said, he wished to explain a remark that fell from him on Tuesday evening with respect to the Thames Embankment Bill. He had stated that the Bill was promoted by the London, Dover, and Chatham Railway Company. This he found was a mistake. The Company had working powers under the Act, and their terminus was one of the termini of the Embankment Bill. But the measure was promoted by a separate Company, quite independent of any Railway.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Post Office Report will be laid before Parliament, and what Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do for the redress of grievances in the Post Office?

said, that not only one Report, but several Papers relating to the internal administration of the Metropolitan Post Office were now under the consideration of the Government, involving a great many details with regard to the different classes of persons in that Department and their relations to one another. With regard to laying these Papers before Parliament, he was unable to give any answer to the hon. and learned Baronet, but he hoped very shortly to be in a condition to make known to the House the decision to which Her Majesty's Government would come upon the subjects embraced in these Papers.

said, he would now beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, If any decision has been arrived at with regard to the future of the Indian Navy; and if so, when it will be made known? Has the Report of the Civil Finance Commission (recommending a wholesale reduction of the Indian Navy on economical grounds) been received by Government; and if it is their intention to adopt the Report? If a reduction or abolition of the Service is contemplated, what course is it the intention of Government to pursue with regard to the Officers?

said, in answer to the question of the hon. Baronet, that he had only to state that no decision had been arrived at with regard to the future of the Indian Navy, and, therefore, he could not say when it would be made known. It was true that the Report of the Civil Finance Commission in India, or rather a despatch from the Governor General of India, recommending a large reduction of the Indian Navy on economical grounds had been received by the Government, and would be brought under the consideration of the Secretary of State for India in Council. He could not then state what the intention of the Government might be with regard to it.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Officers of the service.

said, his hon. and learned Friend would understand, when he stated that the subject would be brought under his consideration as Secretary of State for India in Council, that it was impossible for him then to say what his determination ultimately might be.

said, he wished to ask the first Commissioner of Works, Whether he has been informed that the frescoes in the Houses of Parliament are showing symptoms of decay; and, if so, whether he will institute proper inquiries to ascertain the cause of such decay?

said, that the frescoes both in the corridor of the House of Commons and the House of Lords were in a perfect condition; but any hon. Member who looked at the frescoes in the upper hall would see that there were upon these frescoes some symptoms of discoloration. In two of these frescoes, especially, there were some places where the colouring had faded, and others where it had come off in flakes. He had, however, no intention to institute any inquiry on the subject, because he thought it was very palpable what the cause of the decay arose from. It could not have arisen from the dampness of the wall, for there was a considerable interval between the plastering upon which the fresco was painted and the wall itself. But as these frescoes were the earliest painted in this country, and painted at a time when there was very little experience in the production of that sort of art, he thought it was evident that the failures that had occurred had arisen from a want of experience on the part of the painters as to the use of their colours, and as to their application of them. The defects, such as they were, were easily remedied, because frescoes had that advantage that it was very easy to get at any defective part, and insert new and fresh pieces.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Bill passed by the New Zealand Legislature for constituting a Native Council, differing in its relation to the Colonial Government, from the Bill of last Session, has received Her Majesty's assent and confirmation?

said, his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary had announced in "another place" that he had invited Sir George Grey to place his services at the disposal of the Government as the Governor of New Zealand. His duty would be to bring to a conclusion, if possible, the unhappy war now raging, and, in the second place, to consider the whole question of native administration, putting it, if he could, upon a better footing for the future. Under these circumstances the Government, wishing to leave Sir George Grey free to deal with these questions, did not think it their duty at present to sanction the Bill alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, but would review the whole question when it was reported upon by Sir George Grey.

said, he wished to ask the lion. Member for Kilmarnock, Why Lessees of Church Estates within the diocese of Worcester who had made contracts for the enfranchisement of their Leaseholds prior to the late avoidance of that see, and hold the money ready for that purpose, are delayed in the completion of these contracts for want of the usual Order in Council; whether the delay in issuing such order arises from any conflict of opinion upon the meaning of the existing Law; and, if so, whether any legislative measure is contemplated to relieve, as soon as possible, such Lessees from their difficulties?

said, the Bishop of Worcester, who died a few months ago, was empowered under certain Acts of Parliament, with the consent of the Church Estates Commissioners, to enfranchise the leaseholds held under his see. Previous to his death some forty-five agreements for enfranchisement were entered into by him with the consent of the Commissioners, and property to the amount of £80,000 or £100,000 was thus waiting for the completion of the sale to the lessees. By an Act passed last year upon the death of the late Bishop his estates as Bishop were vested in the Church Commissioners, and it remained for them in the performance of their duty to complete the sale to the purchasers in all these cases. They accordingly prepared a scheme for an Order in Council empowering the Com- missioners to sell the estates of the Bishop which were so vested in them. To that scheme, however, objection was taken in the Council Office on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. He understood that they advised the President of the Council that a scheme for a general Order for the sale of all the estates of a See was contrary to law, and could not be sanctioned by the Queen in Council, and that the proceedings so far taken were useless and invalid. Now, he was told that upwards of 200 Orders in Council of this nature had been passed during the last twelve years for the sale of estates in bulk, thus enabling the Commissioners to sell the estates in parcels to the various lessees. Property to the amount of about £5,000,000 Sterling had been sold under these Orders, and no objection had ever been taken to the validity of these Orders by the astute gentlemen the conveyancers of Lincoln's Inn, who had been consulted by the purchasers in these various cases. Now for the first time, however, this objection was taken, and the practical result would be that, as suggested by the Law Officers of the Crown, in every sale of the reversion of a church estate, were it small or great, a separate scheme must be submitted to the Privy Council for the sanction of the Queen in Council. One consequence of this was very important. Each scheme was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and on each a fee was charged by them. He was assured that if this view of the law had been taken in the first instance, and if this rule had been insisted upon with respect to the 200 Orders in Council which had been passed, affecting the sale of no fewer than 1,300 different estates, the Law Officers of the Crown within the last twelve years, for simply saying whether an Order in Council was in conformity with the Act of Parliament or not, would have received a sum of not less than £32,000. The Commissioners, he need hardly say, had no interest except to facilitate the purchase of the reversion by the lessees, and had been only anxious to discharge the duties cast upon them by the Act of Parliament. This objection, now started for the first time by the Law Officers, had brought the sale of these estates to a dead lock, and unless it were removed, or unless an Act of Parliament were passed, there would be really an end of the practical functions of the Church Commissioners with respect to the sale of the reversions of episcopal and capitular estates.

said, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Committee of 1858 on the comparative merits of the Enfield and Whitworth rifles, and to ask whether any subsequent steps had been taken to determine the relative superiority of these two arms? Experiments were carried on during the years 1857 and 1858, and the Committee recommended that the inquiry should be pursued, in order that the country might know which was the best arm. The Committee made a Report in 1858, but almost every member who signed it appended to it a statement showing that differed from it in some important particulars. One member gave an opinion in favour of the Whitworth; another officer of equal intelligence and experience thought the Enfield the superior arm. In the meantime the House was called on to vote large sums of money annually for Enfield rifles without having any assurance that it was the best, and that they would not be called on at some future time to substitute for them some other and superior weapon. In the face of the contradictory statements of the officers of the Committee he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War would state to the House whether any further inquiry would be made on the subject?

Sir, I rise to detain the House for a very few minutes on a matter in some degree personal to myself. In the course of the debate of last evening, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs alluded to a transaction which he said affected the honour and the character of the Government. At the time I was under the impression—and there were many Irish Members who agreed with me—that there was another class of persons whose character and honour were also affected, and I, therefore, communicated with my noble friend the Member for the town of Galway (Lord Dunkellin), who was one of the persons most prominently interested in the transaction; and, in common with many others of the Irish Members, I requested of him to rise for the purpose of removing the impression which must have remained upon the Committee. The noble Lord, however, was not sufficiently fortunate in catching the eye of Mr. Massey, and, therefore, the Committee went to a division very unfavourably impressed with reference to the Irish Members. At a subsequent period the noble Lord at the head of the Government gave an account of the transaction, which, when informed of it—for I was not present at the time—filled me with surprise. The noble Lord gave an account of the meeting which took place between himself and a reverend gentleman. Now, for my part, I rise to vindicate my personal honour, as well as the honour of several other Members for Ireland, who have requested me to do so, and to declare that the rev. gentleman was totally unauthorized to make the statement which he did. If any such a proposition as the noble Lord describes was made, I cannot find that he had any authority for it—it was a most unwarranted and impertinent interference. I shall not detain the House by dilating on these circumstances, but I am sure hon. Gentlemen can well imagine that our feelings must have been hurt by what has taken place; and I am sure the House is aware that there are gentlemen in Ireland as well as in England. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said he alluded to the matter because it had been commented on by a paper that was universally read. It must be remembered, however, that that paper is not very friendly to Ireland; and this very day there is another insulting article in it on the subject. I am obliged to the House for allowing me to make this personal explanation, and I trust that for the future, though, of course, the noble Lord could only speak according to the information given to him, such accusations as these will not be believed without strict inquiry.

said, he rose to move that an Address be presented to Her Majesty on the subject of the neutrality to be observed towards the two contending parties in China. He trusted hon. Gentlemen opposite would regard his Motion with favour, as it tended to the object, so often urged during the late debate on the Budget of cheapening tea to the lower classes, though, perhaps, in a different way from what they recommended. The House had lately received much valuable information on the subject to which he wished to direct the attention of the House, from the mercantile expedition that had proceeded with Admiral Hope up the Yang-tse-Ki-ang, that mighty river which ran into the heart of China; and from the reports of these merchants they might judge of the extent to which commerce could be carried on. But that river was occupied on both banks, from Chin-Kiang to near Han-Kow, by the insurgents; so that if we were to carry on a trade at all there, we must either be on friendly terms with them, or we must maintain a strong naval force at various points. All the information we had on the subject of the insurgents was derived from Mr. Oliphant's account and blue books, which were for the most part derived from the same sources, and he did not think that they furnished all the information which ought to be laid before the House. His confidence in blue books had not at all been strengthened by the lax manner in which, on the debate on the Affghan papers, the two noble Lords on the Treasury bench justified the liberties taken with public documents before they were produced to the House. There were strong proofs in this China blue book that the practices then justified had not been given up. In a despatch to the Earl of Malmesbury, dated November 5, 1858, the Earl of Elgin said—

"Your Lordship, perhaps, remembers that op the eve of the day on which the Treaty of Tientsin was signed I received a communication from the Chinese Commissioners to the effect that they would lose their heads if they agreed to allow British subjects to travel freely through the country for the purposes of trade."

It was clear from the expression, "your Lordship perhaps remembers," that the Earl of Elgin had informed the Earl of Malmesbury of the circumstance here referred to which indicated that these Commissioners had agreed to the stipulations in question that the treaty was concluded without the sanction of the Emperor, although on looking through the papers he could not find a word about such an important statement; and under these circumstances they could not rely with perfect confidence on the whole case being be- fore them. But still there was enough to show that the professions of neutrality with respect to the rebels by our representatives in China were not maintained. The Taepings had waged war successfully with the Emperor of China for a long time, and were as much entitled to be recognized as belligerents as the Secession States of America. The Earl of Elgin, indeed, had ultimately given directions that while our vessels of war had occasion to approach the Taeping forts or cities they should give notice, but previously on two occasions in making an expedition up the Yang-tse-Kiang, he himself, gave no notice to them, and when shots were fired to warn our ships we bombarded their forts, and assisted indirectly their enemies, the Imperialists. There might have been an excuse for our proceedings at Shanghai, in the protection demanded by our commercial interests, but the Earl of Elgin had abandoned that ground by claiming credit with the Emperor for acting hostilely to the Taepings. In point of fact, at the present moment a British force at Shanghai was doing service for the Imperial Government and receiving pay for it. Mr. Bruce stated, in one of his letters last year, that the cost of the garrisons would be defrayed by the Chinese authorities, and he added, "I think it well to assert firmly the principle that they shall pay for the assistance which we give them." We had maintained the great importance of keeping up our prestige in China; but here were British authorities by a voluntary act placing it in the power of the Emperor of China to point to our Queen as one of his vassals, providing troops for the defence of China, and receiving pay from him as if she were a vassal sovereign. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more inconsistent with the whole course of our policy or with the idea of our observing neutrality. There had, also, been civil as well as military violations of neutrality. By a notification dated in August, 1860, and issued by the British Consul at Shanghai, British subjects were warned not to hold any intercourse with the insurgents, and were told that to do so would be a violation of international law. The same principle had certainly not been applied to the Secession States of America, and British subjects had not been warned against holding intercourse with South Carolina. He did not ask that traders should be allowed to supply munitions of war to the Taepings or Imperialists. All he said was that they ought to be both treated alike. By the recent regulations, even which were much more favourable, in addition to the certificate of the Chinese Custom-house, a trader was obliged to procure a pass from the British Consul, which was granted only on the condition that the bearer should not visit any of the cities occupied by the insurgents. That, he held, was not neutrality, but a prohibition of all commerce on the part of British merchants with the insurgents. That state of things had been somewhat modified by later regulations, which at least implied that British vessels might visit insurgent ports, though conditions were still imposed calculated to restrict trade and to give rise to frequent differences and collisions. No British vessel was allowed to pass up the Yang-tse-Kiang without having first cleared the Customhouse of the Emperor being obliged to enter a port in his possession for that purpose, and if it did not so clear it was declared liable to, confiscation. Now, both Customs' duties and transit duties for internal traffic were included in the duties so paid, and if a British vessel sailed from this country or Hong Kong or Calcutta for Nankin it would first have to pay full duties to the Emperor, and then must pay over again to the Taepings on entering Nankin, or give occasion to a quarrel and collision with them by refusing; necessitating, of course, the keeping a British vessel of war at every port where our ships might enter for trade and where a collision was risked. He observed that the post of Chief Superintendent of the Chinese Customs had been offered to an officer in our service; but he did not know whether or not the offer had been accepted. He could not but regard it as very unfortunate that, under present circumstances, we should assume any charge over the Customs, or identify ourselves with the Imperial party. We ought to make an amicable arrangement with the insurgents, in order that we might not be obliged to keep a vessel of war in every port of the river where they had a post. The Taepings had shown throughout a most earnest desire to establish friendly relations with foreigners. He did not seek to justify any of the outrages of which they had been guilty, but he must say that nothing could be proved against them one-tenth so bad as the butcheries of Commissioner Yeh, or the atrocious treachery to which our unhappy officers were exposed at Pekin, when they fell into the hands of the Tartars. It was only that day that he read in a Chinese newspaper that an Imperial regiment, when setting out—not on a war expedition, but merely to train some villagers in military exercises—sacrificed a human being at one of the gates of Shanghai, with every solemnity, in the presence of the district magistrate, and then smeared their colours with the blood of the victim. He trusted that the House would support his views, and treat both parties with impartiality. If he received from the noble Lord an assurance that a policy of nonintervention would be pursued in China he should be happy to withdraw his Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.

