was told that relief was to be given to his depressed constituents—and he knew it was infinitesimal and really scarcely worth their notice—but that a great advantage was to be given to another trade, in favour of which everything had been hitherto done by the House, he wished them to understand that if this remission was to affect any trade it would be cotton, not silk. He was sure the House would forgive him for making this statement. The House ought to have it before them before they passed to division. He had two statements before him from Liverpool. He was not at liberty to name the authors; but this he might state, that his first informant stated the case of a cotton spinner with large mills, which turned out 20,000lb. of cotton yarn a week, which made 1,040,000lb. of cotton yarn in a year. This would be made up in 208,000 bundles of cotton of 5lb. each. Each of these 5lb. bundles bad a thick piece of paper at the top and bottom, and was tied with string. Suppose the paper to weigh 1oz. each bundle—each bundle according to the regulations of the trade was considered to contain 4lb. 15oz. of yarn net—and with the paper and string weighed 5lb. 1oz., and was charged as 5lb. of yarn; so that 1oz. of paper per bundle was charged for as yarn. The average value of yarn was 1s. a pound, and of paper 4d. Thus the ounce of paper cost a farthing, but was charged as yarn, or at ¾ d. to the buyer, bringing in, therefore, a profit of 200 per cent. His informant went into a calculation to show that the profit on this system of charging 1oz. of paper in each bundle of the 208,000 made in the year as yarn, gave a profit of £434 per annum; and that the remission of the duty of 1½ d. per lb. would give an additional profit of £81, making the profit from these two sources £515 per annum. But his second informant—who was, he believed, the best informed—stated that 2oz. of paper were used in each bundle, and he made the profit on the first part of the transaction—that was, charging the paper as yarn—£218; and he stated that the remission of duty, as it affected the 2oz. of paper per bundle, would afford a profit to the spinner of £162 per annum—making the whole profit on the two transactions £380 a year. He thought the House would now understand that it was the cotton-spinner who would derive the advantage of the repeal of the paper duty, not the distressed weavers of Coventry. The ribbon manufacturers would receive a farthing in the pound on the value of their goods, not on the profits; but the cotton spinner would receive a sum, according to these the first of these two statements, £80 according to the second statements £160. The cotton-spinner was not distressed; he was not suffering; and, therefore, when one spoke of this remission of the paper duty as a remission made to a suffering industry, let the House remember it scarcely reached Coventry, but it was a considerable bonus to the manufacturers of Lancashire. The House would perhaps pardon him for adverting to another statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had seemed to infer that the importation of riband had scarcely increased since the French Treaty bad come into operation. With the permission of the House he would show them how very material had been that increase. He really was scarcely prepared to enter into the subject; but in a very short statement he thought he could place the House in possession of facts which would show that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year he had known no trade suffer from the remission of the duty brought about by the Treaty with France he made a sorrowful exception to the trade of Coventry. He hoped he was not wearying the House; but these were facts on which the House would have to found its legislation. The quantity of riband imported into England in the month of February, 1860, which was before the treaty, was 15,576lbs.; the importation for the month of February last—February, 1861—was 36,187lbs., considerably more than double. From the 1st of March, 1859, to the 1st of March, 1860, before the treaty, the importation of rib and was 439,204lbs. Well, now take the year under the treaty, and remember that we were told that the suffering was all produced by the change of fashion, by an absence of demand. He granted that those circumstances did depress the trade. There was a change of fashion; there was a slackness of demand; and it was from the very circumstance that the change was made when the market was slack that it fell with terrible weight upon his unhappy constituents. Every hon. Gentleman who was at all cognizant of commercial affairs would know that when a market was depressed—when the demand was slack, if a premium of 16 per cent was given on foreign importation, we were sure to have the whole sweepings of the foreign market sent over in consequence of that change, and the market has been completely glutted. He wished to show that, notwithstanding the flatness of the market, the importations had increased, and the proof of it was that while there had been an importation of 439,000lbs. of foreign goods in the year ending March 1, 1860, there was an importation of 551,409lbs. up to the same period of the year that had just passed. And this increase bad taken place in the face of a slack market. It was, therefore, of no use to ask him to believe that the changes made in the state of the law during last year were not mainly instrumental in producing that state of things in Coventry, which kept 20,000 of the townspeople living on alms for the last nine months, and which was now obliging the more wealthy among the people to seek for their poorer neighbours new homes in the colonies, or at least in other parts of England. He did not wish to reflect on the conduct of the House in these matters, he hoped he had shown by his conduct that it was in no spirit of revenge he acted—but when he heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer laud a system that had deprived so many of his constituents of their means of subsistence—when he heard an attempt made to delude Coventry into the belief that it would receive a boon by the remission of the duty on paper—a boon which was really not worth mentioning, he could not refrain from laying before the House the condition of that district, and warning the House not to proceed with reckless haste in the course indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to be cautious how they accepted assurances, that the recent abolition of import duties had been fraught with great advantage to all the different interests in the country, for a glaring and lasting proof of its destructive effects was daily brought before his eyes in his own neighbourhood. He thanked the House for having heard him with so much patience. He would have been glad if they bad given to these people some relief in the remission of duties on an article which was almost a necessary of life to them. He had shown that the boon that they would receive by the remission of the duty on paper would be not worth consideration. Let the question of the paper duties stand on its own merits, in other respects its effect in relieving the distress in Coventry could not be worth their attention.

said, he wished to make an observation upon something which had fallen from the hon. Member in reference to the effect of the paper duty on the Coventry manufacturers. The hon. Member had treated the burden of that tax upon the Coventry manufacturers as something hardly worth mentioning. But he (Mr. Milner Gibson) wished to state that a most urgent appeal was made some short lime time ago by the mayor and authorities of Coventry urging upon the Government to grant a special exemption from the paper duty to the silk manufacturers of Coventry.

said, he ought to have explained that the duty on the cardboard used in packing had already been remitted but there had bean some misapprehension at Coventry on the subject.

said, that there had been application for a further exemption, which the Government had been blamed for refusing, and it was even hinted that they had done so with a view of making the paper duty still more unpopular. But there was a very great difficulty, if they meant to maintain a duty, in carrying on a system of exemptions. This system of exemption from the paper duty had already been carried to a very considerable extent, and the principles involved in the exemptions that had been granted must carry any Government much further if they were to be acted upon. It would be extremely difficult to refuse granting to a particular trade some exemption that had already been granted to another. They had at the present time some seven or eight statutory exemptions from paper duty; they had some dozen exemptions from paper duty by Treasury order; and at short intervals of time applications were made to the Treasury for exemptions from the duty, the parties founding themselves in support of those applications upon the precedent of former exemptions. It appeared to him, therefore, that if the paper duty was to be maintained—and that seemed to be the policy of the Opposition—they must grapple with the question of these exemptions; and his belief was that, if they were to maintain the paper duty, it would be much better, instead of granting from time to time unjust exemptions from this tax to particular trades, to extend that tax equally to all. He would task the House, could there be any reason for exempting books in the Latin, Greek, Oriental, and Northern languages, printed in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, from the paper duty? Yet, there was a statutory exemption, which was mentioned in the Act of Parliament which imposed the paper duty, "for the encouragement of learning," and he supposed it was in consequence of that expression in the Act of Parliament that the duty on paper was called a tax on knowledge. He asked whether, in these days, it was reasonable to exempt this particular class of books and not exempt English school books? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckinghamshire, made an observation about the increase of Excise duty upon paper, which, perhaps, he would allow him (Mr. Milner Gibson) to remark upon in this, way—that if they were to keep the Excise upon British made paper, and at the same time allowed free trade in foreign paper, he (Mr. Milner Gibson) thought it was very likely the Excise duty on British paper would not increase as a head of Revenue. The supply of paper might increase from foreign countries, and, no doubt, the Customs' duties would be increased. He trusted the Opposition would consider the present situation of the paper trade in that respect. They had allowed the principle of free trade in paper, and it behoved them well to consider whether they were at the same time determined to keep the paper manufacturer of this country under the pressure of Excise restrictions. It was extremely difficult to estimate the general and indirect effects of an Excise upon a manufacture; therefore, he thought this was a matter which ought to enter into their consideration, and must have a very strong bearing upon the future yield of the Excise duty upon paper.

