said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Why the Pegu prize money, arising from the sale of prize property captured in Pegu in 1852 and 1853, and ordered to be distributed by Order in Council of the 12th day of September, 1860, has not yet been so, and when it will be?

said, he was afraid he could not say when the money in question would be distributed. The Royal Warrant authorizing the distribution had been passed in September, 1861, and sent out to India. In order to prevent delay as far as possible in the matter, notice had been issued by the Prize Committee at Calcutta to the effect that no application for any portion of the money could be received after the 31st of December last. It was not until that date, therefore, that the number of applicants was known. It required, he might add, some time to compare the prize rolls; but when that was done, the distribution would take place at once.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay on the table of the House the Papers relating to the Negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Queen of Spain, respecting the alleged persecution of Protestants?

Sir, I am afraid I cannot give the Papers which the hon. Gentleman asks for, and for the best of all reasons, that I do not think any such Papers really exist. There has been no official correspondence or negotiation between the English and Spanish Governments on the subject. The British Minister has from time to time had unofficial conversations with the Spanish Ministers with reference to the matter; but I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will understand that reports of these unofficial conversations are not matters proper to be laid before the public. I can only repeat what I have said before, that Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid has been instructed to take advantage of every favourable opportunity—without giving offence to the Spanish Government—to express the interest which the British nation feels in regard to those unfortunate people who have been condemned to severe punishment on account of their religious opinions.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the reports of an engagement between the American iron-clad frigate in the naval service of the Confederate States, called the Merrimac, and an iron vessel, called the Monitor," in the naval service of the Federal States, having a shot-proof roof; and to ask whether, in consequence of the results of that action, it will not be prudent to suspend the construction of some of the proposed forts at Spithead until the value of such iron-roofed vessels for the defence of our ports and roadsteads shall have been fully considered? Upon former occasions he had felt it his duty to protest against the construction of works upon Portsdown Hill, because he thought it would never be possible adequately to garrison all the forts. He thought so still. He had not voted with the hon. Member for Liskeard when he proposed to abandon all the forts at Spithead, because at the time he thought such measures of defence were necessary there; but recent events had induced him to alter his opinion, and, as the subject was one of vast importance to this country, he felt it to be his duty to invite the attention of the House to it. He would have brought forward the subject on Friday last but that he desired to do so in the presence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whom he congratulated upon his improvement in health and re-appearance in the House. The great question of iron-plated ships against wooden vessels had been brought to an issue, and, happily, without any action on our part. It appeared that a vessel, the Merrimac, which a few months back was a wooden ship, was sunk, was then raised, cut down to within three feet of the water, cased with iron two feet below the water-line, and the iron casing brought over the deck in the form of a roof, but not absolutely forming a ridge, an aperture being left on deck for ventilation. In order to break the blockade of the Chesapeake that vessel moved down to Hampton-roads, where she found several ships of war of the Federal States, constructed of wood, with considerable power, most of them well armed, but not all well manned. She engaged those vessels, destroyed one by running into her; was injured herself in so doing; she destroyed another by firing her, and kept the rest of the squadron at bay. That was a gallant exploit, and showed that the captain must have had great confidence in the iron casing of his vessel, which there was reason to believe was five inches thick. Private letters stated that the shot flew off from the iron covering of the Merrimac without having the least effect upon it, although one shell appeared to have entered the aperture on the roof-deck and killed the Captain and several men. So far that showed the success of covering vessels with iron decks; but it might be objected that such vessels could not navigate the sea in bad weather. That point, however, was soon settled, for on the following day to that upon which the Merrimac made her appearance, another iron vessel, of different construction, designed by Captain Ericsson, of the United States or Federal Navy, arrived in Hampton Roads. That vessel had come round from New York in half a gale of wind, and had proved herself a good and safe sea-boat. The Merrimac and the new comer, the Monitor, soon went into action; both were well fought and well handled. That contest was of great importance, and appeared to him to settle the question of the best means of defending our ports and roadsteads at the least cost and in the most efficient manner. The money had been voted a year and a half ago to construct the forts at Spithead, but little progress had been made. He now rejoiced that so little progress had been made, because they were still in time to stop if they were in a wrong course, and to diminish in some degree the number of those costly forts. He had originally been an advocate for some of those forts, but he had now seen reason to entirely change his opinion. Let the House consider the question how those forts could be fought. They were to mount 380 guns, and would require 2,700 trained gunners, who would have to fire at moving objects with heavy guns. The right hon. Baronet would perhaps say that the forts were in course of construction, that contracts had been entered into, and that it was intended to place guns of enormous size upon those forts. He had heard that guns throwing 1,000 lb. shot were to be mounted; but he hoped that was not the fact, because if the service proportion of powder—one-third the weight of the shot—was to be used as the charge, it would be like springing a mine, and would be perilous to the men in the fort. What danger would there be of a foreign fleet anchoring in the Solent if they had a fleet of twenty or thirty Ericsson Monitors in portsmouth harbour, which could be constructed at one-tenth the cost of the forts? The noble Lord, the Secretary to the Admiralty, would recollect the statement of an able officer, Captain Sullivan, that there would be no danger to an enemy's fleet in running past the forts by night, and but little by day; while even if they threw 1000 lb. shots, in all probability only a few would hit the ships. Apart from the question of constructing forts at Spit-head, there was a proposition to erect powerful forts along the north shore of the Isle of Wight, to prevent an enemy from occupying positions on shore from which he could bombard Portsmouth Dockyard. Such forts would do no injury to vessels like the Monitor, which was almost even with the water's edge and strongly plated. In giving up the Spithead forts they should give up the works on the Isle of Wight. The passage of the Needles must be defended, and there were forts there already and the landing-places must be guarded; but to occupy a few spots of ground in the Isle of Wight, in order to prevent an enemy from bombarding Portsmouth dockyard, was a pure waste of public money. The officers who fought the action in America to which he had referred regarded the question between wooden and iron vessels as settled for ever. The Navy Department at Washington had issued invitations for tenders for the construction of vessels of all descriptions, partly of wood and partly of iron. These were to be vessels of certain draught of water for harbour duty, vessels for river service, others for coast defence. The tenders were to be sent in by the end of March, and immediate steps would be taken to form a fleet of a most formidable character. Those vessels which were intended to defend harbours and the coast were to steam 15 knots, to carry 11 days' coal; and were to be armed with 11-inch guns. In England they had heard of an immense mortar; but nothing came of it, and the same result would probably follow in the case of that enormous gun, which, we are told, is to throw a shot of 1,000 lb. weight. He did not believe that the various parts of the metal could be amalgamated so as to render it proof against the large quantity of powder which would be necessary to propel from the gun so enormous a shot at a high velocity. Perhaps the first two or three trial guns might be well constructed; but by-and-by less care would be taken with them, and some serious accident would then happen. Even with the Armstrong guns accidents occasionally happened, although there the amount of metal was comparatively small. With regard to the forts, if the Government had not gone too far, they could surely suspend their operations. He was told that two forts were in progress. Let this system of defence be confined to them, and, at all events, give up the forts in the Isle of Wight. The estimated cost was £ 1,000,000; but he believed the forts would cost a great deal more, and that they would be very lucky if they got out of it for less than£ 2,000,000. It would be better to stop the works and pay a penalty to the contractor, than to spend so much money so uselessly. The hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), than whom no man was more competent to give an opinion on the subject, in a letter addressed to The Times upwards of three years ago, called public attention to the importance of building iron vessels. Mr. Laird also published a most admirable letter descriptive of a ship so constructed as to run into and sink an adversary. But even in America blunders were made, and it appeared that the stem of the Merrimac was too weak. No doubt, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would bear that lesson in mind. There was time to give our ships now in course of construction much greater strength in this respect. The Warrior could not run into such a vessel as the Merrimac without receiving very serious injury; but if her present very handsome stem were removed, and a strong, useful stem substituted, she would be a much more serviceable vessel. It was quite clear that, in constructing the forts at Spithead, they were proceeding in a wrong direction. But it was not too late to draw back, and there could be no more opportune time for doing so than on the last day of the financial year. One point which the House should remember was the difficulty in getting 2,700 well-trained artillerymen to man the forts. Such a force could not be spared, even if the Volunteer movement continued, and was it right, then, to go on constructing forts which they would find it impossible to man? But there would be no difficulty in manning small vessels carrying two guns, which would be enough to keep at bay, if they did no more, vessels infinitely more formidable than the Merrimac. The action in question had changed his opinion with regard to the Spithead forts, and he was now fully impressed with the necessity of making the best use of the lesson which they had just been taught. The House would also remember that his lamented friend, Sir Richard Dundas, was of opinion that for the defence of the Solent it was better to rely on vessels than on forts, though the latter might be useful. That officer was a high authority, and had proved almost a prophet upon the question. Captain Coles had advocated the same thing, and the country was much indebted to him for his services. The question of sloping sides, which had been much canvassed, was one of detail. No doubt if, they could present to a shot a sloping and not a perpendicular side a much thinner metal covering would be sufficient to turn or resist that shot. In the Merrimac the amount of vertical surface placed opposite to the line of fire was only two, or at the most three, feet, and there was thus complete protection for the men working the guns, and plenty of air. How Captain Coles's cupolas would work was a matter of experiment, but there was a ship which, after being exposed all day to the fire of several powerful vessels and batteries, went off without injury from them; and after a five hours' engagement on the second day, exposed to the fire of guns much heavier than her own, it was a question whether a single shot penetrated her sides. If her sides were penetrated, they clearly must have been pierced by the fire of shot weighing 200 or 178 pounds; but, at all events, the Monitor sustained not a single crack in any of her plates. Although fighting almost muzzle to muzzle with the Merrimac, the Monitor was not damaged in the least; and if that were so, no one need fear that small iron-cased vessels in the Solent would suffer from the fire of larger vessels entering, because the vessels for harbour defence could carry both heavier guns and much more impenetrable armour plating than any sea-going vessel could do. Under those circumstances, it was hardly justifiable for the Government to proceed with the construction of works on the northern shore of the Isle of Wight, or with the whole of the forts originally proposed. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by asking the question of which he had given notice.