said, he rose to second the Motion. The state of our relations with China rendered the question of the highest importance, and, therefore, he was sorry to see so small an attendance of hon. Members. For his own part he held no strong opinions with regard to British policy in China; on the contrary, it had always appeared to him that there had been a little exaggeration on both sides as to the justice or the injustice of the course we had pursued in that country. But he must confess that after a calm and careful consideration of the papers which had been presented to the House, he had come to the conclusion that we were not pursuing a course of strict neutrality with regard to the contest which was going on in China; that there was a tendency on the part of some of our officials in that country to underrate and depreciate the power of the insurgents; and that, if that tendency were not checked by the noble Lord, there was great danger that we should speedily be engaged in another China war. The Taepings were commonly spoken of as mere robbers and freebooters, who roamed about the country committing murders and outrages, but who had no regular Government or settled position whatever. The real fact was that they occupied six of the richest and most productive provinces of China; and, as the noble Lord had recognized the belligerent rights of the Southern States of America, which had existed as a separate power only a few weeks, he did not see how he could refuse to recognize these of the Taepings, who had held a large portion of China for no less than eight years. Nor had the Taepings been guilty of any outrages so flagrant as these which had been committed by the Imperialists, who had murdered Captain Brabazon and Mr. De Norman, and had so shockingly illtreated Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch. The leaders of the insurgents had translated nearly the whole, if not the whole, of the Christian Scriptures into the vernacular, and urged an open war against idolatry; and, as a proof of the superiority of their character and their favourable disposition towards foreigners, an American missionary had stated that the Canton men when they joined the insurgents, instead of continuing to insult and despise foreigners as they had been accustomed to do, became most respectful and accommodating towards strangers. He was afraid that Mr. Bruce, instead of showing neutrality, had taken a side in this matter, and certainly the Proclamation issued by our Chargé d'Affaires at Shanghai, forbidding British merchants to have any intercourse with the Taepings, the protection of Imperial junks by British ships of war, and the saving of Shanghai by the French and English troops savoured much more of partizanship than of neutrality. In the letters and papers received from China by the last mail there were frequent allusions to the well-known fact that we were doing all we could to bolster up the Tartar power. The Overland Trade Report, dated the 31st of March, 1861, commented upon the unseemly spectacle which had been presented by a British Minister in time of war adopting measures to the detriment of British trade to replenish the exchequer of the enemy. The communication which he had received from them stated that about 100 French troops and a war steamer were stationed at one point to prevent an attack of the rebels, but the country people, instead of manifesting alarm, remained quite passive and went about as usual. Thus it was clear that the French and English had both departed from neutrality by preventing the progress of a rebellion as to the issue of which the people themselves were perfectly indifferent. In the admirable work published by Mr. Alcock no passages were more interesting than his description of the ascent and descent of the Yang-tze-Kiang. A brilliant account was given of the scene which occurred when the British ships in chorus returned the fire directed at them from the shore, in the course of which the author made the following remark:—

"It is seldom we experience emotions which unite in themselves the highest amount of æsthetic and animal excitement."

That might be very fine writing, but he put it to the House whether the policy adopted was one of strict neutrality. What were we doing in China? We were bolstering up an effete Tartar Power. He should like to know the opinions entertained of it by Russia, who was gradually extending her boundary. Our troops who went to Pekin were convinced that the influence of the Government there was on the wane; and we were consequently in danger of having a war on our hands, not with the Tartar Power, but with the Chinese people living along the river, who detested the Government at Pekin and resented our silly alliance with it. Had we left the people to themselves the war would long since have been put an end to; and his lion. Friend, if he could succeed in eliciting from the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary an assurance that by an alliance with the Tartar Government we should not be drawn into any act of hostility to the great party by which that Government was opposed, would have done something to promote the interests both of this country and of China.

Sir, I could have wished that my lion. Friend who made this Motion would have had the goodness to wait till some of the papers were laid on the table. My hon. Friend must have known very well that I had said when we received accounts from China they would be produced. We did receive papers some time ago stating that matters were in progress, but as they did not give distinct information I waited till more came, and I have since by command laid these papers upon the table. What I imagine is for the advantage of this House, of all persons engaged in trade, and for the in- terest of the country generally, is that we should know the actual state of affairs in China. The hon. Gentleman who made this Motion, and the hon. Member who seconded it, may be right or wrong as to what happened three years ago when the Earl of Elgin went up the Yang-tze-Kiang, but that is not the question now before the House. At present the state of things is totally different, and what is really interesting to us is to know their exact position. This is the case as it at present stands. The Earl of Elgin, having given directions that the part of the treaty which says that the River Yaug-tze shall be opened for trade should be carried out, entered into a provisional arrangement with Prince Kung for that purpose; and Admiral Sir James Hope went up the liver to Nankin and made an agreement with the Chief of the Taepings. The sixth article of the agreement says—

"The Commander-in-Chief further expects that if your force has attacked any of the places at which British subjects may be settled or trading, British subjects will be unmolested both in person and property. On the other hand, the commanders of vessels stationed there will receive directions not to interfere in hostilities going on except for the purpose of protecting their countrymen, in case it should be necessary to do so."

Is not that neutrality? The Commander-in-Chief states that the British arms will be used to protect British persons and property. Is that wrong? He says at the same time there is to be no interference with any conquests which the Taepings may make. That is what I call neutrality, and that is the present state of affairs. With regard to the communication which the hon. Gentleman has received, I may state that it is very often the custom for persons abroad, who do not know exactly what the authorities are doing, to write home letters containing their conjectures of what is going on, and almost always blaming the authorities for acts of which they have not a very competent knowledge. Surely the papers produced here under the authority of Sir James Hope and others ought to be the more correct narrative of events referred to by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend says, whatever faults or crimes the Taepings may be guilty of, the Imperialists are very much worse. Now, I am very much more neutral than the hon. Member. I never much admired the civilization, and still less the humanity of the Chinese. No doubt excesses and outrages against humanity are committed both by the Imperialists and the Taepings, and which is the worst I will not venture to say. Our business there certainly is to promote our own trade as much as possible, to endeavour to act a neutral part, and as far as our position admits to establish a friendly intercourse. The hon. Gentleman has spoken as if it was entirely the fault of British subjects and British agents that the civil war was not long ago put an end to. For my own part, I think a very large army would have been required for that purpose. These Taepings are a numerous body, and have got possession of several most important cities and provinces. In what way, then, is it possible for us to interfere so as either to put down the Tartar dynasty or to enable that dynasty to suppress this insurrection? I conceive that it is not our duty to do either one thing or the other. Sir James Hope observes—

"Although a large body of rebels are said to be and probably are overrunning the country in different directions it is very questionable whether they are strong enough to eject the Tartar Government and to effect a change of dynasty, while, on the other hand, no reasonable prospect exists of the Imperial Government being able to put down the rebellion."

A civil war of indefinite duration seems, therefore, likely to continue, in the course of which the commercial towns of the empire will be destroyed and its most productive provinces laid waste. From all the accounts of the state of things, whatever may be said by the admirers of the Taepings or by the admirers of the Imperial dynasty, there are large bodies of men now carrying on a civil war. And many of the worst vagabonds and scoundrels in the country have joined one side or the other, not for the sake of the cause involved either way, but for the sake of plunder and what they can gain in the confusion. That is a great misfortune; but the course of the British authorities will be to preserve a neutral attitude, and endeavour to protect the persons and property of British subjects where they may be in danger. That is the course we have pursued in other countries, and I do not see why we should not pursue it in China. My hon. Friend seems to think that the Government might make some arrangement by which, when a ship comes to a Chinese port in the possession of the. Imperialists, the duty should be paid in such a manner as that her owners should not afterwards be required to pay by the rebel forces, but that would be a very strong interference. The instructions given by Her Majesty's Government have been in all cases in approbation of the neutral course that has been taken. Attempts are being made to promote trade and intercourse, and the accounts we receive betoken an improvement in our relations with the interior of China and with the Taepings. I have read today a letter from Canton, which states that the Customs' duties are regularly paid, and that, if any difficulties arise, they are treated by the Chinese authorities with a disposition rather to remove obstructions than to cause them. Mr. Bruce has arrived at Pekin: he did not wish to be received with anything like ostentation, so he entered the city privately; but every civility has been shown him, and there is every prospect of the intercourse with the Chinese Government being conducted on friendly terms. While there is no probability of the Chinese Government putting down the-rebels, nor of the rebels overthrowing the Imperial Government, I think we should not take part either on one side or the other. It is a great misfortune that the country should be in such a state of civil war; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the views of Her Majesty's Government will always be in favour of neutrality. I will not say but some of the local authorities may show some bias on one side or the other; but the Government at home, as well as the chief authorities in China, are desirous of observing a strict neutrality.

