said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When a Report may be expected from Mr. Seymour Tremenheere, who was appointed in July, 1861, a Commissioner to inquire into the complaints of the Journeymen Bakers of London; and whether it will be or is intended to extend the inquiry as promised, if required, to Scotland and Ireland?

said, that Mr. Tremenheere's Report had been received by the Government on Friday last, and would be in the printers' hands immediately. The Government proposed to extend the inquiry to other places if it should be necessary; but the facts were so similar that it was probable that those interested in the matter, upon receiving the Report, would not think further inquiry necessary.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, When it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the works on the Steam Packet Pier at Holyhead, for which money has been voted by Parliament this Session?

said, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed at once with the works at Holyhead, that is to say, with the strengthening of the pier and putting the roof upon it. The Government thought it due to the passengers, both to and from Ireland, that the work should be at once taken in hand without waiting for the conclusion of the negotiations between the London and North-Western and the Dublin Steam Packet Companies. He hoped, when the pier was completed, that the packets would keep their time.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Returns relative to the Chaplaincy of the Youghal Union, ordered by this House on the 6th day of June, renewing a similar order of last Session, will be laid upon the table of the House?

said, the Return was a very voluminous one; but the Poor Law Commission stated that it was in course of preparation, and would be ready to be laid on the table in about a fortnight.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any objection to produce a Copy of the Resignation of Nicholas C. Whyte, Surgeon of the 2nd King's Own Staffordshire Regiment of Militia, whose resignation appeared gazetted in the London Gazette of 20th of May last, and whose successor has been gazetted on the same date to the vacancy alleged to be created by said resignation?

replied, that Mr. Whyte, late Assistant Surgeon in the Staffordshire Militia, was removed by the Secretary for War, upon the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. He did not resign, but was removed from his position; and it was therefore impossible to produce his resignation. It was the duty of the Clerk of the Peace to insert notices of this description in the Gazette, and either through an inadvertence on the part of that officer or an error of the press, it was incorrectly stated that Mr. Whyte had resigned.

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to produce the Correspondence relating to the removal of Mr. Whyte?

said, that if the hon. Member would specify the documents he wanted, he should be glad to consider whether they could be laid on the table.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, The cause of the delay in presenting the Report of the Commissioners on the Embankment of the Surrey side of the Thames?

said, he was authorized to state that the delay complained of would not be further prolonged. The Commissioners had nearly completed their Report, and expected to be able to present it very shortly.

moved that that clause be struck out. The Committee were, perhaps, aware that this Clause did not appear in the original draft of the Bill, and was only carried in the Select Committee by a majority of one. He objected to it on principle. It contained a principle utterly opposed to that which had hitherto guided Parliament in dealing with measures connected with other departments of the State. Parliament had wisely sought to establish responsibility by concentrating authority. The present clause, however, proposed to give the First Commissioner of Works power over the Metropolitan Board in relation to certain works connected with the proposed embankment. That was a species of double government or authority which Parliament had abolished in reference to the War Department, with respect to India, and in other departments. He was sorry to differ with his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. K. Seymer), who was its author, as to the merits of this clause. To say the least of it, it would establish a principle which would necessarily place the First Commissioner of Public Works, in an invidious position. The Metropolitan Board of Works, who were charged with the execution of a most gigantic undertaking, were nevertheless to be held incompetent to decide upon the colour of the seat, or the design of the drinking fountains to be placed on the line of embankment. Now, in his opinion, the Board were much more likely to study the public taste than any gentleman filling the office of Chief Commissioner, whose interference in such matters would very probably be viewed as vexatious and inconvenient. The Metropolitan Board of Works was now intrusted with the execution of some of the largest and most important engineering works of modern times. Upon what grounds, then, should it be controlled in carrying out the embellishments of the intended embankment by the unnecessary interference of the First Commissioner. He contended that nothing had been done by the Metropolitan Board since they had been enabled by the Legislature to proceed with the most important engineering work of modern times to warrant the suspicion that in carrying out the Thames Embankment they would propose anything in the way of ornament which would necessarily subject them to the vexatious interference of the First Commissioner. It was impossible to say that they had not fully and satisfactorily discharged the great duties intrusted to them, and it was too bad to assume that they were unequal to the ornamentation, however slight, of the few miles of embankment which they were to be called upon to construct out of metropolitan funds, and for which they were to be held responsible. But the clause was not only against all principle—it was also against all experience. The veto imposed upon the Metropolitan Board in 1855 produced nothing but ill-will, jealousy, litigation, controversy, and failure: and in 1858 Parliament was obliged to abolish it, though not before it had cost the public some £12,000 or £13,000. Since its abolition the Metropolitan Board had done its work well and satisfactorily. He objected to the clause, moreover, because it was in direct antagonism with the preamble, which declared the expediency of intrusting the Metropolitan Board with the execution of the proposed embankment and all the works connected with it. The preamble, in effect, stated that it was expedient the Metropolitan Board of Works should be empowered to form a certain embankment on the Thames from Black-friars Bridge to Westminster Bridge. Under the 35th clause a lessee was compelled, most properly, to obtain the sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the plans of any building he might propose to erect. But under the joint operation of the two clauses, the 34th and the 35th, an unfortunate lessee must obtain the double sanction, first of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and secondly of the First Commissioner of Works. One might sanction, the other might refuse, and thus there might be a conflicting authority, which might lead to confusion, delay, and expense, which might prevent the progress of the works for years. He protested against this kind of piecemeal legislation; and, however it might have been some years ago, he thought there was nothing in the present circumstances of the metropolis to justify the House of Commons in frittering away responsibility or in imposing a vexatious restraint on the fair action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, whose members, whether elected by the best constituency or not, were the legitimate representatives of the taxpayers of the metropolis, who were carrying out and paying for a great metropolitan improvement. He begged to move the omission of that clause.

entirely concurred in what had been stated by the noble Lord opposite. He could not be a party to this clause, either in the sense of passing an indirect censure upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, or for more substantial reasons. The works were to be carried on by funds supplied by the coal and wine duties. If the land reclaimed from the river were saddled by too many conditions, its value would be proportionately reduced, because persons proposing to become lessees would take this into account, and offer a smaller sum. He congratulated the noble Lord opposite on his able and fair vindication of the character of the Metropolitan Board of Works as a representative body, and he hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would get up in his place and inform the Committee that in his opinion the matter might be safely left in the hands of the body which had so far successfully carried out the stupendous works connected with the drainage of the metropolis, and with so little unpopularity among those who had to defray the expense.

begged permission to clear the First Commissioner from all participation in the introduction of this clause. When the Bill was referred to the Select Committee, he (Mr. Ker Seymer) went carefully over it, and arrived at the conclusion that some such clause was necessary. He therefore proposed it for the adoption of the Committee; and though he was sorry to be opposed by one who spoke on these matters with the authority of the noble Lord, he had not been convinced by his arguments, and should therefore now take the sense of the Committee on its retention. He must add, however, that when he first introduced the clause, it was with no wish to disparage the character or the usefulness of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or to interfere vexatiously with their functions. He thought that this was an exceptional case, quite unusual, quite different, and quite distinct from the operations which generally fell under the control of that body. There were three objects in view —namely, a proper place for the low-level sewer, improved communication, and the ornamentation of the metropolis. The first two objects fell legitimately within the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works; the last should, he thought, be brought under the control of the Government and the House. He did not think that the Metropolitan Board had any cause to complain, seeing that the works were not, in fact, to be completed from funds raised from the ratepayers, but from the funds provided by the coal and wine duties. Every man, therefore, who ordered his wine of a London wine merchant contributed in some degree to the fund. He thought the men of taste were dangerous; but there was a class still more dangerous, and that was the men of no taste. He thought the men of no taste quite as expensive as the men of taste, and more dangerous. He therefore trusted that the clause would be assented to by the Committee.

said, this was almost the only point upon which he had ventured to differ from his hon. Friend (Mr. K. Seymer) in the Committee. With regard to the absence of any opposition to the clause in the Committee by the counsel for the Metropolitan Board of Works, it arose from the feeling, that as the First Commissioner of Works was Chairman of the Committee, it was rather a delicate thing to oppose his having the veto given him by the clause. For his own part, he regretted that the clause was not opposed by the counsel for the Board, because, had it been, he believed the clause would never have received their sanction. He thanked the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) for the manner in which he had brought the question forward. It came much better from his noble Friend than from any metropolitan Mem- ber. With respect to this question, the House of Commons had year after year decided that it would not contribute anything towards the improvement of the metropolis out of the Consolidated Fund: the works were therefore to be constructed by funds raised upon the metropolis by the wine and coal duties; and though it might be true that every one who ordered wine from a London wine merchant did to that extent contribute, yet the wine duties formed a very small portion indeed. The great bulk of the fund was raised by the coal dues, and was therefore directly contributed by the inhabitants of the metropolis represented by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Besides this argument for giving that Board full and final control over the works, he (Sir J. Shelley) objected to giving a veto to the First Commissioner, for the reason that Governments in this country were not very long-lived, and each First Commissioner would have his own taste in architecture; so that they would be able by the difference in style to tell when an admirer of the Gothic style was in office, and when an advocate of the Italian exercised the veto. He trusted that the House would support the Amendment of the noble Lord. He would put it to the Members for any large city or borough, such as Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham, how they would like such a proposal as that contained in this clause— namely, to give the First Commissioner of Works control over any local improvements made from local funds.

said, he entertained no very high opinion either of the Board of Works or of the Metropolitan Board so far as related to questions of economy or taste. The proposal under discussion was, he might add, simply one to saddle the citizens of London with the payment of a certain amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner was to be at liberty to spend —a proposal to which, as one who lived principally in the metropolis, he for one decidedly objected. It was, in his opinion, quite an alarming power with which to invest the right hon. Gentleman at the expense of the coal-consumers of this large city, to say that he should be able to put his veto on works of utility merely because they did not suit his own particular architectural views. What, he should like to know, would the hon. Members for Manchester or Birmingham think of such a scheme if it were proposed to give it effect in the case of their constituents? For his own part, he must confess that after the speeches which he had heard that evening his distrust in "men of taste" was greater than ever, inasmuch as it was gravely contended that the question before the Committee was not to be regarded as one of money. He knew how terribly the London poor suffered in winter from the want of coal, the price of which was greatly enhanced to them by this duty. During the last winter the poor were paying at the rate of 35s. per ton for coal, when the highest price in the market was 24s.; and he could not therefore agree to inflict a burden on every poor man's hearth in order to enable a First Commissioner of Works to indulge in his architectural caprices.

thought the noble Lord's anxious appeal on behalf of economy was particularly misplaced, inasmuch as that question was not in any degree involved in this clause. He did not himself propose the clause, but he listened most attentively to the debate in Select Committee upon it, and he felt that the arguments of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire were conclusive for inserting the clause in the Bill. The object of the clause was to secure some unity of design and harmonious arrangement in the buildings that were hereafter to face the Thames. Those who compared London with the more splendid Continental capitals would see that the great defect of our streets—especially of our older streets—was that they were not built on any general plan, but were left to the individual caprice of the owners of separate houses. A small house, for example, was found standing between two very tall ones, or a stuccoed house between two brick ones. They were not in a style which any variety could render picturesque, and their irregularities prevented the broad architectural effect which plain houses might produce when symmetrically arranged on a general plan. This clause was intended to remedy that defect, and would not make buildings any more expensive. The embankment, which was to be 100 feet wide, would be one of the great features of London. On the one side of the proposed quay would lie the river which was the pride of England, and on the other there would be a considerable extent of ornamental ground, and in some parts rows of houses, in terraces or streets. He thought it essential to the general architectural effect that those houses should be erected on some harmonious plan, and should not be left to the fancies of individuals. The noble Lord had spoken as if the First Commissioner of Works would have the power of preparing the plans for these houses. That was not so; the clause simply directed that the plans and elevations should be sent to him, and he would have the power of vetoing them within a month. He did not think the individual opinion of any First Commissioner of Works would be paramount in the matter, for they had daily experience of the fact that that Minister was responsible to that House in regard to such proceedings. Practically, therefore, this veto would be given to that House. The First Commissioner of Works would take the advice of competent architects, and the mere fact of the existence of the veto would probably insure that the whole block of houses should be erected on some general plan. The noble Lord seemed to forget that one great advantage of our constitutional system was, that it left no power or authority in the country without a check. Municipal corporations could not raise a loan without the sanction of the Treasury; and he did not think it would be any disparagement of the Metropolitan Board of Works that it should be subject to this veto. If he were to study his own individual convenience as First Commissioner of Works, he should be inclined to follow the laissez faire policy of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), who in 1858 surrendered the control which the law then gave him over the main drainage of the metropolis. It was certainly no agreeable or pleasant tiling for a person who filled the office of First Commissioner to be intrusted with any power or duty which was likely to bring him in collision with any Members who represented the metropolis. If he thought that such a power would bring him in direct collision with the hon. Members for Westminster and the Tower Hamlets, who were always ready to oppose and obstruct any scheme introduced by the Government for the benefit and improvement of the metropolis, he certainly would not for a moment desire to possess that power, and especially when he remembered how during the last few days the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had seized upon every careless word or trifling act of his in order to found upon it some accusation against him. He utterly disregarded, of course, all attacks made upon him in the discharge of his public duty; and in supporting this clause, as First Commissioner, he did so because he believed it would be beneficial to the metropolis. Its only object, he repeated, was to secure a better architectural effect to what he believed would be the grandest and most magnificent thoroughfare in London. When the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) spoke about the chance of the coal tax being increased, he would remind him that the tax was already granted for ten years, and that the only question to be determined was how the money should be disposed of. If the money were not spent on this improvement, it would be on others; but he thought that it could not be better expended than in the way proposed.