said, that he wished to take the earliest opportunity of referring to a point which had been brought under his notice in the form of an inquiry as to the intentions of the Government on a matter of some interest to the paper trade, or, at all events, to a portion of that trade, who had felt most seriously the inconvenience occasioned by the restrictions imposed by foreign countries on the exportation of rags. He had been asked by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) whether it was the intention of the Government "to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation and effect of the system of export duties on foreign rags upon the paper-making trade of Great Britain and Ireland?" The sentence is somewhat ambiguous. The Government were perfectly willing to consent to the appointment of that Committee, but if the proposal was that the Government should agree to take no measure with respect to the present state of the law on the importation of foreign paper until such a Committee should have sat and reported, to that he must answer entirely in the negative. He did not know whether that was the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire). Well, then, I must meet it with an absolute negative. The House of Commons last year disposed of the whole question of protection in relation to foreign paper. The argument was two-fold. It arose partly under the French Treaty, and it was contended by the Government, with the authority of their law officers, that the French Treaty bound them to the admission of paper from France at a duty not exceeding the Excise duty leviable upon English paper, plus an allowance for the charges entailed by the indirect operation of the Excise. So far they were carried by treaty obligations; but the treaty obligation terminated when they had provided for the importation of paper from France. But, besides that, the House of Commons determined the whole question without reference to treaty at all, or to one country or another, and passed a law under which foreign paper was imported at a duty substantially equivalent to the Excise. Therefore, so far as paper was concerned, and he was thankful to say so far as all other articles were concerned, protection was substantially done away with. It was now proposed, not to inflict any blow upon the paper manufacturer, but to relieve him from restrictions, the effect of which he had no doubt were very injurious, although not stated in money. The paper manufacturer would be far better off when both the Excise duty and the Customs duty were abolished than he was now when both these duties were in operation. But, then, what was the proposal of the hon. Member? If he understood him rightly his proposal was that they should abolish the Excise duty, and they should retain on the statute book a Customs' duty somewhat more than equal to that of the Excise. That certainly would be an astonishing measure, unless it was to be the first retrograde step towards a complete and integral protective system. He could not suppose that in 1861 the House of Commons would seriously set up a new protective duty. And what kind of a protective duty? A duty that would be prohibitory as regarded the great bulk of paper. The average value of paper he took to be about 6d. per pound, and he tested the operation of this proposed duty of the hon. Member by reference to the average value of paper. The hon. Gentleman proposed to retain a duty of 16s. per cwt. upon an article worth 56s.; so that foreign paper coming to this country would have to pay 16s. duty on an article of 40s. value. The proposal was, that they should at this time of day proceed to constitute a new duty on foreign paper of 40 per cent. Could the hon. Member seriously think the House of Commons would agree to that? What they abolished last year was a duty of about 10s. per cwt. They thought that in principle was wrong, and they removed it, and now was it to be supposed that they were both to replace that duty, and pretty nearly to double it? Would the hon. Member allow him to point out that they had been using exertions with respect to foreign countries which had not as yet taken full effect, but had taken some effect; because France had evidently proceeded in perfect good faith to act upon the assurances she gave last year, and she either had concluded, or appears to be upon the point of concluding, an arrangement with Belgium, which probably might have the effect of opening the Belgian and German markets to the papermakers of this country? He could well understand that when we should have ceased to levy Excise duty, and should have abolished all legislative restraints upon the trade in paper they should be in a very favourable condition for urging foreign countries to remove all restrictions upon the export of the raw material. He must say that their condition for urging this on foreign countries would be a very bad one indeed, if they were now to set the example of a great retrogressive measure, and to constitute a protective duty on paper nearly double that in existence before the French Treaty, and the passing of the measure of August last. The hon. Member may say, "You may impose a duty of 16s. per cwt. and make its removal a matter of bargain with other countries." That is a proposal to revive a doctrine which experience has exploded, and to resort to a practice of founding a commercial treaty upon a theory of exchanges which has now been entirely abandoned. It was not because commercial treaties were bad in themselves, but it was found altogether impossible to proceed on that principle, and, therefore, the commercial treaty with France was negotiated upon a principle entirely different. They never held the language for one moment that they were making a concession of British interests to France when they removed these protective duties. Therefore, they had completely put themselves out of court, and it would be impossible for any Gentleman, even the Gentleman who had the largest stock of audacity, to go with this 16s. duty and say to France," We will take this duty away if you will take away some other duty." It would place the country in a position entirely false, and he should very much regret if the hon. Member made that demand upon the Committee. He trusted if he did do so the Committee would decline to accede to it, and would pass the Resolution.

said, that he did not think that the question which he put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at all ambiguous, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have perfectly understood it. The questions of the Excise and Customs' duties upon paper were very different ones, and had, to a certain extent, no relation to each other. Although the House should free the paper trade from the fetters of an Excise, still, if they placed the papermakers in unfair competition with those who adopted a system of prohibition against the British manufacturer, they did an injustice and a wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what was destroyed last year. A great part of the paper trade of Great Britain and Ireland was then destroyed, and he, therefore, hoped that there would be some delay before the right hon. Gentleman went further in the same course. Let not the House be carried away by the delusive promises of the right hon. Gentleman. Last year, when the papermakers were justly alarmed, it was stated from the Treasury bench that the French Emperor was determined to give them free rags; but only a few days afterwards the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had to inform the House that although the Emperor was prepared to act in the spirit of a Manchester Free-trader, the Corps Legislatif was determined to maintain not only protection but prohibition. He stood up for an endangered interest, and implored the right hon. Gentleman, by every motive of patriotism and humanity, not to carry out his own determination in spite of the wishes of the trade, and the feelings of a large portion of the Members of the House. He spoke in no hostile spirit; he supported the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman last year, and the main proposition of that of this year; but when he gave the former vote he had no idea that Mr. Cobden, who had shown so much wisdom in regard to other matters, had made a practical blunder with regard to the papermakers of this country. He could not depend, nor did the right hon. Gentleman in his heart place dependence, upon the delusive promises which were now made; and, therefore, he was anxious that a Select Committee of that House should be appointed, should examine half a dozen, or even two, delegated witnesses, and should make a report, not to prevent Legislation, but to arm the right hon. Gentleman for the negotiations which were necessary for the salvation of the trade. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that the opposition to the abolition of the penny Customs' duty on paper arose from unfounded alarm. He would now show the House what evil consequences the removal of that duty had produced. There were two houses in Dublin, one of which used to send six tons, and the other nine tons of paper per week to the London market; and now, since the change of the laws, neither of them sent a single sheet. Thus these two houses alone had lost a trade which amounted to £47,000 a year. His right hon. Friend the Member for Lisburn informed him the other night of a paper-maker in the north of Ireland, who had been compelled to work half time, because he could not compete with the foreigner; and there was now in London a manufacturer from the south of that country, who had informed him that he used formerly to send a large quantity of paper to London, but that he now did not send one shilling's worth, because the foreigner had beaten him out of the market. These were the results of the change of the law in Ireland; now let them hear what had taken place in England. One of the largest manufacturers had declared to him that he and others were working at a loss. The Manchester Guardian consumed annually about l,000,000lbs. of paper, or nearly one two-hundreth part of the whole quantity manufactured in the United Kingdom. The connection which had subsisted for thirty-two years between that influential journal and the house which supplied them with paper had been broken since the change in the law, and the advantage transferred to the foreigner, every sheet on which that paper was printed being now procured from Belgium. At a meeting of manufacturers, the other day, he made this inquiry—if a journal consumes l,000,000lbs. of paper yearly, bow many persons would be engaged in its manufacture? The question went round the room; some said 80, others said 90, and some said 100; but it seemed to be agreed that at least 80 persons would be required for the purpose. Here were 80 hands sacrificed to a fanciful notion of free trade, and in order to benefit the foreigner. It had been said in the course of the debate last year—"Oh, but the manufacturers can supply the colonial papers." Now, what were the facts? The Melbourne Argus, an enormous paper, was formerly supplied by the very same gentleman to whom he had alluded; but now Belgium had beaten him out of the Colonial market, and he no longer sent a sheet to the Melbourne Argus. At the present moment twenty-five journals in different parts of the United Kingdom were supplied from the Continent, and he knew one gentleman in London who represented twenty Belgium paper mills—twenty screws for crushing the unfortunate operatives of this country, and depriving them and their families of employment. Free trade, in his opinion, consisted in a struggle between two men on a footing of equality; but it was no longer free trade when one of the parties had his hands tied and his feet manacled, and in that condition invited his adversary to trample upon him, and crush him to the earth. It had had been said that this was a paltry matter—a mere question of the importation annually of 15,000 tons of rags. But if only 1,000 tons of the 70,000 annually consumed were imported, the amount of duty paid to the foreign country from which they were brought would rule the whole market. The Customs' duty raised the price of rags, and, in fact, the rag exchange was the foreign Custom House. Moreover, the Americans also required rags, and finding a difference in price between England and the Continent, came into an already restricted market and thus sent up the cost. France would not allow an ounce of her rags to come into this country; Belgium acted in precisely the same spirit; and in Germany, where in some places the duty mounted up to £12 10s., and in others sank to £5, the average duty charged was £9 per ton. At the same time that they asked an unlimited command over our market, these countries also imposed a high prohibitary duty on English paper. Was this fair? Could the struggle be said to proceed on equal terms? If otherwise, was he not justified in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to employ the influence of the House of Commons in his negotiations to procure for the people of this country something like equitable terms? To exhibit the rapid increase in the importation of foreign paper, he might state that last year, and the year before, the average importation of foreign paper was about 800,000lb. or 1,000,000lb. Within seven months and a half, notwithstanding that trade in the early part of the year was in a very depressed state, and many of the foreign ports were frozen, the importation had increased to 5,000,000lb. At the present moment it was at the rate of 1,000,000lb, a month. But supposing it was only 10,000,000 a year, it would still be a serious matter, as 1,000 persons would then be deprived of employment. The right hon. Gentleman might imagine that foreign importation would not continue to the same extent. But the fact was that the foreigner was adapting himself more and more to our requirements. At present, he might not be in possession of the mills and machinery equal to the demand, but he was rapidly acquiring them; and in proof of the advantageous terms which he was able to hold out he might refer to the statement made by a newspaper of commanding influence, which he need not name, that it would be compelled to give the benefit of its enormous circulation to the foreign paper manufacturer, and would thereby gain £18,000 a year. It was utterly impossible that this state of things could continue. The home manufacturer, by his energy, his industry—he might almost say, by his despair—would, perhaps, for a time be able to contend against the foreigner; but if the struggle were at all doubtful, what was to hinder the foreigner from putting on the screw a little tighter, and by raising the price of the raw material 15, 20, or even 40 per cent higher, thus effectually putting an end to any further competition? Without violating any principle of free trade, he might surely ask the right hon. Gentleman to pause before dooming a branch of trade to destruction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer met the paper manufacturers a short time since, and he would ask an hon. Member who invariably supported the Government whether the facts which were then laid officially before the right hon. Gentleman did not warrant the appeal that he was now engaged in putting forward? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably meet him with the assertion that the question had already been determined by the House of Commons, and that it would be; impossible to set aside their decision; but what he asked him to do was to elicit an expression of opinion on the part: of the House, fortified by which he could go to the Emperor of the French, and to others whose decisions were all-powerful in the matter, and request them to do justice to the trade of England. The French people really cared very little about this question, but others; who were not contemplated by the treaty came in and took advantage of it; and if Belgium had been enabled in so short a time to gain such great advantages, what might be expected three or four years hence? He had heard it said that English paper makers, would not submit to loss, but would go over to Belgium and carry their trade with them. Such a result was very possible, but would the English paper makers carry over those in their employment as well; or rather, might they not expect that Belgian operatives would be employed, while the ratepayers of England would be called on to support the miserable victims of this frantic policy? His admiration for the genius and enterprise of Manchester would lead him to employ extravagant language if he attempted to give expression to it; but he should like to put a home case to those representing: that great hive of industry. Assuming that the cloud of war did not overshadow the States of America, but that the same harmony prevailing last year were still in existence, and that the Americans, with a view, on the one hand, to increase their Customs' duties, and on the other to foster the manufactures of the Northern States, determined to levy an export duty of 5 per cent on cotton, at the same time that they imposed a protective duty on articles of British manufacture, he wished to know what would be the state of feeling in Manchester. Would they be disposed to acquiesce tamely in this injustice; or was it not more likely that clamour would be raised, and, perhaps, that a disbanded army of mechanics would threaten to march up to London, and coerce Parliament to take some steps in their favour? He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to take his statements on the matter. Let him have evidence given before one of the ablest Committees that could be selected, and the opinion of that Committee would enable the Government to negotiate on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he spoke in no hostile spirit. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman was aware that if the question of the repeal, of the paper duty came before the House the next day he would vote; with the Government in favour of that repeal; but in; making his present appeal he was asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to doom the extinction of one of the last, and. most important of the trades: of Ireland, and a. trade by which vast numbers were, employed in other parts of the British Empire. With, a view of bringing forward his proposition in a formal manner he would now move that the; Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

