said, that he felt it his duty to bring under the consideration of the House some circumstances relating to the Bill. It having been thought desirable to appropriate the sewage of the metropolis for agricultural purposes and for reclaiming some portions of the seacoast, the Metropolitan Board of Works advertised in 1860 for any scheme by which the sewage might be disposed of in such ways for the benefit of the ratepayers. The various projects were ultimately reduced to two—one by Mr. Ellis, and the other by Messrs. Hope and Napier. The terms of the advertisement published by the Metropolitan Board for tenders notified to every one that the projects were to be carried on at the sole risk of the projectors, and the ratepayers generally were satisfied that the matter should be proceeded with on that footing. After some delay and consideration the Metropolitan Board of Works determined to avail themselves of the project of Messrs. Hope and Napier, which seemed to combine in itself the elements of other projects, and applied to the House for a Bill to carry it into effect. There was a great deal of agitation in the metropolis on the subject of the concession, and to pacify the inhabitants he had moved that the Bill be referred, not to an ordinary private Committee, but to one of a more public character, which should, in the interest of the ratepayers, ascertain what was the best scheme for the utilization of the sewage of the metropolis. When that Committee met he found, to his utter astonishment, that instead of the terms of the advertisement being carried out, an agreement had been entered into between Messrs. Hope and Napier and the Metropolitan Board three days before the second reading of the Bill, which agreement was of a most extraordinary character, for its effect was to give to the Secretary of State, in the event of the failure of the projectors of the scheme, the power of compelling by his mere fiat the rate papers to pay every shilling of the expense. This agreement was to take effect only if it received the sanction of Parliament, and in this way the Metropolitan Board of Works threw the whole responsibility on Parliament. Again, there was a clause in the Bill which was perfectly illusory, for, though it allowed the Board of Works to look at the accounts in connection with this project, it did not permit them to look at the vouchers. This was a matter also requiring attention. The contractors applied to the Committee to extend the time for the completion of the works, and they were allowed by the Committee the enormous period of ten years. He consequently proposed a Resolution to the Committee, declaring that the Committee were bound in the interest of the public to watch over the transaction; but that Amendment having been rejected, it became necessary for the House to deal with the question. The Committee also declined to give the ratepayers the power of examining the accounts of the company. What course ought they to take? He was not anxious to defeat this Bill. On the contrary, he thought that the Bill might be carried on with great advantage to the ratepayers, provided that they were not made to bear all the loss, and that they saw they were honestly treated by those who were projecting this Bill. He was anxious that the House should understand that this was no ordinary application to Parliament. It struck him as being one of the most unusual that could possibly be imagined. This was not an application to Parliament by a responsible body, who undertook to carry out these works. When a Railway Bill was being promoted, there was a subscription and a deposit which was to be impounded and forfeited if the works were not carried out. But this was a Bill promoted by certain gentlemen who especially declared that they were not acting under any deed or agreement of partnership, and that no capital had yet been created; and it was upon such grounds that they asked that House to give them power to take all this land by compulsion, and to hold this power for ten years. But that was not all. The promoters had actually put in the Bill clauses by which they were to be enabled to raise £2,000, to be increased to £3,000 if necessary, and sell the Act of Parliament as soon as it was granted for whatever sum they could obtain. He thought that when the House was dealing with people who came to them upon such a footing, without being a company, without capital, and who boldly asked to be allowed to sell the Act of Parliament, it was its bounden duty to see that the Act of Parliament was one which was consistent with good faith towards the ratepayers of the metropolis, and that all the risk and failure should not fall upon them in case the promoters were unable to carry their project into effect. He had deemed it his duty, under these circumstances, having moved for the Committee on behalf of the ratepayers, to call the attention of the House to the failure that had taken place in the performance of the duties of the Committee, and to ask the House to defer the further consideration of this Bill until after Easter, in order that the promoters might be able to take into consideration the propriety of bringing up clauses to protect the ratepayers, on the one hand from being liable for the loss in case of failure, and on the other to give the ratepayers power to look into the accounts and dealings of this company with a view of satisfying themselves that all these transactions were fair and aboveboard. He moved that the further consideration of the Bill be deferred until after Easter.

said, that having sat on the Committee he wished to say that they had looked on the work as one of public and national utility. The promoters undertook to get rid of the sewage of the north of London beyond Barking Creek without the probability of its returning. Its success or failure as an agricultural operation was a secondary point with them, although they had every reason to believe that it would succeed in that respect extremely well. The only opposition was brought forward by a Mr. Ellis; and his opposition greatly confirmed the probability of success from the proposed mode of using the sewage. Messrs. Hope and Napier's plan combined all the benefits offered by Mr. Ellis, together with a great outlet for the sewage into the sea where it would be quite clear of the Thames. As to no capital being subscribed for the scheme, the House should recollect that very many railway Bills were passed without there being any bond fide subscription, except that some engineer put his name down for a large sum. He trusted that the House would not allow the Bill to be put aside.

said, that as he was Chairman of the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred, he would state to the House as clearly as he could what took place. In the first place, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets had imported into this discussion a great deal of matter of which he (Mr. Headlam) did not think that that House could take cognizance. The hon. Gentleman had stated certain circumstances against the promoters of the Bill—namely, that they were not a company, and that they had made no deposit. Now, although the City of London opposed this Bill before the Committee, no objection on that ground was taken by them against it, and the Committee had every reason to suppose that this company was constituted in the regular form, that everything requested by the House in the nature of deposit had been performed, and certainly nothing took place before the Committee to lead them to suppose that any irregularity of that description had taken place. His hon. Friend supported the Bill, and he (Mr. Headlam) fully expected that he would have given them every assistance afterwards in passing it. He voted with the Committee on the preamble of the Bill, and he also voted with them, and they carried unanimously the Report which spoke in the most favourable terms of the plan now submitted to the House. When that particular Article, No. 15, came before the Committee no objection whatever was taken to it, nor was the attention of the Committee particularly directed to it, and it was only after the Committee had passed the agreement that his hon. Friend for the first time brought up the two clauses which were upon the paper, and which the Committee by a majority of five to two rejected, and, as he(Mr. Headlam) thought, rightly rejected. He now understood the object of his hon. Friend to be to get those two clauses which the Committee rejected inserted in the Bill. The first clause related to an auditor to be appointed by the Metropolitan Board of Works with extraordinary powers, the practical effect of which would have been that although that Board declined the responsibility of having a director, they would have had an auditor who might have objected to almost anything done by that company. He (Mr. Headlam) voted against that clause, as he considered it would be an improper clause to insert in the Bill. He considered th1at the Metropolitan Board of Works were the guardians of the ratepayers, and that they need not go beyond them in considering the ratepayers' interests. He also objected to the other clause—that relating to an absolute forfeiture—as being too strong and arbitrary, and he consequently voted against it. He was perfectly willing to admit that Article 15 as it now stood was also objectionable, and ought to be altered. It left a power in the hands of the Secretary of State which it would be inconvenient for him to exercise. With this exception he did not think any alteration ought to be made in the Bill, and he should certainly object to the insertion of the clauses of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

said, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to confirm the necessity for postponing this Bill till after Easter, because from that it seemed there was a section in the agreement—Article 15—which was really objectionable and ought to be altered. In the meantime parties might lay their heads together and put the contract into an unobjectionable shape. He believed the general feeling was in favour of the Bill; but the House had to deal with a very grave question which the right hon. Gentleman had not touched. He said the Metropolitan Board of Works, who represented the ratepayers of the metropolis, were parties to the bargain, and the pro-meters of the Bill were the other parties; but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell them whether it was within the competence of the Metropolitan Board of Works, under the Acts of 1855 and 1858, to enter into speculative works, intrusted in the first instance to somebody else, to fertilize some I barren waste bordering on the German Ocean; and if they had not strictly that power the ratepayers of the metropolis might be called upon by the arbitrary fiat of the Secretary of State to recoup to these speculators no less a sum than perhaps £3,000,000. How was that to be raised? It seemed to him that the Board of Works had no power to enter into these speculations, and bind the ratepayers to recoup the money, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee had not ventured to say whether it was strictly within their power or not. Then it should be remembered that the Gazette notice was as vague as possible. No one could have dreamed that under such a notice it was possible that the Metropolitan Board of Works were going to take on themselves this liability. The agreement itself had not been deposited; it was signed some time in February, and made its appearance only a few days ago. He gave no opinion as to whether the Bill should go on or not; but he hoped the hon. Gentleman who had charge of it would consent to what he considered the reasonable proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, in order that all parties interested might know what was coming on them; and the House would no doubt do what was right when the Bill next came up for consideration.

said, that he had stated to the promoters of the Bill the objections he entertained to this article of the agreement. The Bill provided that certain main culverts should be executed by the concessionaires within four years, and if they were not completed within that time the deposit of £25,000 to the Board of Works should be forfeited. It was quite possible the non-completion of the main culverts within the time specified might be accidental, without any fault of the concessionaires; but Article 15 provided that the Secretary of State should in such case certify whether the concessionaires should forfeit all their rights and privileges. That was a power which the Secretary of State would find it extremely difficult to exercise. But the Article went on to provide, if the Secretary of State determined that no forfeiture should take place, well and good; but in case of forfeiture, then he was to prescribe the terms, and those terms were to be final and binding. He thought the power to determine whether forfeiture should take place ought not to be intrusted to one Member of the Government, still less should the power of fixing the terms. Some other provision should be substituted for the 15th Article, probably some mode of arbitration; and as there was no opposition to the scheme itself he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir William Russell) who had charge of the Bill would agree to its postponement till the 25th of April, by which time the parties might come to some satisfactory settlement as to Article 15.

said, he thought it was the desire of the House that the Motion for the second reading should not be pressed. The Metropolitan Board of Works took no responsibility in connection with this Bill. They said the works must be risked without any cost to the Board. They repudiated all responsibility in connection with the scheme, which would probably invoke the ratepayers in an expenditure of two or three millions. The postponement was very desirable, as it would not affect the rights of the concessionaires or the public.

said, he supported the Amendment. The 15th clause was entirely inconsistent with the principle recognized by the House in all private Bills affecting the property of the ratepayers. They should have a chance of being heard on the matter.

said, after the expressions of opinion by the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State (Sir George Grey) and the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wilson Patten), he would agree to postpone the Bill till after Easter, giving due notice of the clause he intended to propose.

said, that as a Member of the Committee, he wished to state that the concession to Messrs. Napier and Hope was kept a secret from the Committee until after three days' examination of the members of the Board, though they had been repeatedly pressed to produce it. He was glad the postponement had been agreed to, otherwise he should have divided the House.

said, the Bill had already received its death-blow elsewhere. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

said, as his name was on this Bill, he had thought it right to move the second reading, but he had had no communication with the promoters, and therefore as the Bill was opposed he should not put the House to the trouble of a division.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Bill for recording Titles to Land in Ireland will be introduced?

said, in reply, that the Bill for the Registration of Titles in Ireland had been laid on the table of the House of Lords on the previous evening by the Lord Chancellor.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Consul Swinhoe has made a Report that the British Merchant Steamer Elphin, while loading sugar at Takao, was hired by the Local Mandarin to go out of port and attack junks said to be piratical on the agreement that captured junks should belong to the captain of the Elphin and crew; that the steamer went out and attacked a junk pointed out, which did not made any resistance; nevertheless she was fired into and one of the crew killed, and the remainder of the crew, twenty-one in number, taken prisoners and lodged in the Hong of Messrs. Lester and Co., and the junk carried into Takao; that Mr. Consul Swinhoe tried the Captain, a Prussian subject, and condemned him to a penalty of 600 dollars, afterwards reduced to 400 as sufficient penalty for the murder; and, in case Consul Swinhoe's Report has not been received, whether it will be sent for, and whether the Hong Kong Ordinance, No. 1, of January 1855, which prohibits British Subjects from giving military aid to the Chinese Government and the Rebels, will or will not be enforced, and Commanders of British Merchant Vessels, or other offenders, be suitably punished for shedding blood for profit?

said, in reply, that no notice upon the subject mentioned by his hon. and gallant Friend had been received at the Foreign Office, nor did he think it necessary to send to Consul Swinhoe for a Report. It was that gentleman's duty to report only upon matters requiring special attention. No doubt if this subject had demanded any unusual notice it would have been duly reported upon. With regard to the latter part of the question of his hon. and gallant Friend, he could add nothing to what had already been stated on two occasions by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The law would, of course, be enforced if proper evidence were adduced and proper proceedings laid before the Consular Courts in China.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce the Bill for the Amendment of the Salmon Fishery Acts?

said, that the Bill had been deferred until the Reports of the Inspectors of the Fisheries had been presented to the House. Those Reports had been printed and would at once be put into circulation, and the Bill would be introduced immediately after Easter.

said, he would beg to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they have considered the propriety of placing vessels from the Baltic in quarantine, with a view to prevent the introduction of a contagious fever said to be raging in those parts?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received no information upon this subject in addition to what was laid upon the table of the House yesterday. That information is not such as to induce us to think of establishing a quarantine at present.

said, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Has his attention been called to the Report of the Referees on the Piccadilly and Park Lane New Road Bill, and has he given a "distinct intimation" that a portion of the Crown Land, valued at £6,577, will be given up to the Metropolitan Board of Works without any payment?

said, in reply, that no obstacle had been thrown in the way of the scheme of the Metropolitan Board of Works on the part of the Crown as regarded the rights of the Crown in the Park. It was true that the Metropolitan Board of Works had, from motives of economy, preferred the inferior plan of prolonging the narrow street to the better plan of widening Park Lane, and thus providing for the use of the public a broad and spacious thoroughfare. Yet he thought the Board deserved all credit for having recognized the responsibility that rested on them of doing something to remove the extraordinary inconvenience of the present state of Park Lane. It was, therefore, intimated to the Metropolitan Board of Works, that if they succeeded in passing this Bill through both Houses of Parliament, they would receive the consent of the Crown to their making a road through Hamilton Gardens, which is a portion of the Park. If the hon. Member had read the Report of the Referees he would have seen that the legal estate in land had not been given to the Board but was retained in the Crown.

said, in rising to ask the Question of which he had given notice, he would previously read a passage which occurred in the letter of The Times' correspondent on the previous day—

"So recently as the 11th of March, 1863, fifteen years after the ignominious collapse of Mr. Smith O'Brien's rebellion in the widow's cabbage-garden, it was stated in the official address of the Fenians 'that the Fenian Brotherhood was instituted some years previously as a secret society; that it had ceased to be secret; that its object was the invasion of Ireland by an armed force of at least 100,000 men; and that the Brotherhood had the secret countenance among others of W. II. Seward, the Secretary of State.' On the 6th of March, 1864, a report of the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Fenians at Chicago appeared in the Sunday Mercury, which circulates largely among the Irish in this city, which stated that 'the Committee had received letters of encouragement from hundreds of prominent men in the country, including the Postmaster General, Mr. Montgomery Blair, Secretary Seward, Governor Yates (of Illinois), Mr. Speaker Colfax (of the House of Representatives), Colonel Mulligan, and hundreds of officers in the army and navy of the United States.' On the 26th of December last a great meeting of the Fenians was held at Chicago, at which it was resolved, nem. con., that it was the duty of the American Government to declare immediate war against England,' and pledging the Chicago Circle of the Brotherhood to raise immediately 5,000 men, upon the sole condition of being ordered forward at the earliest possible moment and by the shortest route to meet the common enemy of Ireland and America."