said, that he wished before the question was answered to make a few observations on the subject. He looked upon the action to which reference had been made as the turning point in the adoption of iron for all classes of vessels in Her Majesty's service. Objections had hitherto been made to small iron vessels of this kind, but the success of the Monitor had clearly proved that ships of a small class were able to resist large ones; and, moreover, though the Monitor had not been built as a sea-going craft, she had made the rough passage from New York to the James river in perfect safety. That one vessel had saved the credit of the Federal navy; for unless she had come up, the Merrimac might have destroyed all the wooden ships there almost at her leisure; and this engagement had now settled for ever the relative capabilities of wooden and iron ships in war. The Americans themselves were so satisfied with the result of their iron vessel that they were going to construct many others; and he saw by one journal that they had abandoned the idea of defending their harbours by means of forts. He had always argued, in respect to iron ships, that it was not a question whether they could make a ship impenetrable to shot, but what would be the effect of such a ship, properly built, coming into contact with wooden vessels. That question had been settled. Objections had been raised to going into that question; but when he looked back and saw the difficulties that had been raised to the adoption of any new principle, he could not wonder at the objections that had been made to going one step further than they had done, and constructing the whole navy of the country of iron. But, he believed, till they did so, they should not be able to reduce their naval expenditure. The adoption of iron as the material of construction would do away with the necessity of keeping large stocks of timber laid up in the dockyards. The Government would merely have to order the iron when they wanted it; if they chose to build ships by contract, they could do so; but they could reduce the establishments kept up at such great cost, and they would be able to know with certainty what the naval expenditure of the country would be. The objections to adopting iron that had lately been made in the House merged themselves into this—that they could not use iron to build a small class of vessels for foreign service, because they were liable to fouling. The only remedy for that, and the one that would be found the cheapest in the end, was to provide more dock accommodation for cleaning and repairing vessels on their foreign stations. The outlay for bringing ships and steamers home for repairs was very large. If an accident occurred to a vessel on the East or West India or the American stations, unless the means of repairing her were at hand, she had to be brought back to this country, and the expense of doing that was enormous. Sooner or later they would have to provide greater dock accommodation abroad. It was stated by Admiral Robinson, the Controller of the Navy, in his evidence last year, that with greater dock accommodation abroad one ship would do the work of two. The Government would save an enormous sum of money by adopting the principle thus laid down, and till they did adopt some such plan they could not keep their steam navy in an efficient state. He hoped the result of what had taken place in America would be to direct the attention of the Government more seriously to the matter, and induce it to pause before proceeding further with the construction of a small class of wooden vessels. They would be utterly useless and unable to cope with the vessels they might have to meet on foreign shores He must repeat his conviction that till some such course was adopted they should not be able to reduce the present enormous naval expenditure.

said, the event that had lately occurred in America appeared to him an entire revolution in the art of naval warfare. It was neither more nor less than that, and the newspapers of the Northern States had been congratulating themselves that, in consequence of what had occurred, the naval superiority of England was at an end. But he took the precisely contrary view. He thought that England, with its great wealth, its mechanical appliances, and ample supply of; coal and iron, could not only provide for; her own preservation, but the maintenance of the superiority on the sea she had hitherto enjoyed. Another source of consolation was that a great portion of the burden of taxation that had weighed upon their shoulders for a long time past, under the impression that it was necessary, would be dispensed with. He entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir F. Smith) that money expended on fortresses would be money thrown away. Forts would only be buoys and indications; by which an enemy might pass into the harbours. The description of the late battle given in The Times stated that the large heavy shot from the land forts fell off from the Merrimac like hail from a tin roof, and shot weighing 180 lb. were fired by the Monitor at the Merrimac when they were lying muzzle to muzzle. If that was the case, what could the proposed forts do? To be of any use, they must have guns powerful enough to crush such ships; mid if they had guns of such enormous magnitude, the bursting of one of them would be like springing a mine within the walls. Jones's angular target of iron, 4½ inches thick, resisted, at a distance of two hundred yards, the Armstrong bolt-shot, weighing 110lb; whereas the Martello Tower at Eastbourne, with walls seven to nine feet thick, crumbled away before the fire of the same shots at 1,032 yards. What, then, had the Government to do but to accept the logic of facts, and accommodate themselves to the new state of things? He would read the advice given to the Government of England by Mr. Ericsson himself, in his letter to the American Naval Department, explaining his reasons for calling his iron vessel the Monitor. The letter, as it appeared in The Times of that morning, said—

"The impregnable and aggressive character of this structure will admonish the leaders of the Southern rebellion that the batteries on the banks of their rivers will no longer present barriers to the entrance of the Union forces. The iron-clad intruder will thus prove a true 'Monitor' to those leaders. But there are other leaders who will also be startled and admonished by the booming of the guns from the impregnable iron turret. Downing Street will hardly view with indifference this last Yankee notion—this 'Monitor.' To the Lords of the Admiralty the new craft will be a 'Monitor,' suggesting doubts as to the propriety of completing those four steel-clad ships at three and a half millions a-piece. On these and many similar grounds I propose to name the new battery 'Monitor.' "

said, that when the Defence Commission first gave in their Report, he was of opinion that the forts at Spithead, to which alone he should confine his observations, were absolutely necessary, but he had now changed his views, and he was confident that it should be better for the public good if the money were spent in the construction of vessels of the new description for the defence of the port, because these vessels could be made as strong as forts, and a movable fort must be much more valuable than a stationary fortification. Under these circumstances, he agreed in that particular with the gallant Member for Chatham; but there were some special circumstances to which he had alluded which required some slight explanation. He did not quite agree with the hon. and gallant (Gentleman in all the inferences which he had drawn from the late action and from the experiments which had been made in reference to the construction of iron fortifications and ships; nor could he quite agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) in his proposal that the smaller class of ships in the navy should be constructed solely of iron. It was absolutely necessary that the light description of vessels should be built of wood, because they could not carry plates thick enough for their protection, and the destruction which would take place on the thin iron plates of vessels of that size would be much more formidable than the destruction produced on wooden ships of the same size. But all vessels which were to fight in war must not only be of considerable size, but of size sufficient to carry plates of considerable thickness, so as to protect them from the fire of the enemy. There was no doubt that modern artillery had arrived at such perfection that it was positive madness to send people out to fight in wooden vessels. If two vessels met armed with the modem ordnance, not one but both must be destroyed, and no result would flow from such an engagement. As far as he knew, it was not possible to construct ships solely of iron. It was absolutely necessary to have something behind the iron to prevent the vibration destroying the ship. As far as experiments had gone, it was certain that when the plates were very rigid, the attachments or bolts which fastened one to the other were certain to break by the concussion; and it was therefore necessary to construct ships of wood and iron combined, which so far was fortunate, because the best use they could make of their wooden three-deckers was to cut them down to their lower-deck beams, plate them with iron, and cover them with as many of Captain Coles' cupola shields as they would carry. One of these ships so cut down and plated, and provided with six or eight of Coles' shields, would destroy eight or ten line-of battle ships as they now existed. So far it was of value that they had ascertained that there was a positive advantage in having the wood to support the iron, because they could avail themselves of the great number of ships they possessed, which might be converted into useful engines of war. He approved largely of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, that the dock power and accommodation at our different naval stations should be increased, and the money which was to be spent on building the forts at Spithead might be much more usefully employed at Bermuda, Malta, and elsewhere in building docks to receive our iron navy With reference to the necessity for sloping the sides of iron ships, it was certain that it was quite unnecessary to do so. There was nothing to be gained by sloping the sides of a ship, because by so doing I there must be a larger plate to cover the same vertical area. There was no doubt that the iron was better disposed in greater thickness upright than if the same weight were rolled out to cover the same vertical area. It had been tried over and over again. The thicker a good iron plate was, the better it was for defence against the effect of projectiles; and a shipbuilder need not be trammelled by any desire to alter; the form of his ship by a false idea of obtaining sloping sides, when he would get the same thing by building his ship in the best form to perform her duty and plating her vertically.

said, the proposition was to substitute vessels for forts, so as to have a fleet in every port. It was not his province to defend the Admiralty, but his hoped they would proceed with the construction of the forts. Forts were better than ships, and particularly at Portsmonth, as there was not a sufficient depth of water for vessels carrying very heavy guns to manoeuvre about Spithead. This country was foremost in inventions, but the Admiralty seemed always the last to take advantage of those inventions. He attributed it to there being no competent Board to decide what inventions should be adopted and what should not. The Admiralty had allowed themselves to be out-stripped by the French, who had constructed La Gloire before the Warrior was in commission, and by the Americans, who had built the Monitor, although the Admiralty were aware of Captain Coles' invention.

said, that as he had seen the Merrimac, a few words from him would not be without interest. There was some misapprehension with regard to her. Although she was a most powerful vessel, she was not calculated for anything but smooth water. Owing to the weight of the plates put upon her, she was immersed to that extent I that there was nothing above water but the deck for her gun ports. The sides were carried up at an angle of 45°, and at the top was an open bar roofing, through which the ventilation was obtained, the consequence of which was that shipping a sea would certainly sink her. With regard to the Monitor, he thought she was more powerful, because she had made voyage in rough weather from New York to Fort Monroe; but it was no disparagement to the gallantry of the officers and crew of the Merrimac to say that she was only fit for river purposes, and that the anticipation of her being able to cross the Atlantic was not well founded. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham was, in his opinion, entitled to the gratitude of the House for having brought forward that important question, and he submitted that the time was come when the Government should reconsider the matter, and pause in the construction of costly land fortresses, which practical men were of opinion would not be so efficacious as these new iron vessels in defending our coasts and harbours.