had listened with regret to the right lion. Gentleman's attempt to reintroduce personalities which by this time he had hoped might have been buried and forgotten, and which were unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman's position. He (Mr. Crawford) had voted against the hon. Member (Mr. Ker Seymer) in Committee, and he had since heard nothing to induce him to alter his opinion; on the contrary, he had heard a great deal in the speech of the First Commissioner of Works to induce him to vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners). The clause proposed that no ground plan or elevation of the buildings to be erected should be adopted which had not for one month previous been submitted for the approval of the First Commissioner of Works. The clause did not say what was to be done if the First Commissioner disapproved of the plan; and he believed, that even if no disapproval were communicated to the parties proposing to construct these buildings, they would incur a certain amount of risk if they proceeded to build after the month had expired. The clause, too, he apprehended, would have a continuous operation; so that, for all time to come, whether these buildings remained as frontages or not, no person owning land on the ground so reclaimed would have the power to build without the approval of the First Commissioner of Works. It was even proposed in Committee to give the First Commissioner the same power in regard to the new street in the City of London; so that no one would have been able to build a new shop or warehouse in the new street without coming to the First Commissioner for his consent. Fortunately, that proviso had been abandoned in the Committee. They were told that this was a national ques- tion, and that the nation took a pride in the beauty and magnificence of the metropolis. If so, let the nation contribute towards the expense, instead of calling upon the consumers of coal to pay the entire cost of this national object. He should give his hearty support to the Amendment of the noble Lord.

said, he should oppose the clause, believing that it would entail a very serious expense for all time on parties desirous of building on the river frontage; and he thought the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) deserved the gratitude of the metropolis for the course which he had taken in proposing the omission of the clause,

said, he should support the clause, for he thought the reasons assigned in Committee by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer) and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner perfectly satisfactory. The clause was, in the first instance, submitted to the counsel who watched the case on the part of the Metropolitan Board in the Select Committee, and they did not object to it, but left the matter entirely in the hands of the Committee. He should be sorry to diminish the power of local self-government by removing from the Metropolitan Board any duty that properly belonged to them; but the present case was one of an exceptional character, and it would be a thousand pities if the opportunity should be lost of rendering the embankment an ornament to the metropolis, and preventing the frontage of the river being destroyed and disgraced by some monstrous erection or other. The clause could not be productive of any greatly-increased expense, because the greater portion of the reclaimed land would be appropriated to public purpose, and would not be built upon.

thought this was a most unconstitutional clause, for it gave a power to a Government Department which had never been delegated by the House on any previous occasion. He could not give his assent to the views which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works on what the right hon. Gentleman called the architectural beauties of the plan. Questions would be constantly asked in the House about the shape of every chimney that might be built if the First Commissioner were to be made the arbiter. He hoped the Committee would reject the clause.

said, the Metropolitan Board had not regarded the clause as one implying any reflection on them, but simply as a matter of business. They thought the arrangement which it would sanction a very undesirable one, but they were advised not to oppose it. His own opinion was, that the less interference with the free action of individual speculators, the better for obtaining the full value of the land; but, speaking from an architectural point of view, he thought the double responsibility the best. The Corporation of London, after clearing the approaches to London Bridge, put themselves into the hands of Sir Robert Smirke; but the consequence was, that in the buildings which were subsequently erected there was too great sameness. They afterwards change their plan, allowing each person to whom the land was parcelled out to choose his own architect, but reserving to themselves a veto, and the result was that fine specimen of street architecture that was to be seen in Cannon Street. In the new street in the Borough the Metropolitan Board of Works were following precisely the same plan. Here, however, was to be a double control, which experience should have taught them to regard with jealousy. However, he should leave the question in the hands of the Committee.

This question does not appear to me very important, nor one in which the Government takes a great interest. If there is any one interested in its decision, it is my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, who I think, would naturally incline to repudiate the responsibility which the clause would throw upon him. It is, however, a question of public interest that there should be some controlling authority, in order to secure uniformity of design in a block of buildings to be placed in so conspicuous a position as the new embankment would be. We have seen the advantage of this in the Regent's Park. Many people may not approve the different styles of architecture to be seen there; that is a matter of taste. Some of it is Gothic, some Grecian, and some neither Gothic nor Grecian; but still those blocks of building are to some extent uniform, and produce a good effect. It was really an original thought of Mr. Nash, and very creditable to him, to combine a number of separate private dwellings into one great mass, and to make them look like one great palace. I think, therefore, there should be some controlling authority to secure that the buildings upon this terrace should not be one high and one low, but that they should be of some uniformity of character. It seems to me that this clause would secure unity of plan and consistency of purpose. The Metropolitan Board of Works, in letting the ground, would probably require some security for uniformity of design; but they might omit to do so, and this clause just interposes the veto of the First Commissioner for the time being, in order to insure that the mass of buildings should be of a certain uniform plan, so as to contribute to the general good effect. I think, therefore, that the Committee would do well to retain the clause.

said, the noble Lord wanted to secure unity of design and consistency of purpose. Some Gentlemen might consider unity of design good, and others bad; but, whether good or bad, they were more likely to get it if they permitted one board, which was to commence and carry out the work, to decide, than if they permitted a fluctuating officer, such as the First Commissioner of Works, who was here to-day and away tomorrow, to interfere. They all knew the differences of taste in different Commissioners of Works, and yet the noble Lord would look for uniformity of design in leaving the decision to such officials. The buildings in the Regent's Park were not erected by a great municipal corporation, who were to be interfered with at every turn by the executive Government of the day, but by one Government Department, who had nobody to interfere with it. They called in one of the great architects of the day, and the great scheme of building was carried into effect. If, therefore, the Committee desired uniformity of plan, let them reject the clause and leave the responsibility to the Metropolitan Board.

said, this clause was objectionable, in as much as there was no limit placed in reference to the buildings to be erected upon the reclaimed land, and he thought the Metropolitan Board of Works should have power in all cases to interfere. With that view he would move an addition to the clause of the words, "nor on such part of the reclaimed land as shall be within 200 feet of the embankment wall." He was afraid that Somerset House, Waterloo Bridge, and other structures would be greatly altered in their general appearance by the proposed embankment along this majestic river, unless this restrictive power were given to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He wished to know how the embankment was to be laid out, and whether the landing-places and stairs were to be arranged without interfering with the navigation and the general plan of the embankment.

said, it was desirable that all the land which was available for the recreation of the public along the embankment should be dedicated to that purpose. Clause 28 made a provision with that view in regard to the space between Cecil Street and Northumberland Street; but he did not think the land east of Cecil Street could with advantage be so appropriated. Where the reclaimed land amounted only to a narrow strip, the space must be devoted to building purposes: his hon. Friend's Amendment would prevent that. The Thames Conservancy Board were invested with authority to construct and improve all the landing-places and stairs on the river, and the plan which he believed would be adopted in front of the embankment would be floating stages, which rise and fall with the flow of the tide.

complained of the constant encroachments that had been made upon the bed of the river; and they were now about to take steps which would have the effect of further contracting its width by one-third. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the extent to which the navigation would be impeded by this plan. He wished to know whether at low water the river would come to the base of the embankment?

replied, that though the water would come up to the embankment, the landing-stages would have to be carried out some distance before vessels could come alongside at low water.

said, that the Commit- tee were informed that, even at low water, the bed of the river would be covered up to the embankment.

objected to the clause as unnecessary and inexpedient. Why should they prohibit the use of the greatest improvement of the age— steam—on this new roadway? Why they should be specially excepted he could not understand, and it seemed to him retrograde legislation. He begged therefore to move that the clause be expunged.

thought it absurd to make an exception as regarded this embankment. If they had a general law for the metropolis prohibiting steam locomotives to use the common roads, well and good.

thought it was very dangerous to allow locomotives to move along in crowded streets, and advocated the maintenance of the clause.

observed, there was now a general measure applicable to all towns as to those engines, the Home Secretary having power to prohibit steam locomotives travelling particular streets. He thought it best not to disturb the general law, but to leave it applicable to this as to other roads, the Secretary of State having power to interfere if the public safety required it.

asked for some explanation as to the amount of the funds which were available for the purposes of this Bill and the charges upon it.

replied, that the funds available were derived from the surplus of the London Bridge Approaches Fund, the amount of which was not ascertained. To carry out the construction of the embankment about £1,000,000 would be required from the coal and other duties, and these would probably furnish a surplus of £500,000 more than would be requisite. All the funds were paid to the Treasury, and must be transfer- red by their authority to the Board of Works.

thought they should have a more detailed explanation. First the fund was to be liable for the charges upon the London Bridge approaches fund. Next, payment was to be provided from the same source of all costs of obtaining the Act. How was this to be considered? Was the fund to be debited with the charges incurred by the right hon. Gentleman's department in connection with the Act. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had not employed the officers of his department in preparing the Act, but two firms of solicitors, Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and Messrs. Marchant and Pear, of Hertford. Were both those firms to be paid out of this fund; and, if so, was the Department to be paid out of it also for the assistance they had rendered? In the next clause reference was made to so much of the Thames embankment fund as might remain after deducting those charges. What was that sum? He thought they ought to have in such a case a detailed statement of the fund, and of the charges upon it.

said, he had not thought it necessary to make a statement, because he was not asking the House to vote the money. The clause simply stated how the funds in the hands of the Treasury by the Act of last year were to be appropriated. Mr. Scott, the Chamberlain of the City of London, had been examined before the Committee, and gave such details as they required, and the hon. Gentleman would find in his evidence all the information he asked for. The Committee considered the question of the amounts provided and to be expended; but this clause did not refer to those details. With regard to the general object of the clause:—First the expenses incidental to the obtaining of the Act were, as usual in such a case, to be paid. The hon. Member could not, he thought, have read the evidence given before the Committee, or he would have seen that he was entirely mistaken in supposing that two sets of solicitors had been employed. The persons employed were the solicitors and the Parliamentary agents; and when the hon. Gentleman said that a solicitor had come from Hertford to act as Parliamentary agent, he begged to inform him that the firm in question had been Parliamentary agents for several years. He had known them as highly respectable Parliamentary agents for a number of years, and had been in communication with them in connection with Bills for railways and for the river Lea. One of the members of that firm was born and bred at Hertford; the other was not resident at Hertford. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that because one member of a firm of Parliamentary agents happened to be connected with the borough he represented, he should be debarred from employing the services of that firm? He could only presume that the hon. Gentleman meant to have a malicious hit at him because one of the Parliamentary agents employed for the Bill was connected with the borough he had the honour to represent. Any member of the Select Committee would bear him out in stating that Messrs. Marchant and Pead (the Parliamentary agents referred to) had discharged their duties satisfactorily and efficiently. With respect to the clause under discussion, it only gave authority to the Treasury to pay the Thames Embankment and Metropolitan Improvement fund to the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was beside the question to consider what these sums were. The important point was, that whatever they might be, they should be paid by the Treasury to the board.

said, the right hon. Gentleman afforded so much amusement to the House of his own accord that it was unnecessary for him to interfere with a view of keeping up the entertainment. But he must contradict the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of fact, inasmuch as the Law List, the accepted authority on such points, stated that Messrs. Marchant and Pead were in partnership as attorneys at Hertford, [Mr. COWPER: It does not so appear upon the evidence.] He was aware of that. There was some equivocation on this point in the evidence. Those gentlemen might also practise as Parliamentary agents in London. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had had relations with them before, and might have had good grounds, in his own opinion, for selecting them again on this occasion. All he wanted to know was whether the ratepayers would be saddled with anything more than the charges of these two acts of professional men. Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, were certainly Parliamentary agents of great skill, as many hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House, who had, unfortunately, lost their seats through the exertions of those gentlemen, knew to their cost. And, no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman had thought his scheme could not stand on its own merits, and had been anxious to smooth away difficulties, he could not have done a cleverer thing than to employ that well-known Conservative firm in this case. Such a choice, however, implied a reflection on the competency of the Liberal Parliamentary agents. The right hon. Gentleman had— unintentionally he was sure—made an equivocation about this clause which he would doubtless retract. He had said that it was a clause not imposing but only appropriating taxation; but he forget, that if he appropriated this fund to the Thames Embankment, taxes must be imposed for other purposes which were equally necessary. By disposing of the proceeds of a tax the clause was therefore, though indirectly, a taxing clause. This was the first time the House had been asked to appropriate a tax in such loose language, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would show them what were the items to which the clause referred.

said, he thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets could not have read the Select Committee's Report, or he would not have made the observations he had done. The City Chamberlain's evidence afforded the information which the hon. Gentleman sought.

drew attention to the question of the cost of the lower main sewer. He had not observed any provision in this Bill that the cost was to be defrayed out of the £3,000,000 to be borrowed for the purpose of making the sewers generally; and he thought that if it formed part of the works of the new embankment, it would be most unjust if it were to be paid out of the tax upon coal and wine.

