said, it was intended to maintain this Fire Brigade by a local rate, at not exceeding a halfpenny in the pound, but instead of extending the rate to Government property, in which there would doubtless be difficulty, the sum of £10,000 per annum was to be paid on account of the national property in the metropolis. That was assuming it to be of the annual value of £4,800,000, or one-fourth of the whole rateable property of the metropolis. He could not admit the accuracy of this calculation, and in order that the same law should apply to national as to private property, he should move an Amendment to that effect.

seconded the Motion.

said, it was almost impossible to estimate the beneficial occupation of the Government property in the metropolis. It was only necessary to mention Buckingham Palace, for example. Again, from Woolwich to Pimlico there was Government property of enormous value, the loss of which would affect, not only the convenience, but in some cases the safety of the country, Two Committees of that House had been of opinion that a contribution of £10,000 would not be two much for the Government to pay towards the new Fire Brigade. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press an Amendment which would overturn the whole arrangement on which the Bill was founded.

said, the inhabitants of the metropolis had come very badly out of the negotiation as it stood; and the Amendment would make matters still worse.

said, that this Bill was, on the face of it, a deception. It was described as a Poor Law Continuance Bill, yet of all the twenty-four clauses only one, the first, enacted the continuance of the Poor Law Board. The other clauses excited much difference of opinion both in and out of that House. The 24th clause declared that the Bill might be "cited and described for all purposes as 'the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1865,'" and that was exactly what the Bill was. It was impossible for his right hon. Friend to carry the Bill in its present shape, and he would suggest that the Bill should be limited to a single clause, continuing the Poor Law Board for one year. The question involved in the religious clauses alone would keep them there for a fortnight or three weeks, and it was too important a question to be hurried through the House, fie would move, as an Amendment to the Motion—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Bill should be limited to the continuance of the powers of the Poor Law Board for one year."

seconded the Motion. He said some of the largest parishes in the metropolis had petitioned against the Bill, and the House had, he thought, some reason to complain of the indecent haste with which the President of the Poor Law Board attempted to force the Bill through at the fag-end of the Session. Why had it not been brought forward sooner, when it would have been a charity to find the House something to do?

said, that if the Amendment were carried it would negative the Motion to go into Committee, and that therefore it would be impossible to pass even that part of the Bill which would continue the Poor Law Board.

said, he objected to the Bill, and he trusted that the President of the Poor Law Board would not refuse to accede to what was evidently the general feeling of the House. He would not object to the Speaker leaving the Chair, in order that the first clause might be carried. But the other clauses of the Bill were of great importance, and would lead to a great deal of discussion. The Bill proposed to deal with the Gilbert Unions. A few years ago the House would not agree to a dissolution of these unions, and it was rather hard that they should be put under the power of the Poor Law Board without having a word to say on their own behalf.

said, it was too late in the Session to discuss the important clauses of this Bill. There were important taxing powers in the Bill given to the Poor Law Board independently of the Guardians. These might be very proper, or they might be very improper, powers for the Poor Law Commissioners to possess; but the alterations in the law were most important. The Bill was brought forward when hon. Members could not discuss its provisions with satisfaction to their constituents, and he believed that the majority of the House were anxious that the Bill should be cut down to a mere continuance Bill.

said, it was his duty, having presented a great number of petitions against the Bill, to represent to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) that in the interest of the Poor Law Board itself it would be extremely imprudent to press the clauses of the Bill, with the exception of the continuance clause. The other matters should be discussed in the New Parliament.

said, he concurred in urging on the President of the Poor Law Board to adopt this plan. He had presented a petition from the directors and hoard of guardians of Brighton praying the House not to enter upon a discussion of clauses from 9 to 18. The matters to which those clauses related could not receive adequate attention in the present Parliament, and he hoped that they would simply pass a continuance Bill.

said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to go on with the Bill.