said, the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Greenock for bringing forward for discussion the present state of British relations with China. The subject is highly important, whether, as regards the commercial interests involved, the large revenue derived from tea, or the financial considerations necessarily suggested by the prospect of continued naval and military expenditure in that distant quarter of the world. It had been objected to the Budget of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had taken credit for a portion of the Chinese indemnity. But no reason could be given why that payment was less likely to be made now than on a former occasion, when the money had been regularly remittted. If credit had been taken on one side of the national account for three-quarters of a million indemnity; on the other side there was an estimate of a million for expenses in China, besides increased naval and military estimates on the same account. But while there was no reason to fear that the indemnity would remain unpaid, it would be sanguine to predict that the balance of payments would be in favour of this country two or three years hence. A large force must be kept up in China, and, instead of receiving money we were more likely to send large sums there. Before going further he must disavow all intention of blaming the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary or his predecessors in office for anything that may be amiss in China. The course of events, their causes and consequences, were generally beyond official control, and it would be unjust to impute blame to these at the head of affairs for a course of policy which had not originated with, and probably been but little affected by, the instructions emanating from the Foreign Office. Still less could any fault be found with the noble Earl, who, twice over, had encountered the difficulties and responsibilities of the embassy to China. No one less endowed with prudence, ability, and administrative skill would have given satisfaction to the public. And, if the noble Earl had not succeeded in every particular, it was to be attributed more to the difficulties of the mission than to any want of ability in the ambassador. The important question is are our Chinese difficulties at an end? We have already had three Chinese wars, are we to have another? It is to be feared no basis of permanent peace has been established, and that elements of strife and ultimate war exist beyond any former example. A treaty has been made with an empire which has no power to carry out the stipulations which it has contracted. The Central Government is in a state of prostration and paralysis. It has long been well known that the administration of the distant provinces of China is delegated to the great mandarins, who exercise a power almost independent, their only indispensable act of allegiance being to remit to Pekin an annual tribute. In other respects they do as they please, fleecing the helpless inhabitants by constant squeezes, to reimburse themselves for the price they have paid for their governorships. For, notwithstanding the competitive examinations, and the literary qualifications required for Chinese official life, it is well known that the chief offices in China are sold to the highest bidder. Such a system affords no security against mal-administration, and in practice is found to dispense with control of any kind. To such an extent is this independence of central control carried that, it is said, the well-known Yeh, the Governor of Canton did not even communicate to head quarters the treaty which was extorted from him on the occupation of the city. This evil is further increased by the difficulty of keeping up intimate communications between the distant parts of so large an empire, embracing not only diverse races and dialects, but even conflicting interests. And now that Pekin, the hitherto unapproach able centre of the empire, has been explored it has proved, like many other things in China, "a great sham," alike powerless for defence or attack. No doubt, the Tartar cavalry fought well at the Taku Forts, and surprised the allied troops by their gallant charges. But these are said to have been irregular troops, brought up for the emergency, and not available for regular warfare. This seems likely, when we consider that the Taeping rebellion has lasted for ten years, with scarcely a serious check from the regular Tartar army, Had there been such troops as the Tartar cavalry which fought at Taku and Tien-tsin available to the Emperor, the Taepings would long ago have been scattered to the winds. That rebellion, if it can be so called, is an evidence of the weakness and helplessness of the Mantchow dynasty. Its history is one of the' many wonders we find in China. Originating in the mountains of the south west, and, no doubt, at first consisting of bands of ordinary plunderers, it has been curiously mixed up with various elements. The doctrines of the Triad Societies, whatever these may be, were early adopted by the leaders of the movement. A still more extraordinary infusion of Christian doctrine, of a very degraded type, it is true, but still unmisakeably or Christian origin subsequently appeared. And that nothing might be awanting in the cunning appeal made to popular sympathies, the Tien-Wong was declared to be the heir and representative of the ancient Ming dynasty, the last imperial race of Chinese blood. But all these cunning appeals would have been in vain against the disciplined army of a powerful empire, and we must, therefore, conclude that no such army existed. In the meantime the Taepings spread through out the provinces, increasing in numbers and importance, attracting followers, levying tribute, besieging cities and gaining battles, till at length they reached the banks of the great central river, and fixed their government in the ancient capital of Nankin. The Chief King, or Tien-Wong, has resided there for eight years, while ten sub-kings are engaged in various military expeditions, instigated, it is to be feared, principally by the love of plunder, and guilty in their latest proceedings of revolting atrocities. But whatever may be the ultimate objects of the Taepings, and whatever may be their hold on Chinese public opinion, without doubt, they have braved the whole power of the empire, and been for years a standing menace and defiance to the Tartars. It seems accepted as an undoubted truth, by these most competent to judge, that the Celestial Empire is passing away, that its central heart is powerless, and scuds no action through its dislocated extremities. Nor are the Taepings the only rebels. Two other rebellions at present exist, independent of each other, and hitherto not connected with the Taepings—one of these of a very formidable character is in the north, in the province of Shansi; and another in the province of Quan-Tung, the original scat of the Tae-ping movement. Under these circumstances, the time has come to ask how would British interests be affected by the downfall of our Imperial allies? Would separate independent states not be better allies and better customers for us than the effete and corrupt central government which alone we now recognize? Would it not be in the interests of civilization and human progress that the great obstructive influence of China should be brought to an end'? Whatever solution of the difficulties presented to us we might prefer, it assuredly is our best course to preserve a strict neutrality between all parties. Let us adopt the principle in China which we Lave announced in Europe and America, as the keystone of our policy, the principle of non-intervention. Why attach ourselves by needless engagements to a powerless state? We see the ancient empire falling to pieces, and new and vigorous powers and races rivalling each other in progress and civilization, and shall we attach ourselves to the weakest, the most corrupt, and the least enlightened of them all? Even the Taepings have acknowledged and accepted the influences of western civilization, and, whatever else we can object to their extraordinary career, this at least is certain, that they are not beyond the reach of new ideas, nor have entrenched themselves in the indifference and contempt of other nations, which distinguished the Mantchows. Our policy, as avowed, is not liable to objection. On many occasions we have proclaimed neutrality. In the papers laid before Parliament, there is abundant admission that the British representatives in China approve that principle. More recently it has received a practical illustration. The British naval commander has actually been in treaty with the Taepings, and has concluded with them a convention regulating the navigation and trade of the Yang-tze-Kiang. But, while in words, and perhaps intentions, we preserve neutrality, a little enquiry into our recent treaty obligations will show that we are in a false position, and in various ways have overstepped the line of neutrality in favour of the Imperial Government. The Treaty of Tien-tsin itself is a document from which by no forced interpretation it may be inferred that Britain recognized no power in China but the existing Government. And, if it is replied that we could only treat with a Government de facto, still, even admitting that to be true, it is not a sufficient answer; for various conditions of the treaty will be found to be framed in direct hostility, not only to these now opposed, but to these who shall hereafter be opposed, to the existing Government. In the first place, we have engaged to assist the Imperialists in the collection of their customs' revenue on foreign trade. Were the Taepings to ask British traders to settle at Nankin, and confer on some rival chief inspector of customs these high functions which Prince Kung has conferred on Mr. Lay, what would the "new board of commercial intercourse with all nations" recently established at Pekin, say to it? Would they not remonstrate against a British subject collecting revenue to be handed over to rebels? But that is what Mr. Lay and his subordinates of the Chinese Custom-house are now doing as against the Taepings. But, besides, we have guaranteed the continuance of this system, at least until the indemnity which has been stipulated for by the allied forces shall have been paid. That payment, by the Treaty of Tein-tsin is to form a charge on the foreign customs. We are thus engaged in a course which it would be a mere perversion of language to call neutrality, and, if money is the sinews of war, we are engaged on the side of the Tartars. We have been, moreover, parties to arrangements, by which we have consented utterly to exclude friends and foes from all access by land to the territory of the Taepings, for the "licence to proceed to the interior," which the British Consul grants, must be countersigned by a Chinese official, who, of course, will take good care that there shall be no intercourse with rebels. The same applies to the "arms certificate," which is jointly furnished by a Foreign Consul and a Chinese officer, and thus involves a course of action to be regulated solely by Chinese interests. Any one who considers the bearings and working of these arrangements will admit that it is a mere pretence to speak of neutrality. To all intents and purposes we are engaged on the Imperial side. So matters stand now, but they cannot long remain as at present. Collisions of interest, and too probably of force, must arise. This system of assisting the Imperial revenue officers and clearing vessels at Imperial ports, which will again be called on to pay duties to the Taepings, at Nankin or elsewhere, the system of joint licences "for arms" or "travelling in the interior," must lead to disputes where it is too probable our pretensions to the diameter of neutrals will be forgotten. British or Chinese traders, who have paid duties on their goods at Shanghai or Chin-Kiang, when they trade with districts held by the rebels, will find they have to pay these duties again. They cannot expect that a pass granted by his rival will be acknowledged by the Tien-Wong. This alone will be a constant source of irritation and disputes. The Yang-tze is the great artery of trade from the most wealthy and populous provinces of China to the sea-board, but to Imperialist Junks, it leads through an enemy's country. Will these junks, or even foreign vessels, navigating the river, and provided with an "arms pass" granted by the Imperial Government, hesitate to use these arms when their interests require it? It seems inevitable that the great river will become the scene of piratical warfare, where the most desperate characters of all nations will be found engaged, and the interests of legitimate commerce will be disregarded. Under such circumstances is it likely we shall preserve our neutrality? Are we to stand by and see these trade advantages which we have purchased at the expence of so many millions rendered valueless, or are we prepared to throw our cannon into the scale of the Tartars, as we have already given them our moral support and the benefit of our fiscal skill? It will come at last to this, that we shall have to abandon our hollow pretence of neutrality and fight on the Tartar side. The only means of re- taining neutrality is to retrace these steps by which we have identified ourselves with the old Government. And, among these entanglements, the very first to be abandoned should be the customs' inspectorate, as the most injurious to our interests, the most unjust, and in every sense the most impolitic. It is needless now to inquire into the origin of this system; like many other blunders it, no doubt, was a well-meant scheme to meet a temporary difficulty during the abeyance of the authority of the Chinese Custom-house at Shanghai. It was intended also to conciliate the Imperial Government, and, in so far, to purchase commercial privileges by a system which rendered the customs levied on foreign trade more largely and directly available to the Central Government. It has existed since 1856–7, and has been maintained under unprecedented circumstances. To such a length indeed has our courtesy to the Chinese Government gone, that, at the very time we were marching on Pekin, we were collecting revenues for the benefit of our enemies. The port of Shanghai was for some years the only commercial entrepôt where this extraordinary system prevailed, but so enamoured of it are the ruling Anglo-Chinese authorities, and, as, indeed, need be no matter of surprise, so delighted is the Government with a system which produces such large revenues to the Imperial Exchequer that, according to the latest information we have received, Prince Kung has notified his intention of extending its operation. All the ports open to foreigners are to be divided into four superintendences, each to be confided to a mandarin appointed by the "Board of Foreign Trade," instead of remaining, as at present, under the Hoppo, or local Tautai. Of these superintendencies the first embraces Tien-tain, Tangehow, and Keuchang; the second, Shanghai, Ningpoo, and ports in the Yang-tze; the third, Foochow, Amoy, and Formosa; and, fourth, Swantow, Hainan, and Canton. In all these districts foreign inspectors are to be employed, and Mr. Lay has been appointed by Prince Kung Inspector General of all the Superintend dencies, and is empowered "to exercise surveillance over all things pertaining to foreign trade." The system is thus developing itself, and will soon be in active operation over the whole seaboard of China. It is of the greatest importance to consider well what will be its results. One of the most important of these will be a general system of smuggling. No coast in the world is better suited for contraband trade than that of China, being everywhere intersected with bays and creeks and the mouths of large navigable rivers. The population, unfortunately, have been trained to smuggling, the trade in opium having been till lately of that description. The consequence of stringent Custom house charges being levied at the duty ports, especially if these are aggravated by a continued exacting of their former irregular charges by the local mandarins, will be to drive much of the coasting trade from the present established emporia. Foreign vessels will discharge their cargoes in roadsteads into native junks, in the same way as opium was formerly delivered, and these junks will run their cargoes into creeks and harbours in various parts of the coast. Sufficient indications of this course are already shown in the Canton Custom House since the inspectorate was established. The Canton river has four mouths, and is conveniently situated for trade with the free port of Hong Kong. The consequence has been that foreign merchandize of various kinds, but particularly duty-paid opium, has almost ceased to pass through the regular Custom-house. This is what will happen everywhere, and this inspectorate, which originated in the laudable desire to put down smuggling, will prove a powerful instrument to perpetuate and increase that system. It has been insinuated, upon what grounds I know not, that the foreign merchants in China are addicted to the irregular gains of contraband trade. If this refers to the trade in opium the charge has no point, for that case is totally exceptional; and if it is to be judged by a moral standard it would be difficult to say where to award the greatest share of blame—to the Bengal Government, which prepared the drug for the Chinese market, to the merchants who Bold it on the coast, or to the mandarins who, for a bribe, connived at its introduction; all of whom are alike implicated. But, leaving out opium, there can be no ground for charging the Chinese mercantile community with the practice of smuggling. But is it quite certain that this good character will be maintained when so many strong inducements will exist to ovoid the foreign Custom-houses? The system, as originally introduced at Shanghai, was sanctioned by the three treaty Powers, Britain, France, and America each being represented at the Custom-house by their assessors. It does not appear whether this system is to be extended to the ports now for the first time embraced by the arrangements of Prince Kung and the Inspector Generalship of Mr. Lay. But it may be assumed that commercial jealousy between the different Powers will make it necessary to continue the system as it was first introduced. The expense will thus be very great. There will be at least a dozen ports where three inspectors, with large salaries, will be established. It is easy to see that these expenses, as well as all others attending the establishment, will be levied on trade, and principally on British trade. Is it sound policy to join with France, which has little trade of any kind in China, and with America, which has a great deal less than ourselves, in a system which will expose British commerce, in all its minutest workings, to the inspection of rivals, who will report officially to their respective Governments every shape and form of our varied trade? It may be little-minded to indulge trade jealousies, but is it, therefore, wise to expose all our secrets with such confiding simplicity? Besides, jealousy may work in another way. What would a French inspector care for the over-valuation of British goods of which his own countrymen were not importers, and these who know how successfully we are rivalled in some of our staple cotton fabrics by the Americans will doubt the advantage to British interests of American valuations at the Custom-houses of China. But, leaving that out of the question, there cannot be a doubt that a class feeling will be produced in all these inspectors in favour of the revenue whose officers they are, and against the interests of the foreign merchants. Employés of all sorts are uniformly found advocating the system which they administer, and that this is the case in China we have already abundant proof. At Shanghai the merchants have had repeatedly occasion to appeal against the decision of the inspectors; and, as a matter of course, applied to the consul, the legally constituted judge in all controversies between foreign Custom houses and British subjects. But here we have another anomaly, for we have no end of them in this extraordinary system. The British Envoy (Mr. Bruce) set aside the authority of the Consul (Mr. Meadows), and declared the inspectors to be irresponsible in questions of valuation. The policy of this course is questionable enough; but as to its being contrary both to usage and to law, there can be no question at all. Such are the inevitable difficulties which beset our course when we depart from admitted principles and interfere with the functions of foreign Governments. But no one doubts that all the expenses of this system will fall upon British trade. The Treaty of Tientsin has burdened the trade of this country with the indemnity for the expences of the war, which is to be paid from the foreign Customs, and which will make it imperative as regards our own interests to levy duties to the last dollar. But when the indemnity has been paid, we shall find that a system has been inaugurated to which we have ourselves been parties, and which in its consequences may not have been fully foreseen. The full amount of the Imperial Customs is to be remitted to Pekin; but how can the local mandarins exist without their share of the plunder? They have paid for their offices and must have compensation. No one who knows China doubts for a moment as to the course which will be adopted. In one way or another, and in such secret ways as cannot be discovered, additional duties will be charged for the benefit of the local officers. So long as these officers were administrators of the Customs' revenue their peculations affected the Imperial Exchequer; but now that they do not intromit with these collections which are remitted in full to Pekin, they must resort to other means of reimbursement. What these means are we learn from the circumstances which have recently transpired as to opium imported at Shanghai. So determined were the local mandarins that their fees should be paid, that they bribed the Coolies in the various foreign Hongs to ascertain where opium was delivered, and thus ensure the payment of their irregular demands; and in the prosecution of their object they exhibited not only consummate art, but have shown at once the extent of their power and their extortion. This was traced to the Tautai, or Governor of Shanghai. So will it be everywhere. Foreign trade will bear not only the duties fixed by treaty, but a second charge to satisfy the irregular fees of the mandarins. Over and above this, the expense of the foreign inspectorate will fall on foreign trade. But another objection to the system consists in its being most unpopular among the Chinese. They look on the foreign assessors as making these charges for their own benefit. They cannot understand a system which excludes the bargaining and beating down of duties to which they have been accustomed, and in their irritation they have transferred to the foreign officials the whole weight of their resentment. It is known how the installation of the system was received at Swatow, and the forcible resistance that was made to it. It has been asserted that if the troops were removed from Canton, the Customs' house inspectorate could not last for a day. All this works most unfavourably for British interests. It must have been observed by these who have read the Chinese newspapers, that a loud complaint is made of the secresy with which all the arrangements and working of this system have been carried out. No one can remonstrate, much less advise: for everything is wrapped in secresy. It is impossible that the noble Lord can have any sympathy with concealments; but it is right he should know that this charge has been made against officials in China. It, no doubt, has been undesignedly; but, to a certain extent, the noble Lord followed the same course. The hon. Member for Aberdeen moved for a Return to show the numbers, the amount of salaries, and nature of the engagement of British subjects employed in Chinese Custom houses; and there was also a Motion for Copies of Consul Meadows' Correspondence with Sir John Bowring, or others, as to the foreign inspectors. The noble Lord could not lay before the House any of these papers. I have no doubt he would have done so had it been in his power; but it is unfortunate any information on this subject should be withheld. It is said this system is on its trial, that Lord Elgin is not committed in its favour, and that the Government at home are not committed to it. Let, then, the merchants and the British public, who are much interested, assist at this trial. The more light that can be thrown on the subject, and the more its difficulties and anomalies are discussed, so much the better for all concerned. The course to adopt, in case the present system should be abandoned, is to revert to the old practice: let all exports be sold duty-paid, and, on the other hand, imports be sold at the short price, or without duty. To facilitate such arrangement bonded warehouses at the duty ports would afford great facilities. But above all it is desirable that free ports should be established in the North of China. It is surprising that, with the example of the success of free ports, as shown by the prosperity and great commercial development of Singapore and Hong Kong, such a system should not have suggested itself. One free port should be established somewhere in the neighbourhood of Shanghai. Perhaps the foreign location at Shanghai itself, if surrounded with walls, would afford an eligible site for a free port; and certainly another should be as far up the Yang-tze-Kiang as sea-going ships can navigate. No doubt the consent of the Chinese authorities would be required for such an arrangement; but there is no reason to think that such consent would be refused. Lord Elgin most properly said, on a late public occasion, that the interests of British commerce, as well as the character and usefulness of British subjects in these distant regions must depend on themselves—on their honour, integrity, and self-restraint. Doubtless, such sentiments will find acceptance everywhere, and under a proper system China will afford a field for their practical illustration.