It is not to be so paid for.

said, he was glad they had, at last, come to the important question of expense, which had hitherto been overlooked in these discussions. At present they knew no more as to what would be the expense of the proposed embankment than what they were told by the Committee, which was, that after several items of expense had been cut off, it would cost £500,000. Now, according to the evidence of the City Chamberlain, it was clear, that if they had taken the estimates offered in introducing this Bill, they would have found them- selves landed in an immense deficit after the works were completed. He had little confidence in the economical propensities of the First Commissioner of Works, remembering, as he did, how that right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of this Session, having £30,000 of this fund in hand, had proposed to make a road with it across Kensington Gardens. Mr. Scott, the City Chamberlain, had stated his belief, that if properly managed and invested at 4½per cent—a pretty high rate of interest—the fund which was to be set apart to defray the cost of the embankment, would reach nearly £1,600,000 at the end of ten years. Now, even supposing that nothing was taken from it in the meanwhile, he thought the Board would have considerable difficulty in raising the £1,000,000 they were empowered to borrow. Now, he had been given to understand a few days ago, and he wished to inquire into the truth of the report, that the money paid by the City Chamberlain to the Treasury, amounting to a large sum, was lying idle at the Bank of England. The solicitor to the Office of Works (Mr. Gardiner) was a very able and excellent officer, and had had a great deal to do in originating the Bills of the office. Mr. Gardiner received a salary of £1,500 a year, and he could not understand why Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton had been employed as solicitors to the Bill. When the Committee first commenced their inquiry, the Metropolitan Board of Works appeared, by solitors and counsel, as opponents, and it was only when the clause was passed which gave to the Board the execution of the works that they became co-promoters. They were to be paid their expenses out of the fund; and he wished to know whether that meant that they would be paid the expenses of their opposition. Messrs. Marchant and Pead, Messrs. Smith, and Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton were all to be paid; and whether he was personal or not, he was bound to do his duty by calling attention to the fact. He should like to hear that it was an error to suppose that the receipts from the coal and wine duties had been lying in the Bank without interest, instead of fructifying for the benefit of the fund.

said, with respect to the last point it was not within his cognizance. The Treasury had been intrusted by law with the fund, and he was not acquainted with what had been done with regard to it. The hon. Baronet must put his ques- tion to some Member of the Treasury. But with regard to the amount of the fund, it was in evidence that at the end of June there would be £260,000 in hand, and that the present value of it exceeded £1,500,000. This clause was to enable the Treasury, after paying all the charges, to transfer the surplus to the Metropolitan Board. As to the first item of charge, it was not correctly known. As to the second, it was impossible to tell what would be the expenses of the Act until it had passed. It certainly would not have been a smaller sum if he had employed the solicitor of the Office of Works instead of Messrs. Baxter. The serving of notices and the other business connected with this Bill could not be done by the present strength of the Office of Works. In order that he might be enabled to discharge those duties, it would have been necessary for the solicitor of the Office of Works to increase his staff considerably, and to incur a much larger expense than the payment which he had hitherto received. Without neglecting his other business it would be impossible for him to execute the business in connection with this Bill. In an important measure of this kind, and in the face of such an opposition as it bad to contend with, it appeared to him (Mr. Cowper) the wisest course to employ Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, those gentlemen being specially practised in this branch of business. He need scarcely say that he had not selected them on account of their politics—a subject which had never crossed his mind at the time. The main reason which influenced him in selecting this firm was, that they had last year been employed in serving notices over the same extent of land in connection with a proposed embankment between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges, and had therefore in their office all the information required. With regard to the Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Marchant and Pead, did not act as solicitors, and he observed in the last page of the evidence a statement that those gentlemen had done nothing as solicitors. The gentleman who appeared in the Law List as a solicitor was the son of Mr. Marchant, and he had engaged the father, who was a Parliamentary agent, to do the business of a Parliamentary agent. The payment of the expenses of the Metropolitan Board had been decided upon by the Committee, and he knew of no valid ground of objection. The petition of the Metropolitan Board, if in form against the Bill, was not hostile to the Bill; and having received the greatest support from that Board, he saw no reason why their expenses should not be paid out of this fund rather than out of a fund which had no relation whatever to the Thames Embankment.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his questions. What he wanted to know was, whether private solicitors having been employed, the Department would have to pay its own solicitors as well, and next what was the meaning of the references to the London Bridge Approaches Fund?

said, that as the solicitor to the Board of Works was paid by salary, he would receive nothing with regard to this Bill. As to the second question, the Act of last year provided that any surplus existing from the London Bridge Approaches Fund should be paid to the Treasury and become part of the Thames Embankment Fund. What that surplus was had not yet been decided, some items being disputed; but the Committee was quite safe in enacting, that when the Treasury should decide what the surplus was, it should be added to the Thames Embankment Fund.

said, that the expense of the low-level sewer was kept quite distinct from those of the embankment, and would not come out of the coal duties. The expense would be defrayed out of the main drainage rate.

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had fallen into the hands of the most expensive Parliamentary agents in London, as he knew Messrs. Rose, Baxter, and Norton had charged for lithographed circulars as if they were manuscript. He had tested these charges by litigation leading to a reference to arbitration, and the result was a curtailment of their charges. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had bribed a Member out of his seat. ["Order !"] Well, what was he to say? The noble Lord, with that tact which distinguished all he did, offered an inducement to an hon. Member which resulted in his vacating his seat, and finding an opportunity for bestowing the seat on an official of his own Government. He had intended to put a question to the noble Viscount on the point; and only let him off for one reason, and that was, that having understood the salary of the selected person to be £2,000, it came out that it was only £1,200, and he thought it hardly desirable to disturb the repose of the noble Viscount for such a trifle.

, in reference to the expenses, remarked, that there was an understanding between the parties concerned that the bill of costs should be taxed by an officer of the House.

said, Messrs. Marchant and Pead, who appeared before the Committee as agents for the Bill, according to the Law List, were solicitors at Hertford.

said, that this clause had reference to the street between Whitehall Place and Wellington Street. He wished it to be understood that there was a strong feeling in the Committee that the street was a downright mistake, and that its creation would give rise to endless claims for compensation. The evidence before them was, that the street ran in a wrong direction, and he hoped the matter would be discussed in another place.

could not agree that the Committee considered the street a mistake. If the matter had been discussed, he thought the reasons in favour of it would have satisfied the Committee that they would have been quite right in passing it.

said, this clause and Clause 77 would enable the Crown to lease the land reclaimed from the foreshores, and charge its tenants what it thought fit. The foreshores were at present useless, but the metropolitan ratepayers were going to render them of great value; and inasmuch as all persons, from the highest in rank to the lowest wharfinger, had been called upon to make sacrifices in order to carry out this great improvement, he thought the Crown, instead of taking the utilized land for its own advantage, should join in making a sacrifice for the common good. He had expressed this opinion several times, and had divided the Committee, although always in a small minority, and on one occasion in a minority of one.

said, he thought the metropolis had great reason to complain of the Treasury, which had declared it would not, directly, contribute anything towards the embankment. On one point there existed considerable misapprehension in this House, and still more out of doors. It was not remembered that, in so far as this embankment touched on Crown land, it was not competent for the Committee or for the House to deal with the question, except in the way indicated by the Crown; and therefore the Committee were in the dilemma of having to take the embankment exactly as the right hon. Gentleman proposed it, or of putting a stop to it altogether. They had therefore no alternative except to take the course which had been actually pursued. On the part of the metropolitan taxpayers, he thought they had a right to complain of the hard terms which were put upon them by the Government. Certainly the inhabitants owed nothing to the Government and the Chief Commissioner for his interference with the embankment, because he was convinced, that if the Metropolitan Board had been allowed to propose it, they would have got better terms from the Treasury, and would have saved £300,000 in the execution of the work, while the public would have got all that they legitimately desired, and all that would be ultimately necessary. The Government, however, said, "The inhabitants of London shall embank the Thames, and shall pay the Crown for any supposed interest it may have in that part of the river." It was true that some of the land in front of the Crown estates was absolutely vested in the Crown; but then it was only a dirty bank, and surely, if the inhabitants paid the cost of an embankment there, and thus made the Crown land more valuable, the Crown on its part ought to contribute something. He felt sure, that if the matter had been fairly put before the noble Viscount, and he had been told that the inhabitants were about to spend £1,500,000 upon this embankment, he would have released the rights of the Crown in this foreshore, as the contribution which the Crown made in consideration of the great improvement to the Crown estate through this alteration. Instead of this, everything bad been exacted. They were now compelled to take the Bill exactly as it was tendered to them regarding the Crown estates.

said, that no money was to be paid to the Crown for the foreshore in front of the Crown property. The bargain which had been made was this:—As to the land between Whitehall Stairs and Richmond Terrace, the Crown gave up its right to embank this shore for its own profit, together with all claims to the land which was required for the roadway, and all claim to compensation for damage done; and in return it would get no money, but only the reclaimed land. He was advised that this was a fair arrangement, and better terms would not have been obtained in any other way. As regarded the foreshore not in front of Crown property, the Board of Conservancy were to have their rights valued, and one-third of the amount would go to the Crown. That also, he believed, was a perfectly fair arrangement.

said, that when these clauses were proposed in the Committee, they were thought to be rather sharp practice. The feeling of the Committee was, that all parties being called upon for some sacrifice, the Crown might well forego its claims to the foreshore. But, on the contrary, these claims were put forward in the most marked manner. That there was to be no money payment in respect of the foreshore in front of the Crown estates made very little difference. The Committee had certainly thought that it would have been better if the extreme rights of the Crown had not been so hardly pressed; but they could not help themselves in the matter, and had no resource but to accept these clauses.

rose to protest against the assertion that the Crown had a right to embank the river in front of its own property without an Act of Parliament to empower it to do so. He was of opinion that all that had been recovered from the Thames ought to belong to the public.

thought the exaggerated pretensions on behalf of one element of the Constitution were offensive to the House of Commons. Few persons could be aware of the trickery that had been practised, or would believe that, after a Committee had made a careful investigation, at the last moment the Crown, or some one in its name, should bring forward clauses and make their adoption imperative. Such a course was offensive to that House, and placed the name of the Crown in an odious light.

said, he had always considered that there had been sharp practice in this mattter—that after all discussion had closed, at the last moment, they should be told that the Crown had a veto. He regretted that the Crown. should have been mixed up in this matter in this manner; but it was a fact, that the only individual in the metropolis who would make no sacrifice for this great metropolitan improvement was what was commonly called the Crown, but really it amounted to nothing more than the efforts of one or two offices who were anxious to support their dignity and importance. He had divided the Select Committee twice unsuccessfully against these clauses, and the only reason why he refrained from dividing the Committee on the present occasion was, because he understood that a kind of understanding existed upstairs, that unless these clauses were passed, the consent of the Crown would be withheld from the Bill. [Mr. COWPER: Yes.] He should be sorry to imperil a useful measure by such a course; for he believed that a great work was about to be made, but badly made. He had always felt that it was a great object to make the Thames Embankment, in order to construct the low-level sewer without injury and ruin to many persons in the Strand and Fleet Street; and therefore, although he thought the scheme badly devised and badly engineered, he would not undertake the responsibility of preventing its completion.

said, that the feelings of the Committee bad been accurately described by the noble Lord (Lord Harry Vane), but they were told by the Chairman that any alteration of the clauses would be fatal to the Bill. He agreed that the Crown should not be placed in this invidious position. Mr. Gore, doubtless, was desirous of protecting the interests of the Crown in the department over which he presided, but there were interests which could not be estimated by any money value.

said, that having read the correspondence that had taken place between the Departments, he could not see that Mr. Gore had done anything more than follow out the instructions of his superiors at the Treasury. It had been said that this was an unusual interference on the part of the Grown; but nothing could be more common than the announcement in that House of the con- sent of the Crown to Bills which, if such consent were not given, could not be passed. There was nothing new in the exercise of that right, and he did not know that the Treasury had exercised it now in any manner inconsistent with the claims of the public.