He would, therefore, ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office has received despatches or any information relative to statements lately published in this country to the effect that encouragement has been given by eminent political individuals in the United States to a confederacy of Fenians, designed to attack Canada, to invade Ireland, and to make war, when required, upon England?

said, in reply, that the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to meetings lately held by the Fenians in the United States, but there were only two facts mentioned which required official notice on the part of Her Majesty's Government. One was that a certain Colonel J. H. Gleason had obtained leave of absence from the Army of the Potomac for the purpose of attending a meeting; and the other was that the Attorney General of Louisiana was also present upon the same occasion, Mr. Seward's answer was that leave of absence had been granted to Colonel Gleason, though certainly not for the specific purpose of attending the meeting referred to. That officer simply obtained the leave of absence to which he was entitled. Mr. Seward further stated that the Attorney General of Louisiana was not responsible for his acts to the Government of the United States, but only to the particular State of which he was Attorney General.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any information to the effect that an Export Duty had been placed upon Jute, Coffee, and various other articles in India, and that the Income Tax had been continued in that country?

Sir, one of the inconveniences attending the use of the telegraph is the imperfect information it oftentimes affords us. I must, therefore, say that I am not at all certain of the answer which I have to give to the question of the hon. Gentleman. It is true that I have received a telegram, but I do not know from whom it has come.

said, he wished to explain. The statement to which he referred had not reached England by telegraph, but had appeared in the letter of The Times' correspondent.

It is perfectly impossible that any information can have reached England by letter from Calcutta giving an account of what was said or done on the 31st of March last, at which date the financial arrangements for the year had been determined upon. Whatever may have appeared in the newspapers or elsewhere, must, therefore, have been sent by telegraph. I received a telegram on the 3rd of April, stating that the income tax had not been renewed, but that export duties had been placed upon certain articles of produce in India. I can hardly doubt the correctness of the telegram, but it is so totally opposed to everything I had reason to expect, that I scarcely know whether to believe it or not.

said, he wished to know, whether the principles upon which taxation proceeds in India are supposed to be in harmony with the principles of taxation in this country, and whether the Government in India is empowered to act independently of any principles laid down in this country?

I think that is, with all deference to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, not a question which I ought to answer.

said, that as there was reason to believe that a deputation was coming from Canada in order to consult Her Majesty's Government as to the defences of that country, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Parliament will be consulted before any engagement is made by Her Majesty's Government tending to pledge the Imperial credit for the execution of those defences, and before any engagement is entered into by the Imperial Government for the defence of Canada on land, lake, or river, beyond that already notified to Parliament—namely, an expenditure of £300,000 for the fortifications and armament of Quebec?

Sir, the sum of £300,000, to which the noble Lord has referred, is made up of two sums—£200,000 for the defence of Quebec, and £100,000 for the armament of Quebec and Montreal. When we communicated to the Government of Canada our intention of including in the Estimates a Vote for improving the defences of Quebec, we expressed our trust that we might rely with confidence on their constructing the works necessary for the defence of Montreal, and we expressed our readiness to furnish the armament both for Montreal and Quebec. With respect to the Question of my noble Friend, I received the day before yesterday an official Minute of the Executive Council of Canada appointing four of their number—

"To proceed to England to confer with Her Majesty's Government (among other things) upon the arrangements necessary for the defence of Canada in the event of war arising with the United States, and the extent to which the same should be shared between Great Britain and Canada."

In the conference to be held between Her Hajesty's Government and these gentlemen it will not be in the power—and if it were in the power it would not be the wish—of Her Majesty's Government to bind Parliament without the full knowledge and consent of Parliament. We shall not exceed the province which belongs to the duty and responsibility of the executive Government, and when the conference shall have arrived at a result it will be my duty—and I shall have much pleasure in discharging it—to take the earliest opportunity of making that result known to Parliament.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any intelligence has been received of a renewed outbreak of hostilities in New Zealand?

Sir, the following telegram has been received by the War Department, and has been communicated to the Colonial Department:—

"Hostilities commenced in the Whangaura district on the 24th of January. Lieutenant General Cameron advanced with a force of 800 men towards the Whaitolara River. On the same day a skirmish took place with the rebels in posting a picket at Nukumtrar, near which village the troops had encamped. On the 25th the rebels attacked the camp in force, and were repulsed with a loss of seventy killed; number of their wounded unknown. Our loss in the two days was Lieutenant Johnson, 40th Regiment, Deputy Assistant Adjutant General, mortally wounded (since dead); Lieutenant Wilson, 60th Regiment, severely, and Ensign Grant, 50th Regiment, dangerously wounded; fifteen men killed, and thirty wounded. On the 8th of February we crossed the river and encamped on the left bank."

said, he wished to ask, Whether Mr. Attorney General will consent to postpone the Committee on the Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill, which is fixed for May 11, as that day would be very inconvenient to Irish Members. The Dublin Exhibition was to be opened by the Prince of Wales on May 9, and therefore it would be very convenient to postpone the Bill until the following Monday.

said, that he should be willing to accede to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion if it should be consistent with the progress of public business, but he would undertake not to proceed with the particular clauses to which the hon. Gentleman wished to call attention.

said, he wished to put a Question upon a subject of considerable interest to Volunteer Artillery Corps, Under the 26 &c 27 Vict. c. 65, s. 42, persons lending horses gratuitously for the service of the Militia, Yeomanry, or Volunteers are excused from payment of the Assessed Taxes upon such Horses, but persons licensed to let horses under the 16 & 17 Vict. (the Post Horse Act) are allowed no exemption in case they lent their horses gratuitously. As the animals which such persons could lend would be better adapted for drawing guns than the carriage or riding horses of private individuals, it was for the advantage of the Volunteer service that persons licensed under the Post Horse Act should be encouraged to lend their horses. He would submit that it would be easy to grant a proportionate reduction of the Post Horse duty to those persons who lent their horses. The question he should ask was, Whether the exemption from the Assessed Tax granted to persons gratuitously furnishing horses during six days within the year for the Volunteer Service, under the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 65, s. 42, might not be extended to those persons who pay duty on licences to let horses for hire under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 88 (the Post Horse Act)?

said, in reply, that persons licensed to let horses for hire did not pay Assessed Taxes upon their horses as well, and it would not be reasonable to exempt them from the payment of the Post Horse Duty, which was much heavier than the Assessed Tax, because they lent their horses gratuitously for six days. The Question of granting any abatement from the amount of the license duty proportionate to what was allowed in the case of persons liable to the Assessed Tax was a very fair Question to be considered.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, were it not for exceptional legislation in each particular case, the greater part of the offices held by Members of Her Majesty's Government would not come under the category of "new offices or places of profit under the Crown," which, according to the provisions of the 6 Anne, c. 7, disqualify the holder from sitting in the House of Commons; and, whether it be desirable or consistent with the principles of modern Constitutional Government that one particular office, and that having a seat in the Cabinet, should be allowed to remain under a rule which has been abrogated by special legislation in the case of every other important office of the Government? The Act of Anne was passed soon after the Union, when the House was apprehensive of being overwhelmed with a flood of Scottish placemen; but circumstances were now altered, and the House was extremely anxious now-a-days that persons representing important departments should have a seat there. What he would like to hear from the noble Viscount was the constitutional point of view by which the Government justified the anomaly of retaining the exclusion from the House of Commons of one only of the officers of Her Majesty's Government—namely, the Postmaster General.

If I understand the hon. Gentleman's Question rightly, he wishes to know whether it is the intention of the Government to propose to this House a Bill to enable the Postmaster General to sit as a Member of the House of Commons. In reply, I have to say that we do not see that there is any sufficient necessity for such a Bill, and therefore it is not our intention to introduce it.

rose to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the railway system of the United Kingdom may be instructed to direct their inquiries, in the first instance, to the Irish railway system, with a view of ascertaining, with as little delay as possible, such facts as may enable this House to determine whether the provisions of the second clause of the general Railway Act of 1844 should be applied to such Irish railways as are subject to its provisions."

He thought the subject one of very great importance, and trusted the House would give it the most serious consideration. A Commission had been appointed to inquire into the railway system of the United Kingdom, he asked that the Irish railway system should be considered by itself and without delay. The definite object of his proposition was to bring into play the provisions of the Act of 1844, which gave power to the Government, with the sanction of Parliament, to purchase the railways whose Acts were passed after 1843. He was aware that the case of Ireland had been frequently brought before Parliament in the present Session, but he was convinced that the House would look with an indulgent eye on any proposal which could be clearly shown to be for the benefit of that country; and it was his belief that this question was one of that character. First, did his proposition in any way interfere with the self-reliance of the people of Ireland; and secondly, was it a measure which would confer benefit on one class in Ireland, or would it benefit the whole people? His proposition, instead of interfering with the self-reliance of the Irish people, would extend and develop it, and, unlike any other measure which could be sub- mitted to the House, would benefit all classes in Ireland, and, like a fertilizing flood, penetrate into every nook and cranny of the land. The reduction of the price for the transit of passengers and goods would benefit every class and every individual. In order to justify his Motion, he was bound to prove that there were certain special circumstances appertaining to Ireland, which demanded the separate consideration of the Irish railway system; and that the benefits which would result from his proposition would be felt by the whole people. With regard to the first point, it was, unfortunately, not necessary to say many words. Whatever the cause, there existed vast resources in Ireland undeveloped, and consequent misery among a large portion of the population. It must be obvious to every one that though the strong shoulders of Great Britain might support the incubus, high fares on railways, which constituted the only means of transit for a large proportion of the population and merchandize, crushed the industry and prevented the development of the resources of a country like Ireland. Another reason existed for regarding Ireland as an exceptional case in respect to this matter. In the year preceding 1839 there were various public meetings in Dublin, attended by the most eminent men of all parties in the country, and they urged the adoption of a system of railways for Ireland analogous to the system which generally prevailed on the continent. Among others a meeting was held in Dublin, when a resolution was passed, declaring—

"That railways in the hands of individuals or chartered companies, however valuable and important might be the facilities they gave, were necessarily monopolies, and as such were irreconcilable with the public interests; while, if such establishments were the property of the State, they could be altered and dealt with at any time, without injury to any party."