said, that he had heard with extreme surprise the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the removal of all Customs' duties; on foreign paper—that by the abolition of the Customs' duties they would be in a, better position to treat with Foreign: Governments, and to impress upon, them the propriety of removing the export duty, on rags, Ten years ago they repealed the navigation laws, and admitted French vessels to all the advantages, both in the home and. colonial ports, their which own; vessels enjoyed. They had waited for ten years, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a single English vessel? had been relieved from any single burden in any of the French ports? Up to that moment the French had not reciprocated, but had kept all their advantages to themselves. How, then, could the right, hon. Gentleman say that they would be in. a better position to obtain from the French Government terms in regard to the export duty on rags if they at once abolished the Customs' duties on foreign paper; The English papermakers did; not ask for protection, but for what he understood was the principle of free trade—that all parties should be allowed to get the raw material duty free, or on the same terms.

said; that it was a; mistake to suppose that those who asked for the appointment of a Committe entertained the slightest idea of asking for, any protection for the British papermaker. The paper manufacturers had not the least desire that any vestige, of protection should be retained in their favour. All they asked ed for was that their position should be equalized to that of the foreigner. In- deed, they did not, in the Motion before the Committee, ask even for that. All they asked was for an inquiry as to whether such an equalization was possible. They simply asked that an inquiry should take place before a final step was taken which would entirely close the whole case. He believed that the paper manufacture of this country was to a great extent sinking into ruin, and that a larger portion of it would be seriously affected if it should turn out that it was impossible to do anything to help the manufacturers. Still they would feel that they had been treated with kindness by the Government of the country if the right hon. Gentleman consented to the appointment of the Committee. They would have the satisfaction of knowing that if nothing had been done for them it was because nothing could have been done, if a Committee of that House came to the conclusion that there was no means of assisting them. He thought he might pledge himself that this Committee need not sit for more than ten days or a fortnight. It could investigate the subject within that time, and he believed that the Government would be doing a great service to an important branch of manufacture, in a state of distress and alarm, if they consented to an investigation before the whole question of paper duties was brought to an end.

believed that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much exaggerated what was asked for by the papermakers. They did not ask that the existing Customs' duty should continue on paper when the Excise duty was abolished, as he hoped it would be. He believed that the abolition of the Excise duty would be a boon to the paper trade; but the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), in whose hands the case of the manufacturers now was—and it could not be in better—asked that such portion of the Customs' duty as might be considered equivalent to the disadvantages sustained by the British paper-makers, in consequence of the legislation of other countries, might be retained. They did not seek to be compensated for the natural advantages which those other countries possessed, but for their artificial advantages arising from their restrictive legislation. Some hon. Gentlemen argued that the treaty of last year bound us to take a particular course in reference to the Customs' duties on paper; but the article of the treaty which they had in their mind had no application to the case under dis- cussion. That article as construed last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the law officers of the Crown, provided that in respect to merchandize which paid an Excise duty in this country foreign manufactures of the same kind should be admitted on a Customs' duty not exceeding that Excise; but from the moment when we should remove an Excise duty from paper we should be unfettered by the French Treaty and at liberty to impose whatever Customs' duty we might think fit upon foreign paper. The legislation of last year, it should be remembered, took place without inquiry and without any statistical information being laid before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of the abolition of the Excise duty on paper as likely to lead to a great extension of the manufacture; but if the Customs' duty was taken off, and if the foreigner enjoyed the benefit of a duty on the export of the raw material from his own country, it was impossible that any great increase could take place in the manufacture of the superior kinds of paper used for printing in this country. The abolition of the Excise duty on paper was not to take effect till October, and the amount of the Customs' duty involved was a mere bagatelle; so that there need be no haste in legislating on this matter. In these circumstances, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to a Committee of Inquiry.

said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan asked what the manufacturers of Manchester would have done had the United States of America placed an export duty on raw cotton. His answer was, that so long as their hands were unfettered, the manufacturers of Manchester would endeavour to defy the competition of the world; and if they found themselves unable to do so they would confess, on the principles of free trade, that they were beaten, and that other countries must supply our markets with manufactured goods. He repeated that, so long as their hands were unfettered, they would willingly be exposed to competition; but, if the Government were to lay an import duty on raw cotton, they would claim an equivalent on the importation of manufactured cotton goods. If our Government were to levy at Dover and the other ports in the Channel a duty of £9 per ton on rags, the paper manufacturers would be entitled to protection against the importation of foreign paper; and when, instead of our Government having the benefit of that £9 per ton on rags, it was levied as an export duty at the foreign ports, and yet it was expected that the paper manufacturers in this country should compete with foreigners on the principles of free trade, he could not but characterize it as unjust. The manufacturers of this country must succumb to foreigners if the latter were able to produce better and cheaper goods; but they were not bound, and should not be asked, to contend against such enormous advantages as were given to foreign countries in the case of paper. He was convinced that the paper trade of this country would in such circumstances be ruined—that the import of foreign paper would continually increase, and that distress and desolation would be the consequence wherever the paper manufacture existed; for it was impossible that the trade could bear up against such an enormous advantage as £9 per ton on the exportation of rags given to the foreigner.

said, it was quite edifying to listen to the addresses of the three or four last Gentlemen after they had voted for a repeal of the paper duty. He agreed with the hon. Member for Dungarvan, that the paper trade of Ireland must be ruined under the policy adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by his negotiator in Paris; but he (Colonel Dunne) protested against any class of the people being taxed on account of the blunder of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year in the matter of the financial treaty.

said, he was surprised at the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester. They had only to do in this country with the making of their own laws. They could not go into other countries and demand the enactment of laws which they might think would suit them best. Paper was manufactured from cotton and linen waste, and a variety of articles which were to be had at home; and was it because a foreign country put a duty upon the exportation of rags that they were to pay a penny a pound more for paper than it was worth? He had paper manufacturers among his constituents, and deputations had waited upon him to state their views upon this question. He told these gentlemen that if they were ruined their workmen would be able to get employment elsewhere, and that it would be far cheaper to send for their income tax papers and pension them off at the expense of the State than to make the public pay a penny per lb, for paper more than it was worth for the sake of finding them employment. If he were going to establish paper-mills he believed that there was no country in the world where he could do so with greater advantage than in England, after the Excise and import duties had been removed. Paper manufacturers would not be bound to make that kind of paper which they could not make as cheap as foreigners; but they did and could manufacture paper as cheap as foreigners, and, moreover, do a large export trade. He thought the proposition a great mistake. According to the argument used to support it, we ought to put an import duty on paper imported from all countries where they had an export duty on rags. Why, in doing that, we should be going back to the old system of protection which was urged on behalf of our sugar producers, who manufactured free-grown sugar, and which we found to result in those very countries importing cheap slave-grown sugar for their own use, and sending us the whole of their own free-grown produce. That system, in effect, was sought to be introduced in the case of paper by levying a duty on paper coming from foreign countries where they had an export duty on rags. He hoped that House after its recent legislation would not stultify itself by any such a scheme as placing an importation duly on paper from any country.

said, he had reason to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not oppose the Select Committee for which he should move next Tuesday, a Committee to inquire into the operation of the law as it now existed, under which foreign paper was imported duty free, while the papermakers were subjected to a heavy export duty on rags coming from foreign countries. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), however, had imported into the debate the additional question whether the House ought to delay its legislation on the Customs' duty until the Committee had inquired and had made its Report. He had been in communication with persons who had been engaged in the paper manufacture since the treaty with France; and they had instructed him to say that the state of competition to which they were subjected under the circumstance of an export duty on rags coming from abroad was such that they were not in a condition to enter into unlimited competition. He (Mr. Norris) repudiated protection, and he did not understand the papermakers to ask any favour; but he understood that the question was simply one regarding the raw material, the supply of which the paper manufacturer could not stimulate in this country, and which the laws of foreign countries prevented his importing. If he thought he should be considered an advocate for the revival of protection, he should hasten to repudiate any such proposition; but he maintained that the paper manufacture had, by the legislation of other countries, been taken out of the ordinary rules regulating manufacture. He believed that if the Committee for which he was about to move were granted, it would be shown that after numerous experiments and the expenditure of thousands of pounds there had not yet been discovered any raw material other than rags for the manufacture of paper. With regard to straw, that was an article of annual produce, but paper was one of continual consumption and production. But in cases where straw had been used it had so risen in price, in consequence of the demand for it, that the manufacturer was unable to continue its use, and the price of rags was not in consequence lowered. The same thing would happen if the attempt were made to substitute for rags the fibres or grasses of tropical climates. He believed that the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) did not mean to decide the question of the extent or amount to which a Customs' duty should be maintained, but when it was remembered the facilities that Ireland possessed for the support of paper mills, it was a sufficient justification for his asking and the House granting this Committee to inquire whether anything could be done to amend or alter the law, or whether a treaty could be effected with foreign countries, so that there should be established an equality in free trade.