said, he did not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in the very extensive range of observations which he had taken, but would confine himself to the subject immediately before the House—the importance of preserving a strict neutrality between the contending parties in China. He thought it would have been better that the discussion should not have taken place until the House had had an opportunity of perusing the papers laid on the table that evening. His information was derived only from the Chinese journals and private correspondence, and might possibly be incorrect on some points. He held that the complaints of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan) that the Government had not observed a strict neutrality between the Chinese Government and the rebels, was in several respects quite unfounded. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the conclusion of a treaty with the de facto Government of China was a breach of neutrality.

explained that he said quite the reverse, and admitted that they could do nothing else than enter into such a treaty.

said, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the very fact that we had entered into the Treaty of Tien-tsin was in itself a breach of neutrality. Having gone to war with the de facto Government of China, we had no other resource when we wished to make peace, than to form a treaty with the same authority. Again the hon. Gen- tleman said that we were guilty of another breach of neutrality in collecting the Customs' dues for the Chinese Government. The fact was that we did nothing of the kind. It was perfectly true that English subjects were employed by the Chinese Government in collecting the duties; but the English Government had no more to do with the collection of the Customs of China than of France. There were, however, two points to which he wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord. He was given to understand that British vessels proceeding to any of the open ports in possession of the rebels were compelled, not by the Chinese Government, but by the regulations of the British authorities, to proceed first to one of the open ports in the hands of the Imperial Government, and there pay the dues. That regulation involved a manifest injustice. On the one hand, our merchants would be most unfairly treated, if they had to pay the dues first to the Imperial Government at the port to which by the regulations they were compelled to go, and afterwards to the rebel authorities at the port where they landed. On the other hand, if we acted justly by the British merchants, and protected them against a second payment of the dues at the rebel port, it was perfectly clear that such an arrangement was one that must quickly bring us into collision with the rebel authorities. Had the Chinese Government enforced such a regulation there would have been no reason to complain; but he found fault with it as proceeding from the British authorities. Again the position which we occupied at Shanghai was very peculiar, very objectionable, and in his opinion very dangerous. If he wag rightly informed, there were British troops at the present moment in Shanghai who, although receiving British pay, were in point of fact maintained at the expense of the Imperial Government for the protection of the port against a hostile attack from the rebels.

was understood to say that the troops were stationed at Shanghai merely for the protection of British subjects and property.

observed that in that case it was very singular that the expense of the troops should be borne by the Imperial authorities. The fact, disguised as it might be, was that it was only a repetition in 1861 of what occurred not very long ago, when Shanghai was protected from the rebels by a British force. A more important subject could not be brought under the notice of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary than the absolute necessity of observing the strictest neutrality between the two parties in China. If we gave either party a right to complain of our conduct, there would be always a Chinese difficulty continued from year to year, and varied at intervals by an open war.

Sir, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow has not sufficiently adverted to the statement made by my noble Friend in regard to the very satisfactory arrangement which has been come to between our Admiral and the Taepings for the observance of the strictest neutrality between the contending parties, because many of his remarks applied to a different state of things, and assumed that no such stipulations had been entered into. I think I may dismiss that part of the subject by repeating the assurance that we are now observing the strictest neutrality between the two parties, and have obtained from the Taepings securities that our commerce with these parts of the country which are occupied by them will be duly protected, and not subjected to any interruption. The proposition that we ought not to have entered into a treaty with the Emperor of China because there is a rebellion raging over a largo portion of his dominions is quite untenable. When a sovereign reigns over a country, and when his authority is especially in force in these parts where our interests lie, we have no choice but either to make a treaty with him, or to leave the lives, property, and commerce of our countrymen wholly unsecured by any diplomatic stipulations. Had Her Majesty's Government pursued the latter alternative, and left British interests without that protection, we should have done that which was totally unjustifiable and without excuse. The Treaty of Tien-tsin was the result of an endeavour on our part to obtain redress, by hostile measures, for injuries which had been done to us by the Government of China. That treaty was not observed, and it was again deemed necessary to resort to hostilities. The Earl of Elgin, at a great sacrifice both of comfort and health, returned to China and negotiated another treaty, which gave full force and effect to all the provisions for the protection and extension of our commerce which the first treaty contained. So far from that being a proper subject for criticism, these of our countrymen who are connected with the Chinese trade ought to acknowledge the great evils which have been redressed, and the great advantage which must be conferred on British commerce by these two treaties. Therefore, it is totally unnecessary to enter into a justification of the Government for having entered into treaty engagements with the existing Imperial Government of China, or to maintain that in doing so they committed no breach of neutrality as between the two contending parties.

said, he must have expressed himself very ill indeed if his re-remarks could be construed into a complaint against the Government for having made a treaty with the Imperial party. He owned that the Imperial Government was the de facto Government, and the proper authority with whom to treat.

I am very glad to accept the admission of my hon. Friend. On the one hand, then, we have shown that our policy is to maintain a strict bonâ fide neutrality; and, on the other, these who are disposed to find fault with other things are ready to admit that we were perfectly right in entering into a treaty with the de facto Government of China. That disposes of a good many of the observations which have been made in the course of this discussion. Great fault, however, has been found with the arrangement by which British subjects are employed by the Chinese Government for the collection of their Customs. I think that these objections are not well founded. In the first place, it has been stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. FitzGerald) that these British subjects are not acting under the authority of the British Government, but are lent to the Chinese Government, and are responsible to that Government for their conduct. My hon. Friend complains that they are not placed under the authority of the Consuls, and that Mr. Bruce has declared that any complaint against them must be made to him. I do not see anything wrong in that. Mr. Bruce is the highest authority representing the British Government in China, and it is proper that when complaint is made against persons who are performing duties such as these which have devolved upon these who are engaged in collecting the Customs' duties, that reference should be made to him. The decision of a consul might be swayed by local considerations, and if adverse to local complaints would not carry with it the weight which will attach to a decision pronounced by Mr. Bruce. Generally speak- ing it might he an unusual course that British subjects should be employed to collect the Customs due to the Chinese Government; but, as our indemnity is to be paid out of the produce of these Customs, we have a direct interest in seeing that they are fairly levied and completly paid. My hon. Friend said that this system has a tendency to encourage smuggling. Now it is a well-known saying that the best way of replying to an unanswerable argument is to affirm directly the (contrary. My hon. Friend has followed that course, because, unless we are extremely misinformed, it has a direct tendency to check that practice, and it is not impossible that many of the complaints which are made against it in China owe their origin to the fact that it is putting an end to the system of collusion between the merchants of different countries and the Chinese Custom-house authorities which has unfortunately for some time prevailed. My hon. Friend says that the Chinese authorities pay for their appointments, and are, therefore, compelled to extract money from the persons who come within the scope of their authority in order to repay themselves, and I understood him to suggest that one effect of the operation might be by depriving these persons of their illegitimate fees to lead them to resort to still more improper proceedings. There can be no doubt that this system will tend to establish a regular and legal system of Customs, and I cannot believe that the establishment of such a system will lead British merchants to smuggle goods into places where Custom-houses are not established. My belief, on the contrary, is, that this system will establish a fair and equitable arrangement, according to which all parties will pay just what they ought to pay, neither more nor less, which will, no doubt, be advantageous to the Chinese Government by introducing order into a department which has hitherto been full of abuses, but which will be productive of great advantage to us, as it will secure the gradual payment of these indemnities which were stipulated for by the Treaties of Tien-tsin and Pekin. With regard to the point adverted to by the hen. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Fitz-Gerald), I am not aware that we have any information as to the fact that vessels are compelled to go to ports where duties are paid to the Imperial Government, although they may be destined to ports which are in the bands of the rebels, but undoubtedly it is a matter deserving of inquiry and consideration. Then, as to Shanghai. Every one knows that that is our most important settlement in China, that a large extent of ground is there allotted to the foreign community, and that that place has largely superseded Canton as the great mart of British commerce. We have heard a great deal in praise of the Taepings, and I should be unwilling to say anything to their disparagement, but it is well known that towns which have unfortunately been occupied by them have, a fortnight afterwards, not presented the same appearance of wealth, of comfort, and of population, which they exhibited before the occupation. [An hon. MEMBER: Suchow.] I am speaking of Nankin and other places. I have been told that Nankin is a wilderness. I do not know whether that is an exaggeration, but, unhappily, the occupation of Shanghai by the rebels is not a thing which the community of that place would very much desire. The hon. Gentleman said that the troops there are now paid by the Chinese Government. I believe that my noble Friend does not altogether approve that arrangement., and it may probably be altered, but I believe that it is of great importance that there should be a British force at Shanghai to protect British property and British merchants in that town from the effects which must result from its occupation by the rebels. Nor is it desirable that the Chinese part of the town should be laid waste, which would be the natural consequence of its being taken by storm. To what extent our troops are protecting others besides British residents I am not informed, but I am sure that the House will feel that it is the duty of the British Government to take care that that most important and valuable British settlement should not encounter all the calamities which would result from its occupation by the rebels. My hon. Friend said that great advantage would arise from the establishment of several free towns at different places in the Chinese territory, up the Yang-tse-Kiang and in the north. If we were masters of China we might, no doubt, establish free towns in certain places, but the Chinese territory belongs either to the Emperor or to the rebels, certainly not to us, and, therefore, we have not power to make the arrangement which my hon. Friend thinks would be so advantageous. All we can do is to avail ourselves to the utmost of these privileges which treaties have given to us. These treaties were made with the existing Government, and we have no right to assume that that Government has ceased to exist as long as it continues to rule a large and important portion of the empire, especially the seaport towns with which we carry on intercourse. All that we can, in my opinion, be expected to do is that which my noble Friend has shown that we are doing—giving neither party cause to complain, and, as far as hostilities are concerned, acting according to the principles of strict neutrality.