complained that the lessees along the river were to be charged for the land reclaimed from the river and added to their premises, though the lessees only require the land they already possess.

said, that the omission of this clause followed, as a matter of course, the omission of Clause 9, and he therefore proposed that it should be omitted.

thought the clause objectionable, because it would perpetuate a gross nuisance in the centre of the City of London. It would sanction the continuance of the gas works near Blackfriars Bridge. If the proposed viaduct was to be constructed, it would be a great convenience to the gas company, and they ought to pay for the improvement.

said, that in a sanitary point of view it would be desirable to get rid of the Gas Works, but it would be rather hard to throw on the coal duties the burden of the compensation which the Gas Company would have a right to expect if they were called upon to remove their works. It was that consideration which influenced the Committee in adopting the clause. Since, therefore, the Committee had refused the great expenditure which would be required to purchase the Company's interest in their premises, it was only right that they should have preserved to them the means of carrying on their business.

said, some years back the House of Commons had an opportunity of getting rid of those Works, but they came to the determination that the Company should be allowed to carry them on where they were. If the House paid for the removal of the Works out of the Consolidated Fund, it would be a very good thing to have them removed.

said, the Select Committee had made the fairest arrangement with the Company which it was possible to make, and the Company, on the whole, thought themselves rather hardly dealt with.

said, they were going to put the Gas Company in a better position than they were before, and the Gas Company should pay for it.

observed, that the Gas Company did not think they would obtain any advantage from the change, and would rather be left as they are.

rose to move a new clause. He said the other day, he objected to the provision by which the Societies of the Inner and Middle Temple were to be allowed to appropriate to their exclusive use the land which was to be reclaimed in front of their gardens, except only so much of it as the roadway would require. These Societies had preferred a claim greater than any other person—far greater than that of the Crown, because the Crown was acknowledged to have a right to embank in front of its lands. But the Societies had no interest in the foreshore, except as far as a landing-place was concerned, and a landing-place was to be reconstructed for them by an express clause in the Bill. The ratepayers of the metropolis were to be compelled to make an embankment in front of the gardens, but the Temple was to contribute nothing, and yet was to receive all the surplus land. Noblemen and gentlemen had made demands, but those demands were within the limit of their rights; and if they received any land, they were to pay for it the full value. But these Societies had no right to the land whatever. He had the authority of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) for a proposition which every one would admit, that the owner of lands had no right to compensation for a view which might be interfered with. The Middle and Inner Temple were in possession of the land up to a certain point, and the land beyond that was vested in the Conservators of the Thames. The ratepayers' fund was to pay the conservators for that land, and thus the Thames Embankment fund became the owner of it by purchase. Being so, it had a right to do with the land what it pleased. They had been told that the extraordinary concession proposed by the Bill was made because the Temples, being powerful, might by opposing the Bill have prevented it from passing; but the House would not accept such a statement as a reason for doing what was wrong. The concession was also justified on the ground that the Temples would keep the reclaimed portions of land as gardens for the public; but he found that the Bill stated that the reclaimed laud not required for the roadway was for ever hereafter to be the exclusive property of the Inner and Middle Temples. As it had been said that these Societies always let the public into their gardens, he went on Sunday, between the morning and afternoon services, when the sun was shining, to the Inner Temple garden. This garden was placed in the midst of a densely-populated neighbourhood, living in the squalid misery of courts and alleys, where almost every chamber contained a separate family; and one would suppose that under these circumstances the children of the families in the neighbourhood would have been found recreating themselves in the garden; but only about six persons were there. The gardener informed him that no one was allowed to come into the garden without a Bencher's order. This proved that the words in the Bill were not mere words of form, but were words of reality. The hon. Member then moved the addition of the clause.

thought that the hon. Member's clause was a matter of very small dimensions. The public were not to be admitted to these bits of land except under such restrictions as the Inner and Middle Temple should impose, subject to the consent of the Crown; but it was not likely that the Crown would interfere at all in the business. The hon. Gentleman was told by the gardener of the Inner Temple that he could not admit persons without orders. It should be borne in mind, however, that these orders were given by the Benchers to all persons who chose to ask for them, and on summer evenings the whole public were let into the garden without any orders whatever. The Temples maintained the gardens at their own expense, and he had never before heard any complaint made as to restrictions on the entrance of the public.

hoped that the whole of the Temple Gardens were to be included in the clause. They were about to have valuable river front, and he thought it would be a great improvement to the Bill if Parliament were to impose such regulations on the Benchers as would prevent their shutting up the gardens from the public.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that a valuable river front was about to be given to the Benchers of the Temple. In fact their river front was being taken away from them. They were merely to receive some strips of land for which they could not obtain one farthing of rent. The gardens had always been kept in order at the expense of the Societies, and certainly were considered to contribute to the adornment of London. When it was said that they were the private property of the Benchers, the fact was that nobody in London used the gardens so little as the Benchers, who were nearly always absent. But the Benchers were not so fastidious as had been described; they admitted on summer evenings to the gardens those dirty children from poor neighbourhoods of whom the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) spoke so contemptuously the other night as being likely to play about on the embankment between Whitehall and Westminster Bridge, to the annoyance of the neigh- bourhood Mr. Thackeray, who had witnessed these gardens the other night filled with some 400 poor children, had expressed his pleasure to him (Mr. M. Smith); and said it did his heart good to see it. There was no churlishness on the part of the Benchers respecting admission; then why, he asked, should they be interfered with in their rights of ownership which they had exercised now for centuries? There were no private gardens in London to which the public were so freely admitted as the Temple Gardens, and the attempt to interfere with the Societies in the management of their own property was most ungracious.

, while sympathizing with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in his desire to see the Temple Gardens used as freely as possible by the public, thought the clause proposed would not effect the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. The public were at present admitted to the gardens under certain restrictions, which were of by no means an illiberal tendency. But now the learned Member proposed that the Crown should have the power of overriding the decision of the Benchers in that respect. That was a proposal which he did not think it would be worth while to embody in the Bill. He might add that he did not concur with those who thought that the Benchers had been exacting in their demands in connection with the proposed embankment, inasmuch as it would interfere prejudicially with the existing river frontage of their property.

Sir, I trust the Committee will permit me to make a few observations on a personal matter. When the proceedings in Committee of the House had once commenced, I thought it right to refrain from intruding myself on the attention of the Committee, because I desired that certain irritable feelings which had been excited in the previous discussions should be allowed to cool down. But there are some things which a man cannot allow to be said, without endeavouring to set himself right with his friends and society. It is a common saying, that an Englishman's word is as good as his bond. The Committee will recollect, that upon being called upon on a recent occasion by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Garnett) for an explanation with regard to a Resolution passed in the Select Committee relative to the production of a certain correspondence, I felt it my duty to make a statement. I considered it due to the Committee, to myself, and to an officer of the House who might have been deemed to have been wanting in his duty, to state as well as I could what were the facts of the case. When I had finished my statement, the First Commissioner (Mr. Cowper) got up in his place and declared that I had made a false accusation, and had stated that which was not founded in fact. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time stated that he did not mean to say anything uncivil. With respect to that observation, I do not think it is necessary that I should say a single word; but still the words that were uttered remain, and it is due to the Committee, to myself, and to my constituents, that I should clear the matter up, which I can do in a few moments. When the Resolution in question was carried in the Committee—carried in the words that appear on the fly-leaf issued by order of the Speaker—and when the public were coming into the room, I went from my place at the table, which was at some distance from the Chairman, and said to him, "Now that we have carried this Resolution, I hope no time will be lost in bringing out the correspondence." The right hon. Gentleman turned round to me and replied, "The Resolution extends to Hungerford market and other matters not now before the Committee." I then said, "I have heard enough of Hungerford market, and, as far as I am concerned, all I want is the correspondence relating to the Crown property." The right hon. Gentleman thereupon said, "Oh, very well, we will alter the Resolution." I objected to that, saying, "Neither you nor I can make any alteration without the consent of the Committee, and I object to any interference with the Resolution until the question has been regularly put to the Committee." I then went back to my place, and as far as I was concerned that was all the conversation that took place. I told the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir William Jolliffe), who sat next to me, and other members of the Committee what had occurred. As to what passed between the Chairman and the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord H. Vane) I know nothing; but the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu) has told me that he well remembers my protesting against any alteration being made in the Resolution. I can only say I believed, as I think every member of the Committee believed, that the Resolution as carried in the Committee would appear on the Minutes of Proceedings; but, as I stated in the House a few evenings ago, the Resolution as carried by me in the Committee did not appear in the Minutes, and the copy presented to me by the right hon. Gentleman was not in the words in which I proposed my Resolution. I never did consent to the alteration made in it by the Chairman; and I think it most important it should be clearly understood that the Chairman of a Committee may not take away a Resolution in his pocket, and, without bringing it back again, allow the Committee to disperse; and then, when a member of the Committee makes an objection to the Resolution as carried not appearing in the proceedings, stand up, and because he had some conversation with individual members of the Committee, charge the member who complains with not telling the truth. Emphatically, in the face of this House, I say I did not consent to the alteration. I believed the Resolution would appear in the Minutes as I had proposed it; and when I told the House that the other night, I told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I think the proper course for him would be to call the Committee clerk to the bar. Before I made my statement I conversed with the clerk on the subject; and if called to the bar, he will confirm every word I said. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to say anything further; but I ask the House to believe that I did not state what was untrue.

I suppose one word is required from me, and I wish to explain that when I stated the accusation of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) was not a true accusation, but was founded altogether on a mistake, what I understood him to charge me with was, that I had altered his Resolution surreptitiously, and on my own account, and not in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, endeavouring to give effect to what I believed to be the unanimous wish of the Committee. I said I thought it not fair —I believe I used stronger language—I thought it not becoming of him to take advantage of the alteration in the Resolution in my handwriting to charge me with the responsibility attached to that alteration, because unsuspiciously I made it with my own hand, instead of returning the Resolution to him for the purpose of having it made. Had I handed it back to him, and said, "You alter it," we should have heard nothing more about it; but because I adopted the course of altering it with my own pen, I put myself in the hon. Member's hands. When the matter was brought under the notice of the House, I had no better means of setting myself right than by appealing to the Members of the Committee; and such of them as were present confirmed by statement—["No, no !" and "Hear, hear !"]—that the alteration was made with the consent of the Committee. [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: Not with my consent.] It was made, as I believe, with the unanimous consent of the Committee. It was because I understood it to be the unanimous wish of the Committee that the amendment should be made, I made it. The matter itself was of no importance. It occurred in a great hurry; and possibly there may have been some misunderstanding about it, and that the hon. Baronet did not hear me. But I thought it most unfair and most unworthy that any Member of this House should have taken advantage of such an occurrence to make a charge against me which, if true, would have implied that I was unfit for the society of gentlemen. I was very angry, and I feel I am getting angry again; so I will say no more. The hon. Gentleman has taken a liberty with me which I beg he will not take again; for I cannot promise that on a future occasion I would bear it so quietly.

rose to a point of order, with reference to a matter which had occurred that evening. He had always understood that a proposition made in Committee required no seconder, and therefore no second voice when the question was put; and he was therefore surprised to find that a single voice was not sufficient to divide the House. If that were so, it would place hon. Members under as great a disadvantage in Committee as they laboured under in the House; and he therefore asked for an explanation.

The question was as to whether a certain clause should stand part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said "No." I listened to hear whether he was supported by any other voice; but I failed to find any negative but that of the hon. Gentleman. I repeated the question a second and a third time with the same result; and although it is true that a second voice is not necessary in Committee, a second teller is necessary in case of a division. Therefore I thought it unnecessary to trouble the Committee with a division when there did not appear to be a second teller.

said, he was glad to find the Chairman concurred with him that it was a privilege in Committee that a single Member might raise the question on a clause by calling for a division. If that was so, though no second voice was heard, tellers might subsequently appear. In his case, there were, in point of fact, tellers, and one hon. Member raised his voice with him. He did so rather feebly, no doubt, but perhaps his lungs were delicate.