I am very desirous that this question should be understood. There is no intention on the part of the Government of opposing themselves to an inquiry into the condition of the papermakers, if they think they can show that there is a system of legislation in foreign countries by which they suffer. That will be a proper subject for inquiry, with a view to representations being made in the proper quarter. Her Majesty's Government do not anticipate much advantage in allowing a matter of this kind to pass into the hands of a Committee of the House, since the very appointment of such a Committee is likely to raise jealousy in foreign countries. Still, if any portion of the paper manufacturers have a strong opinion in favour of such inquiry, we are bound not to resist it, and much less to resist the wish of this House. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) says he does not propose to maintain the Customs' duty on paper. Then what is it he proposes? He has made no proposal except that the Chairman report Progress. He declines to entertain the subject, and says that after a Committee has been appointed and has inquired, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may propose a change in the Customs' duty on foreign paper. The hon. Member speaks of the paper duty as not being remitted until October; but it will be impossible to obtain the means of forming a judgment upon the matter referred to the Committee, except after careful and elaborate inquiry into the condition of foreign countries. You have voted to abolish the Excise duty on paper of 14s. 8d. per cwt.; you have now to deal with a Customs' duty of 16s. per cwt., and it is proposed to maintain the latter duty until a Committee has been appointed, has inquired, and has reported, and until time has been allowed for the House not only to consider the recommendation of the Committee, but the evidence on which those recommendations are founded, and is prepared to legislate upon some principle on the Report of that Committee. And on what principle is the House, then, to legislate? Why, on a principle that has been excluded from our legislation for twenty years. I entreat the House of Commons to remember in what manner it has dealt with every other class of the community. The hon. Gentleman said the right understanding of free trade was that it should secure fair play for every man. [Mr. MAGUIRE: Hear, hear!] Therefore, the meaning of free trade is that you are never to change the restrictive laws of your own country until you have ascertained that the corresponding restrictive laws have been abolished in other countries. But that was not the policy which we adopted in our recent commercial legislation. Let us clearly understand what we are about. When it was proposed to repeal the Corn Laws the potent English landlords did not say," We want an unfair advantage over our own countrymen." What the landlords said was that the Legislature had imposed burdens on them right and left, and required them to bear a mass of taxation not borne by the trading classes, and that, they added, was the act of the English Legislature. Therefore, they asked for a compensation to be given them by an extra price of corn. That is much the same doctrine as that of the hon. Member for Dungarvan; for it is argued by him that if some foreign country chooses to alter the price of an article unnaturally by the imposition of an export duty that export duty is to be an apology for the imposition of an import duty here, which the British consumer must pay. In reply to that argument I might really travel over the whole ground of our legislation of past years. What, according to the view of the hon. Member, are we to say to the producer of British colonial sugar? Surely, of all men dealt with he had the strongest ease for the equality now contended for in opposition to the principle on which we have proceeded for the last twenty years. The hon. Member's principle is that this House in its own commercial legislation is to be regulated by the legislation of other nations; if foreign countries adopt good legislation then we are to follow, but if they adhere to bad legislation then we are to adhere to bad legislation too. What said the producer of sugar? He said," I am for free trade, but give me equality," and I think that his was the strongest case possible. Was it not the fact that human flesh was imported into the countries which he had to compete with, while he was bound to free labour under peculiar and disadvantageous conditions. But we answered these planters by our legislation that we could not pay regard to those circumstances, and that, though we might endeavour to do what we could by influence and example, it was our duty, at all events, to do justice to the British nation. The hon. Member spoke of some particular paper-mill failing to send to this country some tons of paper a week which it formerly sent, and he thought that a case for the interference of the House. If so, then this House has been guilty for the last twenty years of the grossest injustice; and I do not believe that there is a single instance in which those who were subjected to foreign competition for the first time could not show a stronger case. It is admitted that by far the greatest bulk of paper made in this country stands in no fear of foreign competition. What is the meaning of the fact that we are the exporters of the best paper? It means that our papermakers can purchase raw ma- terial of the best kind, can manufacture it into paper, send it to neutral markets, and meet the foreign papermaker after paying the cost of transport. Of all the applications for protection made to this House and defeated, I know none in respect to which such an answer as that could have been given. I have spoken of the potent landlord interest and of the West Indian interest, but they must have been treated with cruelty and injustice if the doctrine of the hon. Member for Dungarvan be correct—that we should pause in our legislation, in order to allow foreign legislation to regulate ours. The hon. Member has spoken of an immense quantity of paper coming from Belgium; but is there any primâ facie case of distress in the paper trade? The importation is not 4 per cent of the amount made in this country.

It is 10 per cent on the particular kind I referred to.

Well, does the hon. Member propose to limit his legislation to that particular kind, or does he not mean to impose it on all? In order to secure the interest of some narrow portion of the trade, it is thought convenient to exclude the whole from the beneficial influence of competition. He says that an immense quantity of paper is to come from Belgium. How are the Belgians to make it? Is not the raw material limited there as well as here? At this moment the Belgians are importers of foreign rags. How, therefore, are they to make that great increase of manufactured paper which is to drive the British papermaker out of his own market? In what has fallen from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) I cannot concur. After referring to the opinions of the legal advisers of the Government, I believe that the most serious embarrassment would arise from the course proposed by the hon. Member. Of course, if I were to state the arguments on which that opinion is founded, I should only be putting weapons into the hands of foreign Governments; but, if we are rightly advised, the greatest embarrassment would result from the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion, in consequence of the obligations contracted under various treaties with foreign Powers. If, however, Parliament has been wrong for twenty years in applying to all interests the principle of regulating first of all its legislation in reference to the consumers in this country, then adopt the pro- position of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, which in effect invites the House to refer this matter to a Select Committee, in order to compare foreign legislation with our own, and to regulate our own accordingly; but if you adhere to the principle which has been admitted, no doubt, with sincere conviction, by a great number of Gentlemen belonging to all parties, do not now in effect reverse a system of legislation which has proved so beneficial to the country. I deny that in the manufacture of paper the resources of science are yet exhausted; and an excellent paper for printing purposes has been tonight put into my hands, produced in America from straw and cotton rag without any admixture of that linen rag of which we have heard so much. Though the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan may seem a small matter, yet in effect it declares that Parliament has hitherto been proceeding on a fundamentally wrong principle, and that we are to reverse the legislation of twenty years.

suggested that, as it was not likely that the Motion would be carried against the Government, the hon. Member for Dungarvan had better rest satisfied with the discussion which had taken place.

intimated that he should go to a division, as he had not intended to trouble the Committee with a sham Motion.

asked whether it was proposed to insert the Resolution in the Bill which the Government intended to bring in?

said, the regular course was that the Resolution should be reported to the House. When such had been done it would be competent for him to move its insertion as a clause of the Bill.

said, that until we returned to the organization of the War Departments as they existed before the war, it was vain to expect anything but waste and defective management. It was quite right, speaking in a military point of view, that the Commander-in-Chief should have the command of the whole of the army, but those details with respect to the fixed and usable matériel of an army, which formerly were in the control of the Ordnance Department, ought to be brought within some distinct and responsible control. As an instance there was not at the present moment a single man in England responsible to the country for the state of our defences. He wanted to know why there should be such an enormous establishment at head-quarters. The number of clerks was larger than ever it was before. He believed the size of the establishment was to be attributed mainly, if not altogether, to the want of organization. The Commander-in-Chief was quite capable of managing all the executive part of the army. It was absolutely necessary that some one should be placed over the scientific corps and the manufacturing establishments, and that the person selected to fill the post should be responsible for the state of our defences. It could not be denied that our establishments were not in a satisfactory state. The departments were filled with useless officers—officers who were unknown in former times. What could we want, for example, with a director of clothing, and of what use could a precis writer be in a military department? It was matter of complaint, too, that under the present system of registration many letters were left unanswered, and the correspondence in the offices was much slower than it ought to be. He thought, moreover, that the payments in the military departments should be brought under the view of one officer who should be responsible to the public. What was wanted was unity of control over all these departments. Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members being present—

proceeded to say that the great defect of our military system was the want of organization and responsibility. Everything was desultory. The result was that the expenses had enormously increased in every item. The old system might not have been perfect, but it was far preferable to the present arrangement. The Master General of the Ordnance used to be answerable for our defences; but now our fortresses were in a most unsatisfactory condition, and no one seemed responsible for the short-comings. Why should there not be some recognized military tribunal to determine on the merits of arms and accoutrements? It had taken three years after it had been pointed out by himself to remove a small brass guard which made every lance utterly useless, because there was no proper authority to whom the matter could be referred. It was very unpleasant for military men to criticise these matters, but he had no other object than the economy and efficiency of the service. He thought that the Under Secretary for War should be perfectly conversant with military details. Such knowledge could not be got by study, and in many instances the success of an expedition might depend on it. In the Crimea the neglect of some small details led to very disastrous consequences. In France the system of military organization was perfect. We had no means of transporting our cavalry, our horses could not go into cattle trucks, the tops being too low for the accoutrements. By a little arrangement these things might be attended to as in France, He hoped to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the recommendations of the Committee of last year would be carried out. He thought that near a million of these Estimates might be saved by proper organization.