A measure in accordance with their views was submitted to that House by Lord Morpeth, then Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Duke of Leinster, Lord Kingston, and many other great Irish proprietors engaged that if this measure passed they would give the land for railways that passed through their properties for nothing. The year 1839 was one of great party contests, and anything proposed by one party met with no favourable reception from their political opponents. The consequence was that Lord Morpeth's mea- sure fell through, the English system was introduced into Ireland. A circumstance which distinguished the Irish from the English and Scotch system, was the smallness of the amount of capital invested in the railways of the first country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not one to "rest and be thankful," but even he might feel appalled at the idea of undertaking to touch the English and Scotch railways, with their £300.000,000 or £400,000,000 of capital, but in Ireland the value of the railways—according to Mr. Dargan—was less than £20,000,000. Their capital was £22,500,000. The original shares amounted to a little more than £13.000,000, and bonds and preferential shares to a little more than £9,000,000. The gross receipts for 1863 amounted to £1,518,000, against £30,000,000 in England and Scotland, and the working expenses were £750,000. The gross receipts from all the Irish railways last week were £26,800, whereas the receipts of the London and North Western Company alone for the same week were £101,000; those of the Great Western Company were £63,000; those of the North Eastern Company were £56,000; those of the Midland Company were £44,000 and those of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company were £36,000. Therefore it must be obvious to the House that the comparative smallness of the Irish railway question gave the House a practical control over it, which they could hardly expect to exercise over the English and Scotch railways. What were the complaints made against the Irish system. The charges made for passengers on the Irish railways were as high, and the charges for goods in many cases were considerably higher than the corresponding charges in England. Heavy goods, for instance, cost more from Dublin to the Limerick junction, a distance of about 100 miles, than from London to Manchester, a distance of 187 miles; and yet the railway fares in England were the highest in the world. Notwithstanding the poverty of Ireland, the Irish railway directors seemed to be enamoured of the English system of very high fares. He was not making an attack on the directors of the Irish railways. A railway director was a person to whom a certain number of shareholders intrusted their capital in order that he might make the most money for them he could with it; and if by carrying thirty passengers he conceived that he could make more profit than by carrying 200 passengers, he was bound to carry the thirty in preference to the 200. But it was singular that the Irish railway directors should take such a different view of the effect of high prices from that acted on by all other persons who made money in Ireland. Let them look, for instance, at the monster shops. Did they sell enormously expensive articles, such as diamonds or rubies? Not at all. They sold a large number of ordinary articles at a low price, turning their capital over frequently, and thus earning a large aggregate profit. Then there was the great unendowed Church in Ireland. What great sums were spent upon churches, convents, and schools—sums so great that he was afraid almost that he should startle some hon. Gentlemen if he were to mention their amount. Were those sums made up of the hundreds or thousands subscribed by a few rich individuals? Not at all. They were raised from the pennies, the sixpences, and the shillings of the great body of the people. Was it not wonderful, that, with these examples before their eyes, Irish railway directors should still persevere in the system of high charges? No doubt by lowering rates they might lower their dividends for a short time—but for a very short time only? The extent of the infatuation under which they laboured in that respect was illustrated by a story which he heard only the other day. Lord Clancarty, being anxious to establish on the Midland Great Western Railway a system of low fares between, he believed, Athlone and Galway, went to the directors and offered to guarantee them against any loss they might suffer; but the directors refused the proposal, and said they would continue to pursue the course which had reduced their shares to a considerable discount in the market. He would mention another evil of the present system. A small amount of railway capital in Ireland was divided among a great many companies. Between Belfast and Dublin there were 113 miles of railway divided among three distinct companies, with three separate sets of directors, three separate sets of officials, and three separate sets of proprietors; and all these different bodies in their dealings with one another were actuated by that amount of charity which generally distinguished railway boards in their dealings with one another. That state of things operated most injuriously on the various interests of the country. For example, in the neighbourhood of Limerick there were large mines affording an opportunity for the development of a considerable mineral traffic. A railway company was asked simply to put a station in a convenient place for that traffic; but they absolutely refused to do so, in the fear that another company might share the profits, leaving the minerals to be transported at a rate so high as to put a practical estoppel on the development of the resources of the district. Again, the cheap and expeditious conveyance of cattle was a matter of paramount importance, especially to the. South of Ireland; but the exorbitant charges of the railway companies precluded the graziers from using that mode of transport. He had received many letters from different parts of Ireland, all testifying to that effect. A gentleman of great intelligence, Mr. Cooper, writing from the South of Ireland, stated that Kerry sent annually thousands of cattle by road that would never walk a mile if the railway rates were sufficiently low. In Meath and Carlow, and every other county, the same sort of exclusion was practised. The graziers either walked their cattle or sent them by canal. The same observation applied to flour and corn—no pound of corn or flour ever passed by railway to the great flour mills at Croom in the county of Limerick. He might give another illustration of the present system of railway management. In order to facilitate the traffic between Limerick and Dublin Parliament passed the Bird Hill and Roscrea line, but not a single passenger went on that line from Limerick to Dublin, and this all because a few miles of the line belonged to a company with which the Great Southern and Western did not agree. Thus the intentions of the Legislature had been completely frustrated. Now, it was not quite fair to talk about self-reliance when the people were deprived of the simple and cheap means of carrying their cattle to market. This was by no means carrying out the principle of free trade. These small monopolizing companies had all the vices of despots; they apparently did all they could to thwart the development of the traffic; and how anybody could say that they must be maintained for the sake of free trade he could not understand. If the cost of transit could be abolished surely that would promote free trade. If the products of different hemispheres and zones could be brought together without cost of transit that would be the very realization of the idea of free trade; and so also in a proportionate degree would any measure that tended to reduce the expense of conveying cattle and other produce to market. If the railway charges in Ireland were brought down to the Belgian scale, or to something less than one-half of their present amount, the effect upon the trade and prosperity of the country would be like the touch of a magician's wand. If a farmer sending his cattle to market was enabled to do for 10s. what now he could not do under 30s. what an advantage that would be to the Irish producer! Then take the case of manufactures. One of the difficulties in the way of establishing manufactures in Ireland was the price of coal; and if they could reduce the price of coal and the cost of carriage of it to the same rate as it was in Belgium or Westphalia, they would do more to develop manufactures in Ireland than they could do by any other single step they could take. The Irish system of railways was capricious in regard to the cost of carrying coal. The cost to Bray was 1½d. a ton, to Wick-low somewhat less, to Athy 1d., while to Maynooth it was no less than 2d. What crime the Duke of Leinster, or the inhabitants, or the College of Maynooth had committed to subject them to this high impost he did not know. One of the German railway companies which had reduced the rates to one half-penny per mile per ton had raised its dividend from 7 to 12½ per cent. The bondholders and preference shareholders in Ireland had about 5 per cent on £10,000,000. If the Government took up the railways in that country they could get the money at 3 or 3¼ per cent; and in that way alone a saving of about £150,000 a year would be effected. Mr. Dargan stated his opinion that if the railways were placed under a central management a saving in the working expenses might be effected of £200,000 a year; and, at all events, there could be no doubt that it would produce a considerable saving—Establishment charges now amounted to 49 per cent. Mr. Dargan further stated that a reduction of rates would not be attended with loss as the traffic would be increased. These statements Mr. Dargan was prepared to substantiate before a Committee. He should now show the House from an experiment tried on a small railway—the Foynes line —what effect an increase of charges bad upon the traffic of a railway. In 1862 the Foynes Company raised their rates from 3s. 10d. to 4s., from 2s. 9d. to 3s., and from 1s. 8d. to 2s. for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class respectively. In the year ending in 1862, before the increase took place, the total number of passengers was 87,256; in 1863, after the change took place, it was 71,383; and in 1864 it fell to 63,046. Let them observe the effect of this very small increase of fares. The experiment had also been tried in Great Britain. Mr. Gait, who had written a very able book on railways, stated that at the time of the Manchester Exhibition, when the London and North Western and the Great Northern Companies were competing, first-class passengers were carried to Manchester and back for 7s. 6d., and second-class for 5s.; the whole expense of the train was 50 guineas, while its receipts were £174. The contest lasted with great benefit to the public all the summer, and the dividends only fell ½ per cent. The contest between the South Eastern and the Great Western Railways to Reading lasted about a year and a half. While it continued passengers were carried a distance of 67 miles at 3s. first-class and 2s. second, ten times as much being charged in proportion of other parts over the lines, yet where the fares were lowest there was an average profit of 250 per cent upon the cost of running every train. When the Edinburgh and Glasgow and Caledonian lines quarrelled they carried passengers between Edinburgh and Glasgow, a distance of 46 miles, for 1s. 9d., and 6d., and the Caledonian line only suffered a loss of ½ per cent dividend by the reduction, which was equal to one-eighth of the ordinary charge, though there was a division of traffic at the same time that the reduction was in operation. He asked that the experiment which had been made in Belgium and Germany should be tried in Ireland. In 1838 the population of Brussels, Malines, and Antwerp was 232,960, the population of Liverpool, Manchester, and Warrington was 523,000. The number of passengers between Liverpool and Manchester before the railway opened was 164,250 per annum; the number that went by railway in 1836, at 6s. and 4s. fares, was 523,000, being an increase of 218 per cent. The number of passengers yearly, before the opening of the railway between Brussels and Antwerp, the fares of the Belgian diligences being about one- half those of the English coaches, was 80,000. The number of railway passengers between those two towns, excluding those who stopped at Malines, was 781,250, showing an increase of 876 per cent, the railway fares being 2s. 6d. and 1s. Here was a comparison between Belgium and the busiest part of the United Kingdom, It might be said that in Belgium there was a population of 420 to the square mile, while in Ireland it was only 185 to the square mile; and therefore that the analogy of Belgium did not apply to Ireland; but he would take a country—Prussia—in which it was still lower, namely, 156 to the square mile, and he would take a railway which ran through agricultural districts, in which the wages of the people were not very different in amount from those which were paid in Ireland. In that country the whole of the people availed themselves of the railways—even the poor market women carried their fruit by railway. It might be said that Irish railways were made at a greater cost than foreign railways, although obviously the original cost of the railway did not touch the questions they were considering, but that was not so. The railway from Cologne to Minden, which with its branches was about 330 miles long, cost £28,000 per mile. The Belgian railways cost from £18,000 to £19,000 per mile, and the Irish railways £13,000 per mile. On the Cologne Railway the charge by the first-class, which was used by Princes and Englishmen only, was 1½d. per mile. The charge by the second-class—used by those who in this country would use the first-class—by the Cologne line was 1d. per mile, and by the third-class, answering to our second, the charge was only three farthings per mile. Our lowest class was 1d. per mile, whereas the fourth-class fare on the German line was only three-eighths of a penny per mile. That railway in 1858 paid 7 per cent. There was then a considerable reduction in the charge for the transport of goods, and the result had been a dividend of 12¼ per cent. It might be argued that this increase of traffic arose in a great degree from coal, and that the Westphalian railways abutted on a coal field, while there was but little coal in Ireland; but it should be remembered that, practically, the Irish railways abutted on the English coal fields, and that just as Westphalian coal at low transit prices flowed into the agricultural districts of Prussia and Hol- land, English coal would certainly be sent in immense quantities into Ireland, where turf was now scarce, and was certainly in most places dearer to burn than coal would be with low railway rates. In Belgium last year a reduction was made in the parcel traffic, which was so very successful that a Bill was before the Legislature for reducing the rates still lower; and what was the financial result? The Belgian shareholder was making 5½ per cent. So successful had these low fares been that in 1884 the shareholders would be paid off, and the lines in the hands of the Government, who might use the railways as they thought fit, and who would be able to run trains at the cost price of travelling. Why should we not imitate such an example? It might be asked what system he would adopt in lieu of the present. He thought it a great misfortune that the recommendations of the Commissioners, Sir John Burgoyne, Sir R. Griffith, and Mr. Drummond, had not been acted upon with reference to the railways. But the evil had been done. The railway system had been productive of less benefit than was expected to Ireland, and it was placed in the hands of conflicting companies, whose Boards agreed in an enthusiastic devotion to high rales, and he saw no way out of the difficulty but in the purchase of the railways by the Government. What they ought to do was to introduce a measure giving the Government the railways for a period of, say, live or seven years, which would enable them to put the whole system on a proper basis. They might then divide the whole country as France was divided into certain zones north, south, east, and west—and let the railways out to companies on condition that low rates and fares were introduced and maintained. By that means they would get rid of the difficulty. Government management for a short period was not likely to work badly; for in a matter of this kind they would take good care to select the best men to administer the system. Such a change would confer enormous benefit on Ireland. The first result would be to effect a reduction in railway fares to one-half or one-third of their present amount, which would be equivalent to a remission of taxation of somewhere about £1,000,000 a year. But that would by no means measure the benefit to the country from the increased development of its resources which would necessarily follow from its being brought into close contact with the markets of England. What but nearness to, or distance from, the best markets made the difference there was between the West and East of Ireland. Even in the first year he did not think the public Treasury would lose anything considerable, not more, probably, than from £200,000 to £300,000 a year. But the benefit to the country would be immense. If it was put to him whether he would prefer the abolition of the income tax or the measure proposed, he would without hesitation say, give Ireland this cheap mode of transit by railways. He thought he had shown that the case of Ireland was quite distinct from that of England and Scotland, and ought to be considered by itself. He believed if they adopted his proposition they would confer the greatest possible benefit on every class and every portion of the country. He now left the question in the hands of the House. He looked with great anxiety to the result of the debate, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to agree to his proposition. He was quite indifferent as to the means—the end he desired was low fares and more centralized management. The whole of the people of Ireland were in favour of the proposal, and no greater benefit could be conferred by the House upon Ireland than the granting of this Motion.

said, in seconding the Motion, that he thought the House was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the great pains he had bestowed on this subject, fie had discharged a paramount duly to his country in bringing it forward. The size of the question naturally attracted their attention, and it more particularly deserved the notice of the House because it was not calculated to en- courage any delusive expectations. He agreed that if it should appear on a full and careful inquiry that it could be carried out it would confer on Ireland very great advantages. We had arrived at a crisis in the history of railway legislation. The reason for the passing of the wise and statesmanlike Act of 1844 was, he understood, given in the words of the Committee who reported previous to the passing of the Bill. That Committee said it was material to observe that in this country what was called the "high fare system" ordinarily prevailed, and that the average charge for railway communication—which fell principally on trade and commerce—was very much higher than in other countries where railways had been established. That there was no early prospect of a general reduction of the charge under the present system of independent companies; and if the experiment of reducing the charge were tried, the results, it was believed, would not be very unfavourable upon immediate returns. The words of the Act which was passed subsequent to the Report of this Committee were very important, as they preserved to the House the power of considering what course it would be politic to adopt after an experience of twenty years of the system of railway management. It would be improper to ask the House to apply any other principle to the consideration of the railway system in Ireland than that asserted in a very wise section of the Act of 1844. Upon the grounds, then, of general and national policy would it be wise to exercise the power retained by the Government? It was said that a railway was as necessary to our existence as the air we breathed. It was ridiculous to speak of a railway as we would of any other road or highway. He thought we had suffered a great misfortune by Parliament having neglected the recommendations of a Commission in 1837 which was appointed to investigate and report upon a plan upon which the Irish railways should be conducted. A useful Bill was afterwards moved by Lord George Bentinck, but not being supported by the Irish Members was lost. The Report stated that it was the favourite opinion of many that undertakings of this description (railways) were best left to the free and unfettered exercise of private enterprize, and that the less the State interfered either in making exactions before begun or in controlling their subsequent management the better. They (the Commissioners) were duly sensible of the great advantages to be obtained by allowing full scope to the capital and enterprize of individuals associated for such important purposes, but they apprehended that the difference between railways and any other description of public works had been overlooked, and the peculiar privileges which had been granted to them—privileges which should be exercised only under authority, effective superintendence, and control. It was important to observe the distinction. It was a very different thing asking the Government to take upon itself the management of the railways, and calling upon it to exercise a wise and politic control. The possession of a railway and the management of it as a trading company were very different to exercising that control which was intended by the Act of 1844. The two things were quite distinct. The exercise of that control would not lay the Government open to an imputation of unwise intermeddling with trading companies that could be otherwise made. The body of gentlemen to which he had referred said that—

"So great were the powers, so vast the capabilities of a railroad, that it must, wherever established, at once supersede the conveyances by common road; and, consequently, while the railway facilitated traffic, it destroyed other modes of conveyance."