Sir, two questions have been raised during this debate. One has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham, of which he gave notice—namely, whether the recent action on the coast of America has given the Government any reason why they should stop the forts in course of construction near Portsmouth. Another, but a much wider question, has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Galway—whether, in consequence of that engagement, we should not entirely alter the whole character and structure of our navy, and abandon wooden ships in order to build nothing but iron ships. It has been suggested that the revolutionizing our naval defences will lead to a great economy of the public money. I must venture to express my opinion that, from all the experience which we have had of revolutionizing our armaments, a new system of defence is likely to lead, not to a diminution, but to a great increase of public expenditure; and that, in fact, nothing is so expensive as a systematic change of armaments on a great scale. I do not say that it may not be necessary, in consequence of the experience of the recent engagement, to make a vast change in our naval defences. I am not expressing any opinion upon that subject and its necessity; but I warn the House against entertaining any expectation that that change can be made otherwise than by a corresponding large sacrifice of public money. I think it will be more convenient to the House not to enter into that large discussion at the present moment. It is, in fact, a question mainly affecting the Naval Estimates. If the House-be of opinion that this revolution is to be effected, I apprehend it will probably be the duty of my noble friend sitting near me (Lord C. Paget) to propose a Supplementary Estimate of some£10,000,000 or£15,000,000. That will be the practical result of the naval revolution which has been sketched. I abstain entirely from entering upon that part of the question. I merely wish to advert to the question of which the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham gave notice. The question which he submitted to the House is identical with one which was brought under the notice of the Defence Commission by Lord Herbert on the 18th of February, 1861, and upon which that Commission made a careful report. The question referred to them was, "the possible substitution of iron-cased ships in certain localities for such of the permanent defences as can be constructed only at large cost, and cannot in all probability be completed for a long time." That suggestion had particular reference to Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. The Defence Commission, composed of professional military men—Engineers—reported their opinion in the following manner:—

"1. We adhere with the utmost confidence to the opinion we formerly expressed as to the necessity for the forts for the protection of Spithead, more especially as regards the two outer works on No-Man's Land and Horse Sand, which give protection to the anchorage as a harbour of refuge for an inferior force of our own fleet, and for merchant vessels, which the 'Spit' and 'Intermediate' forts cannot afford, owing to the depth of water near them being insufficient for anchoring purposes. These two outer defences also command the space more effectually which might be occupied for the purpose of bombardment, and would take in reverse any ships which had succeeded in forcing the passage. The work on the Starbridge is, in our opinion, only second in importance to the two just mentioned. It completes the circle of defences which will afford a concentrated fire on the anchorage, provides a second line against an enemy attempting the passage of the Solent, and gives shelter to floating defences which might have been obliged to retire before a superior force either from the outer entrance to Spithead, or from the defence of the passage of the Needles."

"2. We consider the mixed scheme of defence by forts and auxiliary iron-cased vessels to be the only practicable mode of effecting the object in view. 3. We are of opinion that no time should be lost in commencing the forts, and in constructing as many iron-cased vessels as are essentially necessary for the above purpose."

"The success of the Rodman gun has induced our Government to try experiments on a scale still larger, and they are about constructing guns of 20-inch bore, throwing shot of 1,000lb, which, it is thought, will crush in the side of any iron-plated ship, no matter what the thickness of the plates."

Sir, I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will not be deemed very satisfactory by the House. He was modest enough to say that he did not hold himself to be an authority on a question of this kind, but I must say the facts he quoted did not appear to be much to the point. The report of the Defence Commission was written more than a year ago, and cannot, therefore, refer to an event which happened about a fortnight since. The right hon. Gentleman has, therefore, said really nothing to the proposition of the hon. Member for Chatham. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his comments on the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway. On the occurrence of a single event such as the recent action, however important—and the man must be particularly stupid who does not see its importance—it would, I think, be very unfortunate if the Government at once adopted the scheme of naval reconstruction which is very much favoured by the right hon. Member for Droitwich. Nothing could be more costly or calamitous to the country than that we should have such sweeping measures carried out by aspiring Lords of the Admiralty every half-dozen years. The question which has been raised is very simple, and the Government ought not to be allowed to escape from it without a definite statement to the House. The question is, whether the batteries which we are about to erect at a vast cost in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth harbour are capable of resisting the entrance of iron-plated vessels, such as the Monitor. The old questions, whether there is any danger of invasion, whether any fortifications are required, and whether we can get them manned, are not discussed now. They remain just where we left them; but, as far as I can learn from their conversation, those who voted for the fortifications two years ago are generally very much ashamed of that vote. What we have to consider is whether, heedless of the proofs which are being given of what iron-plated ships can do, we are to go on spending on fortifications—I am afraid to say how much, and, indeed, the ultimate cost was never very clearly set before the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is to be assumed as absolutely concluded by what has taken place in the James river, but the probability is that something has been concluded. I do not require to be a great naval authority, to pronounce it a very serious event, and I think the House may fairly call upon the Government at any rate to suspend these works, which are costing many hundred thousand pounds in the locality I have mentioned, and which will involve an outlay of millions if we include all the fortifications which we were invited to sanction two years ago. Some hon. Members have an idea that money is to be dug out somewhere, and that nobody is any the poorer when it is paid out of the Exchequer for such things; but the fact is that somebody works for it, somebody sweats for it, somebody receives less of the comforts of life for its expenditure, somebody pays it to the taxgatherer, often grudgingly, and suffers for the loss of it. Even the most determined spendthrift in the House must see that the necessity of spending that money at all has, at least, been rendered doubtful by recent events. Surely we may call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sometimes upbraids the House for its profligate expenditure, to support the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham in the discussions in the Cabinet. I understand that the revenue returns, concerning which we are to hear something on Thursday, will present an appearance more favourable than, or rather not so unfavourable as many persons had expected; but I can assure the House that, judging from the state of things in the North of England, there is a very high probability that during the next six months or during the next year there will be a very considerable falling off in the revenue, and very great suffering among the working classes—infinitely more, a thousand-fold more suffering, than we know anything of, because it is borne so silently and heroically. But the less the people complain, if they are in distress and from no fault of their own, the more carefully ought the Government and this House to watch that not a single farthing of the money which is extracted from them is expended on works which have been shown by one of the greatest authorities in the country, the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham, to be unnecessary. I think we are fairly entitled to ask the Government not to commit themselves to anything further in this respect, and to abstain from involving the country in further expenditure. We may be sure that before long we shall receive from the other side of the Atlantic the reports of scientific men, and more complete information with regard to this matter. Without going into the question of the great revolution which I agree with the hon. Member for Galway is inevitable, but which is not, perhaps, so far proved as to justify a great change of policy, we may call upon the Government to suspend proceedings, and thus save to the country at least a million of the outlay to which we committed ourselves so hastily.

said, he was glad that the question had been raised. He had always pressed upon the Government that the greatest caution ought to be observed in following out the principle of iron shipbuilding. Two years ago opinions were very much divided upon the question whether the forts at Spithead should be built or not; and two different reports were made, one by the commission upon which Sir Richard Dundas sat, and the other by the defence Committee. The question was, what was the use of solid fortifications built in the water when they could have equally solid fortifications in the shape of iron vessels, which could be moved where they were wanted? Of course, if the defence were required on a spot where it must be on land, there was no choice; but, otherwise, there was no comparison between the advantages of the two kinds of defence. Two years ago the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) voted in favour of having these Spithead forts, and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Sir J. Hay) spoke in favour of them; but experience had now shown that there was a mistake upon that matter. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would; reconsider the statement which he had just made, and would take time to see whether the altered circumstances which had just occurred should not modify his views.

Sir, I was in hopes, after the numerous and distinguished instances of conversion to a conviction of the non-necessity of these forts which we have heard to-night, that we should have heard also of that of Her Majesty's Government. I have been very much disappointed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War because, if we are to collect anything from that speech, it must be that Her Majesty's Government are about to rush into this enormous expenditure in spite of the great lesson they have received from the events which had occurred in Hampton Roads. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) has been unnecessarily hard upon the right hon. baronet the Member for Droitwich, (Sir John Pakington) because there can be no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was the first to draw the attention of the country to the defective state of our navy, and he ought not to be taunted with what was in fact a great merit on his part. It has been said that the Admiralty are opposed to all change, but I would remind hon. Members that it was the Admiralty of that day that proposed these very floating batteries. It was my late lamented Friend Admiral Sir Richard Dundas, then First Sea Lord, who brought forward this very scheme, and proposed to convert twenty useless line-of-battle ships into floating batteries to defend Portsmouth and other harbours. He proposed to do that—and would have done it—at a cost not exceeding £840,000, instead of erecting enormous forts which will cost considerably more than a million and a half. That proposal was negatived by the Engineers, who thought there was nothing like stone and mortar for building; and therefore I do not think that the Admiralty are open to the insinuation that they set themselves against this improvement. From the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, we seem to be going blindly on, throwing these millions of money into Spithead, without knowing exactly either what is to be the cost of the forts, or what is to be their use when they are built. The right hon. Baronet has spoken rather slightingly of this great and bloody experiment which has been made in Hampton Roads. But what is the evidence of the doctor who was on board the Congress? It is most conclusive. He says that as soon as the Merrimac, or, as I believe she is now called, the Virginia, got within range—

"We opened fire on her. We might as well have fired at a moving iceberg. The shot glanced off her iron sheathing like hailstones off a tin roof …Nearly all the guns were dismounted, the bulkheads blown to pieces, rammers and handspikes shivered, the powder boys all killed."

There is a ship now building on that plan.

I am very glad to hear it. What does Captain Coles offer? He says that he will for a small sum of money convert line-of-battle ships which are lying idle into shield ships, which may form a coast patrol to defend your harbours. I am glad that this discussion has taken place, but I think that it will be totally useless if we—not only the converts, but the thirty-nine articles, of whom I happen to be one, who originally voted against this outlay—if the House does not insist upon Her Majesty's Government not spending another shilling upon these forts until we are in a position to know that they will be able to hold their own against the monsters of the deep which are now being constructed.