said, that the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) stated, not very courteously, that this Bill was one of deception, because, professing to be one of continuance, it contained many other clauses. That statement was wholly unfounded. The title of the Bill was "A Bill to continue the Poor Law Board for a limited period, and to make certain Amendments in the law regulating the Relief of the Poor." The noble Lord was a Member of the Committee, which sat for three years, and he could not affirm that the introduction of the Bill was in any sense a surprise. The Report of the Committee was sent to every Board of Guardians in the country; and the guardians had considered the Report and taken action on it, and had presented petitions to the House, and memorials to the Poor Law Board. They had singled out those portions of it to which they objected, namely, the payment of priests out of the rates, and any interference with the discretion of the guardians in the education of the children. Those objections had been respected; but no one had objected to those parts of the Report which were embodied in the Bill. The real objection to the Bill was to prevent the Roman Catholic clergy from having access to the workhouses, and giving instruction to their own people. The Roman Catholics some time since having complained that an Act of Parliament having given access to the workhouses for their priests, they were still not admitted, the Duke of Richmond, with the consent of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, issued an order to meet the case, but at this order the guardians took offence, saying that the order gave a direction to the guardians to procure Roman Catholic priests to attend to the unions. The Resolution of the Committee, embodied in the present Bill, fell something short of that order of the Duke of Richmond. He would ask hon. Gentlemen who complained of the lateness of the Session to name the day before which he could have introduced this Bill. It was brought in at the first opportunity. The clauses relating to the register of creed, to access to the inmates by the Ministers for religious instruction, and to going to a place of worship were approved by the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance, and he thought himself safe when he obtained the approval of that Gentleman. The fact was, that considerable pains had been taken to bring hon. Members there that day to vote against this Bill; yet, considering the exertions that had been made, the result was not very striking. Those most likely to object to the religious clauses were absent. His hon. Friend (Sir John Shelley) told the House that he had presented a great number of petitions against the Bill, but if so they had not been reported in the Votes. He did not believe that twenty petitions had been presented against the measure, although there were 700 unions in the country. He had received deputations from Boards of Guardians, and he believed that, after explanation, they had been in most cases satisfied with the religious clauses. There were 250,000 Roman Catholics in the metropolis who were just as loyal as any other class, and a great injustice was inflicted upon that body by the present system. In the pauper schools and workhouses of the metropolis no notice was in many cases taken of their religious opinions, and it was notorious that their children were sent to schools where they were brought up as Protestants. One of the Poor Law inspectors went to a district school containing 700 children, and asked whether they had any Roman Catholic or Dissenting children among them. They said they had none. He had great reason to believe that many of these were the children of Roman Catholic parents, and he went to the workhouse to make inquiry. He saw a poor woman, a Roman Catholic, left with four children, who had been sent to this school. The inspector asked her of what religion her children were. She replied, "They are Catholics, or ought to be." She knew, nevertheless, they were being brought up as Protestants, and, being asked why she had not complained, she said, "What is a poor woman like me to do?" The inspector knew of 350 children of whose religion no notice was taken, and he knew that the parents and relatives of some of them were Roman Catholics, although the children were brought up as Protestants. At Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham correct registers were kept, the religious feelings of the poor were consulted, and no ill-will was excited between Roman Catholics and Protestants. He knew a metropolitan district inhabited by a million of souls, and containing ten workhouses, in which not the least notice was taken of the religion of the children. Now, these poor people did care whether their children were brought up as Roman Catholics or Protestants. Some thought, indeed, that the poor cared more for their children in this respect than the rich, but at any rate they had feelings which were entitled to respect. The Roman Catholics had good ground of complaint in this matter, and if hon. Members refused to do them justice now they would hear more of this hereafter.

said, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not have resumed his seat without expressing his willingness to concede to the evident wish of the House. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that the objection to the measure was entirely owing to the religious clauses, but he had not stated the reasons on which he founded that opinion. Upon his (Mr. Henley's) side he had heard no objections founded upon the merits or demerits of a single clause. The religious clauses were only a small part of the Bill, but if they were so important, why had not the right hon. Gentleman brought in the Bill two or three months ago? What was to hinder him? Hon. Members would then have had an opportunity of hearing the opinion of their constituents. He did not wish to give his opinion upon any of the clauses of the Bill, but it contained five main provisions. With regard to the first of these the Gilbert Unions had a right to be heard. The next provision was the taxing power, which was now restrained by the consent of the Board of Guardians. By the 8th clause, however, the right hon. Gentleman took power to order an expenditure of £500,000 without any consent at all, and he might repeat that as often as he pleased. The next was a power to transport children from one part of the country to another without reference to distance. Then came the religious clauses of the Bill. It was somewhat singular that the right hon. Gentleman, having had this subject before him for six years, and the Committee having been sitting for three years, and the right hon. Gentleman having communicated with Boards of Guardians, should have brought in a set of clauses, and then, before the ink with which they were printed was dry, should have withdrawn and amended his own clauses. If the right hon. Gentleman, after all this time for consideration, and after having had his official experience directed to the matter, thought it necessary to amend his own proposition, it was odd that the House of Commons were to be allowed no time for consideration, and were to have many unpleasant things thrown at them because they would not, without discussion, accede to these proposals. There was one very curious thing in the Bill as amended. The right hon. Gentleman had divested himself of the power of censorship over religious books, but he retained in his own hands the very extraordinary power of deciding whether a child of twelve years old was to be permitted to choose his religion. Whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to make a journey into the country, in order personally to examine these children, or whether he intended to have them sent up to him by third class trains to be examined at the Poor Law Board, or how this clause was to be otherwise worked out, he did not know. Another strong power was taken by this Bill. If a man or a woman, being out of the workhouse, applied for relief for a sick child and got it, and if the Board of Guardians saw fit to order them to do task work, and the parent neglected or refused to do it, he or she was to be considered an idle and disorderly person, and might be sent to prison as a vagrant. Another provision gave the Board of Guardians a taxing power with reference to the superannuation of a number of persons who had nothing to do with the relief of the poor. The House ought surely to know the opinions of the Guardians and the taxpayers before they adopted such a clause. All these were important alterations is the law, which might or might not be advisable, but which it was impossible to discuss after the Appropriation Bill had passed through Committee. There was no earthly reason that he could see why the Bill should not have been laid on the table three months ago. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would, in deference to the universal opinion on all sides of the House, agree to make this simply a Continuance Bill, and not drive hon. Members to move that the Chairman report progress after every clause. At this period of the Session it was utterly impossible that the questions of pauper emigration and officers' superannuation could be fairly discussed. In six months all the other matters contained in the Bill could be discussed and adopted. His own opinion was in favour of what were called the religious clauses of the Bill; but, in the interest of those for whom they were framed, it would be bettor they should be passed after the Bill had been sufficiently considered by the country, rather than leave it to be said that it had been snatched through after the Appropriation Bill had been brought in, and thus drive many persons to be awkward in the working of the Bill. Another reason for more consideration was, that the wording of some of the clauses was very defective. The clause enabling ministers to visit and instruct the inmates of his persuasion was so indefinitely drawn that he did not believe a single Minister would be able to avail himself of the provision.

said, that the objections were not confined to the religious clauses. That morning he received a communication from the Bermondsey Board of Guardians, who objected to clauses from 16 to 19 inclusive, not one of which referred to religion.

said, he must for himself indignantly repudiate the assertion of the President of the Poor Law Board that this Bill was opposed on anti-Roman Catholic grounds. All that the Roman Catholics could justly demand would have been given them by the order which the Duke of Richmond, with the consent of Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, had proposed to issue; and now the right hon. Gentleman, having been in office for six years and done nothing, proposed to hurry a Bill through Parliament at the eve of a general election, to do what would have been done by the Duke of Richmond's order. The right hon. Gentleman had, after all, left out the best part of the Select Committee's recommendations—namely, that Roman Catholic children should be handed over to Roman Catholic schools and maintained therein by the guardians. To say that hon. Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House refused to give Roman Catholic children their religious rights and privileges was, in fact, a mere bit of electioneering tactics.

said, he was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) with his large experience, that he looked with favour on the religious clauses of this Bill. It was a sanction of an important principle for which the Roman Catholics would be very grateful. It had been said that the Session was so advanced that the measure could not be properly discussed. He did not concur in that opinion. At all events he was willing to accept what he desired whenever it was offered to him; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would go on and try and pass the Bill. It contained clauses of great importance, affecting deeply the religious liberties of large numbers of the most destitute persons in the country, and which clause had undergone the careful consideration of a Select Committee of that House. Why delay for another year the consideration of these important matters? Next year there would be a new Parliament, with new Members and with new subjects for consideration. The management of workhouses varied in different places. Roman Catholics had great complaints of that management in many places, especially in the metropolis. Bricklayers and dock labourers flocked to London. Without them the metropolis would be wanted in its magnitude and in its present commerce. But having done their work they died, and their families were often forced into the workhouses, where, for want of instruction, they were led away from the religion of their forefathers. He regretted that so many hon. Members connected with the metropolis had spoken in favour of delay, because it was in the metropolitan workhouses that the children of Roman Catholic parents were most frequently perverted from the faith in which they had been brought up. This Bill would meet the evil, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with it. Thank God! there had been throughout the debate such an enunciation of liberal feeling towards the Roman Catholics in workhouses on both sides as to lead to the conviction that, at all events, if not this year, yet still eventually and ere long, the case would be treated equitably, and the existing evil be met by a proper remedy.