(who had given notice on going into Committee to move—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to set forth in detail in the Schedule to the Bill, under the head of each station, the name of the works in each district to which it is proposed to apply the sums to be granted by the Bill; the total estimated cost of each work, and the amount proposed to be applied to it before August 1, 1863,")

said, that he forbore from moving his Amendment, because he had been informed by the Speaker that he should not be in order in doing so. At the same time, he was anxious to make an appeal to the Government to make some alteration before hon. Members discussed the Bill in Committee. He wished to know how the sum of £1,200,000, lately granted, was to be expended, and to have a detailed account appended to the schedule. By this means they might discuss the Bill better than in the general form in which it then stood. He thought they ought to be careful as to the appropriation of the money they voted. There was a difference of opinion as to certain of these works, and it was considered more desirable to carry out some of them than others. The question was, whether they had then the means of giving effect to their opinion upon the details of the Bill—whether they could reduce the expenditure upon certain fortifications, whether at Portsdown or at Plymouth. If they did so, according to the ordinary rules of appropriation they would effect nothing by reducing this Vote, because it seemed to him that the Government could use the money promiscuously for any purpose mentioned in the schedule of the Bill. If the House were to express its opinion against any particular part of the Bill, he took it for granted that the Government would take care not to proceed with that portion of the works, but there was nothing in the form of the Bill to prevent their doing so in spite of a decision of the House. They were very much in danger of passing Bills like this year after year; and if the House were to rest merely upon an honourable understanding with the Government, without a very strict appropriation clause, there was no saying to what extent the power might be used by the Government. Of the £2,000,000 granted two years ago certain sums had been set down in the schedule for particular stations, and they had now returns of how the money had been spent upon these stations, and he found that at several of these places there had been considerable excess. He knew that £350,000 of that was to be spent upon works already sanctioned by Parliament, and not set forth in detail in the schedule; but he found that at Portsmouth more than £120,000 would have been spent in excess by the end of this month beyond what was sanctioned by the schedule; while at Plymouth, £68,500; at Portland, £112,000; on the Medway, £40,000; and at Dover, £66,000, more than was sanctioned by the schedule, had been expended; and the expenditure at all the military stations had been £440,000 more than was granted by Parliament. Deducting even the £350,000, there was an excess of expenditure of £90,000. How had that money been obtained? Why, £150,000 had been obtained for a central arsenal, which had not yet been fixed upon, and that money had been spent on works at Portsmouth and elsewhere. What he asked was, that the House should not go into this matter blindfold. He did not wish to express any particular opinion upon the fortifications mentioned in the Bill; but it was important that they should keep the matter in their own hands, so that they might be assured that the money would be applied to the purposes for which it was voted. He proposed, when they came to the appropriation clause in the Bill, to move a proviso, limiting the power of the Government with regard to the application of these monies. If the Government would allow them to go into Committee pro formâ, they might then discuss the matter, and decide which works should be sanctioned and which not. If not, he must at a future time propose the Amendment which stood in his name, which would render necessary the alteration of the schedule; and if there was any, probability of his Motion being carried, the Government would see that time might be saved by adopting his proposal. He felt sure the Government would treat the House with perfect fairness, for in the whole of this business the Government had acted in that spirit: they had always freely shown what they had spent, and what they proposed to spend. The plan had been originally sanctioned by a willing majority of the House, and he thought the Government had no course but to persevere in the plan. All he desired was to put the matter in such a shape that they might deal with it practically. He should content himself, on the present occasion, with earnestly asking the Government to adopt the course which he had suggested.

admitted that there was a difference of opinion, as to some of these forts; and the Government had found it their duty to object to many of the opinions that had been expressed. But on one subject he thought they were all agreed—that whatever might be the decision of the House, it should be founded on clear data; that there should be no misunderstanding as to the proposals of the Government; and that when once there was a decision of the House, embodied in an Act of Parliament, it should be strictly observed by the executive Government. He was therefore quite prepared to take any course which should correspond with that principle. The hon. Baronet had Stated with fairness that the information the Government had given was satisfac- tory, and he should be ready to adopt the course he proposed if he saw how it could be reconciled with the ordinary practice of the House with regard to appropriations. He was quite ready to follow the precedent if a Committee of Supply. The course proposed by the hon. Baronet was some what stricter. What the hon. Baronet proposed was to insert every item, whereas the Appropriation Act only adopted the total of a Vote. What the Appropriation Act required was that the money spent should not exceed the total of the Vote; but within that Vote the separate items, although, no doubt, the Department observed each as strictly as it could, were not enforced on it by law. But in the making of contracts—for instance, when an Estimate for a barrack was contained in the Army Estimates, the whole amount being £30,000, and the annual Vote being £20,000—the invariable practice was to make the contract for the entire sum. That practice was followed with reference to these forts. If, for example, the whole amount allotted to Portsmouth was stated in the Bill at a certain sum, and the contractor for one part of the works became bankrupt, or an interruption occurred to the works from some other cause, it might be convenient and economical to the public that the sum intended for that work should be spent on some other work within the same schedule. If he were to adopt the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and make the Return a part of the Bill, it would become an appropriation of every item in that Return, which would be much stricter than the practice ever followed in Committee of Supply. He should be quite ready to enter into an engagement with the House that he would not, in the case of any one fort, exceed the total amount stated in the Return which was upon the table; and if that could be engrafted upon the schedule, he should make no objection; but beyond that he was afraid that it would be difficult to go without unnecessarily tying the hands of the War Department. He should be quite willing to make any arrangement which would carry into effect the general principle that the Government should not take any advantage of the House, or enter beyond their expectations and intentions upon any of the works included in the list.

said, that when the noble Viscount at the head of the Government brought this subject before the House two years ago, he alleged as the reason for asking a large Vote for fortifications the increasing armaments maintained by neighbouring Powers and especially by France. He referred to her great army, and more especially dwelt upon the fact that she had a navy which could not be required for purposes of defence; and that while she had increased her naval force our fleet had, owing to the change from sailing ships to steam ships, been diminished in number. On the faith of that statement the House readily granted a Vote of £2,000,000. Similar statements had been constantly made; but it was only within the last month that there had been laid upon the table, by command of Her Majesty, authentic reports respecting the naval and the military forces of France. Those reports appeared to him to differ in material particulars from the statements which had been made during the last two years, both by the noble Lord at the head of the Government and by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, and he therefore thought that it would be well for the House to postpone the consideration of these fortifications until they had further information upon this subject. He was about to move that the consideration of further expenditure upon the fortifications authorized by this Bill should be postponed until there had been laid before the House the reports of our naval attaché at Paris showing the state of the French navy at various periods during the years 1860 and 1861. The House would not have sanctioned so large an expenditure—it was questionable whether it would have sanctioned any expenditure for fortifications, but for the impression which was created by the statements of Her Majesty's Government that we were fast becoming, in comparison with France, only the second naval Power, and should not be able to maintain the command of the sea. What, however, were the facts? That we possesed more efficient steam vessels mounting twenty guns and upwards than all the rest of the world, France included, and that we had twenty more line-of-battle ships (the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty himself admitted seventeen) than all the other nations of the world together. In 1860 the House voted £12,800,000 for the navy, and the number of men voted was 85,500, or 6,000 more than were voted while we were at war with Russia. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, in asking for those Votes, stated that France had 244 steam vessels that could be mannned and sent to sea in a few weeks, some in a few days, and asked where we should be if hostilites broke out. The Government were not satisfied with the enormous wooden fleet which we then had, and during the year 1859–60 they built 85,000 tons of wooden ships, consisting of line-of-battle ships, frigates, and so forth. Yet at that time they must have known that France had long ceased to build wooden ships, and that one iron-plated ship could destroy all our wooden ones. In 1861 the House voted for the navy) £12,029,000 besides £250,000, an instalment of £2,500,000, which was voted later in the Session. The number of men was 78,200. The noble Lord, in moving those Estimates, observed that it was impossible that our force, either in men or ships, could be fixed without relation to the forces of other Powers, and stated that France had then two very large and powerful iron-cased ships, which they ranked as line-of-battle ships, mounting fifty-two rifled guns each; four powerful vessels which they called iron-cased frigates, mounting from forty to thirty-six guns; four of a very formidable class, called floating-batteries, mounting fourteen guns each; and, in addition to all these, five gunboats of a very formidable character. He thus made it appear that in March, 1861, France had built or was building fifteen iron-cased ships, while we had only seven under construction; and on the faith of that statement of things the House readily granted the large sum of money which he had mentioned. There was a very long discussion upon those Estimates, and in the course of it the noble Lord stated that the Magenta and Solferino would be ready for launching in a very short period and might be sent to sea in a few months, and that of the four frigates one was then at sea and the others were ready. He was in Paris; and having confidence in the statements of the noble. Lord and the noble Viscount as to the immense preparations of France, he took occasion to speak to the Minister of Marine, and the Minister of Marine said that the iron-cased ships were not in the advanced state which was represented. The Minister of Marine, moreover, placed in his hands the means of contradicting these statements. He (Mr. Lindsay) also mentioned the subject to M. Chevalier, who wrote him a note which he read to the House at the time. He, however, thought it necessary to trouble the House with an extract from that note—

"You have a full statement of our navy in a blue-book placed in a solemn manner before your House. You hare it from the lips of the Minister of our navy. You were told by our Minister, privately as well as publicly, that of iron-cased vessels France has only one at this moment fit for sea, namely, La Gloire. That in a short time there will be a second one of a similar character ready for sea. I tell you, too, it will be necessary to have two more built; but two years must elapse before we are in a position to complete six iron-cased vessels ready for sea."

Now, observe those two years dated from the 19th February, 1861. The noble Viscount, however, who doubted the assertion, said it was no use shutting their eyes to notorious facts, and to go on pretending that the policy of France for a length of time had not been to get a navy equal, if not superior to our own. The Estimates were voted in March or April, and on the 31st of May the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) came down to the House, and stated, on the authority of Admiral Elliot, who had visited all the dockyards of France except Toulon, that La Gloire was completed, that the Magenta and Solferino were to be launched in June; and the hon. Baronet summed up the matter in these words—

"The practical point we arrive at is, that the French are rapidly preparing 15 powerful armour-plated ships, to be added to 9 of a different description also covered with armour, giving them in the whole a force of 24 armour-covered ships, exclusive of the old batteries which were used during the Russian war…. Admiral Elliot assures me…. that in every one of the yards which he visited the utmost efforts are being made to press all those ships forward to completion. I have no wish to excite alarm by making this statement.… The point to which I invite attention is, that whatever may be the motive of France, the practical result is that we are rapidly becoming the second maritime Power of Europe." [3 Hansard, clxiii., 416–17.]