Towards the close of the Report the monopoly which railway companies obtained was referred to, while they were subjected to little or no external regulation or control. A most extensive monopoly had been established that could keep the intercourse of the country entirely at its command. The rate of speed, the hours for running, the number of journeys in the day, and the charge were all at the discretion of the railway companies, and whatever extravagant expenditure might be incurred in the construction or management of the lines it all fell upon the public. The Report then proceeded to say that it might have been well if we had looked at what had been done in other countries—in France, Belgium, and other places—before committing ourselves to the present system. In England alone were the main lines of intercourse committed to the management of individuals almost unconditionally and without control. This had arisen from the suddenness with which the railway system was pressed upon this country. What, then, was asked by the present Motion? A Railway Commission, composed of eminent and competent persons, had been issued by the Government. It would be unwise to ask for a different body, and the only thing sought by the right hon. Gentleman who had brought this present Motion forward was that, the Irish railway question having reference only to a comparatively small extent of country, and requiring immediate and speedy relief, the Commissioners should take that first into their consideration. Although the book to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) had referred was written by an Irishman, there was only one observation in the volume having reference to Ireland. It was a remarkable book, and most interesting. In truth, railways had almost a poetical interest, only sometimes one was obliged to say that they were not quite agreeable under the present system. He could confirm the experience of others, that directors had a very artful and ingenious and crafty mode of raising the fares whenever they could conveniently do so, and that, too, with a regularity and punctuality which deserved the description given by Mr. Galt, who stated that wherever there was a conflict between the interests of the public and the advantage of the directors, the directors always decided against the public and in favour of themselves. The one reference to Ireland in Mr. Gait's book was to the effect that the railway directors in Ireland entertained very favourably the scheme of the purchase of the railways by Government. That Ireland was in every respect more adapted for the railway system being under the control of Government than England, as there the people did not view the interference of Government with mercantile affairs with the same distrust as was felt in this country; and while in one country it might be desirable to confine the experiment to low fares and Government supervision of a few lines, in the other it might be extended with the consent of all classes, from the Giant's Causeway to Cape Clear, and from Connemara to the Hill of Howth. Therefore in no country was it more desirable to have the experiment tried than in Ireland. He (Mr. Whiteside) agreed with the writer, because the people of Ireland had suffered much inconvenience from the multiplication of companies there. Herapath's Railway Journal, while it appeared to be unfavourable to the scheme of the Government purchasing the railways in this country, was not opposed to it for Ireland, because it was a poor country and the purchase of the railways, followed by a very low fare, would he a sort of fillip which might contribute to the welfare of the country and raise the value of the land. There were a great many small railway companies in Ireland. In the north there were no less than six, and the Belfast people were so exceedingly skilful that they carried their lines no further than they felt certain they would be remunerative, leaving it to wilder speculators to accommodate the districts behind. If therefore they wished to travel from Londonderry to the Northwest lines they had two or three companies always to deal with. The system would have been much worse had it not been for his noble Friend Lord Erne, who had invested large sums in different railways, and took an interest in the management of them. The universal opinion in Ireland was against the existence of these numerous companies, and it was amazing that men who outwardly looked reasonable, and talked and acted on other subjects like other people, should undertake to prove that in the short line of country between Dublin and Belfast it was useful to have three companies with three sets of directors and officials. Most people thought this an intolerable nuisance; and Mr. Dargan was of opinion that by a uniform management a saving of £200,000 a year might be effected. If that were so, and if it were true that the credit of the Government would make a difference of 1½ per cent to these lines, a great benefit would accrue, and it would be possible to operate at once with the consent of all parties. In the West of Ireland the management of the Western Railway was much complained of. The utmost amount of inconvenience which could be afforded to the public had been afforded by the directors, and the result was that the dividend of the unhappy shareholders was reduced to 2 per cent. The shareholders would be very glad to get rid of the directors, who, on their part, he supposed, would be willing to transfer their functions to those who could exercise them with greater advantage to the country. As to the Munster Railway, he wished to say nothing in its favour, and nothing particular against it, further than that he believed that a wise man would strike out four-fifths of these companies, and have a concentrated management, which would lead to the economical results referred to by Mr. Dargan. If the Great Western in England had amal- gamated twenty-five companies, what difficulty would there be in extending the principle of amalgamation in Ireland? There was not a single interest which would not be benefited by such a change. For instance, at present within limited distances a railway was never used in Ireland for the transport of cattle. There must be a reason for this, and he believed it to be the absurd arrangements made by the company in respect of cattle transport. The results of this question might be summed up in a few words, which he believed to be irrefragable. While he admitted that the state of Ireland peculiarly required this measure, he thought that inquiry—which was all they asked for at present—should be conducted on general principles. The highways of the country were almost as necessary as the air; in old times he was thought a hero who made a road which would last for ever, and the making of these iron roads never ought to be monopolized by companies free from Government control. At the outset the present system was regarded as an experimental one; the Government of the day wisely reserved to themselves the right, at the expiration of twenty years, of revising the experimental system; and the terms of purchase stated in the Act were distinct, and ought to be satisfactory to those who had anything to sell. Of course it would be necessary to look narrowly to see that no job was perpetrated; but he believed that we should never have a reduction of fares commensurate with the wants of the country until some such step was taken. Moderate fares were the most remunerative; but if railway directors thought they could get as much money by carrying a few passengers at a high price a3 they could get by carrying a great many at a low price, they would relieve themselves from the inconvenience of carrying a great number. He could not see how this grievance was to be redressed, except by the control of the State. In Mr. Gait's book it was shown that in a case where the fares were reduced by 70 per cent it only made a difference of 1 per cent in the dividend. It was open to the State to make another set of railways at one third the cost of the present lines, and their competition would destroy all the existing lines; but that would be a very unjust and unwarrantable thing, and therefore nothing remained but some such course as the Act of 1844 had pointed out. His right hon. Friend had not mentioned the analogy of the penny postage; and, though the same results might not follow the adoption of cheap fares, we might fairly borrow a principle from a great experiment that had been successfully tried. It was not his place to point out the modus operandi, or how this great and useful project was to be worked out; this might be better done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he would say a word to hon. Gentlemen on the other side who had the other night supported the Motion for inquiry of a similar kind to that now sought in regard to property in Ireland. Instead of searching about for trivial causes to explain the condition of the south and west of Ireland, why not admit at once what was perfectly plain—that before the adoption of free trade Ireland enjoyed a monopoly, was benefited by that monopoly, and that change of policy had led to the results now witnessed? This was indisputably true, and he did not mention it for any unworthy purpose. Adam Smith himself admitted that sometimes where laws which theoretically appeared unsound had been allowed to exist for a long period of time, and great interests had grown up in consequence, a sudden change would lead to results more lamentable than the evils which would follow from the maintenance of those laws. At present there was a vast trade in the import into Ireland of the daily bread of the people; that was something to be remembered. Free trade legislation might be proved to be a great and signal benefit to the Empire; but if the consequences of that legislation had led to distress in certain parts of Ireland, the Legislature should try to confer some proportionate advantage upon the country where this could be done without violating the rules of political economy or perpetrating any gross job. His belief was, that that was the desire of the House. At the same time, he did not wish it to be supposed that the condition of the whole country had been accurately described by hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House on a former occasion. Last autumn he had seen a good deal of the country. Beginning at Fermanagh, he had gone to Derry. stretched round the coast to Belfast, passed to Armagh, Neath, Carlow, Wexford, and other places, and according to his observation there was a conspicuous improvement in many parts of the country. As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) had said, there had also been very great improvements in Dublin—the approaching Exhibition was a proof of this. And if, in the districts which had suffered most from free trade, a plain, practical benefit like that now proposed were conferred upon all classes, it would be received in Ireland as a proof of the beneficent spirit which animated this House, and would make the Irish people sensible—and the debates of this Session showed that they ought to be sensible—of the pains and anxiety with which the House listened to every proposal calculated to be of the smallest practical service to that country.

said, that he took great interest in this question, so much so that he had some time since solicited an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject. The question could not, either directly or indirectly, be regarded as involving any party considerations, and he should be, therefore, very much surprised if any hon. Member representing an Irish constituency opposed the Motion. It would be for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether the question was one which should be immediately dealt with, or whether, as usual, it should be postponed for some future treatment. The Commissioners certainly ought, in his opinion, to direct their attention first of all to Ireland, because, though that country would, no doubt, receive immediate benefit, England also would derive permanent advantage from such a course. The experiment might first be tried in Ireland, and if successful might be extended to England; while in case of failure, on the other hand, the latter country would be able to avoid adopting any course which had been found unsatisfactory. In the Commission which had been appointed the Irish element appeared to have been lost sight of, in fact the noble Lord at the head of the Government usually excluded Irishmen from the Cabinet and from Commissions. Out of fourteen Commissioners there were seven English and one Scotch Members, but not one hon. Gentleman who represented a constituency in Ireland. The only Irishman on the Commission was the Earl of Donoughmore. He quite believed that the proposed reduction of railway fares would be of greater advantage to Ireland than even the abolition of the income tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer owed something to Ireland, because during the time that the right hon. Gentleman had been in office the taxation of that country had been very nearly doubled. No doubt the people would benefit very much by a reduction in the charges for passengers and goods, but such a reduction would hardly meet with much favour from the railway companies, because it was very possible that with high fares and few passengers a railway company might return to its shareholders a dividend of 10s. per cent more than it would do if conducted on a reduced tariff. He could quite understand that the doubling of the traffic on a railway would have the effect of enormously increasing the trouble and work of the officials, who, in the case of the experiment failing, would be blamed by the shareholders for want of judgment, and in case of success would receive neither credit nor benefit. Mr. Gait and others had shown that by a little temporary sacrifice there would be an ultimate gain to the Government. It was proposed to reduce the charges on goods to something like one-third of their present rate; to reduce the fares of third-class passengers to one farthing; second class to one half-penny; and first class to three farthings a mile. Even were there a pecuniary loss, he apprehended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could in some way deal with the question. It was suggested that the loss to England would be one-seventh of the gross traffic, and to Ireland of £250,000 annually. There were three or four ways by which the Government might deal with the question, and by which the reduction of fares might be effected. For instance, the Government might say to any railway in Ireland, "Reduce your fares and we will indemnify you for the loss, if there be any; while the gain, should there be a gain, shall be your own." There was another scheme, of paying over a certain sum to the railways in consideration of their adopting a low tariff under Government supervision. Or there was another, and perhaps a better plan, and it was this that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should purchase the Irish railways altogether. The net profits of those railways for some years past were on an average £800,000 a year. In 1862 they were £748,000, and in 1863 £768,000. The whole system might be bought at 25 years' purchase for £20,000,000, and this country would not lose by the bargain. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government ought not to give 20 millions for their purchase, because, amongst other things, it would lead to a vast amount of petty patronage. Such purchase would be an excellent thing for Irish shareholders, and it was well known that the Government could borrow at 3¼ per cent. Therefore the interest upon the£20,000,000 purchase money would not exceed £640,000, and supposing the Returns from the railways remained the same as now, there would be a profit from the transaction of £160,000 a year. By uniform management, however, there might be a saving of £50,000; or, in Mr. Dargan's opinion, of £200,000, and that would be so much additional gain. At present the Government paid £80,000 a year for conveyance of mails in Ireland, and a very large sum for carriage of troops and stores. All that might be saved, and it would not be too much to say that this country would be a gainer by the bargain which he recommended of from £350,000 to £500,000 a year. Now he would ask, had the Commissioners turned their attention at all to the subject of the railways of Ireland? He had reason to believe they had not. He wished to got rid of the present system altogether. If the Government should take the railways of Ireland into their hands, he should altogether object to their disposing of the consequent patronage according to their present system; and, indeed, he thought that other patronage besides that connected with railways should be disposed of in a judicial manner in open court, the reasons for the decisions arrived at being stated. As long as patronage remained nominally in the hands of the Crown, but really in the hands of the Ministers, the only satisfactory arrangement would be to require all appointments to be made in open court after examination of the competitors by competent judges. At present there was great dissatisfaction at the appointments made in connection with the Queen's Colleges, and people could not understand why it was that the most eminent men in Ireland were passed over. ["Question!"] He maintained that he was speaking strictly to the question, because the disposal of the patronage was an important element in the consideration of a proposition to hand over the railways to Government control. The present mode of managing railways was very unsatisfactory. It was notorious that Boards of Directors were always fighting for what they termed their section of country; and their fares were either low or high as competition existed or not. Where there was no competition there were very high and even prohibitory rates; where there was competition very low rates prevailed. He had endeavoured to ascertain the traffic rates for goods on Irish railways, but had been unable to do so, as there were no printed rates, and the Companies charged just what they pleased—a policy which in the result was prejudicial to their own interests, as people would not send any goods but what they were compelled by necessity to send. The goods charges were higher now between Dublin and Tipperary than they were before railways were introduced, and the only advantage was that of increased expedition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not confer a greater benefit upon Ireland than by contriving some mode by which, without serious loss to the revenue, or only a temporary loss, the interchange of produce could be facilitated. That could only be done by reducing the fares, and the reduction of fares could only be effected by the intervention of the Government.

said, that he trusted to the indulgence of the House while he addressed it for the first time. At first sight he was disposed to express his acquiescence in the spirit of the Resolution. He thought that inquiry would do good. But the more the existing state of Irish railways was inquired into the better, and the more honest the direction of those railways would be found to be. He had not, like other hon. Members, three methods to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which the mighty change that was contemplated might be accomplished; but in the language of the Mover of the Resolution, he would say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a bold man if he sought to carry it into effect. After seriously considering the matter he had come to the conclusion that the traffic upon Irish railways could only be a very limited quantity. He was one of the pioneers of the railway system in Ireland in 1845–6, believing that railways were the best means of improving the condition of the country. He accordingly induced numbers of persons in Ireland to put their hands into their pockets and contribute to a result that promised so much success. The system at first promised to be most successful. Those expectations, he would admit, had not been realized, owing to the wretched state of the country, not to any fault of the railway companies. He now felt bound to say, as a railway director, that notwithstanding every effort that had been made to regulate the fares and prices according to the traffic offered, the directors had been unable to augment that traffic to anything like a reasonable extent. Some anomalies of railway management had been flung at him, and he had been told that the Duke of Leinster, at Carton, near Maynooth, paid he did not know how many shillings a ton for the carriage of his coals. It was said that this happened because there was no competition at Maynooth. The fact was, however, that at this hamlet there was a most active competition between the railway and the canal. The rate charged for coals on the Midland Great Western Railway, over an extent of 300 miles, was only three farthings per ton per mile, and at that rate coals could hardly be carried with profit. Allusion had been made to the Earl of Clancarty, who was a director of the Midland Railway, and who, it was said, made a proposal to his brother directors that if they would reduce their rates and fares between Galway and Athlone to a certain minimum amount, he would pledge himself if there were loss to make up the deficiency. The directors, however, could not accept that offer without applying the same rates to the other portions of their railway, and there was no one to give a similar guarantee elsewhere. Having, however, done all in their power to assimilate the fares to the wants of the country, the directors were met by the fact that the traffic, as he had said, was a limited quantity, and could not be extended to anything like the amount necessary to make the reduction profitable. Mr. Gait, in his book, had made some very extraordinary proposals. He recommended that the fares should be reduced to an equality with those on the Belgian lines, to the extent of not less than two-thirds, so that the traveller would get for 6s. 8d. what he now paid £1 for. But when Mr. Gait made that proposal he forgot the Belgian railways were subsidized by the Government, and that they could afford to charge these low rates. He wished this system had been originally adopted in this country, and that the Government had taken into its hands the construction of all the lines. By this means competition would be avoided. What had competition done for Ireland? There were two railways between Dublin and Athlone, a town of 6,000 or 7.000 inhabitants. The second railway was granted in 1857, when the Royal Duke at the head of the Horse Guards gave evidence of the value of Athlone as a military station. The Committee were told that nothing ought to induce them to reject the opportunity of opening a communication between the metropolis and Athlone, that great emporium for the military. What was the state of Athlone now? There were a barrack and thirty-five acres of land there, which were left in the care of half a battery of artillery and a few men to keep the barrack in order. The Great Southern and Western and the Midland Great Western Railways had similar and harmonious fares and rates, and the traffic managers were instructed not to lose any traffic that could be made remunerative. His experience was quite adverse to any such sweeping reduction of rates of traffic as had been before suggested; but he, for one, should be delighted if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take under his protection the Irish railways, because everything he touched was turned into gold.