Sir, the question which was raised very ably and clearly, and with a very kindly spirit, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham is a question of extreme import- ance, but it is not an Admiralty question. The question is whether the Government is determined, without any pause whatever to proceed with the construction of the forts at Spithead. I do not consider it possible to regard the tidings which we nave received of this extraordinary action fought in America otherwise than as novel and most important. I entirely agree, however, with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, that it would not be wise for us, in the transition state in which we now are, to be carried away or suffer our policy to be affected by every report that may come across the Atlantic; but, on the other hand, it is impossible to deny that the circumstances of the action in James river have been most remarkable. It is also impossible to deny that those circumstances are closely connected with the opinion which has been throughout expressed by that high authority Captain Coles, that the erection of the forts would not be the best mode of defending Spithead. Surely some additional light has been thrown on that question; and I cannot but express my regret at the language we have beard from the Secretary of State for War, and from which I gather that Her Majesty's Government are disposed to attach no weight at all to this occurrence but to persevere at all hazards, without any delay, and without any further consideration or reflection, to spend this large sum of money upon the construction of these forts. The question is a very difficult one; but the impression made upon my mind by the intelligence from America is such that, considering the great expense involved and the doubtful policy of constructing these forts, I wish the Government had intimated more clearly than the right hon. Gentleman has done that they were disposed to consider anxiously what is the real tendency of that intelligence before they determine to persevere with these works.

Sir, I must say that I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) has rather misled the House as to what was said by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War. What he said, as I understood him, was—and with that I entirely concur—that important as is the event which has recently occurred on the other side of the Atlantic, it shown nothing so decided as to the merits of iron-cased vessels of which we were previously ignorant as to oblige the Government suddenly to set aside a plan which has been adopted after the maturest and gravest deliberation. Important as this action has been, what, I ask the House, has really been taught us by it? We have known for some time that vessels cased with armour of a certain thickness would resist the projectiles which are known in the present day; though how long that impenetrability will last, in view of the daily improvements of guns and projectiles, is a doubtful matter. We have been going through very careful experiments at Shoe-buryness, and we know that iron-cased ships are very much superior to wooden ones. What has been the result? Why, that we have ceased to build large wooden ships and have taken to building iron-cased ones. What other things do we learn from this action? That an iron-cased ship can what is termed "give the stem" to a wooden ship, and cut her down; but it did not require this action to prove that. We have known that for a long time, and have constructed all our iron-cased ships with a view—the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham shakes his head, but I assure him that every iron-cased ship, beginning with the child of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, the Warrior, has been so constructed, by strengthening the stem and the bows and other arrangements, as to enable her, if necessary, to run down her enemy. So that when we are told that the Americans have taken the lead in building vessels strong enough to run down others, my answer is, that that is in fact what we have been doing for the last three years. Some hon. Gentlemen would lead the House to believe that the Government ought immediately to bring in a supplementary Estimate. ["No! No !"] What is the proposal of the hon. Member for Birkenhead? He tells us that, putting aside our wooden vessels, we ought to construct a great mass of iron ships, and build docks in all parts of the world for them. Are we to build docks all along the American coasts, at all the new settlements, at the Feejee Islands, and other outlandish quarters where we have vessels of war stationed? [Mr. LAIRD: I said distinctly, at our foreign stations in different parts of the world.] The suggestion is needless, for at most of our principal colonial stations there are already docks belonging either to private merchants or to the Government. Because we have heard of the extraordinary success of iron ships on this occasion, are we to reconstruct the whole navy of England and to give up building small wooden vessels for distant service? I maintain that, at all events, the time has not yet come to do so. With regard to Spithead, naval men naturally prefer ships to forts; but in war time merchant ships running up and down Channel will continually seek refuge in any emergency in that very best of Channel harbours; and I want to know whether you are to keep a large fleet of iron-cased ships locked up between the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth, simply with a view of guarding the merchant navy? I can quite believe that you will require iron ships as adjuncts to the forts, but I maintain that nothing which has taken place across the Atlantic in any way alters the position of the question. Let it be remembered that, as regards ships, there must be a limit—I do not say we have arrived at it yet—to the size of the gun and the thickness of the plate which they can carry. But in a fort there is no limit. If we can construct a gun to carry shot of 1,000lb. weight we can mount it on a fort; if we can make iron plates, aye, of five times the present thickness, they can be put on a fort. But I question whether any very great increase either in the armour plating or in the weight of the guns can be safely carried by sea-going ships. Without, therefore, entering into the question how far it may hereafter be the duty of Government to modify the plan for the defence of the port of Spithead, there can be no doubt that forts must ever be stronger than ships Some hon. Gentlemen have quoted my friend, the late Sir Richard Dundas, as an authority against these forts. It is true, seeing the great progress which France had made in iron-cased ships, Sir Richard Dundas recommended that we should devote our earliest energies to the construction of more iron-cased ships; but that Sir Richard Dundas always considered these forts absolutely necessary for the protection of Spithead, and that he was an advocate for their erection, I can assure the House and the country. I have been told that the Admiralty have done nothing towards preparing vessels of the class of the Monitor. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Osborne) gave the House to understand that the Admiralty had not taken up Captain Coles's proposal, and that I personally was very much opposed to it. If he takes the trouble to ask Captain Coles, he will ascertain that I was one of the earliest advocates of that system. I believe, moreover, that the system is capable of very large development. But I would wish the House to remember that Captain Coles's cupola ship—like the Monitor—is not a sea-going vessel. We do not profess that she would be able to cross the Atlantic, though she would be a very superior vessel to the Monitor, because she carries her guns nine feet out of the water. She would, no doubt, be a very valuable and very efficient vessel for our Channel defences. But when we are told that the Americans have built this Monitor to beat us, and that if she came across we have nothing like her, I will ask, hare hon. Gentlemen read the account of her voyage from New York, when, upon the statement of her own engineer, she was at times completely under water, and the green seas went down the funnel? That does not look as if she was fitted to go across the Atlantic and to keep the sea; though I believe her to be remarkably well adapted for the particular service for which she was designed. I have no doubt that the grave attention of her Majesty's Government will be given to the question whether we ought not to have vessels of that class for the defence of our coast. But I protest against its being said that either the Admiralty or the Government is not taking every possible means for the security of the country.

said, it appeared to him, with all due deference to the House, that there had been a good deal of exaggeration in the opinions which had been expressed on that question. He did not think, with the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), that the action which had taken place on the other side of the Atlantic was likely to be a source of economy; nor did he agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken, that his noble and gallant Friend (Lord C. Paget) would be called upon to bring in a supplemental Estimate. He believed that the question lay in a nutshell. The House always voted liberally, and in his opinion wisely—the money required for the defence of the country, and the question was simply this—What was the best way of laying it out? He was bound to say that he had heard with great regret the statements made by the Secretary at War and by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. He gathered from those answers that it was the intention of the Government to continue as before the operation of building the forts; and the noble Lord asked them what they had learned lately to induce them to alter their mode of proceeding. The noble Lord implied, if he did not assert, that there was nothing in the recent action which ought either to make them pause in their present operations or to lead them to consider the question whether their whole system of defence might not be revolutionized. He thought that that answer was the result of a total misconception of our position. Within the last month they had had what they had never had before—a practical proof of the value of iron sheathing for ships, and of the comparative value of vessels and forts when in collision. They had found that so far from there being no reason to alter their views and opinions, this had occurred, that whereas ships had hitherto always got the worst of it in engagement with forts, ships could now compete with forts and come off unhurt. If they had not learned anything from that, when would they find anything from which they could learn? It was providential that we should without loss be able to find the comparative value of iron and wooden vessels; and were we to go on following the course which might have been right before, but must now be considered doubtful? Instead of saying that we had not learnt anything from the late contest, we ought to look on it as a providential occurrence in which, without cost or loss of life, this country enjoyed an opportunity of testing the value of iron-sheathed-ships. There was one part of the question which had not been touched upon except slightly by his noble and gallant Friend (Lord C. Paget), and that was as to the condition of merchant vessels at Spithead. Let the House suppose, in case of war between this country and France, that a large fleet of merchantmen was lying at Spithead for shelter from the enemy's squadron; the forts at Spithead would be no protection to those vessels whatever. Two or three of the enemy's iron ships could run into Spithead and capture or sink the merchant vessels there without receiving any injury. Were the forts there to blaze away indiscriminately, striking alike friends and foes? He defied any man to prove that the forts at Spithead would be of any good for the protection of he ships; they would only be available to fire a flying shot at the vessels endeavouring to run the channel. By the accounts of the last action in the American waters heavy batteries were firing away all day at an iron-plated ship, and did it no material damage. What possible damage, then, was it likely would be done to two or three of these iron-plated ships running through the channel into Spithead at night and in thick weather? It was, in the first place, a million to one against the vessels being hit, for it would be a flying shot; and once having passed the forts they could not be fired upon without the certainty of injuring the merchant vessels which it was the object of the forts to protect. That was a most important question, and he ventured to express a hope that the Government would at least admit that the time had come when the question of the mode of defending Spithead and other ports ought to be reconsidered. He contended that they had learned enough from the experience of the last month to show them, that if the whole question had not been entirely revolutionized, it had been so completely altered in all its bearings, that to persist in acting on the old system would be to do precisely that which had been condemned by the right hon. Baronet on the Treasury bench. For it would be to deal hastily with the subject, for nothing could be more hasty or inconvenient than that they should, in the teeth of recent information, continue a system commenced before that experience was acquired. All that was desired was that the Government should pause in carrying out a system which might have been good last year, but which had now fallen into disrepute by increased experience. They asked for further time for consideration, in order that money for the defence of the country might not be spent on works which in a short time might prove quite useless.

said, he could not but express his regret that the Government had decided against the reconsideration of the system of fortification. He had ventured on a former occasion to express an opinion that the system of constructing iron men-of-war was still in its infancy, and he believed that vessels would some day be built which would be able to send a shot through the Warrior just as if she were a bandbox. He was one of the first to recognise the importance of the Lancaster gun; and when he saw them he expressed an opinion which he still entertained, that they would bring about a complete revolution in the science of warfare, and that ships would be constructed to carry guns of the heaviest calibre. Already there were schemes on foot to build men-of-war to carry sufficient coal to enable them to steam round the world, and which could deliver a bow broadside from guns of the heaviest calibre. It was simply a matter of scientific calculation to ascertain, having the thickness of iron plate given, what sized shot could, under various circumstances, penetrate that plate, and he believed that as certainly as a rifle bullet would go through a deal board, so could shot penetrate the sides of the Warrior. Probably, it might be found necessary to construct vessels with plates twice the thickness of those on the Warrior, in which case the size of the ship must be proportionately increased. Again, efforts were on foot to apply steam to the working of guns. He, therefore, strongly deprecated any expenditure on a large system of land fortifications; and he should likewise deprecate an expenditure on colossal vessels, which he believed to be a mistake, for it was likely that a vessel having greater speed than the Warrior might engage her with success. Choosing her own ground for the purpose, she, having invulnerable bows, might keep them always directed towards the Warrior, and might sink her without receiving any material damage. He thought the Admiralty had always been very slow learners of these scientific truths, and with that protest he ventured to hope that the Government would pause in the system which they were pursuing.