The Return of the strength of the naval and military forces of France, and the state of advancement of the iron-cased ships and batteries building on the 1st of January, 1862, did not confirm the statements made by Admiral Elliot after his flying visit to the Franch dockyards, and endorsed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. It was now clear that in May, 1861, no such progress had been made in the French iron vessels to justify the statement which was made to the House on the 31st of May by the right hon. Baronet on the authority of Admiral Elliot; and that the statement he had himself previously made on the authority of the French Minister of Marine, and M. Chevalier was literally correct. The Government, finding the House alarmed at the representations of what was doing in the French yards, asked for a supplemental Vote of £250,000, as an instalment of £2,500,000, to build six iron-cased ships of 6,300 tons each, and attaining a speed of 14 knots an hour; and in the month of July that sum of £250,000 was voted, in addition to the original Estimates of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000. Many Members opposed the proposal of the Government, and he was one of them. He warned the Government against the danger within, should the American war continue, and the people be thrown out of employment, and he advised them to consider that, rather than an imaginary danger from without. The noble Viscount, however, notwithstanding these facts, still adhered to his opinion and reiterated his statement as to the supposed increase of the French navy. "In addition to a fleet of six iron vessels," said the noble Lord, "France has laid down ten other vessels, making together sixteen formidable ships of war, in addition to eleven floating batteries." The Secretary to the Admiralty, moreover, stated that other nations were adding to their iron-cased ships, and we must keep pace with them; and the noble Viscount said that the great preparations of France rendered indispensable corresponding preparations on the part of England. The sole reason for the expenditure which was given to the House was the rapid increase of the French navy, and at the same time discussion was deprecated, because it would give offence to France, and the people of England were convinced that the French Emperor had acted most honourably and fairly towards them. Some had said, "Oh, France won't meddle with us as long as we have our hands free; but only wait till we get into trouble with some other Power, and then see how the Emperor will act." Well, we had recently had a difference with another Power, which assumed a threatening aspect, and the Emperor had behaved in the most friendly spirit. It was the French despatch which, in a large degree, helped to extricate us from the American difficulty. Now, under all these circumstances, he (Mr. Lindsay) thought, that before the House proceeded to consider the further expenditure of money upon fortifications, it was very desirable that full and exact information should be supplied as to the actual naval force of France up to the latest date possible. Now, he believed it was correct as regarded numbers to say that France had built and was building 37 iron-cased ships, and England only 26. As far as France was concerned, there were 6 iron-cased frigates to be completed this year. There were 10 ordered to be laid down in the winter of 1860–1, and the building of which would extend over seven years. Not one of those was to be launched before 1863. Now, those made altogether 16 sea-going vessels. The keel of La Gloire was laid down in 1858. Besides those he had enumerated, there were four floating batteries for the defence of the mouths of rivers and coasts, building at Bordeaux, and they were nearly ready. There were also 7 other floating batteries of only 150-horse power each, which had just been ordered. There were 5 gun boats, which were built for the Italian war, and about which his noble Friend had alarmed the House. They were of 32-horse power each, and besides there were 5 batteries that were built for the Crimean war, and they made the total of 37, with a tonnage of 68,000. Now, compare our 26 vessels with these 37. We had 11 completed this year, the tonnage being 47,887, six in the course of construction, each of which was 6,621 tons, making a total for these six of 39,726; one battery, on Captain Cole's principle, which was 2,529 tons, and those 8 old batteries of about 16,000 tons; so that we had built and building 106,000 tons of iron-cased ships, as against 68,000 built and building by France. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: How many guns?] As the English vessels were each of about 6,600 tons, and the French of about 3,000, he presumed that the English ones could carry double the weight of metal of which the others were capable, or that, at least, they were stronger and more efficient in some other respect. If that were not the case, then the Admiralty, of course, did not know its duty, or it would build two vessels of the smaller kind for one of the larger sort. Therefore the number of guns did not much matter. Should any emergency arise, we could build iron-cased ships faster than any other nation. It was, therefore, enough if we kept ahead of others in our naval force for the current year. France would this year have ready for sea six iron-cased vessels, of 23,000 tons, while we should have 11 vessels, of 47,887 tons, Two of those vessels, the Magenta and Solferino, would not be ready for trial trips before October. Surely these figures did not justify any alarm on our part. If that was our present position, and an emergency should arise, we could turn out throe iron-cased ships for every one that France could turn out, and twice as many as all Europe put together could produce. During the last three years we had voted £38,000,000 for our navy, while France in the same period had voted for hers only £17,600,000; and even of the latter sum £2,500,000 were on account of the expeditions to Cochin China and Mexico. It was said that France nominally voted £5,000,000 and expended £7,000,000. He had before given the House the sums voted and the sums actually expended in the two countries during ten years, and had shown that the excess of expenditure over the Votes was not so great in France as in England. It was constantly stated, that although we had ships, we had not men. Now, France had this year voted 35,000 men for her navy, and 10,000 more for Cochin and Mexico brought up the total to 46,000. It was said that maritime inscription gave her 156,000 men; but that number included the whole of her merchant seamen, her fishermen, bargemen, boys, and, in many cases, the labourers in her dockyards. On the other hand, we had 76,000 men this year for our navy; our reserves might be taken at 40,000 more, although, to be safe, he was willing to take them at a smaller number; and when to these we added our mercantile marine and the other classes comprised within the French aggregate, we had a "stand-by," if he might use the expression, in round numbers of about 400,000 men as against the 150,000 of France. In all these various elements of comparison, then, we were in advance not of France merely, but of France and any other two naval Powers. We were in as good a position now with regard to our maritime supremacy, whether in respect to our wooden ships or our iron ships, as we ever were at any time. Therefore, if we had the command of the seas, he must look upon these fortifications as unnecessary. The House should therefore pause, especially as severe distress prevailed in the manufacturing districts., before spending millions upon millions thus needlessly. Such a course, if persisted in, might produce greater internal dangers in this country than any troubles with which it could be threatened from abroad. For these reasons he had placed his Motion on the paper, which he now begged to move—

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland has, I am happy to say, rectified a great many of the misstatements which he made, I have no doubt unintentionally, in our recent discussions in regard to the numbers of the French navy. Now, I should be ready to remark on his quotations from previous speeches of mine, but I certainly think it unadvisable that we should have these periodical debates on the relative strength of the French and English navies, entering into all these details. Every word that my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) has at various times stated with regard to the strength of the French navy is perfectly correct, and has been corroborated to night by the hon. Member for Sunderland himself. He has given every ship, every frigate, and every floating battery which my noble Friend and I had before enumerated, and he has stated the numbers, the force, and all the other details connected with them. The only point, as I understand it, upon which we are at issue is as to the state of forwardness of those ships. With respect to tonnage, my hon. Friend knows as well as I can tell him that that is not one half as important as the question of guns. It is perfectly well known that the ships of our navy have always had to carry fewer guns in proportion to their tonnage than those of any other navy. And why? Because our business has been, and is, to send our ships all over the world. They have to go wherever they may have to meet an enemy—north, south, cast, or west; whereas other Powers do not require to have their navy in so complete a seagoing state as ours. Undoubtedly, there- fore, our iron-cased ships are of very much heavier tonnage than those of any other nation. Hon. Gentlemen who attend to these subjects will find that there are many opinions as to the advisability of having ships of this very large tonnage. But when we come to guns, and the power of throwing projectiles, I could show the House that the proportion between this country and France is not so favourable to us as my hon. Friend supposes. But, avoiding at present the making of any detailed statement, I can only assure the House of this, that the French iron-cased navy has made very great progress. I never said myself, nor has my noble Friend or any other Member of the Government ever stated, that there was any unusual haste or preparation on the part of France in reference to the increase of her navy. We know perfectly well that the conduct of the French Emperor and the French nation has been loyal and generous towards this country; we know that there has been no desire on their part to molest us; but we also know that by husbanding their resources and by very great care and expenditure the French navy is making very great progress, and is in a state of very great perfection. In regard to the number of men, I could, if I did not think it very inexpedient, go into details which would convince the House that what my hon. Friend said about the comparative force of the two countries is really fallacious in the extreme. And whether the Government of England is composed of Gentlemen on the one side of this House or on the other, it behoves it to take proper steps to ascertain what are the naval forces of other States, and to regulate our doings by that which takes place in other European countries. Having said that, I hope the House will excuse me from entering into any further particulars on the subject.

If the noble Lord who has just spoken, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, had held the doctrine in times past that it was unadvisable to introduce into the debates of this House references to the strength of the French navy, I should have agreed with them. But we hear that argument now for the first time. When we have before us official and authentic facts by which we can prove that the statements which have been made by the Government in times past with regard to the strength of the French navy have been entirely fallacious and delusive, and when we seek to remove that most lamentable spirit of animosity which has been created towards the French Government and the French people by the constant appeals to our fears on the ground that France was making undue naval preparations, I think this is not the moment for stifling discussion, but rather for examining the plain facts that are before us. Is there a man in this country accustomed to pay any attention to this subject who has not been led to believe—mainly by the statements of the noble Viscount, repeated for many years past, on all occasions when opportunity offered—that France, during the time the present Emperor has held sway there, has unduly raised the proportion of naval force which in former times it was customary for France to maintain as compared with ourselves? Is there anybody who doubts that France, during the time of the present Emperor, has not had a larger navy in proportion to the English navy than she was accustomed to have in former times? That has been the general impression. That is the ground on which we have been asked to vote these enormous Navy Estimates. It would be affectation in me to pretend that I have not had as good opportunities for access to every official source of information on both sides of the Channel as the noble Viscount himself; and I say, in opposition to everything the noble Viscount has stated in the way of vague assertion, that for the last twelve or fourteen years, during which the present ruler of France has had sway in one capacity or another in that country, the French navy has borne less proportion—far less proportion—to the English navy than it did in the time of Louis Philippe. When I make that assertion, in opposition to the noble Viscount, I wish it to be accepted only for what it is worth. I intend to support it by specific proofs, for I hope we have now got to the end of those vague assertions under which, according to the old legal maxim, fraud lurks. Unwilling as I am to trouble the House with statistics, I feel bound to give them a few figures on this matter; and first of all I will give them the outlay in the French dockyards during the last twelve years of Louis Philippe's reign and the first twelve years of the Republic or Empire down to 1859, which is the last year for which we have the audited and official accounts of France, and contrast it with the same expenditure in the English dockyards. I take the expenditure for labour in the French dockyards, I do not give the total expenditure, because when you attempt to draw a general comparison, there are discrepancies in the mode of keeping accounts which make it totally unreliable; but when you come to the amount expended in labour you get a fair comparison. I will give, then, the amount expended in the English and French dockyards from 1836 to 1847 in Louis Philippe's reign, and the amount expended from 1848 to 1859, during the time of the present Emperor. In England the expenditure for labour in the dockyards from 1836 to 1847 was £7,294,000, and in the French dockyards in the same time £4,540,100; showing an English excess of £2,750,000 during that period. Between 1848 and 1859 the English expenditure was £11,510,800; in the French dockyards for the same time it was £6,989,500; showing an English excess of £4,521,300 in the last period, against an excess of £2,750,000 in the time of Louis Philippe. So that, in fact, we have been spending during the last twelve years nearly double of what we had spent, in comparison with the expenditure of France, in the former period. If these facts be true, and I challenge the disproval of them, how is it that during the last twelve years, down to 1859, which immediately preceded the outburst of this mania for fortifications, with any kind of management which could be tolerated by a business-like people, that France could get ahead of ourselves in naval strength? There is another and still better test of the comparative strength of the two navies than that of the expenditure on dockyard labour—the number of men maintained in the navies in those respective periods. The yearly average of the number of seamen in the English navy between 1839 and 1847 was 38,120 and in the French navy 30,150, giving an English excess of 7,570 men in Louis Philippe's time. The yearly average of the number of seamen in the English navy between 1848 and 1859 was 51,660, and of the French navy 33,150, giving an English excess of 18,510 in the latter period, as against 7,970 in the former period. To be still more specific, let us take the number of seamen in 1847, the last year of Louis Philippe's reign, and compare them with 1859, the last year for which we have officially audited returns, and the year which preceded the outburst of the fortification scheme. The number of seamen in the English navy in 1847, was 44,960, and in the French navy 32,160; giving an English excess of 12,800 in the last year of Louis Philippe's reign. In 1859 the English navy had 70,400 seamen, and the French navy 39,470; giving an excess of 30,930, against an excess of 12,800 in the former period. What appeal can there be from facts like these? I beg the noble Lord will not reply to me with vague general assertions; and if these facts cannot be gainsaid, as I believe they cannot, what foundation can there be for the alarmist statements which have been made on the assumption that France was making extraordinary and successful efforts to change the accustomed proportions between the strength of her navy and ours? But can we not, with the aid of these documents, which have been almost incautiously presented to the House by the Government—can we not by these despatches of Captain Hore, the English naval attaché at the Paris Embassy— which alone brings me to my feet—bring this question to a still more precise and tangible issue? I think we may, I go back to the time when the French Government devised a scheme for its naval establishment. In 1855 the French Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the state of the navy, and to devise a programme for its future establishment. In consequence of that Commission a decree was published in 1857—I beg attention to the dates—in which the Emperor defined and fixed the naval strength of France, and in which he published to the world the amount of naval force which his Government intended to maintain for a long period of years to come. In that decree the French Government decided that the maximum of the strength of the French navy should be forty line-of-battle ships — a moderate establishment if we compare it with what France had been accustomed to maintain in former times, when the standard of naval strength was in sailing line-of-battle ships. From a statement of the number of line-of-battle ships in the French navy in each year, down to 1859, it appears that in 1778 it was 68, in 1794 it was 77, and in 1830 the number was 53. And it will be found by any one who will consult that interesting work, The Memoirs of the First Lord Auckland, that when he was, in 1783, negotiating the commercial treaty with France, he sent over to Mr. Pitt a list of all the ships of the line possessed by France at that time. The number was 68. Now, 40 line-of-battle ships is the maximum in the naval force of Franco fixed: by an Imperial decree in 1857—a decree published openly, known to the whole world, and in the possession of everybody who takes an interest in such matters— and that maximum was fixed for a considerable number of years to come. But I find that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood), in bringing forward the Navy Estimates for 1857, stated the number of English line-of-battle ships then built and building as 40. And in a paper presented to the House of Commons in April, 1859, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), the number of line-of-battle ships possessed by the French Government at that time is stated as 40, built and building. Here, then, is a datum line; and if, instead of allowing our minds to be diverted to other subjects, we would concentrate our attention on this point, we should be able to measure the increase and diminution of the French navy by a test laid before us that the Government itself cannot reject. From 1857 down to within the last fortnight the noble Lord at the head of the Government has been constantly reiterating the great efforts made by the French Government to increase its navy, and to give it a disproportion of strength compared with that of the English navy. But we have now laid before us a despatch from the naval attaché of our Embassy in Paris; and I find he states that the number of line-of-battle ships in the French navy, built and building, on the 1st of January of the present year, was just 37. So instead of 40, which was announced by the French Government as its maximum, in 1857, we find, on the authority of our own naval attaché, France has only 37. During these last five years our Naval Estimates have enormously augmented; we have heard constant alarms expressed at the increase of the French navy; and appeals have been made to us in support of an enormous system of fortifications; yet we find that France has fewer line-of-battle ships now than she had five years ago. The fact is a conclusive proof that these statements were illusory. I am willing to believe that the noble Viscount has been himself under some official delusion in respect to this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) has proposed there should be an addition to this despatch, showing what was the French naval force in 1860 and 1861; and I think this is due not only to the noble Lord, but to Captain Hore, our naval attaché at Paris, placed there to furnish information for the instruction of the Government. Either he has not given correct information, or the noble Lord cannot have read his despatches, because it is impossible, taking the statement he now sends, compared with what has been stated on official authority during the last five years, that the Government could have been under such an illusion as to the French having made such great naval preparations. I have confined my statement to the number of line-of-battle ships, because that class of ships has been the measure of naval power in past years. But if I extended it to smaller vessels, our case would be infinitely strengthened. The hon. Member for Sunderland has told us that our navy comprises more vessels of twenty guns and upwards than all the other navies in the world. I believe he states that correctly; and it proves what I say, that by extending the comparison from large ships to small we should find the case strengthened against the Government in reference to the exaggerated statements they have laid before us. Now, it is impossible to deal with this question without the facts rising up in accusation against the noble Viscount. Whenever the question of the organization of the navy is raised the noble Lord puts himself prominently forward as the advocate of these large armaments, and always with reference to the state of things in France. In the whole of the past five years I defy any one to show an instance in which the noble Lord has advocated an increase of our naval armament in reference to any other country but France. We have heard the word "invasion" from him a dozen times within the last few years. Now, for a Prime Minister to talk about this country being invaded by a friendly Power without one fact to justify a suspicion of it—on the contrary, when the navy of that Government is less than at any former time—is to commit this country to an attitude towards that neighbouring Power that no Minister ought to give it, with the levity of indiscretion that has marked the noble Lord's course on this subject. The hon. Member who preceded me read an extract from a speech of the noble Lord that shows the manner in which the noble Viscount has dealt with this question. He is aggressive in his defensive policy. He would not allow me to sit quiet, without making an attack on me. The noble Lord is the representative of an idea; he seems to be possessed by it—it is the idea of invasion. It is an idiosyncrasy of the noble Lord. Now, it will be in the recollection of the House that in 1860, when the plan of fortifications was proposed, several hon. Members, among them the Members for Sunderland, Glasgow, and Montrose, took steps, either by writing or sending to France, to inquire for themselves as to the reality of the naval preparations of the French Government. And, surely, if there are three hon. Gentleman in this House who may be supposed likely to give an impartial judgment as to a proposal for an increase of maritime defence, it would be the Members for three of our largest commercial seaports. Those hon. Gentlemen, with my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir M. Peto) took great pains with this subject. I happened to be in Paris at the time, and I know the pains they did take. Some of them visited the French dockyards, or employed trustworthy agents to do so. Others saw the French Minister of Marine. And after the groundless allegations that had been made here, almost imputing to the French Government some clandestine design against us, I think it proves a great amiability on the part of the French authorities that these Gentlemen were graciously received, and were given every facility for visiting the French dockyards and arsenals. Those Gentlemen came back, and in the spring of 1861 took the opportunity of stating in the House what they had heard and seen, controverting and opposing the statements of the noble Lord, as to the great preparations, and hostile intentions of France. How did the noble Viscount treat these hon. Gentlemen? One would have thought that, at all events, their sincerity would not have been questioned. But I will read an extract from a speech of the noble Lord on March the 11th, 1861, when the Navy Estimates were brought forward, when some of the Members of his Cabinet shrunk away, and others could say nothing. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), among others, had spoken on the occasion. The noble Lord said—