Before addressing myself to the Motion, there are two statements made in this discussion to which I feel bound to take exception. I cannot admit to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) that there has been any neglect of Ireland or Irish interests in the appointment of the Royal Commission. The hon. Gentleman says there are two or three Scotchmen on the Commission, but only one Irishman. He has investigated the question of nationality with an acuteness to which I cannot lay claim. We did not ascertain the birthplace of every Member of the Commission. But one Member of that Commission is a Peer of great ability (the Earl of Donoughmore) connected almost exclusively with Ireland. The Chairman of that Commission is a noble Duke, holding the first rank among Irish proprietors. Lord Stanley, another Member of the Commission, is directly and largeiy interested in Ireland; so that I think it can scarcely be said with justice that due regard was not, in the formation of the Commission, paid to that country. In noticing the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), I am not about to utter a single word which could prejudice the final judgment of this House as to the question whether it is or is not right or desirable that a pecuniary boon should be conferred by the United Kingdom at large on Ireland, or that any adjustment or re-settlement of the various questions connected with Irish taxation should not be at a fitting time undertaken. But I do protest against the assumption that there is a debt due from this country to Ireland on the specific ground that Ireland has been injured by the transition from a protective system to the system of free trade. Such an assumption I believe to be wholly and absolutely groundless. The right hon. Gentleman says that Ireland is importing wheat largely. What does that prove but the benefit which she derives from free trade?—because the price of wheat has, in consequence of free trade, greatly fallen. What does Ireland do with the land on which she formerly grew wheat? She raises oats upon it. Has the price of oats fallen owing to free trade? She raises flax and cattle. Has the price of either fallen because of free trade? For my own part, I think nothing is easier than to show the great advantages which Ireland has derived from the free trade system. I do not wonder, I may add, that several Gentlemen who have spoken in this debate have given great credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) for having called the attention of the House to a subject which is undoubtedly one of very great interest and importance. I am not surprised at my right hon. Friend's natural anxiety that the investigation of the circumstances and facts connected with Irish railways should not be postponed so as to come on as a mere postcript to a large and comprehensive inquiry. I am not prepared, on the part of the Government, to say that we could assent to the form of Address which he proposes, but I at the same time think it may be in my power to give him the assurance for which substantially he seems to me to ask, and that is that such measures that we can adopt we will adopt with the view of securing inquiry without delay into the circumstances of Irish railways. I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend in several of the propositions which he and others have laid down. It is quite true that the cost of railways is not the regulator of the rates of fares. It is true that it is hardly possible to estimate the advantages which low railway fares may confer on a country. It is true, as he has said, that the problem which he has raised, and manfully confronted, to-night—the difficult and serious problem relating to the intervention of Government in the concerns of railways—is to a certain extent limited and simplified in Ireland by the particular circumstances in which she is placed. I even go a step further, and admit that if it should be the desire of the Imperial Parliament to confer a pecuniary boon on Ireland there would probably be no mode in which that boon could be conferred so free from all taint of partiality, and at the same time so comprehensive and effective in its application, as some measure taken with the view to secure to her the benefits of cheap railway transit. That is a proposition which I look upon as being of very great importance; but there is, I regret to say, a point in the speech of my right hon. Friend at which I must part company from him. He seems to be of opinion that if the Government were to become purchasers of railways in Ireland—a proposal of vast moment even in the case of Ireland alone, one on which I do not presume to give any opinion, and in the consideration of which it is my duty to reserve to myself and to the Government entire and absolute freedom—it would be necessary for us in the first instance to take upon ourselves the working of those railways. Now, I have no hesitation whatever in asserting the negative of that proposition. I contend that under no circumstances, and for no time, however limited, ought the working of any railway in the country to pass under the direct superintendence of the Government. I look upon the objections to any function of that kind being undertaken by them as so strong as at once to oppose a barrier, supposing it to be an essential part of the proposed plan, to any further consideration of the subject. It has been justly observed by my right hon. Friend that there are various modes in which the Government, if after examining the subject they should deem it desirable to do so, might intervene with the view to secure for this country, or for Ireland, as a portion of the Empire, the benefit of cheaper carriage and transit by railway. We might intervene by purchase, by means of a guarantee, by becoming creditors of railways, taking up the debts for which they are liable, and affording them the benefit of a lower rate of interest. That would have the effect of making a large addition to the net surplus available for dividends, and would enable the Government to make better terms. We are not now, however, in a position to inquire into the merits or demerits of any one of these courses of proceeding; but I do not attach blame to any one that this discussion should have ranged over a wide field. We come, after all, to one question, and that is the question of investigation. Now, the expediency of investigating the facts, connected with our railway system generally has been admitted by the Government, the House, and the country at large. The question raised by my right hon. Friend is what place Irish railways ought to occupy in the inquiry, and he has made certain calculations of profit and loss which he thinks will follow the adoption of the measures which he recommends. He tells us, in general terms, that the gross receipts of Irish railways amount to £1,500,000; that of that sum £750,000, or 50 per cent, goes into the working expenses, and the remaining £750,000 is available for the satisfaction of debentures, preferential claims, and dividends on the ordinary shares. He thinks that if a reduction of fares and charges were made to one-third on an average of the present rate, the effect would be that the first loss consequent on the change would not be above £200,000 or £300,000 a year, and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) arrives at a somewhat similar conclusion. Now that, it appears to me, is a very sanguine Estimate. I am glad to hear that it is the opinion of a gentleman who is a great authority on the subject (Mr. Dargan) that a saving of £200,000 a year can be effected in the working charges of Irish railways. The hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Ennis) who has just addressed the House—and I am sure we should all wish to hear him again—did not advert to that part of the case, but he does not, I apprehend, share in the sanguine notion that the working expenses can be reduced to about 30 per cent, on the gross receipts. This is, however, a material calculation in the proposal of my right hon. Friend, who also gives the Government credit for being able to borrow any sum of money at any ordinary time at the rate of 3 or 3¼ per cent, If, however, he will study the present prices of the Funds he will find it represents not very far short of 3½ per cent. I mention that in order to show that if in order to take up £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 of debenture debt and preferential shares we were to ask for a loan of money to that amount we probably could not obtain it except at a rate exceeding 3½ per cent. The calculation, therefore, in this matter must not proceed on principles which are over-sanguine. But my right hon. Friend went on to speak of the important subject of the conveyance of coals, and he seems to think that a charge of ½d. a ton per mile might be taken as a fair and paying charge. I, however, apprehend that what would be a remunerative rate for the performance of the service depends on a great variety of circumstances which no general view could embrace. It depends on the quality of coals taken in the regular course of traffic, on the practicability of obtaining back freights of any kind, on the length of the journey, and on many other things. It would, therefore, be extremely unsafe for us if we were to allow ourselves to adopt or form any rapid conclusions with regard to the results to be achieved in a matter of this kind. I have admitted freely the great benefit which the reduction of fares and charges on railways is calculated to confer. The advantage accruing from it would, in my opinion, be enormous. It would pass with invigorating force through every fibre of the national system. But for that very reason let us not be seduced into any premature conclusions with respect to the cost at which that reduction could be effected. Nothing but the most minute, searching, and comprehensive investigation can possibly enable us to deal safely with a question of this kind. Being of that opinion we have committed it to the hands of gentlemen who will devote to it the time and labour which it demands, and I, for one, do not think it would be convenient for the public service that we should be tied down by the precise terms of the proposed Address. The proposition is that the Commissioners should be directed to turn their attention in the first instance to the Irish railway system. I apprehend, however, that they have already begun their investigation into the English system, and that they have proceeded to take vivá voce evidence with respect to it. It would, under those circumstances, I think, be inconvenient that we should ask Her Majesty to issue instructions which would have the effect of causing the Commission to break in upon the course of their proceedings, and to stop taking that evidence which has been already tendered. The Commission, if it thinks fit, may cause the facts relating to the Irish system to be collected' at the same time as those relating to the English system. The facts of the Irish system are of a far simpler character than those of the English system; for we have not in Ireland those extremely complicated matters of controversy which arise in England from the greater density of population and the more intricate system of competition. What I propose is that my right hon. Friend should withdraw his Motion, and I, on the part of the Government, undertake to use such measures as may be in our power to attain the object he has in view—namely, the examination of all the facts of the Irish railway system without delay and without prejudice to any portion of the subject. At the same time I must beg my right hon. Friend to understand that I hold out no promise to him, because it is much better that the executive Government should not proceed to frame a conclusion which must be hypothetical, and may be delusive, before we are in possession of the facts of the case. By using every endeavour for the early collection of the facts, we shall take the course which will enable my right hon. Friend at the earliest possible moment to make any proposition to the House which he may think fit, or, in case we may feel ourselves enabled to move in the matter, he will be in a position to follow his own course with regard to our proposition should he be dissatisfied with it. With regard to the latter part of the Resolution, which relates to the specific object of enabling us to determine whether the second clause of the general Act of 1844 should be applied to such railways in Ireland as it may be applicable to, I do not go along with my right hon. Friend. I agree with some who have spoken in attaching value to that Act of 1844 as deciding the main question of right in favour of Parliament and the public, if policy and expediency should also unite in deciding us to deal with that Act. But speaking generally, and especially in the case of Ireland, if there were to be any dealing with railways it ought not to be confined to those railways which are subject to the Act. The natural course would be to exclude all idea of mere compulsion in this case, and I do not think a satisfactory measure could be adopted if it were forced upon reluctant bodies of shareholders. What would be more satisfactory would be that amicable communications should take place, that they should not be confined to particular portions, but should embrace the whole system of Irish railways. These my right hon. Friend may think sufficient reasons for him not to press his Motion at the present time. I have every hope and confidence that the facts of the Irish railway system may be brought out within a reasonable period—I cannot say a very short time because this is a complicated matter—and placed before Parliament, so that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland may take any course on the subject which they may think their duty to their country dictates.

said, he wished to reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect to one point in which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into an error in consequence of having misconceived the intentions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be impressed with the idea that the Irish Members were asking for this measure as a boon to their country. That they utterly denied. They were asking for no boon, but as the highways of the country were the rights of the subjects, they asserted that it was as much the duty of the Government to protect the subject in the enjoyment of the means of travelling as in any other privilege that necessarily belonged to him. There could be no doubt that this was one of the most important questions affecting Ireland that could be brought under consideration at the present moment. The question had been introduced to the House in a most lucid and unanswerable speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). Under the present railway system the people of Ireland were almost deprived of the benefits to which they were entitled of travelling from place to place. It was proved that in Belgium persons were conveyed by railway at about one-third of the rate charged for the same distance in Ireland; nevertheless, the Belgian proprietors had much larger profits. The history of our railways in England proved the same fact. Some time ago, when a great competition existed, the London and North Western Railway Company reduced their fares for a distance of 340 miles from 60s. first-class, and 40s. second-class, to 7s. 6d. and 5s. respectively. And what was the result? Why, there was only a loss of 10s. per cent. That example was sufficient to show that low fares generally increased the dividend by the immense augmentation of the traffic which such a step was sure to produce. In his own country the Foynes Railway had at one time increased their fares for a certain dis- tance from 3s. 6d. to 4s. The consequence was a great falling-off in the traffic. The directors, seeing the error they had committed, reduced their fares, and from that moment the traffic had considerably increased. The great evil they had to contend against in Ireland was the jealousy and want of co-operation between the different lines of railway. He had himself been a director of one or two small railways, and he had found that owing to that jealousy the larger lines took every means to prevent the smaller lines from developing the traffic which they otherwise could do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a most satisfactory promise that the interests of Ireland should be consulted at the same time as those of England and Scotland; but he could not see the necessity for that elaborate and protracted investigation which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to anticipate. It was now twenty-one years since this subject was first mooted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the President of the Committee which sat upon the subject in 1844, introduced a Bill in that year which he carried through Parliament. All the anticipations then expressed by the right hon. Gentleman from that measure had since been more than realized. He stated that there was no likelihood that the experiment of the greatest possible cheapness to the public would be tried under the present system; and as it had not been tried during the last twenty-one years it was not probable that the public would obtain the benefit of such an experiment in the future. Also in remarking upon the receipts of the railway companies, which were then only £5,000,000, he said he did not think he was extravagant in his expectations when he anticipated an increase of receipts to £15,000,000 in some few years hence, and dwelt upon the importance of having a Government supervision of so large an expenditure. Well, the receipts now amounted to £36,000,000 a year—being much more than double what the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated. This was a question deserving the best consideration of the Government, who could perform no worthier act than to take into their hands the supervision of those railways. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) spoke of the prosperous state of the country through which he passed in his tour last autumn, it should be recollected that he had avoided altogether the southern and western districts of Ire- land, where misery of the most extreme character prevailed. Now he (Colonel Dickson) believed that nothing would lead more to the reduction of that misery than the development of the resources of the country by means of railways with low fares and under the supervision of the Government. In his own part of the country there were some millowners who were obliged still to send their produce by means of ordinary cars and carts over the old roads instead of by railway. All the Irish Members asked was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would but carry out those views in respect to Ireland which he had expressed twenty-one years ago.

said, he could not let the debate close without expressing his heartfelt gratification at the mode in which this subject had been treated. It was most satisfactory that the peculiar circumstances of Ireland in reference to its railway system should have been considered in such an admirable spirit and temper by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Irish Members especially owed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) a deep debt of gratitude for the able and argumentative manner in which he had brought this question under the consideration of the House. He (Mr. Lefroy) must also express his satisfaction at the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated this question, which filled him with hope for the future. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in the objection which he entertained to the Government undertaking the management of railways, though it would be well if they would to a limited extent undertake their control.

said, that after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was all that he wished for, he could not have the slightest hesitation in withdrawing the Motion.

said, he rose, with reference to the Despatch of Earl Russell to Her Majesty's Embassies at Berlin and Vienna of the 8th instant, concerning the recognition of the Provisional flag of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the following construction of that Despatch is correct:—First, that in recognizing the said Flag, Her Majesty's Government intend to grant to the ships bearing it the rights which belonged to the ships of the Duchies before their separation from Denmark, but only provisionally, and until the definite constitution of the Duchies is settled; secondly, that in saving the rights of the States of Holstein and Schleswig and of the German Confederation, Her Majesty's Government recognizes the rights of the said States to express their will as to their Constitution and as to the question of Succession, and that though the German Confederation has a right to decide for Holstein, the territory of Schleswig is beyond its control, and therefore the final settlement of both Duchies must receive the sanction of the great European Powers. He was induced to address to the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs the Question of which he had given notice by his anxiety that there should be no doubt or misapprehension as to the course adopted by the Government, and the terms on which this country stood with the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein and the German Powers. It was important for the peace of Europe, and therefore for the welfare of this country, that Germany should be powerful; but she could be so only by the unanimity of her inhabitants, and the possibility of such unanimity was destroyed by the conduct of the Minister of Prussia. He was seeking to bribe his countrymen by obtaining for them that to which they had no claim—the annexation of Schleswig and Holstein, or a paramount influence in those countries. That Prussia, as well as Austria, was aware of the groundlessness of the claim was proved by their joint declaration at the London Conference of 28th May, 1864, whereby they demanded the—

"Complete separation of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark, and their re-union in one State-under the sovereignty of the Hereditary Prince of Augustenburg, who not only could show his right to the satisfaction of all Germany, and whose recognition by the Diet was therefore certain, but who united the suffrages of the immense majority of the inhabitants of those countries."