said, he wished to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with reference to the interests and independence of the Turkish Empire. It related to an act of armed intervention on the part of Austria which took place in the Sutorina on the 1st of last December. The Sutorina was a tongue of land which ran down from the Herzegovina to the Adriatic, and divided the Austrian territory of Ragusa from the Turkish dominions. He would describe the act of which he complained in the language of the official report as it appeared in the Wiener Zeitung, and as it was given in the Viennese correspondence of The Times of the 7th of December—

"Not long since the civil and military governor in Dalmatia made known to the Imperial Government that the insurgents in the Herzegovina had, in two different parts of the Sutorina, constructed batteries which commanded the Imperial Royal military road across that Turkish strip of land (enclave), and also the waters of the Gulf of Cattaro. In virtue of a convention between Austria and the Porte no change can be made in the status quo in the Sutorina except by mutual consent. As the batteries in question interfered with the security of the communication between the territory of Ragusa and the district of Cattaro, the Imperial Royal Government was necessitated to summon Luka Vucalovitch, the leader of the insurgents, to remove them, and that within a given period. At the same time it stated that if the above-mentioned chief of the insurgents did not do what was required of him, the Imperial (Austrian) troops would not fail to take the matter in hand. As Luka Vucalovitch did not attend to the summons within the period fixed, which was at the end of the 30th of November, the commander of the Imperial Royal brigade lying at Ragusa received orders to destroy the two batteries, and, when he had done so, to return with the troops employed to the Austrian territory."

"By a telegram of the 2nd inst. from Castel-nuovo, a fortified town at no great distance from the present entrance to the war port of Cattaro, we learn that a body of Austrian troops under General Von Rodich entered the Sutorina yesterday, and' without having fired a single shot,' demolished the two batteries which were between Svinje and Lucich."

said, that in order to explain the answer he had to give to his hon. Friend, he would remind the House of the exact position of the Sutorina. When the Republic of Ragusa was an independent State, she was surrounded by Venetian dominions; and not finding the Venetians very pleasant neighbours, and in order to cut off her territory from theirs, she gave to Turkey two strips of land, one to the north and the other to the south, running down from the Turkish province of the Herzegovina to the sea. In that way she completely isolated herself from the Venetians. When Austria came into possession of Dalmatia and Ragusa, the two strips of land remained in the possession of Turkey; and if some arrangement had not been come to between Turkey and Austria, all access by land to Ragusa, now forming part of the Austrian territory, would have been cut off, had the Turks chosen to prevent a passage through their territories. Accordingly, an engagement was entered into by Turkey with Austria—Turkey refusing to cede these two strips of land to Austria—that a road between Ragusa and the Austrian territory should be always kept open, and should not be interfered with in any manner whatever Recently there had broken out in the Herzegovina an insurrection, which was still going on. One of the chiefs of the insurrection, Luka Vucalovitch, descended into the Sutorina, and erected a battery upon the strip of land. It was evident the battery was not intended for any defensive purpose against the Turks, The Turkish troops had not been there, and there was no ground for believing that they intended to attack the insurgents in that place; consequently the battery was raised for some purpose foreign to the insurrection. The Austrians, naturally anxious that the communications between the territory of Ragusa and the district of Cattaro should not be interfered with, gave notice to Luka Vuoalovitch, the leader of the insurgents, that if the batteries were not removed within a certain time specified, the Imperial troops would take the matter in hand. They were not removed, and accordingly the Austrians, with the cognizance of the Turkish Government, entered the strip of land and destroyed the battery without resistance, no impediment being offered to the removal of the two small guns of which the battery consisted. The article quoted from the Treaty of Paris provided for the independence of the Turkish Empire, and guaranteed its territory against any violation by a foreign Power; but the act in question could not be considered a violation of its territory. It was no act of aggression. As soon as the object was accomplished, the Austrian troops were withdrawn, and the territory had remained in the possession of the Turks. As soon as the circumstances of the case were known, various Governments, including those of Russia and France, remonstrated with the Austrian Government. Full explanations were, however, given; and the Powers, including the British Government, being satisfied that the Turkish Government did not make the act of Austria the ground of any complaint, nor consider it any violation of its independence, they allowed the matter to drop. No one looked upon it as an absolute precedent which might authorize any other power, without the sanction of Turkey, entering its territory. It was an act arising out of extraordinary circumstances; but still he hoped that the necessity for such interference, which might be accepted as a precedent, might not occur again. There were no papers on the subject which he could present to the House.

said, that it was his opinion that many of the works of art at present in Hampton Court Palace ought to be removed nearer London, where they would be more accessible to the artists of the country. He also thought that copies of them might be taken and distributed through the chief towns of the country. As they were circumstanced at present they were in considerable danger of being destroyed by fire.

said, it appeared from the Vote that money had been paid for cleaning pictures at Hampton Court Palace. He wished to ask what pictures had been subjected to such treatment, and why a practice which had been given up at the National Gallery was still adopted at Hampton Court Palace?

said, he felt much disappointed that no general explanatory statement had been made by the Secretary of the Treasury in bringing forward the Civil Service Estimates. Such a statement was due both to the House and the country, and was all the more necessary as the Committee was now asked, for the first time, to consider a particular part of those Estimates without having the entire series before it. They were not even furnished with a general abstract of the whole of the accounts to guide them. Besides, many of the Votes in Class No. 1, which they were discussing, were connected with Votes in other classes, and particularly with those in Class 4; and without having the whole of the Estimates before them they could not judge accurately of the expenditure they were sanctioning. The utter want of method in the preparation of the Estimates rendered it almost impossible to tell what was the total sum required for each different establishment, some items being lumped together where they ought to be separated, and others, which ought to be brought together under one view, being scattered up and down through the whole group of Estimates. It was, therefore, most difficult to get at the entire amount of Expenditure under a particular head, or to institute a true comparison between one year and another. On the face of the Estimates there appeared to be a saving on the charge for Class 1, Public Works and Buildings, that charge being this year £700,000 in round numbers, as against £834,000 the last year. On examining the figures, however, more closely, it would seem that the amount this year would be at least £750,000 instead of £700,000; the former sum being the amount of expenditure sanctioned, while the latter only represents the money voted, the difference being made up by the Balances in hand to the credit of these various works. There was a sort of caprice, too, in the way in which the particulars of different Votes were stated. Very full details were given of certain small items, while, in regard to larger items, the Committee were expected to be content merely with the total sums. In short the Estimates were drawn up in the most confused, heterogeneous, and imperfect manner, and he must earnestly press upon the Government the adoption of a clearer, more intelligible, and more orderly arrangement.

said, that the Government had been anxious to lay all the Miscellaneous Estimates before the House at the earliest possible day, but accuracy was quite as important as despatch, and it was impossible that they should undergo the revision of the Treasury, and yet be produced at an earlier period. It had not been usual for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make a general statement upon the Civil Service Estimates corresponding to the statement of the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary to the Admiralty. The reason was that there was no connection between the different classes of Votes, nor did they hang together, like the Estimates of the army and navy. For the last year or two the practice had been to make certain reductions from the Votes in respect of the Estimates of the coming year, on account of balances remaining over from the previous year. The hon. Member was not without the means of making a comparison between the proposed expenditure of that and former years, and he would find the comparison favourable to the present year. The aggregate of Class 1 of the Estimates of last year, irrespective of the deductions of the surpluses of former grants, was £962,666. The detailed Estimate of the same class of the present year was only £750,215, showing a reduction of £212,451. There was a small deduction of surpluses this year amounting to £55,000. The deduction last year on account of balances was £128,000. The real decrease therefore, was £212,451 on Class 1, although apparently it amounted only to £139,451, in consequence of the Exchequer balance taken in diminution of the Votes for 1862–3 being so much less than for the year 1861–2.

But are these real balances, such as can be made available for the service of the coming year?

They are sums that are called balances, and are the unexhausted remains of the Votes of last year. During the coming year the balances will be surrendered to the Exchequer.

Will that apply strictly to the next year?

Yes.

said, he wished to ask whether the cartoons in Hampton Court Palace were insured against fire?

said, it had not been the practice to insure Government property, but every precaution was taken against fire. With regard to the question of the noble Lord (Lord W. Graham), a sum of £475 was taken for cleaning and varnishing the pictures and cartoons at Hampton Court. The cleaning would be executed under the direction of Mr. Redgrave, superintendent of the Royal pictures, by the most competent persons. The pictures at Hampton Court had not been touched for many years, and many were perishing for want of varnish, and were obscured by the dirt on the surface. The cleaning of these pictures was a delicate matter, and Mr. Redgrave would be responsible for the manner in which it was done. The great cartoons of Raphael were already under glass, and those of Andrea de Mantegna would soon be similarly protected. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. Ewart) had suggested that the cartoons of Raphael should be brought to London; but at present there was no edifice to contain them. When the enlargement of the National Gallery took place, there would be, he trusted, ample accommodation for the proper exhibition of the cartoons, and it would then be desirable that works of art which were without parallel should be rendered accessible and brought to the metropolis.

said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that if he wanted space for the cartoons, he had only to turn the Royal Academy out of the National Gallery, and then he would find plenty of room. He was sorry to hear that picture-cleaning was recommencing in the public galleries. It was proved a few years ago that the pictures at the National Gallery had sustained great injury from the process of cleaning, and if the pictures at Hampton Court were exposed to similar treatment, they would be irreparably damaged. He had often thought that the health of the people would be improved if all allopathic doctors were abolished, and was similarly convinced that art would be greatly advantaged by the abolition of picture-cleaners.

said, he saw that the probable surplus of former grants under the Vote was estimated at £10,000. He wished to ask, whether that was the total of the surpluses of several years?

said, that the balance in the Exchequer of the Vote for 1861–2 was £34,000. Of that sum £10,000 might be treated as a surplus, and would not be wanted. The House would not be asked to vote that amount again. The balance arose from the great economy of the department.

remarked, that if that were true, the Estimate seemed to have been an extravagant one.