said, he could not admit that there was great want of responsibility. The Commander-in-Chief was responsible for the discipline of the army, and the Secretary of Stale for War was responsible for the state of the various military establishments. He was responsible for the state of our fortifications, assisted by the Inspector General of Fortifications. He was responsible for the state of our artillery, assisted by high officers of that branch of the service; and so on through the whole extent of our military, medical, and commissariat arrangements. He could not see, therefore, that a very much better system could be adopted. He objected to the system of payment, for he did not think military officers should be paymasters, as it was not their legitimate duty. With regard to the establishments, he thought they had too many temporary clerks, and that it would be an economical improvement to increase the number of permanent clerks by promoting the temporary clerks. There were now in the War Office 145 temporary clerks, in addition to 357 permanent ones; many of these temporary clerks had been employed for eight, ten, and some even as long as fourteen years. If these gentlemen were really required it would surely be better both for themselves and for the service, as well as more economical, that they should be placed on the permanent staff. The Estimates he regretted to observe were framed with very little regard to economy, and many items were introduced which were either quite unnecessary or might very well be postponed. The Clerk of the Ordnance formerly made an annual circuit over the whole of the establishments in England, Scotland, and Ireland. If the Under Secretary for War would follow the same course and make a yearly inspection, no doubt he would detect many items which ought never to have found their way into the Estimates, and would have them eliminated in future. If the Report of the Organization Committee were adopted, he felt certain that great economy would be the result, and that the Estimates presented next year would be much more satisfactory to the House.

observed that there were several items in these Estimates larger than the corresponding Estimates of last year, and the Estimates of last year were the largest which had ever been presented to Parliament in time of peace. He saw at Page 50 a Vote for Fortifications. He wished to know whether this sum was intended to carry out the Fortifications for which a sum was voted towards the close of last Session; and also to know, either from the hon. Gentleman or the noble Viscount, whether those fortifications were intended to be completed. He noticed a Director of Stores, employed at a salary of.£1,200. The gentleman occupying this post, he had been informed, was a captain in the Royal Navy. He begged to know whether this was the fact? In the Vote for two Accountant-Generals he found a sum of £631 more taken this year than last. Last year the amount was £1,000; this year it was £1,631. He should be glad to know the reason of this increase. Then there was a very unaccountable charge in the next page, of £20,800 for extra clerks. He found, too, that there were twelve less in number of messengers, doorkeepers, &c, than last year, and yet they were to cost £434 more. Advertisements and travelling expenses were higher by a sum of £2,000; the charge of the department of the General Commanding-in-Chief was increased by a sum of £500; that of the Adjutant General, by £600. Taken together, all the sums by which various items were increased this year amounted to £5,690 more than last year. He begged to ask the Chairman whether he was at liberty to move the reduction of the Vote by this sum, so as to disallow the excess over last year, without putting the Committee to the necessity of dividing some five or six times over?

said, it was quite competent for the hon. Gentleman to move the reduction of the Vote by the gross sum, but, if he did so, it would preclude any other Member from proposing the reduction of any particular item.

said, he did not wish to do that.

said, that during the year 1856–7, the House voted enormous Estimates for the War Department and the Horse Guards on account of the extra work caused by the Crimean war. They were told at the time that the increase was only temporary, and would terminate with the return of peace. That expectation had, however, not been fulfilled. Surely it was possible under the existing consolidation of departments to exercise some control over that inordinate outlay and bring it down to something like a suitable standard for a time of peace. If they were to compare the Estimates of this year—a year of peace—with that of 1856–7—a year of war—the results would be found somewhat remarkable. In 1856–7, they had 246,000 men in their service, or just 100,000 more than there were at present. The cost of those men in that year was £34,900,000; this year it was only £14,000,000. The expense of the War Office, on the other hand, wasnow £175,000, whereas in 1856–7 it was only £169,000. That of the departments connected with the Horse Guards now was £26,000, whereas then it was £22,000. So that the expenditure of those Departments was now £10,000 more than it was when the war expenditure was 150 per cent greater. This increase ran throughout the administration of the army. There were now 357 permanent clerks on the establishment. Others were called temporary clerks, al- though some had served already for fourteen years. In 1856-7, however, there were only 344 of these permanent clerks. In like manner, whilst they paid £19,200 only for temporary clerks in a time of war—and we were then told that when the war ceased that amount would be diminished—they were now paying £20,800 for temporary clerks in time of peace. There were other points upon which he really thought his hon. Friend must be called upon to give some account to the Committee with regard to the messengers. In 1856–7 a sum of £5,691 was spent upon messengers; they now cost £7,500. He noticed also that there were forty-five messengers now on the establishment, whereas last year there were only thirty-three. Could his hon. Friend explain the reason for this increase? Similar observations would apply to the Horse Guards Department, and to the number of the Adjutant General's clerks, who were three more now than were found requisite during the Russian war. In the office of the General Commanding-in-Chief there were last year twenty-two clerks; there were now twenty-four. He had no wish to cut down the salaries of these gentlemen—on the contrary, he thought that would he acting in a very false spirit of economy—but unless some satisfactory explanation were given he should feel it to he his duty to move to reduce the Votes for several items.

wished to ask what was the meaning of a Secretary for Military Correspondence? Everything belonging to a soldier's equipment, to military stores of every description, to contracts, &c, was military correspondence. Then, why were civilians solely employed to conduct the correspondence of the Army? The reason was that the country could never make up its mind to treat the army as a profession. In the legal or medical professions the men who distinguished themselves most were placed at the head of their professions; but in the army military men were systematically excluded from administration and finance. He had heard it asserted that the late Commander-in-Chief in the Crimea, though possessed of full powers, yet found himself incapable of exercising those powers, from his having been for forty years at the Horse Guards, and brought up in a school where he was not allowed to interfere with a single £5 of expense. They might rest assured that until the several departments at the War Office were thrown open to offi- cers of the army no real efficiency would be met with at a period of emergency. He trusted yet to see the Military Secretary placed in his proper position under the Secretary of State. It was understood that the whole correspondence of the Horse Guards passed through the hands of the Military Secretary; but if he (Captain Jervis) were not mistaken not one-half went through his hands, but passed from the Adjutant-General to the Store Department and other offices direct. Even at the Horse Guards much of the duties were performed by civilian clerks; except in the office of the Adjutant-General of Artillery, where an enormous amount of correspondence was carried on relating to the Ordnance arrangements in all parts of the world by eighteen non-commissioned officers and privates at a total cost of £1,800 a year, including clothing. The only other office of which he would then take notice was that of the Director of Ordnance. The non-appointment of this officer was viewed with great dissatisfaction by the army. He (Captain Jervis) hoped he would be placed in a position compatible with the importance of his office.

believed that any attempt on the part of an independent Member to reduce the Estimates in detail would always be utterly hopeless, because the Government had in attendance a sufficient number of Members to overwhelm any one who should make such an attempt. He thought that there was little or no chance of securing a reduction in this manner; and it seemed to him that the only plan was for the House, at the commencement of a Session, to pass a series of Resolutions, giving a lump sum for each Department, and giving those Departments notice that that sum must he the limit of their expenditure. He wished to ask a question with regard to an increase that had not before been mentioned. Last year, in the Department of the Secretary of State for War, there was no Director of Ordnance—this year there was one, with a salary of £1,000. In the Accountant General's Office there were last year two officials, the Accountant General and the Deputy, and their salaries amounted to £2,000; a second Deputy was now added, and their salaries increased to £2,850. He wished to know why these additional offices had been created.

hoped the Government would give a full explanation of its Intentions with regard to an organization of the War Department—a subject in which he took a deep interest. The Committee on the subject, of which he was a member, made several important recommendations; one of the most important of them referring to the position held by the Secretary for Military Correspondence. The opinion of the Committee was that the post should be abolished altogether, and the Secretary constituted one of the Under Secretaries of State. There was already one permanent Under Secretary in the War Department, and a political Under Secretary who was removed at every change of Government. The Committee thought that a Military Under Secretary ought to be appointed, who should be permanent, remaining under any change of Government, and prepared to give information to the civil officials. The army made no claim to have a military man appointed Secretary; but when a military officer had been proved to be able and efficient he ought to hold a position of some actual authority. Sir Edward Lugard, he believed, was consulted on almost every occasion; he worked hard, and was of the greatest use in the Department; but he really held no practical position. He had a certain number of clerks working under him; but he had no distinct department under his control. It was only fair, if a military officer was attached to the War Department, that he should hold a distinct position that gave him some degree of power. The army had a claim to be represented in the War Department in a responsible position.

said, those hon. Members who had signed a certain document advocating economy in the expenditure were sneered at as "financial reformers," who never attended when the Estimates were discussed; or, if they attended, because they did not second every crude suggestion of a saving. But he thought it was better to make a representation direct to the heads of the Departments, who controlled the expenditure, than to waste time in the House in discussing the details of the Estimates. His own experience convinced him that very little saving could be effected by merely discussing the Estimates in the House. It was time to try some other mode of enforcing economy; he had, therefore, signed the memorial urging the Government to retrenchment in the public expenditure, as he should be ready to sign any similar document that was more likely to produce the result desired than discussion in the House, He believed those per- sons who were most able to reduce the amount of the Estimates were the heads of Departments,