Prussia knew that Austria would never listen for a moment to any such proposal were it not for her own fears in Italy, and the possibility that she might require the aid of Prussia for the preservation of her non-German provinces. Prussia had acknowledged the rights of Denmark with a view to induce her to cede them to herself. But Prussia had said in the declaration he had just quoted that Den- mark had no rights to cede, as after the death of the late King the Duke of Augustenburg became the Sovereign of the Duchies. Prussia and Austria, the actual copartners in the government of the Duchies, did not grant that which France and England had repeatedly urged—namely, that the voice of the inhabitants should be heard. The Parliaments of Schleswig and Holstein were freely elected; in the days of the Danish sovereignty they were annually assembled; but since the commencement of the present difficulties they had never been summoned. They ought to be called together, and the question of the succession submitted to them. Prussia sought to settle it without them, to gain over some great landowners to her side, and to accept their sentiments as the voice of the nation. In this they deceived themselves and sought to deceive others. Thus, Count Charles Plessen's declaration, aiming indirectly at annexation with Prussia, at the end of six weeks received less than 200 signatures. A counter-declaration in ten days received 46,000. The "immense majority," according to the Austrian and Prussian Note of May, 1864, were for their own legitimate Sovereign. They desired him as their independent ruler. Prussia was not content with keeping the Duchies in diplomatic, commercial, and military affairs dependent on the Cabinet of Berlin; she sought to absorb them altogether. It was notorious that the Duke of Augustenburg was willing to consent to any terms to which Austria, Prussia, and the Confederation, all three, would consent; but this did not satisfy Prussia. She wished conditions with herself alone, and for her sole advantage. The means resorted to by the Prussian Government to carry their object were such as would excite astonishment here, accustomed as we were to the frank, straightforward and truthful proceedings of our Ministers, of whatever political party. Handbills and papers signed "an inhabitant," but coming from Berlin, were circulated by thousands in the Duchies; they contained the most palpable and absurd falsehoods, exaggerations, misrepresentations and aspersions on the character and intentions of the Duke of Augustenburg; and they appealed to the lowest prejudices, hopes, and fears of the inhabitants. He held one in his hand, in which the Schleswig-Holsteiners were told that if they had an independent Government under the sovereignty of the Duke they would have to pay the whole expenses of the war, which would be exacted to the last farthing; whereas, united with Prussia those expenses would be borne by the whole kingdom, and the inhabitants of the Duchies would hardly feel them. Under a separate Government the taxe3 would amount to 87 dollars per head; but, united with Prussia, to not more than 14 dollars. In the Kreutz Zeitung and the Nord Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, the semiofficial journals circulated in Berlin, the Duke of Augustenburg was represented as a low democrat, while in the papers circulated in the Duchies and worked by the Prussians themselves he was described as a bloodthirsty aristocrat who intended to re-establish serfdom, and the like. It was, however, remarkable, and indeed somewhat amusing, that all this, instead of acting in the sense desired, had an exactly contrary effect, the Schleswig-Holsteiner being particularly inaccessible to this sort of underhand work, which only rendered him suspicious and more obstinate in the maintenance of his own opinions. Pour months ago Prussia might have done almost anything she liked with the Duchies, short of getting them to break their solemn word plighted to the Duke. Now she was fast advancing to occupy the position vacated by Denmark. The whole and sole cause of this was the unjust, faithless, and unscrupulous conduct of the Minister of Prussia. This policy of Prussia failed in its object; it produced a feeling of shame among the most honourable and enlightened people at Berlin and throughout the entire kingdom, and excited the jealousy and hostility of the rest of Germany. He contended that we in England suffered from it. We wanted Germany to be a Power of the first importance in Europe—perhaps we even wanted her to be the most powerful country in Europe—as a conservative and peace-preserving nation in the midst of the continent. Further, we knew that a confederation of States was not the moat efficient machinery for government in times of difficulty. We wished to see Germany guided and led by some wise and powerful Government. We should wish to see her under that of Prussia, if Prussia were under the rule of a Ministry temperate, honest, and constitutional. The most effective guarantee of European equilibrium was to be found in a strong Germany and an united Italy. Nothing would gratify us more than to see Prussia strengthened by organic union with such portions of Northern Germany as might enter such a union voluntarily, and even in case of attack from Russia or France, disposing of the military and naval forces of those portions of the Fatherland. We should rejoice to see a North German navy. Such a force would furnish an additional guarantee for peace on the ocean, and peace on sea and land and orderly government everywhere were the objects most to be desired by a commercial country like our own. In the ambitious aggressions of Prussia we saw danger for the tranquillity of Europe. We know that Prussia had Rhine provinces not very attached to her, and we do not wish that she should afford to the French Emperor an excuse to seize them by way of compensation. But it was only too apparent that voluntary and mutually defensive union with the Duchies was not the object sought by Prussia. He should not say Prussia, but M. Bismark, the present Minister of Prussia. His aim was to add the Duchies to the Kingdom as a means of gaining popularity for himself, reconciling the Prussians to his rule, and diverting their attention from home politics and constitutional privileges. He believed, and confidently anticipated, that the attempt would fail. His anticipations rested on his confidence in the love of justice and truth of the whole German nation, especially of the people of Prussia. He did not believe that they, or their free representatives, would be seduced by the acts of the Minister; that they would surrender the constitutional rights and liberties of their country for the sake of obtaining Kiel as a Prussian harbour, or the Eider Canal as a Prussian water way. They would insist on justice being done to the long injured, but steadfast and determined, inhabitants of the Duchies, and this alone could restore to Germany the unanimity which would render her really powerful against any threat from without, and retain for her her just influence and true character—that of a mighty conservative Power in the midst of Europe, with populations well governed, prosperous, and contented, able to curb the ambition of France on the one side and the aggressions of Russia on the other, and gradually, but surely, advancing in material welfare and in all that appertains to true freedom and the blessings of constitutional orderly government.

said, that the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) had addressed himself to the task of proving that Prussia was deceiving, or attempting to deceive, the inhabitants of Schleswig, but he had forgotten to tell them the part he had acted last Session. The hon. Baronet forgot that he and those who thought with him, had witnessed with something like pleasure, the intervention of Prussia and Austria on behalf of what the House had been told were "oppressed nationalities." They had been told last year by those hon. Gentlemen how badly Denmark treated the people of the Duchies; how she compelled them to speak Danish instead of High Dutch, and subjected them to other oppressions of that character. But now, on the showing of the hon. Baronet, it would appear that Prussia treated the feelings of the people of the northern portion of Schleswig with more contempt than had ever been exhibited towards the other portions of the Duchies by Denmark. He could not think that any Englishman could be satisfied with the state of things now existing but last year the hon. Baronet could not see that the idea of Prussia, a semi-despotic Power, which held other nationalities in oppression, coming forward to emancipate the people of the Duchies was the merest delusion. It was some satisfaction to those who had opposed her designs to find the hon. Baronet confessing the delusion. The hon. Baronet was now surprised that Prussia should have but one object in view—her own aggrandizement. He, also, was astonished; but his astonishment was at the hon. Baronet's being surprised; for he thought that what was so obvious now was quite as obvious last year.

said, that his hon. Friend (Sir Harry Verney) had placed on the paper two questions; but he had not put those questions to him, nor had his speech any relation to them. Last year the hon. Baronet was a most earnest advocate of the measures which the German Powers were then taking with regard to the Danish Provinces, while his hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) and himself endeavoured to check his sympathies for those oppressed nationalities. Last year his hon. Friend was most anxious that Her Majesty's Government should not interfere. Well, with respect to the first part of the question, he had to state that Her Majesty's Government had not interfered since the termination of the war; and he had no information to give as to what was taking place in the Duchies of Schleswig Holstein. When the Duchies were sepa- rated from Denmark they were placed in a very anomalous position. They were not a part of the territories of Prussia and Austria, and they were not a part of Denmark. The Duchies had ports and shipping, and it was necessary that they should have a flag, and it was thought necessary by Her Majesty's Government to give a provisional recognition to that flag. With regard to the second part of the Question, his hon. Friend attached admissions to that recognition which he could not countenance. By recognizing the flag Her Majesty's Government merely gave it a provisional status, and it was not intended thereby to recognize any rights of Prussia and Austria, or any right of the Germanic Confederation. It was merely a matter of convenience. When Her Majesty's Government provisionally recognized the flag, they did not by that act admit the rights of either one party or the other.

said, that when the inhabitants of Cornwall represented to the Government last year that they ought to have a separate diocese created, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department said he could not entertain the question until the re-organization of other dioceses in England, besides that of Exeter was being arranged. He was afraid that if the inhabitants of Cornwall were obliged to wait for that step to be taken they might have to wait a long time. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he trusted that the increased facilities in regard to travelling would put an end to the inconvenience which had been felt by the people of Cornwall in consequence of their bishop residing at a distant part of the diocese. But that great inconvenience had not been removed. The county of Cornwall stood by itself. The diocese of Exeter was without a parallel. It now included the county of Cornwall, contained an area of 2,000,000 square acres, and a population of more than 1,000,000. From the residence of the bishop to the extreme point of the diocese was nearly 120 miles, exclusive of the Scilly Isles, which was about twenty miles from Cornwall. The Archbishop of Canterbury thought that the present diocese of Exeter ought to be divided, and his Grace and the bishops and clergy of the Archdiocese of Canterbury in Convocation assembled had adopt- ed a memorial expressing that view. The Bishop of Exeter had exhibited those good qualities, and exercised all the superintendence which it was possible for a prelate to do, but it was physically impossible for one man to attend to the requirements of the diocese, and the bishop was in favour of the severance proposed. Moreover, the Chapter of Exeter and the clergy of Cornwall had joined in a recommendation for the severance. The want of a new bishop was exceedingly felt in West Cornwall, and it was not merely a modern requirement, for Henry VIII. had proposed to create a new bishopric there. He trusted that the Government would be prepared to satisfy the wishes and wants of the people of that part of the kingdom, and he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If Her Majesty's Government will sanction the severance of the county of Cornwall from the diocese of Exeter, and the erection of that county into a separate See?

said, he hoped the House would allow him to offer a few remarks upon this subject in its more general aspect, and he did so because, in the letter of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department to the Archbishop of Canterbury, last year, the question of a bishop for Cornwall was blended with the question of more bishops throughout England. When the Reformation of the English Church took place it was intended to extend the number of bishops by twenty, but that idea was not carried out, and since that period the great increase of the population had increased the want of bishops. He believed that all who had an opportunity of coming into contact with the bishops must have felt that they were an overburdened and overworked body of men. As a practical man, he feared that the idea of a large extension of the episcopate must be abandoned for the present. It would be in vain to ask the House of Commons to give the country some thirty or forty more bishops, in accordance with the requisitions of some more sanguine churchmen, but a more moderate course had been proposed. The third and final Report of the Cathedral Commission recommended the creation of four new bishoprics—namely, Westminster, Southwark, Cornwall, and the division of Gloucester and Bristol. During the late sittings of the Convocations, there was a remarkable concurrence of opinion. The Convo- cation of Canterbury recommended three new bishoprics—namely, Southwark, Bodmin or Truro, and Southwell, and the Convocation of York, three—namely, St. Alban's, Southwark, and Bodmin or Truro. Both Convocations agreed that the populations inhabiting the dioceses of London, Manchester, Exeter, and Lichfield, were those which ought to be served by an augmentation. His own opinion was, that if the Church were allowed to be free in this matter, and were granted some assistance from the Episcopal Fund in the hands of the Commission, there would soon be sufficient funds. If the same temper and spirit were shown in regard to dioceses as had been exhibited in reference to parishes, there would result from the action of the friends of the Church a subdivision of the dioceses, and the same advantages would follow as now flowed from a subdivision of parishes. He hoped that the expressions made use of in the last cathedral Report would be received by the Government with favour. There was a growing opinion out of doors in favour of an increase of the episcopate, and this was especially manifested on every occasion when members of the Church met together, and especially in the Congresses at Bristol, Manchester, and Oxford. He was sure that great benefit would follow to the Church if a considerable and speedy increase were made in the number of its chief pastors, who, he believed, were gaining in public estimation. No inconvenience would arise from acceding to the concession asked by the hon. Member for Bodmin.

said, he hoped it would not go forth that there was any purpose of increasing the number of bishops from three to thirty. He thought that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) had only done a natural thing in bringing forward that subject, considering the constituency he represented; and that the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell), acted upon by a like influence, also naturally favoured an addition to the number of Church dignitaries. But it would, in his opinion, be a great misappropriation of the funds under the control of the Ecclesiastical Commission if a set of new bishoprics were now to be created and endowed. As to the endowment of new bishoprics by means of money raised by Churchmen, it would be time enough to deal with that proposal when the money had really been subscribed for it. [Mr. F. S. POWELL; In one case £9,000 has been promised.] The clergy did not desire an increase of episcopal authority. If anybody sought to gather from a clergyman what his idea of a bishop was, he would find that he regarded a bishop as a person who held an exalted station as a prize for superior learning or some other qualities, and that the last thing he would admit was that a bishop ought to exercise authority over him. The real want of the Church was not more bishops, but more efficient ministers, who would devote themselves to benefiting and instructing the poorer classes of the community, and bringing within the pale—he would not say of the Church, but of the religion of the country—masses of the people who were in as complete a state of atheism or heathenism as the inhabitants of Central Africa.

said, that the question of the hon. Member for Bodmin was entirely confined to a division of the diocese of Exeter, by separating from it the county of Cornwall. On that subject the opinions of the Government were expressed very fully in a letter which he had addressed at the beginning of last year to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and which had been laid before Parliament. In that letter he had stated the objections of the Government to the adoption of that scheme. It was impossible to treat the diocese of Exeter as an exceptional case, or to deal with it without any reference to other dioceses, as indeed had been implied by the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Powell.) He was aware that a strong desire existed in some parts of the diocese of Exeter for its division, and that a contest had already commenced between the towns of Bodmin and Truro as to which of the two should become the cathedral city in the event of such a division taking place. He gave all due weight to the considerations founded on the very large area of the existing diocese of Exeter; but there were six other dioceses with larger populations, and some of them with a very extended area, and in some of those six a desire had also been expressed in favour of their division. That was the case in regard to the diocese of Durham some years ago, but now the desire for its division had considerably abated, owing to the activity of the late and present bishops of Durham, and zeal that had been shown in the efficient discharge of their episcopal duties. A similar wish had likewise been strongly expressed in respect to the diocese of Win- chester, and claims had been set up for the creation of a bishopric of Southward, as had also at one time been the case as to Westminster. In his letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury to which he had referred, he had said—

"Looking to the whole of England, it will be seen that there are several dioceses which, although they do not quite equal that of Exeter in extent of area, yet combine the two elements of a very extensive area and a very large population. If, therefore, Her Majesty should be advised to accede to the present proposal, and to direct measures to be taken with the concurrence of Parliament for the creation of a separate See for Cornwall, it would scarcely be possible to refuse to entertain similar applications in respect of other dioceses, and great inconvenience would result from the separate consideration of each case, apart from its relation to the whole country and to other dioceses."

With regard to the diocese of Exeter, he believed that no bishop had been more active in the discharge of his duties while his years and his strength enabled him to attend to them than the venerable prelate who now presided over that diocese; but, considering his advanced age, it was impossible that the diocese could now derive all the benefit which it formerly enjoyed from his personal superintendence. Still it is not necessary to assume that the diocese of Exeter must necessarily suffer from a deficiency of episcopal supervision, the bishop having made an arrangement by which, under the authority of an Act of Parliament, he had appointed an ex-colonial bishop to assist him in his duties of a spiritual nature. With regard to the general question, the Government felt that it was one involving many important considerations, and they did not think there was at present any such necessity for a general revision of the boundaries of dioceses as demanded the immediate attention of Parliament. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in a letter to him on the subject of the division of the diocese of Exeter, said he found—

"That there was no indisposition to raise a considerable sum of money in the diocese towards the endowment of a bishopric for Cornwall;"

and in his reply to his Grace he had said—

"But Her Majesty's Government do not understand that the whole of the requisite endowment for a new See would be thus provided. If any considerable portion of such endowment, or of other expenditure incident to the creation of a new See, would have to be provided out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission, it would be a matter for grave consideration whether it would be more conducive to the highest interests of the Church, and the spiritual welfare of the people, that these funds should be appropriated to an increase of the episcopate, than that they should be applied as they are now in increasing the means of spiritual instruction in places where existing endowments for the clergy are confessedly inadequate."