Said, that the balance arose from the change of system, consequent upon carrying into effect the recommendation that had so long been made in regard to surpluses. The sums referred to were not proofs of extravagance, but were sums which had been voted before for services which had not yet been paid for.

said, he had expected an explanation from the Treasury bench, but the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had, no doubt, given the real explanation. They were not payments in the course of the year, and how could there be an economy?

said, that by the exercise of economy the whole amount estimated had not been expended.

said, he wished to call attention to the large amount of rent paid by the Government for public offices. The sum had increased from £25,000 last year to £26,900 in that year. If the Committee would look through the list of public offices, they would find the Government rented buildings all over the West-end, which entailed a great deal of inconvenience upon those having business to transact with them. That sum of money represented the interest of £900,000, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) whether he could not devise some better mode of expending the public money?

said, he had to complain that the Government had separated from the War Office the fortification branch of that office, and had taken for it rooms which cost the country £1,312 a year. He thought that system led to very great extravagance, and he wished to know whether the offices would be retained permanently or not, or whether there would be a concentration of all the offices under the War Department?

observed, that in the Civil Service Estimates were many charges which ought properly to appear in the Military Estimates. Chelsea Hospital, the Royal Military Asylum, and the Tower of London were instances; as also the items for coals and furniture for offices connected with the military branches.

said, he could not admit that the arrangement of the Estimates was justly open to criticism. He did not think the expenses mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. A. Smith) could fairly be includ- ed in the Army Estimates. The Fortification Branch had been placed in Victoria Street, because there was not room for it at Pall Mall, but the arrangement was expected to be but temporary. With respect to hiring houses for temporary purposes, that was more economical than purchasing expensive sites and crecting costly buildings; but in respect to some of the offices it would, perhaps, be better to have permanent buildings.

said, he wished to ask whether, as they expected to have a good many foreigners in London during the year, it would not be possible to give the fountains in Trafalgar Square a better appearance than they then presented in spouting forth hot water, which emitted clouds of vapour, and prevented no beauty of the fountains from being seen.

said, he would also suggest that a better supply of water should be provided for the fountains. Those fountains had been a laughing-stock to foreigners, and during the time of the Exhibition it would be much better that they should not be allowed to play, unless they were to be more sportive than they had hitherto been. It was admitted on all hands that they were the most outrageous failures ever attempted in this country.

said, he quite agreed that the fountains were in a condition that Englishmen might well be ashamed of. But he would venture to promise that in the month of May they would be such as every Englishman would be proud of. The House was good enough last year to vote a gum of money for increasing the supply of water for the fountains. Works for that purpose were in progress, and the new jets with which he proposed to fill the surface of the basins would produce a very ornamental effect. The water which supplied the fountains was, for economy's sake, water which had been used in the condensing part of the engine, and which was thereby raised to a very considerable heat. It was then sent out to cool as a fountain, and again returned to the condensing part of the engine.

said, he wished to call attention to three items—£700 for the Stationery Office in Prince's Street, Westminster; £110 for the "late Stationery Office," Great Newport Street; and £205 for "late ditto" in Gate Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. He wished to know whether the public was paying for those three offices?

said, he was anxious for some information with regard to what was called "the new State Paper Office." As he understood, what was really a new building, and had coat between £40,000 and £50,000, was going to be pulled down. He therefore wished to know what was to be the sum total of the change; what was to become of the records while a new building was being provided, and what would the entire cost be? What would the public get out of it for £120,000?

observed, that some explanation was required in respect of the item of £1,094 for the Queen's Prison. He believed that all the persons who had occupied that prison had been sent about their business. What then was going to be done with the building? There was also an item of £900, rent of a house in St. James's Square for the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners. The; work of that Commission had been reduced; to nothing, and yet there were three Commissioners. There was another item to; which, in his opinion, there was so much objection that he should move its rejection. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £680, the rent of a house for the Ecclesiastical Commission.

said, he deeply deplored the necessity of pulling down the State Paper Office. The fact was, however, that the site which had been obtained for he new Foreign Office and the new India Office could not be made available unless that step was taken. It was true that the existing State Paper Office had cost about £40,000; but in reality it was not at present worth more than half that sum, as a large portion of that expenditure had been incurred from a want of the knowledge of the use of concrete in laying the foundations of a building upon so treacherous a soil. The new India Office would be erected on the very spot occupied by the State Paper Office, and it would be impossible to make its elevation harmonize with the rest of the proposed new edifice. The "late Stationery Offices" to which the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) had referred had been taken by the Government on lease, and could not be given up till the lease was expired, but they were let at the same: sums as those set down in the Votes. In reference to the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners, he had to observe that many additional duties had of late years been thrown upon them, and that at present they had a great deal of work to perform as Inclosure Commissioners. An objection had also been made to the payment of the sum for a house for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But the House of Commons had in previous years decided that those Commissioners performed duties of a public character which justified that expenditure; and it should also be borne in mind that only one quarter of the rent in that case was paid by the public.

said, he believed that was the last time the Committee would be culled upon to Vote any sum on account of the Queen's Prison, Since the passing of the new Bankruptcy Act a great reduction had taken place in the number of prisoners confined for debt, and arrangements were being made for the purpose of removing all the remaining prisohers in the Queen's Prison to Whitecross Street Prison. When those arrangements were completed, a Bill would be submitted to Parliament authorizing a sale of the Queen's Prison.

said, he wished to ask, where the public records would be removed to when the State Paper Office would be pulled down? At present a large portion of the public records were stowed away in houses in Chancery Lane, which were in a very dilapidated condition, and by no means such as any gentleman would choose for his private papers.

said, he would ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman really thought he was doing wisely in paying a rental of £27,000 a year, instead of concentrating these offices? It might, indeed, be better to continue to pay that rental, rather than erect new buildings in the style of the Foreign Office; but he believed that a building, modest in its elevation, but sufficiently commodious to accommodate the whole of these offices, might be constructed at a cost, in the shape of annual interest on outlay, of not more than half the sum now paid as rental.

said, he wished to ask, whether the plan of extending the buildings of the Admiralty, by taking a portion of the houses in New Street, Spring Gardens, was to be carried into effect, or whether it might be considered that the notices served on the owners of these houses had been withdrawn?

said, he wanted to call attention to an item of £1,000 for the expense of a fire-engine station for the protection of the public buildings; and asked whether the Government intended to establish a fire brigade system of their own before the Report of the Committee which had been appointed on this subject?

said, he wished to know whether there was any prospect of the abolition of the Tithe and Inclosure Commission? He could see no necessity for its continuance.

said, that further duties besides those of acting as Inclosure Commissioners were thrown upon the original Tithe Commission. They were employed in all cases in which public money was advanced, or when public Companies received Loans from Government under Acts of Parliament. A Bill would be submitted to Parliament in the course of the present Session for the renewal of the Commission, and then opportunity would be afforded for discussing its duties and the utility of continuing it.

said, he observed that the amount of the entire Vote was £103,942 8s., but he feared the result of the discussion would not lead even to the reduction of the Vote by the odd eight shillings. He should be glad if an hon. Member familiar with the subject would move the reduction of some item; but if he attempted to do so, the manner in which the Votes were asked caused him terror lest he should make an awkward mistake. For instance, the Vote for the supply of water to the fountains in Trafalgar Square was included in the sum of £3,000 asked for the supply of water to the Houses of Parliament and the public buildings. He feared, if he asked the reduction of that Vote, he would be the means of cutting off their own supply of water. There was one Vote which required explanation—it was the sum of £50 for rent of stables for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These must be only the stables for a pony; and if he succeeded in knocking off that £50, it would pay, at least, for the gas spent during the last two hours of useless debate. He would, therefore, ask why any, and if any, why such a sum of money was Voted to accommodate the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

said, that stables had been attached to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's official residence in Downing Street; and as that building had been given up for public purposes, it became necessary to rent stables in Middle Scotland Yard. With respect to the houses in New Spring Gardens, he had to state that they would not be required at present, as the decision in reference to the scheme for the extension of the Admiralty had been postponed until the following year. The charge of £1,000 for fire-engines had been introduced before the Committee to inquire into the state of the measures adopted for the extinction of fires in the Metropolis had been appointed. The present arrangements made by the Fire Brigade with respect to the public buildings were not of a satisfactory character. At an interview he had held with the representatives of the Brigade, he had asked them whether they were prepared to establish a station nearer to Whitehall, the Houses of Parliament, and Buckingham Palace; but he was told that stations were formed where it was the interest of the Insurance Companies to place them with reference to insured property; that it was not their interest to place one near the Public Offices; but that they would do so if the public would defray the first expense and some portion of the annual cost. It was under these circumstances that the charge of £1,000 in the Estimates was incurred for the first cost of establishing a station in the neighbourhood of Whitehall. He had only to add that no permanent measure would be adopted upon that subject until the Committee, to which he referred, should have made their Report.