said, he could not allow the sentiments just expressed to pass without remark. He knew nothing more injurious—nothing that ought to be more deprecated, nothing that it was more important that the House should discourage, than the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the control of the public expenditure by the House of Commons was a mere delusion. Nothing could be more injurious, more destructive to the constitutional privileges and influence of this House, than that it should be allowed to be said that they were not to bring the expenditure of the country before the elected representatives of the people for the purpose of keeping it within proper limits, but were to go lurking about the ante-chambers of Ministers, and endeavour there to make arrangements in respect of the public finance. It would be a most dangerous principle to acknowledge, and he should be sorry if hon. Gentlemen on the other side—to whom he gave credit for feelings as pure as his own—were to tolerate or sanction it for a moment. The House of Commons was the proper place in which the proposed expenditure of the country ought to be brought forward by the Government, and it should be criticised by the representatives of the people and regulated exclusively by the balance of opinion. But the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, besides being false in principle and fatal in practice, was not founded in fact. The hon. and learned Member had said their criticism did no good. He begged to contradict the hon. and learned Gentleman. He denied that it was an idle and barren ceremony that they should criticise with the utmost deliberation and care the expenditure proposed by the Government. He denied that when a good plea for reduction was brought forward in that House it had always proved fruitless in results. It might be inoperative in the year in which it was advanced, but it was not correct to say that it had no effect. It always told in the end. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not had a very long experience here, but he would not taunt him with that; but many hon. Gentlemen must have remembered an occasion—not a time of great political excitement—in which there had been proposed a vast increase in the taxation of the country—no less than 12d. in the pound on the income tax—to carry into effect very largely increased Military and Naval Estimates. What did the House do then? It was only a few years ago, when the noble Lord at present at the head of the Government held another office, the House of Commons disapproved of that increase of taxation, and interfered; both sides of the House, without reference to any party feeling, spoke in a manner so unmistakeable and so distinct that the Government withdrew the Estimates, and the country had in consequence a decreased expenditure to a very large extent, and an income tax was proposed and agreed to of 7d. instead of 12d., and the Naval and Military Estimates were adapted to the revenue so reduced. That the business of the House of Commons, in considering the expenditure was a mere idle ceremony and imposture could not be seriously believed;—if it were so they had better not meet at all, for it was their principal object and their chief duty to the public to control the expenditure, and if they did not fulfil that duty they had no claims whatever on the public confidence. No doubt every Minister brought forward the Estimates under a deep sense of duty and responsibility; he did not bring them forward unless he believed they were necessary. He admitted, also, that there were some hon. Members who criticised those Estimates without argument, and found fault without reason—he would name no names—but he was not sure that even bad criticism was without its good results, and was one that the House ought absolutely to discourage. He would not make any personal allusions, but all knew that they had a surplusage of criticism in matters of Supply in the House; he thought it was not always barren of useful results, but, at all events, it furnished no ground for the doctrine that because these captious complaints were unsuccessful the House of Commons was to abdicate its duty—its first duty—its control over (he expenditure of the country. He felt confident that when Her Majesty's Ministers brought forward these Estimates, had they been opposed to the public interest, and had the House of Commons felt they were not justified, no consideration of political convenience would have prevented the House from expressing its opinion and refusing to grant the Supplies. The House of Commons, not in theory but in practice, exercised a control over the public expenditure. They were, by the constitution, appointed to control it, and by the practice of Parliament they had and exercised that power when it was necessary. He, therefore, protested against the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and those who concurred with him, whether they called themselves "financial reformers," or anything else, and he trusted that the House would not be led away from the question before it, but would in Committee of Supply use the power of controlling the expenditure of the country; and if any attempt was made in any quarter to reduce it and failed, he should feel assured that the votes agreed to had been shown to be justified by the requirements of the public service.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had imputed sentiments to him which he had never uttered. Nothing that he had said had called for the solemn lecture which had just been delivered. Experience led him to believe that a great number of these discussions on small items were of very little use, and, therefore, it was that he, not at all endeavouring to dissuade the House from exercising its functions in Committee of Supply, merely explained that he had found such discussions unproductive, and why he had in this instance tried another mode of influencing expenditure.

said, during his long experience in that House he had never before that night heard such a speech as that of the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham. In Committee of Supply the hon. and learned Gentleman got up—did not say one word on the Vote under discussion—but occupied the Committee with a statement of something he had done on some other occasion, and then proceeded to read hon. Members of all sides a lecture as to their proceedings in Committee of Supply—a matter on which as it appeared he knew nothing—and intimated that all discussion of the Estimates was useless. His right hon. Friend the Member fur Buckinghamshire, who had had great experience, had risen and inflicted a severe and deserved rebuke, and had consulted the dignity of the House in so doing. For himself he (Sir William Jolliffe) protested against the tone of the hon. and learned Member's observations.

said, if the right hon. Baronet had been in his place a little sooner that night he would have found that the hon. Member for Nottingham had received much provocation for his ob- servations in the taunts which had been thrown out against him as one of those Members who had signed the celebrated document in favour of economy in the expenditure of the country.

said, he had not alluded in the least to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman had signed that document. What he said was that Gentlemen who talked loud on the hustings and wrote very finely about financial reform never took a step in the House to carry it out. He should not be deterred by the hon. and learned Gentleman's lecture from doing all he could in these discussions to carry out those reforms in the army which he thought necessary. Nothing but perseverance, he knew, would carry them, and, though it might not be this year, nor next, sooner or later a reorganization of the army would be effected. When in office he had done what he could to secure the reforms he thought necessary by pressing them on the attention of his colleagues, and out of office he should not cease to press them on the attention of the Government.

, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth, stated that the appointment of the Deputy Inspector General of Fortifications was not a new office—it was the same as last year. The work thrown upon Sir John Burgoyne and the other officers of the department had been considerably increased by the new fortifications going on, but no addition had been made to this Vote, the additional expense being defrayed from the loan. The next office the hon. Member had referred to was the Directorship of Stores and Clothing; but that also was not a new appointment, and the same sum was voted in the Estimates for it from year to year. It was at present held by a distinguished naval officer, who had been employed in the Baltic during the late war, and who has for some time filled the office of Director of Naval Ordnance. In that capacity he gained such a general acquaintance with ordnance stores of all kinds that when the office of Director of Stores was created he was appointed to it, and he had discharged its duties with great diligence. The Army Department furnished a large amount of stores to the navy, so that, even if he had not been appointed, it might have been necessary to have a naval officer in the department. The appointment of As- sistant Accountant General was made upon the recommendation of a Treasury Committee, and was absolutely necessary. He believed there would be great advantage in having that additional office) ', as the first step towards economy was to insure accurate and careful accounts. The Committee would observe that only a small increase of expense would be the result, because the salary of the Accountant General was reduced from £1,500 to £1,200 a year. Then as to the precis writer, it must not be supposed that this officer would cost £1,000 a year additional, as the salary of the gentleman in the department who had been appointed already amounted to that sum. That salary he retained; but the salary which attached to the office was £600 a year, rising by £25 a year to £800 a year. Then as to the librarian, it was indispensable to have some gentleman to look after the large collection of books—some 70,000 volumes—which belonged to this department. Mr. Marshall, an officer of great ability and long service, had accepted the appointment, and the duties of it would, he believed, be very onerous, With respect to the large number of temporary clerks, he agreed that it was not to the advantage of the public service; but the Secretary of State wished to act with caution in increasing the permanent establishment. The Accountant General's Department would when reorganized require in addition to its present staff, a certain number of the junior ranks; but, as there would probably be a diminution in the total number of first class clerks, no extra expense would be occasioned by the change The increase of transit boys had cost very little, and their employment in carrying papers from room to room had greatly facilitated the transaction of business. The increase in the expense of advertisements was only nominal, arising from a transfer of all the advertisements in other Votes into this Vote. As to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Dunne) upon the defences of the country, he believed they were in a far more satisfactory state than they ever were at any former period.

asked, whether that assurance applied also to Canada and the colonies?

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have some private information with respect to some fort of small consequence in a distant part of the world; but, treating the question broadly, he could assure the Committee that the defences of the whole British empire were in a better position than at the time when the Board of Ordnance ceased its functions. With regard to the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War, it must be remembered that upon fortifications he was able to consult with Sir John Burgoyne, who was, perhaps, the most able engineer officer in this or any other service. There would also be a Director General of Ordnance, whom the Secretary of State could consult on the artillery portion of the service. Provision for the salary of this new officer was inserted in the Estimate in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee on Military Organization which sat last year, and he would exercise superintendence over though be would not interfere with the details of the manufacture of ordnance and ammunition at Woolwich. He did not agree in thinking that the office of the Assistant Director of Stores and Clothing at Whitehall was unnecessary. The officers at the head of the large establishment at Pimlico could not manage the clothing department of the War Office. It was absolutely necessary that there should be some one at Whitehall to assist in the management of that important branch of this Department. He admitted that it was an exceedingly inconvenient arrangement to make the military officers at the head of the manufacturing establishments give security, and be responsible for the cash and for the payment of wages. An alteration had been made by which cashiers would be appointed in the different establishments who would give security, and receive a small annual addition to their salaries. The further employment of soldier clerks was under consideration. He denied the justice of the proposition of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) that, unless he was able to give explanations of the difference between the Estimates of the present and any preceding year, the Committee ought not to be satisfied, as he thought Ids position only required that he should be able to defend any particular item in these Estimates to which exception might he taken. There might be a gradual diminution of expenditure in various cases, but he saw no possibility of any sudden reduction. Now, if the hon. Gentleman had taken the expenditure of the War Office for the year 1856–7, and compared it with the Estimates of this year, he would find that the estimate of this year was much below that expenditure. The Vote for the War Office in 1856–7 was £179,886, and the estimate this year was £175,738—making £4,148 less than the expenditure of that year. He did not mean to say there might not be some items in which reduction could be made. Still, on the other hand, it was extremely necessary that no undue delay should take place in the transaction of business. He quite concurred in the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Lindsay), and the recommendations of the Select Committee as to the organization of the War Office. Its great defect undoubtedly was the want of military officers, with practical experience, to advise the Secretary of State. His noble Friend at the head of the Department had resolved to carry out the plan recommended by the Committee. A Director of Ordnance would be appointed as soon as the Vote was sanctioned by Parliament. His noble Friend also proposed to appoint a military officer as permanent Under Secretary of State; these changes would not involve any increased expenditure, and the present Vote would, therefore, be sufficient to provide for them. He cordially concurred in the praise which had justly been bestowed by the hon. and gallant officer upon Sir Edward Lugard (Secretary for Military Correspondence), to whom the Secretary of State was indebted for valuable assistance.

said, he was not a Member of the body who arrogated to themselves the title of "financial reformers;" nevertheless, he was desirous to see the principle of economy carried out, with a due regard to the efficiency of the public service, and he thought the increase in the Votes of this year could not be passed over without notice. There was one item in this enormous expenditure which had been alluded to by the hon. Members for Lambeth and Pontefract, but to which he again wished to draw the attention of the Committee. He alluded to the very large sum put down for messengers, porters, door-keepers, &c. This item of about £7,300 demanded, he thought, further explanation from the hon. Under Secretary for War.

said, nothing could have been more satisfactory than the explanation which his hon. Friend had given to the Committee, but he desired a little more information as to the particular duties to be performed by the Director of Ord- nance. Was he to be Director General of the Artillery, and would he be responsible for the state and condition of the arms at home and abroad? or would he have to be responsible for the state and condition of the arsenal and factories at Woolwich? By the Report of the Committee, laid upon the table of the House, it appeared that the arsenal at Woolwich was well conducted, while, on the other hand, nothing could be much worse than the account given by the Commissioners of the state of the dockyard at Woolwich. If the Government intended to appoint an officer whose business it would be to interfere with the heads of the Departments, it would considerably diminish their responsibility and interfere with those operations which were now carried on so well, and, in the end, the appointment would be a complete failure. It would be impossible for any establishments in the world, were they in the hands of the Government or in the hands of private individuals, to be more economically and more efficiently managed than those at Woolwich.

complained of the increased amount of money required for clerks, and said he should be glad to be informed whether the office of precis writer and librarian was a new office for the gentleman who had been appointed to it at such a large salary, and whether the situation which he held previously had been filled up at the same salary paid to this gentleman?