If four or five new bishoprics were created, a sum of from £20,000 to £30,000 a year would have to be deducted from funds which were now being applied most usefully for the benefit of the Church and the spiritual welfare of the people, in the augmentation of small livings and the employment of additional clergy in populous districts. He did not think it would be expedient to divert existing funds from those purposes. As to the spiritual wants of Westminster, he had not heard recently of any complaints of the Bishop of London being unable to superintend that part of the dioceses; and if a new bishopric were created there, he (Sir George Grey) thought it would be a diversion of money from objects of great importance to one not really required. Considering the present greatly increased facilities of communication by railway and by post, which facilitate the superintendence of a diocese of large extent—and considering also the zeal and activity evinced by many of the bishops, he did not think that any sufficient ground existed at present for entertaining the general question of a readjustment of the boundaries of dioceses, nor could he hold out any hope to his hon. Friend that the Government could now recommend the Crown to take steps for dividing the diocese of Exeter.

said, that he wished, before Parliament separated for the holidays, to say a few words on a most important subject, he meant the great disaster that had befallen the expedition to Bhootan. The loss of two guns to any portion of Her Majesty's army was a circumstance which so seldom happened that he thought some special inquiry should be made concerning it. It appeared that on the borders of Bengal was a district inhabited by the semi-savages of Bhootan, who had made such repeated incursions some time ago, that it was considered necessary that an expedition should be sent into the territory. That expedition was planned last year, at considerable expense. It was well planned; it advanced into Bhootan, and was successful. A portion of the Bhootan territory, whether rightly or wrongly he should not presume to say, was annexed, the Natives were said to be satisfied with British rule, and the whole expedition was supposed to be over. The expedition cost upwards of half a million of money. A very slight loss occurred in men from the enemy, but a large proportion, possibly one-third, of the expedition, perished from disease. Scarcely, however, had the European force been withdrawn and replaced by a civil force of police and Native troops, than it was found that they had been made the victims of a ruse on the part of the people of Bhootan. Suddenly an attack was made on us; the forts we possessed were taken, and a force, under the command of British officers, was obliged to retreat in complete confusion with the loss of two guns. This was a most important circumstance in itself, from the loss sustained, and more especially from the effect it would have on the whole frontier which separated Hindostan from the other parts of Asia. He hoped the Secretary of State for India would give the House what information he could on this subject. The original circumstance of the expedition to Bhootan was, he thought, open to very great doubt indeed. He would go farther, and say that Mr. Ashley Eden, the gentleman sent on that expedition, the Envoy who suffered the insult which led to this expedition, had previously played no unimportant part in India. He had been the cause of the quarrels between Europeans and Natives on the question of indigo, and no doubt that gentleman had not displayed the discretion and prudence to be expected from persons deputed by the Government of India to manage important affairs. That gentleman certainly received no praise for his conduct either in India or in England on that occasion, and the disputes which his conduct was the primary cause of occasioning, led to very disastrous consequences in Bengal. It was extraordinary that a gentleman who had not signalized himself by any prudence in the position which he previously occupied should have been selected for this very delicate mission as an Envoy to Bhootan. That was one of the points in which the Government of India was, perhaps, open to blame, but he was unwilling to discuss the question till the papers were laid before them. He hoped the Secretary of State for India would explain how a territory of this sort, recently annexed, was left with so small a guard, and as he had the telegraph at his command, he would give them his views as to the Governor General's allowing the Government of Bengal to take this matter into their own hands. While it was in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief the affair was successful, why then was it left to the inferior Government of Bengal? He did not wish to prejudge the question, but the circumstances were of so exceptional a nature that he hoped the fullest explanation would be given before the House separated for the holidays. They all knew what was the effect of the slightest disaster in a country situated like India; and they had seen on a former occasion how great a flame a little spark had kindled. No doubt all over the frontier this disaster would be immensely magnified. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give them at the earliest opportunity all the papers relating to this subject, accompanied with a good map, so that they might be enabled to understand the whole question, and that a full inquiry into it would be made.

said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that any European force was sent to Bhootan. It appeared to him that the same mistake which was committed last year in the Hill war on our North Western frontier had been repeated this year in Bhootan—namely, that of despising the enemy. In defence, however, of the conduct of the 43rd Regiment Native Infantry, which ran away from Dewangiri, he had authority for stating that that regiment went into action with but one European officer beside the colonel fit for duty. It was notorious that Asiatic troops would not behave well in action when they were under-officered, and all the Native regiments in India were in this state, owing to the right hon. the Secretary for India, in spite of all warnings and protests, converting the regular Native troops into irregulars, and thus reducing the number of officers from twenty-four to six. Besides which, the unfortunate system that had been introduced in carrying out the amalgamation order had had the effect of making commanding officers entire strangers to their men, and destroying the sympathy which used formerly to exist between them. In fact, no officer could now-a-days lead into action, as in the old time, men with whom he had been acquainted since his boyhood. With regard to this war there had unquestionably been great mismanagement, and the time that was suffered to elapse between the insult offered to our Envoys by the Bhootan Court and the despatch of troops to avenge it had been attended with the worst results. In dealing with barbarians like the Bhootans promptitude of action was necessary, for they attributed inaction to hesitation and fear. Moreover, instead of employing a Native force, of which, with the exception of the Ghoorkas, all seemed to have behaved more or less badly, it would have been better had we organized, in the first instance, a compact, flying European column, for whose operations when the war first commenced the weather was very favourable, it being the commencement of the cold season. This course was, he believed, now being taken, but much valuable time had been lost. Looking to the advanced season, he feared that our gallant European troops would suffer greatly from malaria and cholera. It appeared to him that instead of that feeble policy of occupying a few trumpery passes, our troops ought to have marched boldly into the heart of the country, and after inflicting a severe blow on a despicable enemy, armed with bows and arrows, have concluded a peace and retired from their sterile hills. That might have been effected with comparatively little loss of life and treasure, and without injury to our prestige. This was the course pursued by that clear-minded man, Lord Ellenborough, on the occasion of the second advance of our troops into Affghanistan, and it had been attended with the best results, for we had commanded the respect of that warlike nation ever since.

said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would give the House some information as to how it was the local Bengal Government had been suffered to act instead of the Supreme Government, and whether the Commander-in-Chief was responsible. It appeared that the local Government were responsible for sending the Native troops without European officers, and it was highly improper that any local Government should be allowed to plunge the Government into war.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject was somewhat in error when he spoke of the European troops in the expedition. The great fault that was to be found with those who had projected it was that no Europeans whatever had been employed, except some twenty artillerymen for the management of the two Armstrongs, which, he was sorry to say, had been deplorably lost in the disgraceful flight from Dewangiri. The House had very little information with respect to this expedition. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) he believed had received little. But if he had received any he had certainly not revealed it to the public. So far as the facts had reached him (Mr. Torrens), it appeared that the operations of the force were attended with tolerable success during the season favourable to their employment; but when that period had elapsed, and many of the English officers became too ill to remain in the country, their number was consequently diminished, even the Native men were reduced by half; and the sad disaster of Dewangiri took place. It had been stated in a letter from Calcutta, which had been yesterday published in The Times, that the 43rd Native Infantry—composed, as he understood, entirely of Assamese who were a very cowardly race—were left to garrison the stockade at Dewangiri. But many of these men were only enlisted in October, the very month that this war begun, who had never been drilled, and were the first to run away from their post. The consequence was, that the rest of the regiment, too, also misbehaved; they ran away, and we lost our guns. Now, was it fair to leave British officers in command of such a rabble, some of whom were stated in the letter to which he had referred not to have received a day's drill. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, in reply to a question last evening, that an inquiry would be instituted into the management of this expedition. But who was to institute it? Was it the Governor General, or Mr. Beadon, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, who were both responsible for the grievous ill-management of the expedition? The Governor General must be held responsible for sending an expedition into a difficult and mountainous country, composed of a bad description of Natives, solely without any European force to support—doing this in the teeth of all Indian experience, which shows that for the lengthened operations of a campaign Natives are not to be relied on unless they are sustained by British bayonets. He thought the inquiry ought to be instituted in England. As to the fate of our soldiers, who in the rainy and hot season were to be pushed forward into that ill-provided country, he would not dwell upon it, but he looked forward to the consequences with great apprehension. He hoped the House would receive from the right hon. Gentleman complete information upon the subject as far as it could be given.

said, he was puzzled as to how he should set about answering the various conflicting and inconsistent statements which had been made by hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in this debate. Indeed, many of the statements which had been alleged seemed to him to be the reverse of the truth. The hon. Gentleman who had first spoken stated that the Government had withdrawn the European troops from the expedition. But the fact was that no European troops had been sent, and none having been sent none could be withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman then said that, though our loss at first was small, he understood that we had since then lost one-third of our men. [Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR: It appears so from the newspapers.] He (Sir Charles Wood) could not account for the reports in the newspapers; but he could say this, that we had lost neither one-third nor any considerable portion of our force. The whole statement, in fact, appeared so entirely without foundation that he was at a loss to conceive whence it could have come. [Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR: Have not two guns been lost?] The hon. Gentleman, again, had talked of the immense loss we had sustained in the occupation of the Dooars. But he (Sir Charles Wood) informed the House last night that the actual loss, in effecting that occupation, except what had occurred from an accidental explosion, was only five men. What we had lost since then he could not pretend to say, but it might be forty or fifty men. However, instead of attempting to follow the various statements which had been made, perhaps the best course to take, and that most satisfactory to the House, would be to give a history of what had actually taken place. And in the first place he might be allowed to say that the papers which had been laid upon the table would afford the most complete information up to the time of the occupation. The India Office had been most desirous to give every information which could throw light upon the question, and the papers had been ready for some time, but the noble Lord had asked for a map in order to illustrate the operations; and so defective were the materials at their command, that the office had been employed for a long time in collecting the necessary information for making a map, and it was only at the commencement of last week that they had succeeded in doing so. The delay that had taken place, then, was entirely owing to the anxiety of the Department to furnish the House with this map. For many years past inroads had been made by the people of Bhootan into our territories, and before the mutiny broke out it had been determined by the Indian Government to send an expedition into that country with the view of bringing the aggressors to account, and also to rescue a number of British subjects who had been carried off into slavery. The mutiny, of course, put an end for the time to any idea of the sort, and when Lord Elgin went to India he was anxious, in conformity with the directions which he had received from home, to avoid having recourse to a military expedition. Lord Elgin, therefore, determined to send a mission to the capital of Bhootan, in order to make arrangements with the authorities there for the restoration of the British subjects who had been carried into captivity, and to obtain some security against future aggression. There was no reason at the time to apprehend that the mission would be ill received, because a former one had been treated with the utmost consideration and courtesy. And here he wished to say that the Government had no reason to believe that Mr. Eden was not, in all respects, a perfectly fit person for such a mission. On the contrary, that gentleman had conducted a mission to Sikhim, with great ability, and in this last occasion he had behaved with remarkable discretion in a position of great difficulty. The mission, however, was entirely unsuccessful in obtaining redress, and it would be perfectly impossible for any Government, which had a regard for its own honour, to submit to the indignities which had been offered to it in the person of its envoy. The circumstances to which he alluded took place in the course of last summer, and it was then determined that measures should be adopted in order to force from the Bhootan Government redress for the injuries which it had inflicted upon British subjects. It would have been perfect madness to send our troops into that country in the hot season. The advance was made at the earliest moment which was consistent with the health of our troops, and that was about the 1st of December—only a few months after Mr. Eden's return. There was no unnecessary delay subsequent to the return of Mr. Eden. It would be seen by the papers that there were three courses suggested as possible to be pursued with the view of bringing the Bhootans to reason. One was the permanent annexation of Bhootan, the second was the temporary occupation of the country, and the third was the occupation of the Dooars, a portion of which we had always held, including the occupation of the passes from the hill country through which plundering expeditions had been made, and by the holding of which passes protection would be given to the people below against the inroads of the highlanders. He was entirely against the annexation of Bhootan, and he also objected to the temporary occupation; because, looking at the total disorganization of the Government of the country, it would be difficult for any sovereign chief with whom we might make a treaty to hold his position unless he had our support, and this would involve us in the internal concerns of that country. That was a policy which it would be wise to avoid. The course which was recommended—the occupation of the Dooars—met the approbation of all those persons who were best acquainted with the locality, was determined upon by the Government of India, sanctioned by the Commander-in-Chief and by the Home Government. This course was adopted because it was the least expensive, would lead to least subsequent mischief, would be most likely to attain the end in view, and promote the welfare of the people. In the beginning of December a force which had been determined upon by the Government of India, and placed under the command of a general officer, advanced for the purpose of occupying the portion of the country to which he had referred, and that occupation was so successful that had it not been for the accidental explosion of a mortar, they would only have lost five men up to the end of December. Our troops were in the occupation of the forts, and no resistance was offered. The whole undertaking had been under the direction of the Government of India. The Government of Bengal being a local Government, was quite subordinate to the Government of India. Towards the end of January the Bhooteahs assembled in force in front of two of our positions, but we still retained possession of the two places, Buxa and Dalimkote, which the hon. Gentleman said we had lost. Dewangiri was abandoned because it was cut off from any supply of water, and we were not driven from it by any attack made upon the troops. The officer conducting the evacuation, having to remove his two guns by manual labour, and the strength of men dragging them failing, spiked them, and threw them over a precipice, into a narrow valley, and did not lose them through any attack of the enemy. The men of the 43rd had behaved gallantly, so far as the information which had reached this country enabled him to judge. The hon. Member for Windsor said that there were not European officers enough with the regiments, and blamed the reduction of the numbers attached to the old regular regiments; but he must remember that the number of European officers with the old irregular regiments was only three, and many of; the most gallant actions ever fought in India had been fought by regiments so organized. An alteration had been lately made, by which six European officers were appointed instead of three.

What he said was, that we had regular Native regiments and irregulars, and we had reduced the officers from twenty-four to six.