, after repeating the statement that British vessels bound for ports which were in the hands of the rebels were compelled to call at Imperial ports and pay the Imperial duties, an arrangement which was similar to requiring ships bound to Charleston to go to New York and pay the Federal duties, said that the Taepings were a set of ruffians and scoundrels with whom not a single man of education, character, or discretion had associated himself. If it were not that such a course would be altogether opposed to the policy of England we should be glad if the British Government should take part in the dispute and rid the world of such a nest of vagabonds, for it was melancholy to reflect that a civil war would drag on for years and inflict endless misery and distress, which might be effectually put an end to by a single regiment and a few Armstrong guns. The hideous grotesqueness and blasphemy associated with the Taeping movement would be evident from the fact mentioned by a friend of his who had visited the adviser—the individual whose duty it was to interpolate the Scriptural element into their proceedings, who found him attended by four beautiful girls arrayed in yellow, and luxuriating in every magnificence which could be afforded by the plunder of the richest cities of China.

said, the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had failed to satisfy him that the English Government had observed a policy of perfect neutrality. With regard to the Taepings, he would refer to an account written by the special correspondent of the Shanghai Herald, who had accompanied the British expedition, to show that in Nankin, which was in the hands of the Taepings, building was going on on all sides and trade was springing up, while at Chinkiang, which had been occupied by the Imperialists for four years since it was quited by the Taepings, there was only one house standing, in which the duties of the port were collected. It ought to be the great object of the Government of this country to conciliate the Taepings, who at present numbered a hundred millions of people, and had five millions of armed men among them. He contended that if the Customs' duties at the treaty ports were collected by European (not native) officers in the pay of the Tartar Government, but only responsible for their conduct to Mr. Bruce, the British representative, we were infringing the principle of neutrality, and became, in fact, active agents in favour of the Tartar Government. The very cost of the defence of Shanghai against the Taepings exceeded the amount of the indemnity which we received from China; and, if that military occupation were continued, it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year to reduce the amount of the tea duties.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the Barony of Geashill, in the King's County, was obliged to pay £300 damages for the alleged malicious burning of an outhouse belonging to a Mr. Trench, and to the fact that a confidential report from the constabulary to the authorities of Dublin Castle, stating that the person who burned the outhouse was a party resident in Mr. Trench's house, was shown in a breach of confidence to Mr. Trench; and asked why no steps had since been taken to prosecute the offender? Under the late Lord Digby, who had granted leases to his tenants, Geashill was one of the quietest districts in Ireland. His successor took advantage of some technical defects to break the leases. A new agent was appointed in the person of a Mr. Trench, who was very unpopular; and Lord Digby did not come to see with his own eyes the misery into which the place was plunged. Outrages, genuine or fabricated, were the consequence, and as a specimen he might mention one:—A fire took place in the stables of Geashill Castle one night, though the gates were all closed and no one could get over the walls from the outside. Mr. Trench having alleged that the fire was the work of an incendiary outside, a police-man named Burke had carefully examined the grounds outside the walls for the purpose of ascertaining if the fire had been caused by persons unconnected with the castle; but no trace could be found, and everything which he saw led to the indubitable inference that the person who had fired the turf in the stables lived within the castle. The report sent by Burke to Dublin Castle charged the offence upon some person residing under Lord Digby's roof; and the authorities, in breach of confidence, communicated it to Mr. Trench, when, instead of having an inquiry instituted, he endeavoured to frighten Burke from discharging his duty, and ultimately he was put upon his trial for having been found drunk on two occasions, and for habitually frequenting public-houses. He thought it was as clear as the sun at noon-day that the outrage had been committed by any of the fabricators of outrages within the castle, and not by any of the tenantry residing outside the walls, and he trusted the Government would do their best to bring the offenders to justice.

said, his hon. and learned Friend had made an attack in most unmeasured terms upon the conduct and character of Lord Digby. He would not examine into the motives of his lion, and learned Friend in so doing, but one thing was clear thathehas not investigated the facts of the case. He could inform him, however, that the grand jury of the King's County, composed of twenty-three honourable men, not connected with the Barony of Lord Digby, after hearing evidence upon oath, had come to the conclusion that a malicious injury had been done to Lord Digby's property, and that he was entitled to receive the full amount of the damage. That was also the unanimous opinion of the ratepayers of the county. His Lordship was thought to be entitled to £500, but he would only take £250. Since Lord Digby came into possession of the property only three tenants had been evicted, and they owed respectively eleven years, fourteen years, and thirty years' rent. He hoped that this would be a lesson to his hon and learned Friend to confine himself to the Woods and Forests and to the county he represented; but which he (Mr. Hennessy) feared his hon. Friend's present position showed was a little too hot for him. He hoped he would examine his facts before he dealt with them, or brought them before the House. A case so utterly fallacious had never been inflicted upon the House of Commons.

said, he had been informed that a state of things existed in the King's County which ought not to be permitted to continue, but from his own knowledge he could not say whether that were so or not. The property of Lord Digby, in the neighbourhood of Geashill, appeared to him to be an improving one. With regard to the transaction under discussion it was stated that a report concerning it had been made to the Government, and placed in the hands of a magistrate of the county; but when he (Mr. O'Brien), as a magistrate of the county, applied for a copy of that report, it was refused to him. It was the duty of the Government to give them that report, or take measures, if they refused, to show who were the real offenders in the case. He trusted the Government would allay the excitement which existed in the district by furnishing all the information which was so much desired.

said, he only wished to observe that the case made out by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) was very clear. The burning which had occurred would seem to have been caused by some one well acquainted with the position of the premises. There could be no doubt that similar outrages had occurred in many parts of Ireland, and the perpetrators of them ought to be brought to justice. He trusted the Government would take the question into their serious consideration, for it had done great injury to Ireland, and it tended to corrupt the people and to lower the standard of morality in that country.

said, he must protest against the time of the House being taken up with the discussion of a matter beyond its control. It was unfair for an hon. Member to rise in his place and arraign the whole management of an estate for some years past, because charges were often made on imperfect evidence, and no proper opportunity was afforded for their refutation. It was only a few years ago Lord Digby came into possession of his property. Up to that time he had been almost entirely a resident in England. He appointed a gentleman to manage his estates, and so well had that person acted that they were considered the best managed property in the King's County. Not long ago Lord Digby summoned his tenants to a general meeting, at which he asked them whether they had any complaints to make as to the conduct of his agents. Not a complaint was ever uttered against him. It was true that when Lord Digby obtained possession of his estates he found that several of the tenants held leases which had been illegally granted. The result was that rather than subject his tenants to ruinous litigation he distributed amongst them about £30,000 by way of compensation. With regard to the report referred to if there was any reason to suppose that any person had been guilty of the outrage alleged, of course the Government would place the report in the hands of the law officers of the Crown, and the party would be prosecuted. He must protest against charges being made against owners of property who were endeavouring to discharge their duty conscientiously and with the utmost forbearance and consideration.

said, that with regard to the first question—namely, under what circumstances the barony was called upon to pay compensation for the malicious injury to the burning of this outhouse—the circumstances were these: When an injury was committed, the law provided that the injured person should have the power of applying to the Presentment Sessions. That course had been taken in the present instance: the presentment was sent to the grand jury, was found by them, and the barony then, according to law, became liable to pay compensation. He understood that no fewer than eleven witnesses were examined. The second question presumed that a confidential report had been shown to Mr. Trench; but if that was so it had been without his knowledge, and he did not believe it. He was not, however, prepared to say anything which would fetter the discretion of Government or the responsible officers of the police in holding communications with injured parties, which might tend to the detection of crime already committed, or to prevent future injury being done. With regard to the third question—namely, why the offending person had not been the subject of prosecution—the answer was obvious. The Government were most anxious to pursue a prosecution in every case of the kind, and his hon. and learned Friend might rest assured that as soon as it appeared, in the discretion of the police authorities, fortified by the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown, right to put any person on his trial for that crime, the Government would not fail to do so.

said, he was of opinion that as Mr. Trench was the local magis- trate of the district, the confidential report alluded to ought to have been shown to him. There was no accusation whatsoever against Mr. Trench. It was the duty, then, of the police to go to the local magistrate in a case of this kind. As to the Digby family, for some centuries that family had not resided iii Ireland. In 1641 their castle had been burned down, since which period they had lived out of the country until a recent period.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will have any objection to lay on the Table of the House Copies of Correspondence with the Authorities of the Isle of Jersey on the subject of the Report of the Royal Commission? When the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Sergeant Pigott) moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the constitution of the courts of Jersey, he (Mr. S. Estcourt) offered some observations on the subject, intimating a strong opinion that something was required for the amendment of the constitution of the Jersey courts beyond that which could be afforded by means from within. Inasmuch as the evils connected with the court were fatal to the interests of the islanders for years past, and that no-attempt had been made in the island itself to reform it, it appeared to him that it was necessary something should be done by the British Parliament to improve it. He' understood that the observations he had then made had given offence to some gentlemen in the island. He regretted that his remarks should have had such a result, because he had a high respect for the constitution of the island and the independent spirit of the inhabitants. With the highest respect, however, for the people of Jersey, to maintain their insular independence, and their old constitution and forms of procedure, he still thought that the course taken by the hon. Member for Reading was called for by the circumstances of the case. It was said on the part of the islanders that they were of themselves about to apply a remedy to the evils complained of without any pressure from without, and it was stated that communications to that effect had been sent to the Home Office, before the subject was introduced to the notice of that House. The communica- tions were two in number, and one of them was dated, he was informed, on the 11th of March, and the other some day in the present month. He understood that the right Gentleman was willing to produce the correspondence, and in taking that course the right hon. Gentleman was acting a part worthy of a British Minister. Inasmuch as the question of Imperial authority over these islands was contested, and as it was: known that the inhabitants were peculiarly sensitive on that point, it was desirable that the fullest information should be afforded, both to them as well as to the British public on the matter. It was urged on the part of the islanders that they did not dispute the authority of the Queen, but that they rejected the jurisdiction of the British Parliament. He repeated be did not wish to encroach on their liberties or their independence; but when it was alleged that in that part of Her Majesty's dominions there was a systematic departure from or a great delay of justice; that it was impossible for individuals committed to prison to obtain their discharge by any process of law for a long series of years, or certainly months, it was desirable, for the honour of the British name, and for the sake of justice, that a superior authority should interpose. Even if an Act of Parliament passed in the ordinary form should constitutionally' be determined not to be the proper mode of dealing with the question, he still thought it ought to have been brought before the British Parliament, and that his hon. Friend the Member for Reading rendered good service in bringing it forward.

said, be had no objection to lay before the House the correspondence to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention, if he would move for it on a future day. When the correspondence was produced, it would appear that the States, upon the Report of the Commissioners being referred to them, had appointed a Committee to consider the Commissioners' recommendations. What had he meant to convey to the House on a former occasion was that the States had not passed any measure in consequence of the reference which had been made to them. He did not mean to convey to the House that the States had not considered the matter by the appointment of a Committee. The Committee, in fact, had held several meetings, and made several reports, in one of which they commented upon the remarks made in the House upon the Mo- tion of the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Sergeant Pigott). He was not sure whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House to lay on the Table public documents containing remarks upon speeches purporting to have been delivered in the House, but if there was no irregularity in doing so he should be quite ready to produce them. It appeared that the States of Jersey disputed the power of Parliament to legislate on the internal affairs of Jersey; but he entertained no doubt whatever as to the legal power of Parliament to legislate on the internal as-well as the external affairs of the Channel Islands.

said, he considered it extremely desirable that the Report of the Commissioners should be adopted in the island. But he doubted the expediency of that House proceeding to deal authoritatively with the matter at? a time when it appeared that the Stated were not indisposed to take up the subject. It should be remembered that the States, and, he believed, the inhabitants of the island generally, while admitting that they were subject to the British Crown, denied that they were subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament; and it seemed to him that it would have been more expedient, if the islanders did not themselves effect the desired reforms, to accomplish that object by means of an Order in Council rather than an act of the Imperial legislature.

Sir, I now rise to call attention to a subject the importance of which no one will deny. I have received information with respect to the progress of the French Government in building armour-covered ships, to which I think it my duty to call the attention of the House and of Her Majesty's Government without any loss of time. I bring this subject before the House with the advantage, not only of stating my facts on what I may call high authority, but also of stating what that authority is. Every one conversant with the state of the navy is aware of the high professional reputation of Admiral Elliot. It is only justice to him to say that there are few, if any, more able or distinguished officers in Her Majesty's service. I have the advantage of private friendship with him, and I am able to state that during the last three weeks he has visited all the French ports and arsenals with the exception of Toulon. He has given me permission to mention his name in connection with the statements which I am about to make to the House, but with a feeling which is honourable to himself, as he has lived on terms of friendship with many officers of the French navy, he is anxious that he should not be under the suspicion of having acted in any manner as a spy, or of having done anything unworthy of his high character as a British officer. I should, therefore, state that whatever information he has obtained was obtained in an open manner, and he visited the French dockyards with the advantage of having received the permission of the Minister of Marine. [Mr. LINDSAY: Hear, hear!] I understand the motive of that cheer, and it is only due to the French Government to state, on the part of the French Admiralty, that there has been nothing like any intention to conceal its preparations. But these preparations are of such a nature that after the communication I received from Admiral Elliot I could not delay calling the attention of the Government to them for a single day. During the last fortnight I have received two letters from the gallant Admiral, one of which was written from Brest, and the other from Rochefort. Yesterday morning he returned to this country, and in a long conversation with him I heard the facts that I am about to submit to the House. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) in his place in the early part of this Session, on a Motion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), the hon. Member for Sunderland spoke strongly on this subject. He stated to the House that he had had a communication with the French Minister of Marine; and he gave his impression with regard to the progress France was making in the completion of her navy; but what I particularly call attention of the House to is a letter the hon. Member told us he had received from M. Chevalier. That gentleman throughout the late negotiation with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) was in frequent communication with him. I believe no one has taken more pains than M. Chevalier to impress on this country, and on these Englishmen with whom he has had communication, that it is the desire of the French Government to maintain pacific relations with this coun- try, and that it was making no unusual efforts to increase its naval force. M. Chevalier wrote thus to the hon. Member for Sunderland—

"You have a full statement of our navy—you have it in a blue book—you are told officially by the Government and privately, in the most friendly and honest manner, by our Minister, that of iron-cased vessels France has only one fit for use, that in a short time we are to have a second, but that a full a year must elapse before we can get two more, and two years before we shall be in possession of six iron-cased vessels; and it is in the-face of such a fact that England feels herself so dangerously menaced that she spends millions without number to get rid of the peril of an invader."