, in reference to the temporary messengers and boys and doorkeepers employed at the War Office, said, there was a class of most deserving men—soldiers who had been discharged on account of wounds and long service—who could perform these duties efficiently. Perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary for War, who, he knew, wished to promote the deserving men of the army, would see whether this Vote could not be expended in the employment of men who would perform the duties more efficiently than boys, and it would in some degree be a recognition of their services in foreign climes.

thought the explanation with regard to the appointment of the precis writer was unsatisfactory, for Mr. Panizzi, of the British Museum, received only £800 a year, and he performed much greater duties. But his immediate object in rising was to learn whether the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. G. Baring) could give any information in reference to the war- rant issued in March last, which prevented officers retiring on half-pay before they had been 25 years in the service. Before that date 18 years, and in some cases 21 years were sufficient; and officers returning from India and other stations considered it a great hardship that they could not retire on half-pay until 25 years had been completed. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would give a satisfactory answer for the alteration in the time of service.

in explanation, said, he never meant to say that the Secretary for War should be held responsible for the condition of the fortresses abroad and at home. His responsibility could be only nominal, for it was impossible that he should be held responsible for the details of fortresses abroad, of which he could know nothing. With regard to the clothing department, he was still of opinion that the officer in Pall-mall, who presided over the department there was useless, as the three colonels who were placed over the Department were perfectly competent and quite sufficient to manage the whole business. As to the appointment of the precis writer, it would be found that it would be of no earthly use to the Secretary for War. The Government had attempted to create a central registration office in the War Department, and the result was the employment of these transit boys, but he believed they would be found to be of no use whatever. He thought if the hon. Gentleman had read the report of General Eyre in reference to the fortresses in Canada, he would not have answered in the way he had done. As to the question of responsibility for the condition of our fortresses abroad, he would put the matter in this way—if a requisition were sent from any of our fortresses abroad, who would have to decide on it?

said, that after the explanation which the Committee had heard from the Under Secretary of State as to the organization of the War Department, he should not proceed with the Motions of which he had given notice. It was decided by the Committee on Military Organization that there ought to be a Director of Ordnance who should have the general superintendence of the manufacturing departments, but should not immediately interfere with the heads of those Departments.

thought it would be advantageous to the heads of these departments that some officer should he appointed who would understand their business, and through whom they might communicate with the War Office.

said, that the salary attached to the office of precis writer had been reduced by £200. The clerkship of the gentleman who had been appointed had been filled, but at a much less salary. The suggestion of the hon. Baronet as to the employment of discharged soldiers as messengers should be considered; as to their number they were fewer than were attached to most other public offices. It was not intended that the Director of Ordnance should interfere with the responsibility of the heads of the manufacturing departments. The question as to half-pay he would answer when the Vote for that service was before the Committee.

thought the office of précis writer ought not to be a permanent one. He was glad to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite so steady to-night in the assertion of the fact that the House of Commons was called upon to exercise authority over the public expenditure, for the tone some of them had taken lately might have led to a different conclusion.

, without expressing any opinion on the question whether the Government ought to be maunfacturers, felt it right to state that he had never seen accounts better kept, or establishments more creditably conducted, than those at Woolwich. As he had spent some weeks at these places, be thought he was qualified to give an opinion; and he was the more glad to speak approvingly in the case of Woolwich, because they presented a very favourable contrast to those at Weedon and the Tower, where the discrepancies were disgraceful. He should be sorry to see any superior officer appointed who would interfere to any great extent with the present arrangements at Woolwich.

asked, whether any steps had been taken to reduce the enormous charge for temporary clerks? He wished to know whether any stops had been taken to reduce the immense mass of writing that was carried on? The existing system was really a reduction ad absurdum. As an instance of the absurd extent to which form was carried, he referred to a case in which eight distinct letters had been written about a matter involving an addition of 1d. per week to the salary of a porter. He also wished to know whether the War Office considered them- selves bound to adhere to the Vole of £171,000 for the War Office, as in the last published Estimate—that for 1858–9—there was an excess over the estimated charge of £9,210? The detailed account for 1859–60 had been presented, but had not yet been printed, and when printed would be practically of no use, as the Estimates would be gone through before it was in the hands of Members. To show how rapidly and silently expenditure grew, the item for" advertisements and contingencies" had jumped in a single year from £2,500 to £5,000.

complained that the number of clerks employed in the War Department was disproportioned to the amount of work to be done. He protested against the class of supernumerary clerks being kept up; the brunt of the work fell upon them, but they had not the same advantages of promotion as the other gentleman engaged in the office, some of them having been in their present position for six or seven years without advancement. The Government should define the number of clerks necessary to perform the business to be done, and all should be placed in a fair position for promotion. He asked whether the supernumerary clerks in the War Office were ever promoted, or whether their salaries were ever increased? He thought both ought to take place or the supernumerary clerks ought to be abolished.

objected to the appointment of précis writer and librarian. He moved that £1,000 be struck off from the Vote in reference to that officer.

asked for information respecting the number of clerks which it was intended permanently to retain, and the positions which it was intended they should occupy.

complained of the monstrous increase of expense at the War Office. In 1853–4 the charge for clerks at the War Office was only £37,261, whereas this year it was £117,845: while the increase in the army had been only £40,000. It was a farce to be discussing these Estimates year after year, and yet to allow such extravagance to pass. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £50,000.

regretted that the two gallant Officers who had just spoken were not in the House when he gave an explanation of some of the points to which reference had been made.

said, it was impossible for him to know that these Estimates would be brought on, as he was not familiar with the new arrangements as to business.

objected to the number of clerks in the establishment, and moved as a further Amendment, that the Vote be reduced to the extent of £50,000.

said, he had given the usual notice that the Army Estimates would be brought on that night. He had already at an earlier period of the debate explained many points recently raised, and he would not now repeat his explanations. There were many gentlemen of great ability at the War Office who rendered the State service, although they remained unknown. Yet were it not for their diligence and ability, he should have been unable to give the Committee information on the many points that had been inquired into that night. With respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, he justified the salary by reference to other Departments. As to the amount of writing Lord Herbert had issued an order by which the present system of writing would be very much curtailed. He had been asked by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby), whether he could guarantee that the Vote, if agreed to, should not be exceeded? All he could say was that the expenditure should be carefully watched, with a view to prevent an excess above the estimate. In answer to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), he must observe that state of affairs was not exactly as he had represented it. In 1853–4, the expenses of the War Office were £174,334. According to the increase of the number of the forces the expenses would be this year £210,700; but the estimate was £201,833, or a diminution of £8,867. He did not mean to say that the expenses of the Department must be in proportion to the number of men; but, assuming this to be the proper test, then the present Estimates showed, not an increase, but a decrease.

said, as usual, the hon. Gentleman who last spoke had not answered one of the questions which had been put to him. Why should they spend £80,000 a year more on clerks than they did when the army was 40,000 men more? Why should they not have made one of the thirteen first class clerks précis writers instead of creating an express officer with a salary of £1,000. a year?

observed, that in the year referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dickson) there were charges for clerks in the Ordnance and Commissariat Departments which brought the total for this item up to a much higher sum than he had stated. The precis writer was a first-class clerk.

thought the hon. Gentleman had made a clear explanation, but the fact was that a thorough revision was required in all the public departments. As an instance of this he might mention a case that had taken place soon after the Crimean war. A chaff-cutter was injured by some members of the Military Train. Seven minutes were made on this subject, six letters were written, and twenty-five persons were involved in the correspondence, though the whole cost of the repairs only amounted to £2.

said, that we were governed by clerks. Railway secretaries, who were worked like galley slaves, had only £1,000 a year. There were plenty of literary men who would jump at £400 or £500 a year for the duty of precis writer and librarian.

said, the expenditure for the army during the war was £35,000,000; now it was £14,000,000, and yet the expenditure in the War Office was less during the war than it was at present. The Under Secretary for War stated that if they compared the expenditure in the War Office for 1853–4 with that of the present year they would find that there was a heavier charge in 1853–4 than there was now; but he did not include in the charge for the present year the expense of postage, which, in the former year, was no less than £60,000 out of £195,000. At the time of the war there were 344 clerks in the War Office, and the expenditure for them was about £85,000 a year; there were now 357 clerks, and the expenditure was £95,485 a year, so that there was an increase in the expenditure of £10,000 a year on the permanent establishment. There was also an increased expenditure of £2,000 a year for temporary clerks. In order to test the opinion of the Committee he moved that the item be reduced by £3,000.

agreed that the number of clerks should bear some correspondence to the number of men; but in this case there might be some reason for the increase. Formerly, the clothing department was not within the control of the War Office. Now, there was more correspondence between the various regiments on the one part, and the War Office and Horse Guards on the other upon clothing than upon any other matter. The Volunteer movement must also have added greatly to the correspondence of the War Department.