That was perfectly true; but it was equally true that many of the best actions in India had been fought by those regiments in which there were only three European officers. At the present moment there was no resistance on the greater part of the territory which we occupied, and the troops still maintained the position which they had occupied. He hoped by the next mail to receive more accurate information of what had occurred upon the subject. It was not quite fair to condemn the officers and men upon the scanty information which had been received. No official report had been forwarded. He thought the account which came to this country of great disasters was entirely unfounded, and he had received no information which would lead him to suppose that any great loss had been sustained.

said, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, When the repairs to the Landing Pier at Holyhead will be finished, whether the works recommended by the Committee will be carried out, and if not finished when they will be finished? At present passengers were put to much inconvenience in landing and embarking there.

said, the Committee referred to had not recommended any particular plan. There were two plans considered, and the Members of the Committee were more favourable to one than to the other, but there was no definite recommendation that it should be adopted. He was aware their opinion was that an endeavour should be made to carry out the second plan. That had been done, and he had received a communication from the engineer, and also from the harbour-master at Holyhead, to the effect that the works, so far as the accommodation of steam vessels was concerned, had been completed. A sheltered berth had been provided for the incoming steamer, where the passengers might be landed without delay, and also a berth from which the out-going steamer would take in her passengers and go to sea without difficulty. If the Dublin and Holyhead Steam Packet Company did not avail themselves of these sheltered berths the Government could not help it. Their practice was to take in their passengers and land them at the end of the wooden jetty, but by coming a little further up they would come to the sheltered berth, where there could be very little swell. In accordance with one of the suggestions of the Committee the lighthouse had been moved to the end of the jetty, and a light would very soon be exhibited there. A berth had also been provided for the reserve packet, where she could be in perfect safety and be available at a moment's notice. He was not aware that there now existed any difficulty in the speedy landing and embarkation of mails. It had been the desire of the Government to carry out to the best of their ability, and under the most competent advice, the recommendations of the Committee so far as they could be gathered from what passed in it. They had expended in doing so nearly all the money voted for that purpose by the House.

said, that having been a Member of the Committee, and knowing that the recommendations were of a very moderate character, involving no considerable outlay, he wished to understand distinctly whether those recommendations had been fully carried out?

said, that the Committee did not make any definite re- commendations. The works, with the exception of the dredging, were on the point of being completed, and could now be used.

said, he thought it was not fair to bring on these Estimates at that time of night (a quarter-past eleven), as several of the items would involve considerable discussion, and the money was not wanted. He had no objection to the first two items—for wages at home and abroad—but he appealed to the noble Lord to institute a proper investigation, and have a final settlement of the wages question. From different classes of workmen in the Royal yards there came constant applications for advances. The joiners were greatly dissatisfied at their rate of wages. Several of the workmen were discontented, and with great reason, for the factory men, for example, got an increase of 55 per cent in their wages on transferring their services to private establishments. The ropemakers and others were sent adrift at short notice, and without means of support for themselves and families. He asked the noble Lord to treat them all in a generous spirit. Although he represented a dockyard borough, he would not bring forward the case of the workmen if he did not conscientiously believe that it was based on good grounds.

said, that he had received a letter stating that workmen in the dockyards received half-pay in case of injuries, but that in cases of sickness no allowance was made. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had, however, stated that the men received payments during sickness. He had also been informed that the hon. Gentleman's statement regarding the number of superannuated men was not fairly estimated, because the total number of workmen as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman referred only to the establishment at home, while the number of superannuated men included the superannuations on the establishments both at home and abroad. The percentage of superannuations would by this means appear greater than it really was. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would explain those two points. He must say, before he sat down, that he thought that Her Majesty's Government ought to be influenced by the lucid and truthful statement of the hon. Member for Devonport, though in one point he believed the hon. Gentleman had erred, for he could not credit his statement that the Government was indebted to the artificers to the extent of £400,000 a year.

said, he did not believe that the employés in the dockyards were so badly treated as some hon. Members appeared to think. The wagest at present in Liverpool and Birkenhead were 7s. a day, and on the Clyde 6s. a day, but the average wages in Liverpool and Birkenhead did not amount to more than 24s. or 25s. a week, because a large portion of the men had not regular employment. That the men in the Government dockyards were pretty well paid was proved from the fact that some time since constant employment for twelve months certain was offered at Birkenhead at the rate of 36s. a week, and that, though the wages at the Government dockyards were said to be only 27s. a week, not one man applied for employment from the Government dockyards. The men, too, in the Government establishments were in a much better position, because they generally worked under cover and lost no time from wet weather—an evil to which the men in the private yards were constantly subject. At present the wages on the Clyde and in Liverpool were higher than they had been before, but there was every prospect that they would be reduced. He thought the constant agitation of this matter tended to do great harm in the dockyards.

said, when he regarded the extravagant expenditure of the Government, he was perfectly shocked to hear hon. Members endeavouring to increase the Estimate by raising imaginary grievances for the benefit of their constituents. He believed that the duty of a representative was rather to watch the Estimates for the purpose of reducing them, and thus economizing the expenditure of public money; but no sooner was the subject of dockyards mentioned in the House than some representative of the dockyards or the dockyard boroughs would stand up and maintain that some one or other ought to be paid more than he at present received. This system would almost induce the opinion that either the Government ought to possess no dockyards at all, or the dockyard boroughs ought to have no representative.

said, he must disclaim being influenced by the considerations referred to by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), because his constituents would be glad to see the Government dockyard in their borough abandoned, and that fine part of the river on which it was situated occupied by private firms. In answer, however, to the argument employed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), he might say that mere fluctuation in wages would not be sufficient to attract men from the Government dockyards, because when a man became established he would, by leaving the yard, forfeit all claim to superannuation. He believed the system of measurement employed in the Government dockyards was defective, and was a great cause of discontent, because it often happened by the men working in gangs that the worst workman received the best pay at the end of the week. They did not know at the end of the week how much they had earned. He must say that he believed himself bound to represent to the House the grievances of his constituents whenever they were brought under his notice.

said, the whole tenor of the debate showed how much an authoritative inquiry would conduce to the comforts of the dockyard Members. They would then be able to say to those who came to them with grievances that they were unjustifiable; or, on the contrary, that those grievances were worthy (as he believed most of them were) the immediate attention of the House. He had complaints, and appeared for the engineers, the Royal Naval engineers, the smiths, the storekeepers, the workmen in steam factories, and the artificers generally; and if the Government would grant them a Committee to inquire into their grievances it would be found that most of them had a substantial footing, though he could not but admit that some of them were brought before the House without sufficient cause. He hoped the attention of the Duke of Somerset and of the noble Lord opposite would be given to the subject, as all that the men desired was inquiry.

asked if there was any law which obliged these men to enter the dockyards. If there was, then there ought to be inquiry, but if there was not, as the dockyards of the whole country were open to them, he did not see they ought to complain. He believed that they went to the dockyards for the simple reason that they liked it, and if they did not find the work there to suit them they could leave it. It appeared to him that hon. Members for the dockyard towns had been speaking not to the House but with an eye to a general election.

said, he was glad to find that no metropolitan Member ever dreamt of a job for the benefit of his constituents. There were large sums annually voted for the maintenance of public parks and institutions in the metropolis, and he recollected that an hon. Member, not far from him, had once proposed that the whole expense of the sewage of the metropolis should be thrown on the nation. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) had, in his remarks, only noticed one class of workmen, and forgot those who were tempted to enter the dockyards when wages were high, and who were discharged in quiet, peaceful times. He could not see why, because the representatives of dockyard towns asked that justice should be done to infirm and injured public servants, they should be accused of personal motives.

said, he thought he might safely leave the question in the hands of hon. Members who did not represent dockyard towns, but perhaps it would be only proper that he should notice some of the specific complaints that had been urged. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) had expressed a hope that no hardship would be inflicted upon the officers whose offices had been recently abolished—the spinners and the measurers. It was true that the spirit of progress had pressed hardly upon individuals, and a good many spinners and measurers had been discharged, whose work was now efficiently done at a saving of several thousands a year to the public. But great care had been taken to do as little harm as possible to any individuals. With regard to the spinners, a great majority of them have been able to get employment in other branches of the service, and only a small proportion of them had elected to leave the dockyards. Every consideration had been shown towards those persons which was consistent with a due regard for the public interest, and no one could be more anxious to do justice to all parties than was the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty. With regard to the other class of persons who had been affected by recent changes, those who were not fit for other works were superannuated; but as to the remainder, they were being gradually absorbed into the other departments, and until that absorption took place, which he believed would be in a few months, they were allowed to retain their salaries. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Angerstein) had referred to a remark which he (Mr. Childers) had been supposed to have made on a former evening respecting the advantages enjoyed by dockyard men when they were sick. It was a mistake to suppose that he had alluded to that subject, but he would just acquaint the House with the regulations in force for the sick and hurt workmen in the dockyards. Any man who was hurt in the execution of his duty was allowed half-pay until his return to work, but a man absent on account of sickness has no allowance. When any workman had been absent from sickness for a period of six months a special report was required, and the surgeons were directed not to allow men to remain absent for a longer period than was actually necessary. During the process of recovering strength a man was put to easy work, and when a man became ruptured in the course of his duty, upon the recommendation of the surgeon he was provided with a truss. If those regulations were fairly carried out, and he believed that they were carried out in the most kindly spirit by the surgeons of the various yards, he did not know what possible improvement could be introduced. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of his comparing the 9,600 men on the establishment receiving pay with the 3,000 men who were in the receipt of superannuation allowances. In fact, he believed he had rather understated the latter figures, as he now learnt that the total number of men in receipt of such allowances was 3,100, or rather more than 30 per cent of the establishment. The other hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) complained that the men in the dockyards did not know what they earned, but as all men were now paid by day wages, there could be no difficulty on that account. Then came the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) who approached the subject with courage, not to say with rashness, and he brought a whole budget of complaints from all branches of officers in the dockyard service. If the hon. and gallant Member thought it to be his duty, as the representative of a dockyard borough to say that everybody had a grievance, he (Mr. Childers) would be content to leave it to the knowledge and discretion of the House to decide how much weight should be attached to such evidence. Once a year the Admiralty gave every possible facility for the rectification of grievances. They went to the dockyards, they investigated complaints on the spot, and the representations of the men were thoroughly looked into. He trusted that the Government would be allowed to take this Vote, and that the House would hear no more during the present Session of the insufficient pay of persons employed in the Royal Dockyards.

said, he rose to move a reduction of £10,777 in the Vote, on the ground that the charge for the police was more than sufficient. The amount for the police this year was £38,295, which was appropriated in two parts—one for watching and guarding the navy yards, and the other for watching and guarding the victualling, medical, and transport establishments. He was unable to state the exact appropriation for the present year, because no explanation was given; but he would recommend that in future years the appropriation would be explained. He might assume, however, that the appropriation this year would be the same as for 1863–4, when it was £19,364 for the naval yards, as given at page 5, No. 514 "Navy Ships'" account for 1863–4 leaving £18,931 for the victualling, &c, establishments. He had made some inquiries as to the expense which private yards were put to for watching and guarding. He found that at Millwall twelve watchmen were employed at a charge of £748 a year; at the Thames Iron Works ten watchmen were employed at a charge of £696, and taking a third private firm he found that altogether twenty-six watchmen were employed at a cost of £1,652. Calculating the number of workmen employed at these private yards the charge per head per annum was 2s. 6d. a man for watching and guarding. The Government, on the other hand, paid £19,364 for watching 16,964 men, or at the rate of 23s. 2d. per man for guarding their naval yards; but this was economy itself compared with the charge for watching and guarding the victualling and medical establishments, which amounted to not less than £18,931 for watching 714 persons, being £26 6s. per head for the number of persons employed in these establishments. Yet they were mostly matrons, nurses, cooks, barbers, &c. The reason why he proposed this special reduction was, that in 1863–4 the Government only required the sum of £8,141 for watching and guarding these victualling and medical establishments, which was amply sufficient for all practical purposes. These police charges were not incurred in guarding from without, but from within. He believed that the course pursued was such as to damage the character and lower the moral tone of the workmen. In 1859 there was a Committee on Dockyard Economy, and Lieutenant Wise, a dockyard superintendent of the police, was examined before it. He stated that on the workmen leaving the yard of which he was police superintendent they passed between six policemen and an inspector, that about every fifth man was "rubbed down," as it was called, to see if he had any stolen property about him, and that on the average every man was searched twice a week. He would appeal to the Government to take into their consideration the expediency of doing away with what they must admit was a most degrading practice. It might be urged that it was necessary; but that was a plea which was always set up in favour of an abuse, as in the case of the free use of the lash in the army and the press-gang to man the navy. It was a degrading practice, and he ascribed its continuance to the want of competent heads of departments. In private firms, where the relations of master and servants were on a better footing, these heartburnings did not exist. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,777.

said, that the introduction of the metropolitan police into the dockyards was a measure which had been decided upon by the Legislature, and which had been productive of great advantage. He had a Return which showed that whereas in 1859, under the loose system then in operation, only sixty-five persons had been apprehended for theft and other offences, 645 offenders had been arrested the very first year the new system came into operation. That was tolerable proof that the introduction of the police into the dockyards was not a mistake. Since then the number of offences had diminished. His hon. Friend had exaggerated the case as to the number of police engaged in guarding the hospitals and elsewhere; £30,366 went for the wages of the police engaged in watching the dockyards, while the charge for watching the victualling department was £4,234, and that for the medical department £2,653. The amount he could not think was excessive when the work to be done was taken into account.

said, that the introduction of the metropolitan police had considerably lessened the number of offences and of marine-store shop dealings in the dockyards.

said, that he wished to vindicate the heads of dockyard departments from the taunts of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely). There were no less than sixteen post captains employed in superintending private yards, showing that their services in this respect were well appreciated in the country.

said, he thought £38,000 was a very large sum to be expended on watching and guarding our dockyards. There was a great disparity in this respect between public and private yards. He did not complain of the introduction of the metropolitan police into the dockyards, but he did complain that so large a sum as £38,000 should be expended in maintaining a police force to watch 16,000 to 17,000 men. He also thought it was great degradation for a respectable workman to be searched on leaving the dockyard, though he was ready to admit that a different system of police was required in public from that employed in private establishments. If anything would justify the high wages which were paid in the Royal dockyards, it was the degradation to which respectable workmen were exposed by being searched. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) were perfectly correct.

said, that the police had not only to protect the property in our dockyards, but also to visit every ship lying in the docks and to guard against fires.

said, that the statements which he had made as to the relative costs of watching in the Government and private yards were accurate.

said, the Government would not object to postpone Votes 10 and 11, and to the others he believed there was no objection.

said, he thought that the contribution to sailors' homes should be increased, so as to aid in providing better lodgings for sailors in the principal commercial ports. He found that the Government gave only the trifling sum of £425 as a contribution to sailors' homes, and it appeared to him that they might with great advantage advance a larger sum for so admirable a purpose.

said, that the Government had received no complaints that the sailors' homes in the dockyard ports were not in good circumstances, or that their managers were dissatisfied with the contributions of the Admiralty towards their support. The question whether the Government should assist in the maintenance of similar institutions in all the commercial ports—for the Government could not make a distinction—was a very wide one, which would require much consideration. He was afraid that the immediate effect of their interfering with these charitable institutions would be to lead many persons to withdraw their subscriptions and devote them to objects which received no assistance from the Government.

said, he could assure the noble Lord that sailors' homes might be extended with great advantage, and complained that the Admiralty made no provision for the education of the children of those who were employed in the dockyards.

said, that the sum of £2,000 which was for contributions to religious and charitable institutions exceeded the Estimate of last year by £625; and this excess was mainly caused by provision for the very object which the hon. Baronet desired to see accomplished. The Director of Education had been instructed to visit all the schools in the dockyard towns, and he had prepared a full and complete scheme under which it was intended in the future to make contributions to their support.

said, that provision for the safety and comfort of sailors when they came ashore was not a work of charity; it was a plain duty of the Admiralty.

said, he wished to inquire what was the amount of stamp duty paid by officers of the navy for their commissions.

said, that the stamp was fixed by law at 5s.

said, that he intended to go on with the Navy Estimates after the Army Estimates on Monday, the 24th instant.

said, he thought that that was too early a day.

said, that Vote 11 would not be taken on the 24th.

said, it was out of order to move an addition to the Committee without due notice.

said, he had no objection to postpone the nomination of the Committee to the first Thursday after the Easter recess.