[Mr. LINDSAY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman cheers; but before I sit down I think he will be obliged to acknowledge one of two things—either that M. Chevalier was throwing dust in his eyes, though I have no reason for saying he did so—I know nothing that could justify the imputation—or, that M. Chevalier himself knew nothing of the subject of which he was speaking. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty also spoke on that evening; and, with perfect frankness, he said he had no desire to disguise or conceal from the House the real state of affairs with regard to the relative states of the navies of England and of France. The noble Lord stated what at the time was strictly correct, according to all the information he then possessed. He said that the French Admiralty had at that time built, or was building, six iron-cased frigates; two were large vessels of 52 guns; there were four others, sister ships of La Gloire, And, he added that exclusive of: the old floating batteries of the Russian war, the French had built, or were building, five iron-cased gunboats, and four vessles of a formidable character, called floating batteries; altogether they had nine iron-covered gunboats or floating batteries, and six large iron-cased frigates, of which La Gloire is one. The noble Lord also gave the House what I think was a most important assurance, and to which I beg to call the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He told us—

"That if they found much more progress made over the water or among any other nation in building these ships, it would be the bounden duty of the Government to come down to the House and state frankly and fairly what was going on, with a views if necessary, to extend the number of our iron cased vessels."—[3 Hansard, clxi. 1155.]

This was an important statement on the part of the noble Lord, and the fact that it proceeded from his lips makes me regret that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in the House of Commons. Though I accept any such statement from the noble Lord, and believe it was made in the utmost good faith, and with the intention of fulfilling it, yet the noble Lord is not a Member of the Cabinet, and it is not unjust or disrespectful to him to say, that we cannot receive promises on his part as of the same weight and importance as if they proceeded from the First Lord of the Amiralty himself. Since this promise was made the state of things contemplated by the noble Lord has arisen; the position of the French navy with regard to iron cased frigates is wholly different now from what it was when that promise was made; but the Government has not come down to Parliament and made the statement thus promised, or asked for the means of extending the number of our iron-cased ships. I must, however, make some exception to this assertion. On Thursday week there was another discussion on the state of our navy; and my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty took that opportunity of informing the House that the French Government had been making very serious efforts to add to the number of its iron-cased ships since he had brought forward the Estimates in February last. I think he told us there was reason to believe that since that month the French Government had laid down no less than nine more of these iron-covered ships, and so far as the number is concerned this statement exactly tallies with the information I have received from Admiral Elliot. But that information does not exactly tally with other parts of the statement of the noble Lord. When I allude to these differences the House will bear in mind that what Admiral Elliot told me yesterday is what he has himself seen in the last fortnight, while my noble Friend could only speak from the information he had received from others. Admiral Elliot did not visit Toulon: he says nothing of the two or three ships building there; but at other ports he saw the following ships in various states of preparation; some were only lately laid down, others were in a forward state. Besides the La Gloire, to which as every one is aware that it is already finished, the gallant Admiral saw the Magenta and the Solferino, two large ships of 52 guns, to be launched in June the Normandie, Flan-dres, Magnanime, Gauloise, Valeureuse, Couronne, Surveillante, Revanche, Heroine, and Quillaine. Here are 12 armour-plated ships in different states of preparation. Of the two at Toulon Admiral Elliot does not profess to speak, but of the other 10 every one is a larger ship than La Gloire, and is intended to be an improvement upon La Gloire, and all, excepting two which are of iron, are wooden ships covered with armour. There are thus, including La Gloire, 13 frigates, besides which there are the two frigates referred to in M. Chevalier's letter, where it was said, "twelve months must elapse before we can get two more," and referred to also by my noble Friend last February, and then described by him as being ships of large size, and carrying 52 guns. Now, instead of being frigates of large size and carrying 52 guns, they are line-of-battle ships, two-deckers, carrying two tiers of guns oh each side. In tonnage they are very little short of our Warrior. The Warrior is a little more than 6,000 tons; these two ships are of 5,000 some hundred tons, and instead of being 52-gun ships, they are pierced for 100 guns each. In short, they are two ships such as the world has never heard of before, because while nearly equal in tonnage to the Warrior they will have 100 guns, out of which 52–26 on each side—are entirely covered with armour of full thickness, it being intended to cover all the rest of their guns with armour of a lighter character. I have now mentioned two line-of-battle ships of 100 guns each, and 13 of which 12 are heavier than La Gloire, making 15 armour-plated ships. The two line-of-battle ships, named the Solferino and the Magenta, which M. Chevalier said would be completed in a year hence, are both to be launched in the approaching month of June, on the anniversary of the battles the names of which they bear. These two powerful ships will, therefore, be added immediately to the strength of the French navy, and the 15 ships which I have enumerated will be in addition also to the nine of which I have no information beyond that furnished by my noble Friend—namely, the four formidable batteries and the five gunboats. The practical point we arrive at is that the French are rapidly preparing 15 powerful armour-plated ships to be added to nine of a different description, also covered with armour, giving them in the whole a force of 24 armour-covered ships, exclusive of the old batteries which were used during the Russian war. Now, what is the state of preparation in England? My noble Friend will correct me if I am wrong; but I am not aware of more than sis ships of this description in England which are built or being built. We have the Warrior and the Black Prince, two ships superior in tonnage, and superior, I hope, in speed to any of the French ships, but very inferior in armament. The Warrior and Black Prince will not, I believe, carry 50 guns—[Lord CLARENCE PAGET: Forty guns]—while the two great French' line-of-battle ships will carry 100 guns each. We have also the Defence and Resistance, one of which has lately been launched. I am afraid that these two ships must be considered as inferior to any one of the fifteen vessels I have mentioned—[Lord CLARENCE PAGET dissented]—though I hope my noble Friend is right in expressing an opposite opinion. Then we have two more ships in the course of building; these are of intermediate size between the Defence and the Warrior, and I know of nothing else except the iron-plated ship of the same size as the Warrior, which, as we have heard, the Admiralty intend to build at Chatham. I have thus laid before the House the comparative state of the two navies in this most important respect at the present moment. The French have fifteen frigates and line-of-battle ships, together with nine powerful ships of a different description: in England, so far as I know, we have six, or at the most, seven. Admiral Eliott assures me that not only are the French in advance of us to the extent I have now stated, but that in every one of the yards which he visited the utmost efforts are being made to press all these ships forward to completion. I have no wish to excite alarm by making this statement. I make it because I think it my duty to communicate to the Government and the House in this public manner information of so startling a character. Why are these preparations being made in France? I will not enter into the motives by which the French Government may be influenced in making such efforts. Every one is able to judge for himself for what ultimate end these preparations are intended. The point to which I invite attention is that whatever may be the motive of France, the practical result is that we are rapidly becoming the second maritime Power of Europe. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this statement. Is it true or is it not true? If it be true, what are the intentions of the Government? Such questions ought to be quite above any party considerations, and I will not, therefore, enter into any party matters; but I cannot help feeling that I am bringing this subject under the serious consideration of the House and of the country, at a moment when the Government are, as I think, needlessly throwing away a large amount of revenue. [Ironical cries of "Hear!"] That observation may not be acceptable to lion. Gentlemen opposite after the recent Parliamentary struggle in which we have been engaged, but I hope my tone will convince the House that I am not alluding to this matter with any party object. Let me add that no one believes more sincerely than I do that the noble Lord at the head of the Government is as anxious as any man to preserve the supremacy of England. There was recently paid to him one of the highest compliments that any public man could receive, coming as it did from a Member of this House who is himself of high position and character. The noble Lord was told that, in the opinion of that Gentleman, he has the heart of an Englishman and the head of a statesman. I beg to tell the noble Lord that no party differences shall prevent my saying that I subscribe to this eulogium. For myself, I hope I may lay claim to possessing the heart of an Englishman, and it is because I am full of anxiety as, an Englishman at the information received by me from unexceptional authority that I now appeal to the noble Lord, both as an Englishman and as a statesman, and ask him whether he is content to allow this state of things to continue, and whether he is prepared to tell us what efforts he will make to prevent its continuance? He will not, I am sure, deny the gravity of the subject. He can hardly say that I am speaking on erroneous information. I cannot see the possibility of error in statements made as the result of personal inquiry by one of the most distinguished men in our navy. That officer gives mo the account of what he has himself seen within a fortnight from this day, and he allows me to use his name. Looking at the nature of this information, I must say I am disappointed that the pledge given on the part of the Government in February has not been redeemed. The state of things then contemplated has arisen. Fresh efforts are being made across the water; no proportionate efforts are being made in England. I hope my object in making this statement will not be misunderstood, and I will merely add that with great anxiety I await the answer of the noble Lord. I hope he is not insensible to the gravity of this information, and that if, as I have reason to believe, he has received the same information, I trust he will be prepared to say that no financial considerations will prevent the Government from using every possible effort to maintain the naval supremacy of this country.

I have received the same information which the right lion. Baronet the Member for Droitwich has communicated to the House. As it is derived from an officer possessed of high professional qualifications and unquestionable judgment, it deserves and demands the most careful consideration at our hands. I feel quite convinced that a neighbouring country at this moment is in command of a most formidable number of armed-cased ships; within a short while they will increase it to a fleet of iron-sheathed vessels which will in the case of hostilities, prove perfectly irresistible, unless we take steps, pari passu, to place ourselves at least upon an equality of position and strength. I feel bound to say, as an act of justice towards Admiral Eliott, that he had previously had an interview with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and laid before him the important facts which have been now submitted to the House by the right hon. Baronet, leaving him, I presume, with full power to deal with them at his own discretion. It is the sacred duty of this House to provide that England shall equal every Foreign Power at sea, for if we are deprived of the supremacy of the ocean, her sun will have set for ever. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government has been lately taunted by an hon. Member below the gangway with making a "Rule Britannia" speech, but high as England may stand now, her safety does not consist in a vain-glorious security, but in a progressive maintenance of her strength, which it is a treason against her to weaken, for we owe it to our children no less than all we have received from our fathers, and the debt is the unsullied honour and undiminished welfare of this land.

said, he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought forward the subject on that occasion, when so much more favourable an opportunity would be presented when the House next week went into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates. He was equally surprised that the right hon. Baronet, if he meant to challenge statements made by him at a former period should not have given him notice; for he could not be expected to carry a whole array of figures in his head. It was only at eight o'clock that he had heard from the right hon. Baronet that he intended to call these statements into question. Neither could he see what good was to be done by the right hon. Baronet's statement. If the information which he had received was so important, his proper course would have been to wait upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government and lay it before him privately. The only result of the course he had adopted would he to create unnecessary alarm. The right hon. Baronet had challenged the veracity of one of the most eminent statesmen in France, M. Chevalier.

On the contrary, I stated distinctly that I had no right to make any imputation on the veracity of M. Chevalier.

said, the statement of Admiral Eliott was entirely at variance with M. Chevalier's, and if that was not imputing his veracity he did not know what was. In his letter, written in the early part of February, M. Chevalier stated that France had then only one iron-cased ship ready, La Gloire, and that in a short time they were to have a second, but that a full year was necessary to get two more ready, and another year for two more. The right hon. Baronet would probably admit that on the 1st of February there was but one ship ready, and he had not stated that the second one was ready yet, so that M. Chevalier's statement was quite correct. As for M. Chevalier attempting to throw dust in his eyes, he certainly had had some experience of the world, and was not so easily deceived, but M. Chevalier did nothing of the sort, he simply referred him to the Minister of Marine. He saw the Minister of Marine, who handed him his own report of every ship in the navy—of the stages in which they were and where they were to be found, and he offered, if he would visit the dockyards for himself, and judge of the accuracy of the return, he would send a gentleman with him from his own office. These statements were entirely at variance with the information of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty on whichhewas basing his Estimates, and he wrote to his noble Friend from Paris suggesting that he should come over and see for himself, being sure that the Minister of Marine would grant the noble Lord the same facilities as he had so frankly offered to him. No doubt, pressing engagements had prevented the noble Lord from doing that, as they had prevented him from accepting the offer of the Minister of Marino; but so anxious was he to arrive at the truth that he consulted with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), and they sent over a competent engineer who visited the dockyards of France. That gentleman held opinions in regard to the intentions of the Emperor of the French very similar to these of the right hon. Baronet. He had the same idea which the right hon. Baronet appeared to have, that the French Emperor was getting together a vast navy with some remote view of invading England; but when he came back he confirmed, word for word, the statements made by M. Chevalier and the Minister of Marine. He mentioned the subject, too, to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) and the noble Lord the Member for Totness (the Earl of Gifford), who had been members of the recent Commission, and they had visited the principal dockyards, and would be able to say whether the information he had received was correct. Besides that he had analyzed the expenditure of the French navy, and he had shown to the House—as clearly as figures could show—that so far from overrunning the Votes—as it was said that money was voted for one purpose and applied to another—for a series of ten years the expenditure had not exceeded the Votes more than our own expenditure exceeded our Votes. The vote for the French navy last year was £4,900,000, and he had no doubt that the expenditure this year would only slightly exceed that sum. But we were spending upwards of £12,000,000 on our navy. If France was only spending £5,000,000, and if we were spending £12,000,000, what reason was there to fear the power of France? Either we must be managing our business very badly, or France must be managing her business exceedingly well, if France could produce for £5,000,000 that which cost us £12,000,000. He wanted to know why the right hon. Baronet who had held the Office of First Lord of the Admiralty should ask the Government to spend more money on the navy? What would be the effect of the discussion in France? The stop would go about that, on the recommendation of one who had held high office at the Admiralty, England was about to vote ore money for the building of ships. There were many people in France who seriously entertained the idea that we intended to invade France. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh, but he laughed at these who thought that France intended to invade England, and he had far better reason to laugh at them than hon. Gentlemen had to laugh at these Gentlemen in France who thought that England intended to invade France. If they looked at history, they would find hat France had never invaded England; but the flag of England had waved over he palaces of France, and the armies of England had marched into its capital. France had never invaded England, but we had invaded France. Therefore, when a vast English fleet was cruising in the Channel it was not so ludicrous to assume that England intended to invade her again as it seemed to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would go forth that, not content with spending £12,000,000 on our navy, we were about to spend more money. The people in France would bring pressure to bear on their representatives in the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber of Deputies would bring pressure to bear on the Throne. More money would be spent on the navy of France, and we should have to spend more money on the navy of England. There was some rumour of nine or ten iron-cased ships being about to be built in France. The gentleman who was sent across was told to inquire particularly into the matter, and he did not see the smallest preparation. He did not mean to say that in time France would not build more iron ships, because five years ago the Emperor had determined on building nothing but iron ships; and the Emperor would, no doubt, steadily carry out his intentions, but the gentleman who was sent to France could find no trace of them, and dust was not thrown in his eyes, for he was allowed to visit the dockyards. Now Admiral Eliott's statement was that he had seen nine or ten in course of building, at which he must say he was very much surprised, for iron vessels could not be built with great rapidity without England knowing all about it.