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth, as he objected to finding offices for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought it desirable that the Commission should be abrogated; it would be an advantage to the Church if that were done.

said, that the Commission was created by Parliament, not by the Church; and as long as it continued to exist, Parliament must pay for it.

said, he wished to repeat that it was his opinion that the Government should undertake to house all these Commissions in a general public building.

said, that the suggestion of the hon. Member should have his best attention. No doubt some sites of ground in the possession of the Government might properly be used for the erection of public offices now placed in hired buildings. The south side of Bridge Street, when the houses were pulled down, might be occupied by public offices.

asked, if anything had been finally decided on with regard to the National Gallery; and if any plan had been adopted, would it be laid before the House for its sanction?

said, the Gallery was at present sufficient for the purpose of the exhibition which there existed; but probably some other accommodation would soon be required. When a plan should be adopted, it would be laid before the House.

said, the cost of furniture for the army clothing depot ought to appear in the Military Estimates. The depot, he believed, was built by private parties, and hired by the War Department.

explained, that the expense of the furniture for the public offices used formerly to be included in the general Vote for each department; but, in consequence of remarks made in that House it was thought desirable that all the furniture should be supplied by the Board of Works and appear in one separate list.

said, he should move the omission from the Vote of the item £4,611 for furniture and fittings for the South Kensington Museum, the Museum of Geology, and the College of Chemistry, as he had a very strong suspicion that money had already been voted for these purposes in the Votes for the Science and Art Department.

said, that that was a mistake. No money had been taken for furniture in the Votes for those departments. The Vote was to supply glass cases, presses, &c., for the exhibition of articles, chairs for visitors, and other similar articles necessary for such exhibitions.

said, he thought that details ought to be given, as was the case with other departments. One department had so far condescended to particulars as to give in a claim for eighteen-pence.

said, he must condemn the whole system on which the Kensington Museum was conducted. The Government were diverting that institution from its legitimate object. It should be confined to the fine arts and archaeology.

said, he wished to point out that a Vote of £4,600 had been taken last year for fixtures and fittings in the Science and Art Department.

replied, that the Vote under consideration had nothing to do with the Vote of last year. It was for different purposes.

complained, that the public were unnecessarily restricted in the use of portions of Hyde Park by the present arrangements. They ought either to have the whole range of the park, or the animals of the deputy-rangers ought not to range beyond certain limits. He suggested that when a vacancy occurred in the office, the ground occupied by the premises of the deputy-ranger should be thrown open to the public.

observed, that some cheek ought to be put upon the amount expended on the parks about London. During the past nine or ton years the expense had greatly increased, and it now amounted to about £100,000 a year. It was impossible to reduce the item by moving to strike off any specific sum; but if the opinion of the Committee were expressed, the expense in future Estimates would probably be diminished.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman—a Scotchman—had a just ground for complaint against the Vote when it included £1,780 for Holyrood Park, Irish Members must have a much stronger case, seeing that not one penny piece was allowed for the ornamentation of their country. A memorial influentially signed for the grant of money to ornament Phoenix Park, Dublin, had been presented, and in reply to a question which he had put he had received the stereotyped answer that it was under consideration. He did not object to the expenditure of money on the parks in London, but, in common justice, something ought to be done for Ireland.

said, the hon. Baronet was quite right to remind the hon. Member for Stirlingshire that Holyrood had its share; but the hon. Baronet, if be had read a little further, would have found that there was a Vote for the expenses of the Phaenix Park.

said, the Government had succeeded in having some gardens in Dublin opened on Sundays, but they gave no assistance towards the preservation of those gardens. It was acting upon principle against conviction. Their principle was that the gardens should be open on Sundays, and their conviction that they should not give money to preserve the gardens. Any one who had seen the PhŒnix Park must agree in the propriety of the appeal of the hon. Member for the city of Dublin. They wanted to have new trees, but none were planted. They wanted to have new roads, but none were made. It was a fine park sadly neglected, and the Irish people threw themselves on the mercy of the Committee.

said, that so far from having refused to bear any of the expense, there was a Vote in the Estimates, under the Science and Art department, towards maintaining the garden to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

said, they did not object to the expenditure on the parks in and about London, but public grants of that kind ought to be fairly administered. With regard to Battersea Park, he admitted that a great improvement had been effected, but they were led to believe that through the increased value of building sites that expenditure would be a source of revenue to the country. The expectation, however, had not been fulfilled. He wished to know whether the annual charge of £8,000, for the maintenance and embellishment of the park, was intended to be permanent?

said, that it was entirely owing to the toll on the bridge that the land at Battersea Park was not let for building. He wished for some information as to the Italian garden at the head of the Serpentine. It was understood that a well was to be dug at that spot which was to supply a large quantity of water daily. He believed that the well had been sunk, and fountains erected, but up to the present moment no water was forthcoming. He desired to ask whether any water had been obtained from the well, and, if not, whether there was to be any further charge on account of that undertaking?

said, he should protest against the continuance of the large annual outlay for the metropolitan parks, to which the term "Royal" could, in no sense, be applied. In order to test the feeling of the House on the subject, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £7,515, the item for Battersea Park.

said, he held that the parks of London were a source of almost more enjoyment to people from the country than to the inhabitants. The fact was that country folks were so stifled by the smoke of the metropolis that they were glad to resort to the parks for a mouthful of fresh air. He believed that the municipality of London would have no objection to maintain the parks not Royal, if the Government would transfer them to their hands. The Chief Commissioner of Works, however, took delight in managing them himself; and if the country indulged him in that luxury, it must be paid for. He saw no reason why the parks should cost a farthing. Under the charge of the municipality they would no longer be a charge on the public revenne. That was a subject which deserved reconsideration, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was very well as a first step.

said, he suspected that although the hon. Gentleman represented a metropolitan constituency he did not represent metropolitan opinions. The municipality of which he spoke was the offspring of his own imagination, and in his dreams perhaps he fancied himself at the head of it. If such a body really existed, under such a chief, he would be glad to allow them to provide the expenditure for the parks; but he would require, if not the payment of arrears, at least a guarantee for future expenses. If the ratepayers constituted the municipality in question, he doubted whether the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would meet with their approval. Every one must acknowledge that these parks ought to be maintained. The money which they cost was spent as well as, if not better, than any other sums voted by the House. It not only gave enjoyment to the great multitude of people who came to London, but gave to residents some of the enjoyment of country life, and made them better subjects and happier individuals than if they were confined to the pavement of the streets. He believed also, that if these parks were done away with, the rate of mortality in the metropolis would show a considerable increase. With regard to Battersea Park it had been complained that the anticipations held out to the House of a great return from that park had been disappointed; but that arose from the want of a proper main drain, without which the land would not let for building purposes. When the great; southern sewer was completed, the return would come. The toll on the bridge, as the hon. Baronet had stated, was another obstacle in the way of letting the sites.

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that an Act of Parliament had already been passed which intrusted the Metropolitan Board of Works with the making of any new parks. That Board constituted the municipality of London, as the right hon. Gentleman ought to know. With that explanation he would leave the Chief Commissioner of Works to justify the taste of personal reflections upon him, (Mr. Ayrton), which were as unfounded as they were absurd.

hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), who had left his seat, would not leave the House, because he believed that Battersea Park was a hare which he started some years ago to divert attention from his nibbling at cheeseparings. He was anxious that the Chief Commissioner or the hon. Member should explain to the House what revenue that park had produced, or else should withdraw the promises which had been made with regard to it. If no account of profit could be shown, he hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would vote for the reduction of the Vote.

said, that before the hon. Member for Lambeth answered the appeal which had been made to him he must say that if that hon. Member had sanctioned any expenditure, even upon the metropolis, he must have seen good reasons for doing so; for without such reasons he was sure he could not bring his mind to approve of any expenditure at all. Good reasons had been given why Battersea Park had not answered the expectations or the hon. Member. The English people did not like to pay toll. There was no comparison between Phoenix Park and those of London, for while the latter were oases in the desert, Phaenix Park was surrounded by the most beautiful scenery, and to make either cabbage gardens or flower gardens in it would be a waste of money. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets wanted to relieve the Government of the expense of these parks. He did not share in that desire, and he was sure the ratepayers of the metropolis had no desire to be rated for them; indeed, the chairman of the Board of Works had said that he looked with horror on the idea of proposing any fresh rate.

remarked, that the tolls upon Chelsea Bridge had been imposed in pursuance of a distinct understanding with the inhabitants of the district.

said, he was at a loss to understand why hon. Members should seek to fasten personal responsibility upon him with regard to Battersea Park, towards the construction of which several Votes had been taken before he became a Member of the House. It was true he complained very often of what he thought the unnecessarily large outlay on the parks; and seeing that £70,000 of the amount voted last year still remained unexpended, it could not be denied that the Estimates were male very much at random; but of the condition and circumstances of Battersea Park, beyond the fact that it was of great advantage to that part of the town, he knew as little as he did of the county of Cork. It was some eight or ten years since he rode that way.

said, he wished to know how it was that £7,515 could be spent in keeping up so small a park as that of Battersea?

said, he could not view the construction of parks merely as a metropolitan ratepayers' question. If the responsibility were thrown solely upon them, he very much feared that, owing to the value of land in the vicinity of London, the ratepayers would prefer to build upon it. Within the last sixty years London had doubled its population. Looking upon the parks not merely as places of recreation for the poor, but as contributing very largely to the permanent health of the metropolis, he hoped the Committee would sanction the Vote.

said, he could assure the Committee that no money was spent upon Battersea Park which was not necessary. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Hunt) would visit the park on a summer afternoon and see the number of persons who there sought healthy recreation, he would not object to the expense of maintaining it. The Volunteers, likewise, made use of it for purposes of drill. The Committee which sat the year before last went very fully into those Estimates, and had not recommended any reduction of the items.

said, he had no great faith in the decisions of Committees, knowing how they were often constituted. At the same time, if it were the general wish, he would withdraw his Motion.

said, that as one of those who had originally resisted the grants to Battersea Park, he wished to remind the Committee that a large portion of the money had been advanced on what turned out to be false pretences. A distinct pledge was given, that if the bridge were built, a toll should be levied for the repayment of that money. No sooner was the bridge built than persons interested in the district raised an agitation against the toll.