"I rise to contradict the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Bright's) own erroneous assertions, as well as those of the hon. Members for Montrose and Sunderland. Those hon. Gentlemen came here propounding opinions based on extracts from some newspaper or other. I really think it was a Scotch newspaper that one hon. Member quoted. They recount to us what they were told by friends whom they met at Paris, and they repeat the denials given there by persons excessively interested in misleading public opinion here, and making us all believe that nothing can be more harmless than all the military and naval preparations of France. Why, these Gentlemen come here like the Trojan horse, in order to deceive us as to the real possibility of danger to which we might be exposed." [3 Hansard, clxi., 1787].

And then the noble Lord knocks them down with a Latin quotation. But he again returns to the charge—

"When some well-intentioned gentleman asks the French if they really mean to invade this country, if they really have any hostile intentions towards us, of course they say, 'Not the least in the world,' their feeling is one of perfect sympathy and friendship with us, and that all their preparations are only for their own self-advancement."—[3 Hansard, clxi., 1791.]

In this speech the noble Lord stated—and it was the only fact in his speech—that the French had 34,000 men in their navy; and just before, the Secretary of the Navy, on the same evening had taken a Vote for 78,200 men for our own naval service. I will defy any one to show any year during the reign of Louis Philippe when there was such a disproportion between the naval forces of the two countries, as there had been during the reign of Louis Napoleon, except in the time of the Crimean war. It should be remembered that in 1859, when we had such a large disproportion of naval power as compared with that of France, France was engaged in a war in Italy, while it was a year of peace with us. But in no year of peace during the reign of Louis Philippe did not the navy of France bear a larger proportion to that of England than it has done during the reign of Louis Napoleon. It is not, therefore, a question of who began first. Franco has never increased the proportion of her navy. There has not been one year in which you can show a tendency to increase, except on the part of this country. But the noble Lord has not confined his statements to the navy. He has also given us some facts and figures respecting the land forces of France; but in his statement there was an inexactness of a very grave kind, for he exceeded the real amount of the French force by 200,000 men, which called down a correction from the Moniteur. I must complain of the habitual inexactness of the noble Lord as to these matters; and if the China debate should come on to-morrow, I shall have to recite another grave inaccuracy. On the 24th of May, the noble Lord, in speaking of the land forces of France, said—

"On the 1st of January, 1862, the French army consisted "—[these are the corrected figures which the noble Lord afterwards gave]—"of 446,348 men under arms. There was, besides, a reserve of 170,000 men, liable to be called out at a fortnight or three weeks' notice, making altogether 616,318"—

Not 816,000, as the noble Lord really said.

No, I never said anything of the kind.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon, because this was not a mistake of a figure. There was addition and subtraction, and the statement was the same all through. The noble Lord proceeded—

"In addition to this force actually under arms, or liable to be called out for service, I stated that there were 268,117 National Guards, making a total available force of 884,765."

That is the noble Lord's statement of the land forces of France on the 24th of May, 1862. Now, I have here another statement made by the noble Lord on the 30th of July, 1845, when he was urging Sir Robert Peel to increase our expenditure. On that occasion he said—

"France, as I had occasion to state on a former occasion, has now a standing army of 340,000 men, fully equipped, including a large force of cavalry and artillery, and, in addition to that, 1,000,000 of the National Guard. I know that the National Guard of Paris amounts to 80,000 men, trained, disciplined, reviewed, clothed, equipped, and accustomed to duty and perfectly competent, therefore, to take the internal duty of the country, and to set free the whole of the regular force." [3Hansard, lxxxii., 1223.]

Now, let us compare the land forces of France according to the noble Lord's own authority in 1845, just previous to the fall of Louis Philippe, with those which she has at the present moment. In 1845 he states the total of the army and National Guard at 1,340,000 men. In 1862 he states the total force of France at 884,765 men, being less in 1862 than in 1845 by 455,235 men. But there has been since then a great change in the number of our own armed force. We must add to our own land forces at least 200,000 additional men in the shape of Militia, Volunteers, and increase of our regular forces. That is a low estimate. Add these 200,000 to the 455,000 which France has less now than in 1845, and it gives 655,235 fewer armed men in France, as compared with those in England at present. That is not an alarming state of things; and if you remember that the National Guard of Paris is now virtually disbanded—even taking into account the increase in the regular force, which I am not here to defend, for it is the monster evil of the age— considering all these points, the House will see that France has not so large an armed force as in the time of Louis Philippe. I will make one more remark upon the question of the responsibility which rests upon the Government and upon the House in these matters. I have heard a doctrine very much insisted on—namely, that we are not to take the dicta of independent Members upon this question, but are to trust implicitly the statements of a Prime Minister. One would think that the sagacity of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) would lead him to take a different view of the matter. Yet what is his maxim as to the authority of a Prime Minister? In July last, when an attempt was made to get more money from us on the plea that more iron ships were wanted, that attempt was opposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay), who, under the discouragement, the taunts, the imputations, and the little attention he received some years ago, deserves the thanks of the country for the manner in which he opposed increased Estimates. Speaking of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) on that occasion said—

"Speaking as the noble Lord did from his place as Prime Minister, if 100 persons had been sent by hon. Members to look round them, open and shut their eyes when they liked, perhaps having no eyes to see with at all, he did not think that the reports of such people ought to be allowed by the country to weigh for one moment against the positive declaration of the Prime Minister from his seat in Parliament, that he knew the facts he stated to be facts." [3 Hansard, clxiv., 1676.]

["Hear !"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "Hear, hear!" but I think that is a dangerous doctrine. Are we absolved from our responsibility because a Prime Minister makes certain assertions? We are here as representatives of the people. The Prime Minister is responsible to us, and we are responsible to the country; and if we take implicitly the statement of the noble Lord, neglecting our own duty, do you think that, by-and-by, when we get into that condition in which the country is apt to judge of Parliament, and of Ministers by a very ugly retrospect upon their past policy—do you think that we shall stand acquitted before the country for voting these large sums of money without inquiry into the facts upon which the noble Lord bases his statements and opinions? The facts are all accessible to us. There are no secrets about the French naval armaments. Every information which is possessed by the Government may be had by us; and I think it is the duty of the House, as representing the people and finding the money for these armaments, to see that the grounds upon which we vote such enormous sums are valid grounds, and do not rest merely upon the fanciful and excited imagination of a Prime Minister. Now, is this the proper time—does anybody who reflects upon what is passing among multitudes of men out of doors— does any one think this is the proper time to be discussing in this House from day to day the question of more outlay upon bricks and mortar at Portsmouth or Woolwich for the defence of the country? After the statements we have heard, unless the facts and figures can be disputed and disproved, I say that to spend money now upon gigantic fortifications, backing up our enormous naval power, would be a waste of public money impossible to justify. I think we might more properly be engaged in discussing other questions, as was stated by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, relating to the internal state of the country. There is no question in this House as to defending the country against a foreign enemy. It would be a piece of supreme impertinence in me or in any other man to lay claim to an exclusive interest or regard for the security of the country against a foreign enemy, and I hold the man to be a charlatan who sets up a claim to popularity because he holds the honour and safety of the country in higher estimation than I do. That is not the question here, where every man has an equal interest in the safety of the country. We may take different views—as we are entitled to do—us to the best modes of fortifying and permanently defending the country. Some think we cannot do better than appeal for armaments and fortifications in addition to our existing resources in time of peace, notwithstanding the weight of taxation under which the country is struggling; while others, like myself, may think, with Sir Robert Peel, that you cannot defend every part of your coast and colonies, and that in attempting to do so you run a greater risk of danger to the country than you would incur by husbanding the resources which you are now expending upon armaments, so as to have them at call in time of emergency. That is my view. Let no one presume nor dare to say that he has more regard for the safety of the country than I have. They may try to create imaginary dangers and to take credit for guarding against them; but give us a real danger, show us that our navy is not equal to our defence, that a neighbour is clandestinely and unduly trying to change the proportion which its force should bear to that of this mercantile people living in an island, and then I would willingly vote £100,000,000 of money to protect our country against attack. But, in saying this, I claim no merit. I do not set myself up as a great patriot, for there is nobody here but would put his hand in his pocket and spend his whole fortune rather than have this island defiled by the foot of an enemy. I have my own views as to what constitutes the strength of the country, but they are not the views of those who have had a hand in promoting this gigantic system of expenditure. The right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) is the author of this scheme. It is his sober, sagacious leadership of which you are followers. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) has commended this great plan of expenditure; he is the great champion of the noble Viscount in this matter. I cannot follow those gentlemen, for I do not entertain their views. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud thinks that in proportion as you go on extending your commerce and increasing your wealth you must also be continually increasing your armed force. That might he if we were an enervated people, gaining our wealth from the labour of slaves, or if remittances from gold regions were keeping us in idleness and luxury; but my view is that every step you take towards the increase of wealth and the extension of commerce, by that very commerce you are strengthening yourselves and building up those materials and that kind of population which will best provide means of defence whenever we are attacked. Our wealth, commerce, and manufactures grow out of the skilled labour of men working in metals. There is not one of those men who in case of our being assailed by a foreign Power would not in three weeks or a fortnight be available with their hard hands and thoughtful brains for the manufacture of instruments of war. That is not an industry that requires you at every step to multiply your armed men. What has given us our Armstrongs, our Whitworths, our Fairbaina? The industry of the country, in which they are mainly occupied. It has been sometimes made a reproach against me and my friends the Free-traders, that we would leave the country defenceless. I say, if you have multiplied the moans of defence—if you can build three times as many steamers in the same time as other countries, and if you have that threefold force of mechanics of which my hon. Friend has spoken, to whom do you owe that but to the men who, by contending for the true principles of commerce, have created a demand for the labour of an increased number of artisans in this country. Go to Plymouth or to Woolwich and look at the names of the inventors of the tools for making firearms, and shot find shell. They bear the names of men in Birmingham, in Manchester, and in Leeds, men nearly all connected for the last twenty years with the extension of our commerce, which has thus contributed to the increase of the strength of the country by calling forth its genius and skill. I resist the attempt which has been made to show that I am not a promoter of the strength, the power, and the greatness of this country; or that I, or any of those who act with me are or have been indifferent to or ignorant of what constitutes the real strength and greatness of the country.