Fifteen in different states of progress, and excepting the ships at Toulon.

said, he thought it very remarkable that Admiral Elliot should see so many ships in preparation, when only a fortnight before the gentleman who was sent over could find no trace of the nine iron-cased ships. He believed that what Admiral Eliott saw were not the nine large ships which it was rumoured were in course of construction. He was as anxious as any man that England should maintain her maritime supremacy. Not one word had ever fallen from his lips in that House to lead any one to suppose that he desired to see any power superior to England on the ocean. On the contrary, he had said over and over again that, on account of our vast possessions and our enormous wealth always afloat, England ought to be equal to France and any other naval Power in Europe combined. But he had shown to the House that in efficient ships of war—steamships—England possessed more than all the nations in Europe. He said that we possessed 20 line-of-battle ships, and his noble Friend, the Secretary to the Admiralty, admitted that we possessed 17 line-of-battle ships more than all the other nations put together. Setting aside the vessels which Admiral Eliott said he had seen within the last fortnight, and of which no trace was to be found a month ago, Franco had built and building six iron-cased vessels, mounting from 36 to 52 guns each. The two terrible vessels with which the right hon. Baronet had frightened the House were, no doubt, the Magenta and the Solferino. They were line-of-battle ships cut down and cased with iron. [Admiral WALCOTT: Not cut down,] Well, then, not cut down. The right hon. Baronet said they mounted 26 guns on each side.

What I said was that they were pierced to carry 100 guns each. But they had 26 guns on each side under armour of the full thickness.

said, that was no new information, and the right hon. Baronet must know that these two vessels were not at all to be compared with the Warrior and Black Prince. Altogether France had built and building six iron-cased vessels, two of a large size, three mounting 36 guns, and one mounting 40 guns. We had seven iron-cased vessels built and building. If they took either the La Gloire, or the Invincible, or La Normandie, and compared them with the Black Prince and Warrior, why the Warrior was double the size of La Gloire, and would carry double the weight of metal. It was the same with the Black Prince. These vessels were double the size, so that, in fact, in iron-cased vessels we had more of su- perior size and power than France now possessed. France, again, had four batteries, but they were merely for the protection of the harbours. She also had five gunboats, mounting two guns each; but, surely, there was nothing in that force to create alarm, or to justify the right hon. Baronet in asking the House to spend more money. The right hon. Baronet, however, came down and made a statement which must excite unnecessary alarm in the minds of the people, and was likely to lead us into trouble with the Emperor of the French, which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman was as anxious as any man to avoid. The right hon. Baronet should bear in mind that, while it was necessary to have a sufficient naval force, which we now had, to maintain our position as the first maritime nation in the world, if we built more ships than were necessary, France would go on building more, and then we must go on building more ships, thus entailing on the people of both countries unnecessary alarm and an unnecessary amount of taxation.

said, the statements of the right hon. Baronet were more alarming when they reflected that the Government, in the face of information to the same effect, had been voting away money which, before the end of the Session, they would be obliged, in one way or other, to replace. The House must bear in mind that they were dealing, not with mere suppositions, but with fact. A British Admiral of the highest standing in the service had visited some of the French dockyards, and had made a report which ought justly to alarm the Government and the people of this country. Evidence had been given that day before a Select Committee of which he was a member—["Order!"] On the 4th of May, 1858, the keel of the first iron ship was laid in Franco, and Admiral Eliott told them that there were now 13 frigates and 2 line of-battle ships in a forward state of construction. His hon. Friend who had spoken last seemed to hold them line-of-battle ships cheap, but the two-deck ships would prove most formidable antagonists for any frigate, more especially as they could carry ordnance of the same calibre, and had the advantage of being able to deliver a double broadside at once. The lower part was cased in 4½inch iron plates, and the upper in plates sufficiently thick to break a shell but not to resist a cannon ball. It behoved the Government to look into this matter at once, as it was his belief that the Government, from private information, could corroborate every word of Admiral Eliott's report. A committee of scientific men should sit at once to determine the question of iron ships. At the present moment there was such a committee investigating the tensil power of iron, and its capability of resistance as applied to shipbuilding, andhewould suggest that certain other scientific men possessed of a competent knowledge of metallurgy and ordnance, should be associated with them to investigate the whole question, in order that we might be placed upon a par with France. It was always to be borne in mind that it was not we who had first commenced this plan of encasing vessels; on the contrary, it took its rise from the invention of the Emperor himself of certain iron-cased batteries. Now that was a very important matter, and he called on Her Majesty's Government not only to state if their information did not bear out what Admiral Eliott stated, but whether they were not prepared to turn their attention to the question, and to take steps to put the navy of the country in a satisfactory position as compared with the navy of France.

said, that the dockyards of France were by no means in the state of activity which had been described that night when he visited them lately. He deprecated the continuance of such discussions as that they were engaged in, and he would suggest that the Government had better send a Committee over to inquire into the state of the French navy. He was sure the French Government would afford every facility for the investigation, and had no doubt that the Committee would make a report very different to that which had been conveyed to the House in the speech of the right hon. Baronet.

Sir, I cannot but agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, that these periodical discussions on the armaments of France are very un-advisable. It is perfectly true that the French are making considerable progress in regard to iron-cased ships. Within the last few months they have either laid down or have prepared to lay down nine iron ships. I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend desires to create unnecessary alarm; but he spoke of these ships, as the hon Member for Sunderland observed, as if they were growing up like mushrooms. The French are not really making, as far we are aware, any unusual exertions at present in their dockyards. They pay, undoubtedly, great attention to their navy; they have vast dockyards and a large establishment of artificers, and they are constantly building ships. Of late years they have bestowed undivided attention on this new class of very powerful vessels. But we have no reason to suppose that we are going to be suddenly overwhelmed with a great fleet of these iron ships, although I daresay that in two or three years they will have made great progress. I have no doubt that my Friend (Admiral Eliott) whose great merits as an officer I gladly acknowledge, has made a faithful report of what he saw across the Channel. I think, however, that my right hon. Friend has somewhat misunderstood Admiral Eliott's views in regard to these iron ships. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Not at all.] I also had a conversation with that officer on the subject. Now, it is perfectly true that the Magenta and Solferino are pierced with 100 ports; but it does not follow that either will mount 100 guns. Indeed, I cannot conceive it possible that either can do so.' They have not sufficient flotation for anything like that quantity of ordnance. The Warrior is termed a 40-gun ship, but if we were to put guns in all her ports fore and aft she would number nearly double as many. I doubt, however, whether it would be possible, and I am sure it would be very unwise, to arm these ships with more guns than they can carry with safety. The Magenta and Solferino carry 52 guns a piece, while the Warrior carries only 40; but then our ships are intended to mount 1001b. Armstrong guns. I do not believe that the French ships are calculated to carry these guns, for they are not so large or powerful as our own. I would rather avoid at this moment entering into too great details as to our shipbuilding operations. I purposed making a statement of the intentions of the Government on that head when I again brought forward the Navy Estimates. I may, however, say now that the Government have been watching with considerable interest the proceedings of other countries in this matter, and have determined to build five additional iron-cased wooden ships in our dockyards. We have not made any addition to the Estimates on that account. We have frames of timber cut out for line of-battle ships, and by giving them additional flotation and length we shall render them capable of carrying a powerful armament. When cased with iron these vessels will be of a formidable character. With respect to what fell from the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) I have no doubt we may expect to derive from the labours of the Committee to whichhehas referred some very interesting results as to the best means of making iron-cased ships. I will not now further enter into the subject, but will simply say that very shortly we may expect some results from recent experiments which will be of great advantage to us in considering the mode of construction of iron-cased ships. I think the House will excuse me for entering further into detail upon the present occasion.

said, before the Motion was put, he wished to take that opportunity of putting a question, in reference to a subject which had excited much public attention of late—namely, the appointment of colonels of regiments. He wished to avoid instancing particular cases or mentioning particular names, but if promotion by selection was to be the system, it ought to be done on the grounds only of the service rendered by the individual appointed. He could not conceive a greater responsibility than the appointment of naval and military officers, and on the question of colonels great dissatisfaction had been created. It was a question that ought, perhaps, it would be said, to be raised by persons in the service, but it was difficult for a professional man to come before the public and make statements on a subject of this kind. He would not refer to any particular case, but would ask the hon. Under Secretary for War, What was the principle upon which these appointments were made, and why, in the last appointment that had taken place, the services rendered by several officers had apparently been overlooked by the authorities at the Horse Guards?

said, the Government had had no notice of the question, but he would endeavour to answer it. It would have been far more satisfactory if the hon. Gentleman had mentioned the name of the Gentleman to whose appointment he referred. [Mr. CONINGHAM: General Eden.] He thought that even without notice he could satisfy the House that the observations made in respect of this Gentleman were not justified by facts. It had, he be- lieved, been said that General Eden was a guardsman, that he had seen no foreign service, and that he had been appointed out of due order. These statements were incorrect. General Eden rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Line. He had served in the West Indies in command of his regiment, and so far from being appointed out of his turn, he had been several times passed over as colonel by officers who were his juniors, but who had the good fortune of seeing more service than he had. That appointment was, therefore, perfectly justifiable. The appointments to the colonelcies of regiments were made upon the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief. It was assumed that officers of good service, although they might not have seen distinguished service, should not be passed over, but that officers of very distinguished service should be selected for these appointments before officers who had not the same opportunities for distinguishing themselves. It would be found that in recommending officers for these appointments, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief had acted with strict justice to the profession—neither in that nor in any other case could just ground for complaint be shown. On the contrary, he believed that the opinion of the service was that the appointment of General Eden had been made with strict justice and impartiality.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners of Audit of the Army Expenditure for 1859–60, and to the large difference between the amount voted and the amount expended. For clothing and necessaries the amount expended was £715,000, and the amount voted was only £450,000. Under the head of miscellaneous charges the sum expended was £823,000, whilst £562,000 only was voted. There were a great number of smaller votes of the same kind. From the Audit Report of the expenditure for the year 1859–60, which was only just delivered to the House, it appeared that upwards of £860,000 was expended on the army more than the amount voted by the House. The excess was met by taking £2,000 from the Vote for extraordinary expenses of the Russian war, £500,000 from the Vote for extraordinary expenses of the Chinese war, and £4,000 from the Vote for Civil Contingent- cies. The balance in excess was chargeable against the Vote of Credit for the China war of £312,394. Thus there had been an expenditure of £850,000 upon the army without the authority of that House. He hoped the reasons for such a proceeding would be given, and a promise made that no such surreptitious application of money should occur in future.

said, he hoped, as the hon. Under Secretary had now told them that the principle on which Generals were selected for appointments to regiments was not alone for distinguished services in the field, but that the War Minister admitted the claims of officers who, unfortunate in not having opportunities to serve their country in the field, had yet served abroad in unhealthy climates and in our Colonies; and as he had stated that General Eden had been in the West Indies, he would be prepared also when the question was next raised to state how long he had been in the West Indies, how long he had served in regiments of the Line, and what were the services of these officers senior to him who had not received the honour of a regiment. He thought it much better to look to seniority where an officer was competent than selection, but a statement of facts such as he had indicated would enable the House to judge of the value of the principle of selections made by the War Department, he thought it obvious that officer's serving in parts of the world distant from where war happened to break out should not on that account be deprived of all chances of promotion, but when an officer who had no field-service was promoted over the heads of men not only seniors to him who had seen a great deal. The Minister should give the special reasons which induced him to make such selections, and such it was asserted was the present case. With reference to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth, it would be in the recollection of the House that when the Estimates were moved last year the right lion, and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) told them the £500,000 taken for the war in China would not be sufficient. The account partially audited of the expense of the different branches of the military service now showed that in five Votes that right hon. and gallant Gentleman's prophecy had been verified.

said, he was glad that an opportunity had arisen for cor- recting the impressions which the comments of the public press were likely to convey with regard to the claims of General Eden to promotion. He (Colonel North) had great pleasure in bearing testimony to the merits of General Eden, whom he had known at Sandhurst, and with whom he joined the army in the same year. His gallant Friend was not a Guard's officer. He had served in the West Indies, and had buried half the 56th regiment at Bermuda. If officers only were to be promoted who had been under fire it was difficult to say what could be done. The gallant General, like others, was obliged to serve where his regiment was ordered. Why the House was annually to be treated to the question of the Guards he could not comprehend. On all occasions the Guards had upheld the honour and glory of the country, and he was utterly at a loss to understand why the Guards were to be talked about as a sort of condemned corps. He thought the appointment of General Eden reflected great credit on His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief. When appointed he left another appointment by which he was the loser of £3,000. It had not been the good fortune of the gallant officer to be sent out to the Crimea, but if he had he would have distinguished himself as well as other officers. The reason of his exchanging into the Guards was that his health had been shattered in the West Indies.

said, he too, wished to bear his testimony to the professional worth of General Eden. He entertained a high opinion of General Eden as an officer in command of a regiment of the Line. He considered that in all his selections of officers to be placed in command of regiments His Royal Highness had exercised the most anxious discrimination, weighing in the most difficult circumstances the claims of one officer with these of another, both in regard to seniority and the nature of their service, and he felt quite sure that the House might entirely rely on every appointment that was made.

said, he would repeat the question he had asked in the earlier part of the evening, as to the appointment of a Committee further to test the merits of the Enfield and Whit-worth rifles. The Committee which sat in 1858 on the subject, strongly recommended that its investigation should he continued, and the majority of the Committee were of opinion that greater accuracy was to be attained with the Whitworth rifle than with the Enfield, and also greater penetration into substances fired at. With reference to the Vote he had to complain that the items were too large, and that it did not furnish the House with sufficiently detailed information as to the mode of procuring and the cost of stores. As instances, he particularly referred to the charges for the repairs and purchase of small arms, £524,000; iron ordnance, shot, and shell, £424,483; gunpowder, saltpetre, charcoal, and sulphur, and miscellaneous stores, £790,000, all of which ought, in his opinion, to have been divided. He also desired to know why the charge for experiments amounted this year to £20,000, against £12,000 last year?