I feel sure that there was never any pledge as to repaying the money spent on the park, though expectations were held out that part of the land might be let advantageously for building purposes. There was a pledge that the cost of the bridge should be repaid by tolls; and when it was moved in this House that the tolls should be remitted, on the ground that they prevented the advantageous employment of the land available for building, the House determined that the tolls should be continued. The amount expended on the bridge is, therefore, I imagine, in course of repayment. But those tolls necessarily diminish very greatly the use of the park by all the persons living on the northern side, and have also the effect of preventing, in a great degree, the advantageous employment of those portions of land intended to be applied to building purposes.

said, he should vote for the item in the Estimates, but he was sure that as soon as Battersea Park had attained its maturity the sum would no longer be wanted. The money spent of late years on the park had been most judiciously expended, and the only way of bringing it back to the Exchequer was by taking the toll off the bridge.

said, that the public suffered great inconvenience in consequence of Kew Gardens being shut off for the great part of the year from Kew Green and Richmond; and he would suggest, with the view of removing that inconvenience, that some slight alteration should be made in the gardens at Unicorn Gate.

said, he observed that £1,583 were to be paid for keeping in order what used to be called Kennington Common, but what was now styled Kennington Park. To call the place a Park was absurd, as it consisted of only seven or eight walks and a few grass plots, from which even children were excluded.

said, he wished to know why the expense for Greenwich Park was three times greater that year than in the last?

said, that the whole Vote was presented without proper details, so that the Committee felt a difficulty in cutting down any single item. For Greenwich Park there were two sums of between£4,000 and £5,000, and he held it to be perfectly monstrous to spend such a sum upon the preservation of two hundred acres of land. He thought that the Government would do well to withdraw the Vote for the present, and propose it again in a more detailed form. To mark his objection to the Vote in its present form he would move, that the amount be reduced by £5,000.

said, he thought that the sum asked for was extravagant, and instead of being reduced by £5,000 it ought to be reduced by £50,000.

said, with respect to Kennington Park, that it was desirable the grass should be kept in existence, and that consequently the public were excluded from walking on it at some seasons, of the year. There was not, he felt assured, a shilling spent on Kennington Park which was not well laid out. Great numbers of people frequented it; but if he were to give all the details of the expenditure in connection with it, it would, he feared, be only to weary the House without leading to any useful result. So far as Kew Gardens were concerned, he thought it extremely desirable that the public should be admitted during the winter as well as during the summer months; while he might state, with respect to Greenwich Park, that a considerable amount of repair was requisite in the case of the house of the Ranger there, to which office Earl Canning had been appointed.

said, he thought no sufficient justification of the Vote for Greenwich Park had been given. In his opinion, the charge for keeping such a residence as that of the Ranger's in repair—a residence which was occupied free from rent—ought not, every time a change of occupants took place, to be thrown on the public.

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) had made no objection to giving the details except their prolixity. Now, he for one should like to have them, and he should look through them with some curiosity to ascertain how so much money could be spent on these parks.

said, that if the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) thought proper to divide the Committee for the purpose of reducing the item of Kennington Park by a few hundreds, he should have his support. That park consisted of only a few walks through less than twenty acres of grass.

observed, that there was scarcely any place of public resort so much frequented as Greenwich Park, and contended that it would be conferring no boon upon any nobleman to tell him he might live in the Ranger's house on the condition that he should repair it.

said, that he was able to furnish the Committee with the details of the expenditure for Kennington Park. They consisted of a number of items, amongst which might be enumerated £421 for police constables and night watchmen, £645 for plantations and shrubberies and flowers, £100 for keeping up walks, £65 for watering footpaths, a superintendent engaged at an expense of £20, and £65 for lodge and railings. Then there were gratuities in aid of funeral expenses to the amount of £5; that was a contribution estimated for in case a death occurred. In the event of its not being required for that purpose, it was devoted to medical aid or relief in sickness. The Committee must also bear in mind that there was a great number of deaths among the plants and trees. The supply of water cost £50, but it was not, he might observe, completely thrown away on the land, as it was also drunk by the police constables.

observed, that one of the chief items for Kennington Park was a charge for night watchers, their liveries, their wages, and their funerals. Sir Richard Mayne had informed him, that if the parks were not closed at night, they would necessarily come into his charge, and be included in the regular beats of the police. He therefore suggested, as a means of getting rid of the charge for night watchers, that the gates of the park should not be shut at night. The Green Park was closed each evening, and there was no watcher left in charge of it. If any park required care at night, that park did, situated as it was in the centre of London.

said, he would then move that the charge for Kennington Park should be reduced by £583, leaving a round sum of £1,000.

intimated, that as the sense of the Committee had already been taken on the whole Vote, it was not competent for the hon. Member to propose the reduction of any particular item.

said, he would then propose, instead, that the whole Vote should be reduced by £583.

said, that if the Amendment was carried, the result would be that the park would not give as much enjoyment as at present. He should deeply regret any such result, for the effect would be felt in the happiness and comfort of the poorer classes.

said, he hoped the Committee would not support the Amendment under the impression that Kennington Park was a mere grass field. The greater part of it was a garden, consisting of gravel walks, flower-beds, shrubs, and plants, which required to be renewed.

said, he thought the Vote was not too large, considering the advantages which the public derived from it.

said, he would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury on the same grounds as he had voted for the former Amendment.

said, that if the Committee, after spending a great many hours in discussing sums of every possible magnitude, should at twelve o'clock at night determine at last to cut off some £500 which was to be devoted to the enjoyment, health, and recreation of the people, they would be taking a course not worthy of them.

said, that papers would be presented that night by his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, containing the correspondence between the Government and the two telegraph companies, which would give the House a fuller and clearer view of the transaction which it would be asked to authorize than could be readily conveyed in a brief statement from himself. The matter was rather intricate. The company which originally undertook to establish this telegraph, having failed in its design, proposed upon certain terms to give place to a new company, so that the Government had arrangements to make with both companies. The terms made with the old company were, perhaps, more liberal than on simple principles of equity it would have been entitled to; but the question was whether it would not be more far the public interest to deal with the company, even on such terms, than to leave them in possession, because there were no means of ousting them without their free assent. The terms made with the new company were fair and equitable, and though they appeared to offer it the possibility of obtaining an interest of, even 25 per cent on its capital, still it must be remembered that the property came into its possession in a worthless condition, and that it was invited to give value to that property with its own funds, without bringing the public under any new liability as far as it was concerned. The project wag in a very unfortunate position, and the Committee would, he thought, agree that the Government had acted wisely under the circumstances in giving encouragement for the accomplishment of a very useful public object. The line of telegraphic communication towards India had been lengthened by what had already taken place, and hopes were entertained of still greater and more beneficial results from this arrangement. The Resolution he had to propose, preliminary to bringing in a Bill to give effect to the arrangement, would convert the annuity now payable to a joint-stock company into a regular annuity charged upon the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a formal Resolution on which to found a Bill accordingly.

said, he wished to ask whether the original contract had really been so drawn that there was no help for the country except to pay an immense sum for a scheme having no results?

said, they had no option, in honour, but either to concede such terms as the old company chose to demand or to leave matters precisely as they stood, with the property wholly useless, and yet an annuity of £32,000 payable to them for fifty years.

said, he would put the further question whether the law officers of the Crown had been consulted, and had given an opinion to the effect just stated by the right hon. Gentleman?

said, the law officers of the Crown, about eighteen months ago, declared that, under the terms of the contract, the Government were not legally bound; and that being so, the Government felt that as an executive they would not be authorized in paying to the Company their annuity. They then had to look to the original intention of the contract, and they found on examination that there was no doubt the intention was that the payment should be unconditional—that was to say, it was not to be conditional on the continued success of the undertaking. They, therefore, last year brought a Bill before the House, that it might exercise a judgment on the matter. The House passed the Bill, empowering the Government to treat the contract as unconditional, and thereby the annuity became an absolute obligation.

said, he hoped that as gutta percha had failed as an insulating medium, the Government would guard against its use by the new Company. They ought to insist on the employment of india-rubber, as recommended by the Royal Commission.

said, the Government had thought it better not to interfere in the practical details of the question; so that the Company would be left perfectly at liberty to attach itself either to the gutta-percha or to the india-rubber interest.

said, he thought the remark, of the right hon. Gentleman showed how desirable it was that the Government should altogether cease to manufacture for the public. The Government was spending millions in wholesale manufacture; but, if it was incapable of forming a scientific opinion, it was incompetent to manufacture for the country.

said, that the preparation of gutta-percha had been as yet very unsuccessful, and that the only perfect insulation was that procured by the use of india-rubber. As Her Majesty's Government had appointed a Commission to consider the subject, he trusted that the Government would not deem the matter unworthy of their attention.

said, he had only meant that it was not the business of the Government to fish up the cable from the Red Sea.

said, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was inexpedient for the Government to charge itself with the decision of the relative merits of gutta-percha and india-rubber.

said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which had already passed the House of Lords. It arose out of the case of the fugitive slave Anderson, and its object was to obviate the possibility of future disputes with the Colonists by preventing writs of Habeas Corpus from being granted by courts of justice in this country with respect to persons in the colonies.

said, he wished to know whether, as writs of Habeas Corpus were thenceforth not to be issued by the Courts of Great Britain for execution in the colonies, there was any guarantee that in cases similar to that of Anderson a fugitive slave would not be restored?

said, he wished to point out that great doubts existed as to the authority of Her Majesty in Council to hear appeals on matters of Habeas Corpus writs issued by the Colonial Courts, and to ask if such a power of appeal would be given in the Bill?

said, he thought the observations of the hon. Member deserved consideration. There ought to be a power of appeal where an injustice was done to a British subject by the Colonial Court. The Bill seemed to him to involve Imperial as well as Colonial questions, and that the rights of the Crown ought to be reserved to meet the former.

contended, that it was the inalienable right of the subject, whether in the colonies or the mother country, to appeal to the highest authority in the realm, which in that case was the Queen in Council. It had been decided that an appeal lay from the Courts of Jersey and Guernsey to the Courts at Westminster. He doubted, however, the expediency of passing a general law, applicable to all colonies, merely on account of a single case in a particular colony.

said, the Bill would not apply to all the colonies, as its phraseology confined its operation to such colonies and possessions of the Crown as already possessed Courts with authority to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus and to secure its due execution. Neither was anything in the Bill to prevent the right of appeal to Her Majesty as then allowed by law; but if there was any doubt on the matter, it was a matter to be considered Committee.

said, he would put the case of an Englishman, who, having been accused of committing a crime in the United States, had escaped to Canada; and he would ask what would be done in case he was demanded under the extradition treaty? Was he to be deprived of his right of appeal? He hoped that sufficient time would be given to consider the matter, though he had no objection to the second reading.

wished to explain that it was only by warrant from the Executive that a prisoner could be given up to the American authorities. The Canadian Court, therefore, though it had power to liberate Anderson, would have had none to deliver him up to the American Government. That could only have been done by the Governor General of Canada.