said, that one part of the increase in this item of the Vote was for ten third class clerks, who had been added with the sanction of the Treasury to the Accountant General's Department. If hon. Gentlemen intended again to raise a contrast between the year 1855–6 and the present time, then he could perhaps, give the Committee a few broad reasons, which would show why this expenditure had been increased. In the first place, hon. Gentlemen were aware that although the troops in India were not paid for by this country, yet the number of Her Majesty's troops in India had increased very greatly since 1855, and this had increased the correspondence of the War Office. Again, the increased number of troops in the shape of second battalions of regiments had added a considerable amount of work to the duties of the office. The actual increase in the expenses of the War Department in consequence of the Volunteers was about £3,000. Then, there was the operation of the Limited Service Act, according to which the men took their discharge after ten years, which greatly increased the correspondence. The establishment of schools of gunnery, and the great increase in the manufacture and change of warlike stores, had had the same effect. When all these things were taken into account it would be seen that the increase of expense for the clerks in the War Department was on the whole small from 1855–6 to the present year. He thought he had shown there was a considerable increase of duties, with but a small increase of expense.

remarked that there had been no increase in the second battalions since last year.

thought that with the 494 clerks in the office there was no necessity to take 10 clerks from the Treasury into the Accountant General's Department.

said, that it was evident that a great change had come over the House and the country with respect to those Departments. The House was tired of paying large salaries when the work could be got better done by practical men. The House was indebted to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) for the practical and business-like suggestions which he had made. Indeed, he was the only "financial reformer" who came regularly down, and devoted his attention to retrenchment in his place in that House. The employment of soldiers as clerks, which the Under Secretary had promised, would tend materially to economy, as practical men could be got at £100,a year, who would work from nine to six in their offices, instead of paying £400 a year to Gentlemen for attending from ten to four. He could not, however, vote for the Amendment.

said, that however anxious hon. Gentlemen might be to promote the cause of economy, they did not appear able to hit on the right mode of procedure. It certainly seemed to him that the proper plan would be to revert to the ancient method of moving Amendments in Supply, namely, to reduce the amount of the Vote, and leave the Secretary of State the necessary discretion for reorganizing his department. The patent fact before the House was, that they were decreasing the army and increasing the establishment; and it was the duty of the Committee to see that that increase did not take place. He should, therefore, move to reduce the Vote to the sum it was last year, namely, £196,224, and leave it to the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman to eke out that sum with judicious reforms. The House really ought to put the Government on their mettle.

observed that his only regret was that the hon. Gentleman had not moved a large reduction. He had looked through the Estimates carefully, and he was of opinion that £50,000 might be knocked off if the Committee were resolved to enforce due economy. He wished to have some information as to an officer who was called the "Compiler of Statistics," who appeared for the first time in the present Estimates, and whose salary was £240 a year.

observed that some hon. Members were constantly urging on the Government the necessity of increasing the comforts of the soldier, and that when the bill came to be paid they seemed to forget the course they had taken.

said, the Vote had nothing whatever to do with the comforts of the soldier, but referred to the administrative departments of the army.

said, the item for the compiler of statistics was not a new one. It was in the Estimates for the last year but one; but was omitted last year, because the officer who held it had accepted the office of paymaster in the Artillery; but on the abolition of that office he was restored to his old appointment. With respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, the hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in the grounds on which his Amendment was founded. No increase had taken place in the higher appointments. Last year there were thirty-one of these, at an expense of £36,924; whereas this year there were only twenty-nine, at an expense of £33,075. The increase had taken place in the number of junior clerks, who were absolutely necessary in consequence of the increase in the number of Her Majesty's troops serving in India, the increased comforts now given the men, and the introduction of the new armaments—all of which required additional accounts and correspondence. The total Vote now asked for was no more than was required for the public service.

asked whether Major Marvin also received his half-pay?

believed that such was the case.

opposed the Bill. Its object was to decide by the authority of that House a legal question now in dependence before the Court of Session. This was altogether irregular. No alteration of the Annuity Tax Act would be satisfactory that did not bring it into unison with the feeling of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, He moved as an Amendment a Resolution to that effect.

who was inaudible from continued cries for a divison, defended the Bill.

opposed the measure, and moved the adjournment of the debate.

rose to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, The object of the Bill was briefly this, to enable the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, in whom the property in the County Infirmary was not vested, and who did not subscribe a shilling towards it, to take that property, which was vested in a set of gentlemen who did own it, who did subscribe to it and pay for it, and dispose of that property by sale, and transfer it to the city of Cork, which was represented, and ably and efficiently represented, on this occasion by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beamish). The House would now at once perceive why he (Mr. Long-field) who represented the borough of Mallow, where the infirmary was situated, should be rather inclined to resist that trifling transfer proposed by the Bill, and which, if it were Parliamentary language, he would designate by the term of civic job—a civic job of bis hon. Friend, for the object was simply to benefit the city of Cork, which he represented, at the expense of the borough of Mallow, which he (Mr. Longfield) bad the honour to represent, and enable the Cork Grand Jury further to benefit that city—that beautiful city of Cork—by empowering them to subscribe the sum which they ought to pay to the Mallow County Infirmary, over to the City Infirmary which they are anxious to establish, and a sum of £2,000 in addition. That might be a reasonable proposition; but his hon. Friend will pardon him if he was not exactly acute enough to understand the particular benefit which was to be conferred upon the borough of Mallow by this transaction; or to understand the particular reasons why the County Grand Jury—who were bound to pay £100 a year to the Mallow County Infirmary, but have not done so for seventeen years should now, in consequence he supposed of their unwillingness to discharge the duty imposed upon them by law have powers entrusted to them for effecting a summary transfer of the property to themselves, and the county infirmary to the city of Cork. Nor can he see the reason why the surgeon of the infirmary was to be allowed £100 a year, without performing any correlative duties, excepting this, that he happened to have a vote for Mallow, which he did not give to him (Mr. Longfield). and happened to have a vote for the city of Cork, which it was just possible he might give to his hon. Friend, and also to possess considerable influence in the county. It is, therefore, the benevolent design of my hon. Friend to allow this gentleman during the residue of his natural life, to enjoy his otium cum dignitate with a nice little salary and nothing to do, and constitute him one of that greatly aggrieved class, gentlemen superannuated in the prime of life, ready, of course, to do good to the extent of his salary, but prohibited from doing so by the Bill of my hon. Friend, which does not transfer his valuable services to the city of Cork.

said, that the establishment at Mallow was utterly useless as an infirmary for the county of Cork, and in consequence the Grand Jury had, during the last sixteen years, refused to contribute anything towards it, excepting on one occasion, about ten years ago, when they gave it a small sum as a dispensary. It was most inconveniently situated, being in reality at one end of the county and much further from the centre than the city of Cork. Moreover, during the last four years the Grand Jury had come to repeated resolutions by their unanimous votes in favour of the removal of the County Infirmary to the city of Cork. There was no intention on his part, or the city of Cork, or the Grand Jury, to deprive the town of Mallow of an institution that might be useful to them as a dispensary, for in that light only had it been regarded for years past. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and so enable the great county of Cork to have an infirmary which would be more efficient and useful than the present, where the patients would find an adequate medical staff to treat them, and which, although he admitted was not in the best situation, was, undoubtedly, more favourably placed than the town of Mallow.

said, that at the present moment the county of Cork had no county infirmary, simply because an old Act of Parliament directed that it should be in a place that was altogether out of the way. The result was that the Grand Jury declined, and properly so, to assist in its support; and the feeling was general that it ought to be transferred to the city of Cork.

said, the hon. Mem- ber for Cork says the Grand Jury of the county wished to remove the institution to the city of Cork. But, surely, there were gentlemen in that city wealthy enough to provide themselves with an infirmary if they wanted one, and he did not see why they should remove the one in existence at Mallow, simply because the Cork Grand Jury, the hon. Member for Cork, and the people of that city wished them to do so.

said, the real object of this Bill was not to sell the infirmary, whether it was the property of the county or of anybody else; the main object was to enable the county of Cork, speaking through their authorized organ, the Grand Jury of the county, to do that which the wisdom of the Irish Parliament enabled them to do—namely, to contribute to the funds of the County Infirmary. For sixteen years the Grand Jury had refused to contribute to the infirmary at Mallow, because they thought it was not so situated in a place where its influence was most beneficially felt by the county, as to justify them in making it a charge upon the county funds. They wanted to contribute to the formation of an infirmary in Cork. That was their real object, and they had come to an agreement with the city that it also shall contribute, and that a portion of the benefit should be given to the county and city in proportion to the amount they respectively contribute. The object of the Bill, then, was not to sell the building, but to enable the authorities of the city in contributing money for the good of that community to contribute it to an institution of which they approved, and to withdraw it from an institution of which they did not approve. The hon. Member proceeded to explain that about a century since the Government of that day proposed to establish infirmaries throughout Ireland, which generally were to be placed in county towns. In some cases, however, the county towns were either not of sufficient importance compared with others in the same county, or were not centrally situated with reference to the surrounding districts. The city of Cork was one of the latter description, being situated at the southern extremity of the county; whereas Mallow was most conveniently placed, and was, moreover, a flourishing town, and the capital of the eastern division of the county. The Legislature, therefore, enacted that the infirmary for Cork county should be placed at Mallow. With reference to the question of convenience the hon. Member said that Mallow had fully retained that advantage, inasmuch as the three great railways of the South of Ireland met within a quarter of a mile of the infirmary. The hon. Member further said that if it were indispensable that there should an infirmary in the city of Cork, it was equally desirable that that of Mallow should be retained, and that the wealth, population, and convenience of the county justified the maintenance of two such establishments. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

suggested, that the hon. Member for Cork should withdraw the present Bill, and introduce another by which provision should be made for transferring the institution to Cork, but leaving the building at Mallow, with the old doctor and the old matron, to be used as a dispensary, in which character it was really beneficial to a very extensive district.

said, that in Cork itself opinions were very much divided on this subject. The removal of the infirmary from Mallow to Cork would leave the country without hospital accommodation, and, as far as he could learn, the Bill was opposed to the wishes, not only of the inhabitants of Mallow, but of the majority of the inhabitants of the county, The matter required further inquiry, and he moved that the debate be adjourned.