, after expressing his regret that he was not in the House when the hon. and gallant Gentleman originally asked his question with reference to the trial of the Enfield and Whitworth rifles, said, that there would shortly be a new trial of an Enfield musket of a reduced bore and a Whitworth rifle made of similar materials. He would admit that it would, in a future year, be desirable to divide the item for miscellaneous stores, but at the same time he must suggest that de-tailed information, although frequently useful, did not always facilitate discussion. The reason why the charge for experiments for the year was higher than it was during the last, was, that very expensive experiments had to be made with the Armstrong guns and with iron plates. With respect to the number of small arms, he hoped that at the end of the financial year the stock of small arms would be in a very satisfactory state, and that they might be enabled to reduce the expenditure next year under that head.

complained of the large amount of the Vote—£2,200,000, and asked if the House was to go on increasing in extravagance every year?

said, he could not understand why this Vote should exceed the similar Vote for last year by £112,473, and he, therefore, should move its reduction by that amount.

observed, that it was most important that we should keep up our stocks of warlike stores. When the Crimean war occurred we had so small a store of gunpowder that we had to draw away every pound that we had in our Colonies; and when the Volunteers were first organized the Government was unable to supply them with arms. Speaking of the Enfield rifle, the fact was often lost sight of, that the weapon did not originate in that manufactory, but merely took its name from the Committee appointed to inquire into the subject having sat at that place. In the trials between the Whitworth and Enfield rifles, Mr. Whitworth found that it was only by reducing the bore that au increased range could be obtained; and he accordingly had the credit of bringing under the notice of Government the fact that great perfection of rifling and sighting could be produced with a small bore. Whether that size would be equally effective in the field as at a target should be left to military authorities to decide; and if they determined in its favour it could be manufactured equally well at Enfield. He, therefore, trusted the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick would not press his Motion to a division.

said, he was never disposed to grudge money for experiments really beneficial in their tendency; but these which had taken place with regard to iron-plated ships were not calculated to inspire confidence in Government experiments. The Enfield rifle was now acknowledged to be inferior to the Whitworth, although it seemed to be the object of the Committee to establish the superiority of the Government weapon.

said, it was Mr. Whitworth who had given to the Enfield rifle the excellent position which it had now attained. In 1843 Lord Hardinge, being struck with the inferior quality of the weapon in the hands of the soldiers, called the gun makers together, and they made what was then called the Enfield rifle. Mr. Whitworth was sent to America, and, having reported that the manufacture of guns there was very superior, upon his return Lord Hardinge gave him a Commission to make the best rifle that it was in his power to produce. He set about the task with all that skill and judgment which he was know to possess, and produce a very superior weapon. The Committee to whom it was referred to have its powers tested reported that they should like to reduce the Enfield rifle to the same size, and that was accordingly done, but by the alterations which they introduced, borrowing two parts in three of the turn of Mr. Whitworth's barrel, they made the short Enfield a very superior weapon to the long Enfield. Finally, the Committee made no report whatever, but General Hay, who was at the head of the science of artillery in England, and who was undoubtedly the highest authority on the subject in this kingdom, recommended the Government to have the Whitworth rifle extensively manufactured. Lord Herbert, when a Member of that House, had over and over again stilted that the Whitworth was a much better rifle, but that the cost, amounting to about £10 each, acted as a prohibition on its manufacture. Necessarily, when made on the same scale as that produced at the request of Lord Hardinge, which was to be the best that could be got for money, they must he expensive weapons, but Mr. Whitworth had stated that if manufactured in quantities, and without any essential difference in quality, they could be turned out for the same price as these now made at Enfield. The question remained in that position at the close of last year, and now the hon. Under Secretary for War informed the House that another trial was about to take place, with what ultimate intention he was of course unable to say. As regarded the Vote, though he declared himself perfectly unable to understand the accounts submitted, he though it much better to trust to Government for the accuracy of the different items than to acquiesce in proposals for sweeping reductions.

stated that the increase of which he complained occurred on the item of miscellaneous stores, which had nothing whatever to do with the real defence of the country.

suggested that in future the Estimates should be accompanied by a report containing the details and results of experiments, for the information of that House and of manufacturers of arms.

pointed out that the sum actually expended in 1860 for warlike stores was £1,126,000, and that consequently the present Estimates showed an increase of upwards of £1,000,000.

inquired whether the items referring to guns referred stores for guns or to guns themselves? He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Motion to a division.

remarked that the lion. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith) must be labouring under some mistake as to the sum expended last year. He recommended the Committee not to reduce the Estimates, but to bold the Government responsible for the expenditure; The House of Commons was not the proper place for discussing the relative merits of guns and rifles. All that they ought to require was that the experiments should be fairly made, and that the Government should select the best weapon.

said, the accounts for the year 1859–60 would be discussed when the Supplemental Estimate was moved for making up a deficiency of £200,000 in that year. The expenditure for warlike stores had been greatly increased since the introduction of the Armstrong gun. It was a fact that the sum placed at the disposal of the Secretary of State for warlike stores last year was considerably larger than that now asked for. The Vote last year was £2,358,088, while this 3 car it was only £2,200,510. The item of miscellaneous stores included all the materials used in all the Government factories for the production of every kind of ammunition, excepting gunpowder, and was, therefore, intimately connected with the defence of the country. He attributed the increase on the item to the additional expenditure required for the manufacture of ammunition for the Armstrong gun. That gun was more expensive than the old ones, and its ammunition was also more costly. For the first few years, therefore, there must necessarily be a large expenditure.

said, of course England could nit afford to remain behind other nations with regard to the adoption of new inventions of war; but the expense of the experiments on new weapons of offence and defence ought to be seriously considered, and he hoped the experiments would be certified by scientific men as proper to be made.

said, he wished to ask if there were any outstanding debts for arms due to America?

said, he was not quite certain that there were not certain outstanding claims for arms in the case of America.

said, he intended to reprint the Bill after Amendments had been made.

said, he had to present several numerously signed petitions from persons who either began business or increased it last year in consequence of the provisions of the Bill then passed with regard to refreshment houses, by undertaking the sale of wine. He had inquired what kind of wine they sold, expecting that it would turn out to be light wines, but he found, to his astonishment, that the wine was strong wine used for medicinal purposes. They stated that a pint bottle was convenient for the pocket, while the quart bottle was not. He would, therefore, move to substitute "pint" for "quart." The Government had vindicated themselves very successfully from any entanglement with regard to the Gal-way contract, and he hoped they would clear themselves from any suspicion with regard to being influenced by the in-keepers.

said, his sympathy was with the hon. Gentleman; but having agreed that a single quart bottle should be the smallest quantity saleable by the wholesale dealers, he could not agree that the clause should be altered to the word "pint." He felt quite sure that the kindly and genial nature of the hon. Gentleman would assist him out of his entanglement with the supporters of a contract on the other side of the water.

said, the quart bottle referred to in the clause would in fact be no more than a pint in measure.

said, he would not press his Amendment.

said, he proposed to add a proviso to the clause, empowering retailers of spirituous liquors to recover for any amount of spirituous liquors supplied by them, and not consumed on their premises. His object was to prevent dishonesty; for many persons, having procured spirits, not for the purposes of tippling, yet, to avoid payment, pleaded the Tippling Act.

said, he doubted whether the proviso was within the scope of the Bill, which altered the Excise duties, while the Amendment referred to the Tippling Act.

observed, that the point raised by the proviso was not a fiscal one, but an important question of law, very fitting for the House to consider on a proper occasion. He confessed that his own prepossessions were in favour of the proposition; but, as it was not strictly germane to the present Bill, perhaps the hon. Member had better withdraw it.

said, he would move, as an Amendment, to add to the end of Clause 2—

"That, notwithstanding any provision hereinafter contained, all penalties to be incurred or recoverable under this section, or in relation thereto, may be sued for by any superintendent or inspector of police, upon information and summons, before the police-court or Justice having jurisdiction in the place where the offence is committed, but the appropriation of the penalty shall be the same as is hereinafter specified."

He asked the Committee to take proper means to see that the law was properly carried out by giving the police the duty of seeing that the rights of the Licensed Victuallers were carried out on the one hand and the law on the other.

said, he did not object to the introduction of these words, though he would not be responsible for the form of the proviso, which, however, he believed was Bound in principle.

said, the extension of the beer-house system in the country had been most prejudicial, and he was afraid the clause would be only extending the evil of which so much complaint was made. The houses for the sale of small beer ought to be subjected to the same supervision as the beer-houses. Without such supervision he looked forward with much alarm to the proposed 5s, licence. The houses would spring up all over the country, and he believed that a great risk would be run by licensing the house in the way proposed.

said, the object of the clause was not to create any new houses for the sale of liquor. The houses already existed, and the purpose of the clause was simply to legalize a practice which prevailed throughout the country to the comfort and advantage of the people. The 5s. licence was only applicable to liquor of the weakest description, and which was not to be consumed on the premises.

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw the clause, which compelled every person who had anything to do with the letting of a house to take out a two guinea licence. The object seemed to be to protect these who were called "legitimate" house agents by making every person who undertook the letting of a house, say at a watering place, take out a licence. The clause was conceived in the very spirit of protection and reactionary legislation, and he hoped it would be omitted altogether.

said, that the lion, and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets mistook both the objects and origin of the proposal, and immensely exaggerated the inconveniences which he said would arise from the duty. His arguments applied only to the very limited class of places similar to that from which he had received the communication he had read—namely, the watering-places, The agreements by which fur- nished houses were taken were already liable to a stamp duty, and it was only following out what was already the usual practice in legislation, first to reduce a duty which was unreasonable in amount to a moderate sum, and, secondly, to bring the persons on whom the payment of the stamp duty depended, under the view of the Board of Inland Revenue by means of a licence so as to ensure its collection. The present proposal was merely to apply that general principle to a particular case, and was not suggested by house agents. The only reason Mr. Ayrton had given for supposing that it was so suggested, was a letter from a house agent, approving, not the tax now produced, but one of a much larger amount. The only sense in which this measure was protective was that it tended to protect the revenue.

said, he concurred in objecting to that sort of interference, which was accustoming the people of the country to the interference of the police in their private affairs. It was a vexatious interference with trade; and though he was a strong supporter of the general policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought that fright hon. Gentleman made himself obnoxious by his constant petty interferences, his penny stamps and licences.

said, he must be permitted to observe that there was no such principle as was alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No person was licensed because he used stamps. Persons were licensed to bring them under the purview of the Excise; but then there was a power to take away the licence if they sought to defraud the Exchequer. There was no such provision in the Bill. The measure, if carried would give a colour to an agitation against class legislation. It was a monstrous proposition, and he should divide the Committee on it then, and, if necessary, in a larger House.

thought that the clause was neither more nor less than an attempt to throw the whole letting of lodgings into the hands of the auctioneers.

said, he wished to know whether the tax would apply to persons in the habit of collecting rents? He had received a letter from a constituent who collected rents for a friend at a distance, and he wanted to know at what point the operation of the law would begin and end?

replied in the negative.

asked if it would apply to the letting of farm-houses?

said, it was entirely confined to the letting of furnished houses; and the 14th Clause would make an exception in favour of all persons whoso duty it was to act as agents for landed estates.

said, it would be a considerable innovation to put a penalty on all who made agreements not on stamped paper, as many made agreements by letter, and would be much inconvenienced if restricted from doing so.

said, he wished to ask whether the adhesive stamp would not in some cases be too small for all the parties to an agreement to sign their names on?

said, he must admit the defect, but it would be very inconvenient to change the law that applied to other adhesive stamps.