The hon. Member for Rochdale and others have referred so directly to me on the subject of exaggerated statements alleged to have been made in this House with regard to the navy of France, that, in justice to Admiral Elliot, I wish to say a few words. The speech of the hon. Member fur Rochdale has been mainly directed against the noble Viscount, whom be has charged with vague and exaggerated statements as to the navies of France and England. I leave the noble Lord to answer that charge, but I must say that I believe he has made no speech upon the subject which was not only not open to the charge of vagueness or exaggeration, but was not strictly founded upon most accurate data. But I must say further, that the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale with regard to the naval proportion has really nothing to do with the question now before us, no more than if he had addressed the House upon the relative strength of the navies of Spain and England at the time of the Spanish Armada. His speech was in a large degree taken up by comparison of the outlay of France and England during two periods—one during the reign of Louis Philippe and the other under the present Emperor of France. Lot me remind the House that nothing can be more fallacious than to make a comparison of the navies of England and France founded solely upon statements of the money expended during two periods. The rates of wages, the prices of every element of shipbuilding, are so different. [Mr. COBDEN: Labour.] I said so. But that is not the most important fault I have to find with the hon. Gentleman's statement. He told us of a programme issued by the Emperor Louis Napoleon in 1857. Let mo remind the House that the year 1857 was the year preceding the commencement of the idea of armour-plated ships; therefore you cannot attach much importance to a programme of 1857. I must also remark, that during the whole of the hon. Member's speech he did not say one word about what has been passing in England or France since 1859. In 1859 we commenced building iron-plated ships, and, under correction, I believe all the noble Viscount's speeches, and certainly all my statements which have been made since 1859, have had reference to the efforts of France to rival this country and to surpass us in the construction of armour-plated ships. I appeal to the papers upon which the hon. Members for Rochdale and Sunderland have founded their statements to prove that the noble Viscount and the Secretary for the Admiralty were right, and that at this moment France is ahead of England in this important element of naval strength, and that it behoves the Government not to discontinue the efforts they have made. The hon. Member has repeated that he desires to see the navy of England superior to that of France, and that he would sanction any expenditure necessary for that object. But upon that principle the House is not justified in finding fault with the late nor the present Admiralty for their efforts to make the navy of England superior to that of France. The hon. Member communicated his intention of impugning, I will not say my statements, but those of a gallant officer whose name I used. Now, I am bound to state, in justice to that gallant officer, that the hon. Member has failed to impugn his statement, and that the facts, indeed, completely justify every word that Admiral Elliot advanced. My statement was, that the French had fifteen iron-plated frigates and line-of-battle ships, and nine others of different descriptions. In the official return placed in our hands by the Government I find that the French had, on January 1, 1862, six iron-plated frigates afloat and ten building, making a total of sixteen. Admiral Elliot stated the number of iron-plated vessels of other descriptions at nine; while by the Return it appears the French have twelve afloat and two building, being a total of thirty, instead of twenty-four, which was my statement last year. The hon. Member for Sunderland has referred to the state of progress of those ships; but there is this difference—that he speaks of July, 1862, and I made the statement in question in May, 1861. I have spoken on the authority of this paper of sixteen iron-plated frigates. I do not, however, know whether the Solferino and the Magenta are included in that number of sixteen, for they ought not to be classed as frigates— they are two-decked vessels, carrying more powerful guns than any ships in the French or English navy. Captain Here had fully accounted for the delay to which allusion had been made, the spur with which the bow of the Solferino was to be armed having been reduced from twenty-seven tons to sixteen tons weight, and a similar delay having occurred in regard to the Magenta. I think that Her Majesty's Government are right in the course they have taken on this subject, and I trust they will continue to pursue the same line of policy.

I should like to ask the House whether we are discussing the Naval Estimates of the year, or whether we are discussing plans for the permanent fortifications of the dockyards? The two speeches of the hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Rochdale had no bearing on the question now under discussion, but turned upon a simple comparison between the existing navy of France and the existing navy of England. Now, the hon. Member for Rochdale seems to be excessively angry with me. He accuses me of indiscretion, of levity, and of every possible breach of every possible duty that is incumbent upon a Prime Minister. I receive these accusations from him with the utmost possible quietness. I differ so entirely from the hon. Member that it is quite natural I should feel proud of being the object of the hon. Member's attacks. He said that I am actuated by an idea. Sir, I am actuated by an idea. My idea seems never to have entered the fertile brain of the hon. Member. My idea is that England ought to be defended, that her navy cannot exist without dockyards, and that those dock yards must be placed in a safe position against sudden attacks. That is an idea that has never entered into the mind of the hon. Member. The hon. Member has told us that he is ready to spend £100,000,000 to maintain a good navy. Now, we do not ask him to do any such thing. We ask for no more than the moderate sum recommended by the Defence Commissioners to place our naval arsenals in a state of safety. I say that the hon. Member for Rochdale is in a state of blindness and delusion which renders him utterly unfit to be listened to by the country as an adviser on matters of this sort. When the hon. Member deals in matters that he understands—when he descants on questions of free trade and commerce, we generally listen to the hon. Gentleman with the utmost deference and respect. He understands those subjects; he is imbued with sound principles, and his conclusions command our assent. But he goes beyond his crepidam on such matters as these. When he descants on our naval and military defences, he goes beyond the scope of his knowledge, and beyond the reach to which his understanding has extended, and he becomes a most dangerous adviser for this House and the country, ["Oh !"] Why, Sir, I say it is so, because the hon. Member declares that it is presumption in any one to state that he is not as anxious for the honour, and dignity, and defence of the country as any man living. And the defence he proposes is reducing your army and your navy, and leaving your dockyards unfortified; because, he says, you have increased your manufacturing capital and your workmen in Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, and other hives of industry and capital. But the richer you are, if you do not defend your wealth, the more you invite attack. The very accumulation of wealth in the country is the reason why a part of that wealth should be devoted to national defence. And, as to the fact of your having plenty of workmen and artisans in your manufacturing towns, you cannot reckon upon them for the defence of the country against a sudden attack, because there would not be time to bring those labouring men from the centre of England, and organize them as a military or naval body, or set them to work to make fortifications. Why, it is childish, to imagine that the possession of those esources, if you do not avail yourselves of them beforehand, can avail to ward off a sudden attack. It is blindness and infatuation on the part of the hon. Member to entertain these views, and I am astonished that he should not be conscious of that which any man who has thought at all on this subject must comprehend. The hon. Member accuses me of great exaggeration with regard to the French army and navy. Now, I utterly deny that I have been guilty of any exaggeration. The hon. Member for Sunderland has confirmed the statement that I made, and it has been further confirmed by the papers laid before the House. Now, with regard to the French army, I stated on a recent occasion that the French army on the 1st of January consisted of 446,000 men under arms, and 170,000 men of the reserve, making a total of 616,000 men. I was reported to have made that total 816,000. It is very seldom that those gentlemen who report our debates in this House commit an error, and an error in one figure is not unnatural. But my statement was 616,000, and not 816,000. The French Moniteur corrected my statement; and what was that correction? It charged me with having made a little error both in the force under arms and in reserve, and the aggregate was stated by the Moniteur to be 612,000 instead of 616,000. That was the correction of the Moniteur, which completely and substantially affirmed the statement that I had made. My statement with respect to the National Guards was also substantially true. Then, with regard to the French navy, the Returns laid upon the table and the statements of the hon. Member for Sunderland have shown that the number of iron-clad ships in the French navy is greater than that which I represented last year. The hon. Member has stated that they have thirty-seven and we have twenty-seven, and those are very much about the relative numbers. I said that they were thirty-six and twenty-five, and he says they are thirty-seven and twenty-seven respectively. Whether we take one statement or the other, it is admitted that in iron-plated ships, which are to be regarded in future as the real strength of a navy, a neighbouring Power is stronger than ourselves. Well, then, the hon. Member for Rochdale has repeated this evening the statement which he published in his pamphlet, and has endeavoured to show the comparative amount of labour employed in the dockyards of England and France at certain periods, and the amount of the Naval Estimates of the two countries. Now, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich has very properly stated that that comparison is fundamentally fallacious—fallacious upon the ground of the money expended on workmen. A man in the French dockyards gets 2s. 6d., a man in the English 4s. 6d. a day. It is evident, therefore, that with the same number of men working, the cost of the English dockyards must, from the rate of wages, be greater. Then, with regard to the ships in commission, the general expenditure in wages of a 90-gun ship in the two services is as £19,000 a year for a French ship, to £29,000 for an English, so that the latter cost £10,000 a year more. Well, all that shows, that the forces being equal, the actual expenditure of the one country must be much larger than that of the other. Therefore, it is perfectly fallacious, as a measure of relative strength, to tell us only what is spent, unless you also take into account the disproportion between the wages of labour. Well, Sir, I shall not intrude long upon the attention of the House, because it does really appear to me, as was stated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, that all the eloquence which we have heard from the two hon. Members was utterly beside the question. Granted, if you will, that there is at present no appearance or any likelihood of war between the two countries; that is the reason why you ought to employ the interval of peace in placing yourselves in a condition to meet a different state of things. It is the utmost degree of folly to conclude that because this year, or next year, or the year after, we are not likely to have our relations with a neighbouring Power altered, we are therefore to leave our dockyards in a state which, if anything were to happen, would not find them in a condition of adequate defence. If we were proposing something that could be accomplished in twelve months, or a couple of years, I should deem the argument of the hon. Member of some force and value; but that which we are proposing to you is a measure founded upon deep reflection, and calculated to endure for a length of time. We ask you to place our dockyards in that position in which they will be safe from attack by any foreign Power. And here I must say that I entertain very little apprehension that the feelings of the hon. Member for Rochdale will be shared in by the country, because I have a conviction that these opinions are confined to a few persons; and, so far from my being afraid of any responsibility which I am incurring in proposing that we should defend our dockyards, I should feel myself unworthy to hold the position which I occupy—I would not continue to be responsible if I thought that the Members of this House would not furnish the means of defence which I consider absolutely indispensable for the future security of this country. I therefore have an "idea" which the hon. Member has not, that "idea" been deeply implanted in my mind. So far from believing that the attacks of the hon. Member will do me the least damage in the estimation of my countrymen, I am glad that he has had an opportunity of pointing out distinctly the wide difference of opinion between himself and me. With regard to the defence of the country, my mode is different from his. Whatever he may say with regard to the improbability of war, though his advice may be—

"Oremus pacem, et dextras tendamus inermes,"

I, on the contrary, am for preparing ourselves for war in time of peace, and doing it scientifically, and with forethought. I am for preparing ourselves for the storm that may or may not come, and then we may reckon on a continuance of peace; for we may depend upon it there is nothing which will contribute so much to the permanent peace and security of the country as its being known to foreign nations that we are in n, condition to defend ourselves if attacked. As to the expense which these fortifications will involve, I will ask any hon. Member to compare it with the disastrous consequences of the presence of an invading force in this country for a fortnight or a month. Let us see what war is costing that republic beyond the Atlantic, let us see the efforts that nation has been compelled to make because there was no previous preparation. They had all on a sudden to organize what they wanted for the contest they are engaged in. Let not us, in this country, fall into the same error; let us do what we can quietly and economically; let us prepare what is necessary for any contingency that may happen, and when that is done we shall have done more for peace than the commercial treaty of the right hon. Gentleman. We shall have done more than his free trade. We shall have done that which I trust will make us respected by other countries, and will tend to the security and permanence of that peace which I have as much at heart as he has, though I think I go a better way about preserving it.

moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be committed this day three months. He thought that it was too late an hour (a quarter past one o'clock) to commence a discussion on the measure. The present mode, according to which the county surveyors in Ireland were appointed, was better than the plan proposed by this Bill, which would establish a system of centralization, in as much as the qualifications of candidates were to be examined into by the Civil Service Commissioners in England instead of by the Board now appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. His opinion was that even with the Amendments of which notice had been given, the Bill could not be made a presentable measure; and he concluded by moving that the House should go into Committee upon it that day three months.

moved that the Chairman should report progress.

said, that seeing such a determination evinced on the part of some of the Members from Ireland to offer every opposition to the measure, he should move that the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

stated his determination to oppose the measure throughout.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not be induced to withdraw the measure.

said, his right hon. Friend had no intention of withdrawing the Bill.