said, he must remind the House that this debate might have been greatly shortened if the President of the Board had not thrown out the taunts he had. For himself he would say that all the right hon. Gentleman's taunts were entirely without foundation. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches had been summoned there in large numbers to defeat the Bill. He for one had received no such summons. It was still more unfounded to assert that his hon. Friends met this Bill in a spirit of bigotry. He agreed that Roman Catholic children should be fully open to religious teaching in the tenets in which they had been brought up, and that if this teaching could not be obtained in the workhouse, it should be procured out of it. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he meant to go into the Bill as it stood, or limit it to a continuance Bill? If the former, he would find hon. Members on the opposite side of the House willing to consider the clauses, and that not in a spirit of bigotry.

said, he was prepared to give his humble support to the Bill as it stood. Especially he approved of Clause 22, which extended the limits to which children would be sent for the purpose of education.

said, he could not help thinking that the President of the Poor Law Board was rather too apt to assume an aggressive attitude towards the Opposition Benches. But why had not the right hon. Gentleman turned round on his "Liberal friends," as they called themselves, and attacked them for their opposition to his Bill? Instead of which the right hon. Gentleman must needs attack those who sat on the opposite side of the House, and told them they had been whipped up to oppose this Bill from religious feelings. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman such was not the case, and that hon. Members on that side were too independent to be whipped up for any such purposes. The right hon. Gentleman had entirely misinterpreted the feelings of those who sat upon the Opposition Benches. Their only reason for opposing the Bill was, that its clauses required full consider- ation, which the present Session would not afford time to give.

said, he did not think the House would have been satisfied if his right hon. Friend, after so long an inquiry by the Select Committee on Poor Laws, had proposed a mere continuance of the powers of the Poor Law Board for a year without embodying in such a measure some of the most important recommendations of the Committee. His right hon. Friend had withdrawn some of the clauses to which considerable objection had been made as requiring further consideration, and had hoped that those now left in the Bill might have been thought reasonable enough to pass without any considerable delay or discussion. It was clear, however, that there was on the part of the House a great indisposition to go on with the clauses during the short remaining period of the Session. It was impossible at the present hour (3 o'clock) to make any progress with the clauses in Committee, One great advantage had been gained by the discussion. They had heard from every Gentleman who had addressed the House a concurrence in those clauses the object of which was to give the Roman Catholic children in workhouses these religious rights and privileges to which they were justly entitled. Seeing the evident indisposition of the House to go into the consideration of the clauses this Session, and being of opinion that the measure could not be passed during the short remaining period of the Session, he would advise his right hon. Friend, having done his duty in bringing in this measure, and having made the best fight be could, to consent to limit the Bill this Session to a mere Continuance Bill. If his noble Friend would withdraw his Amendment, the House might go into Committee and pass the Continuance Clause, and the other clauses could then be withdrawn. The Government would, if they were in office, propose a measure containing those clauses as soon as possible after Parliament should meet, and he trusted that the expression of opinion which they had that day heard would insure the favourable consideration and adoption of them in the next Session of Parliament.

said, it was evident that there was a sort of tacit agreement between the Roman Catholics and the Poor Law Board to supersede the guardians in the management of unions: and there was a rivalry between the two sides of the House in making concessions to the Roman Catholics and their priesthood. He did not, however, think that the feeling prevailed in the country as it did in that House. The impression was that on the one hand the Roman Catholics were pressing their demands, and on the other the Poor Law Board was pressing its authority, and that the Board of Guardians was to be superseded with the concurrence of the two parties. That feeling was justified by the circumstances, by the day's debate, by the character of the Bill, and by the attempt made to pass it when it was well known that many Members of this House were already addressing their constituents, that, in fact, the House was a mere shadow of itself, and that the legislative power was almost entirely transferred to the Government. The House of Commons was much more careless on this subject than the country generally. England was not ashamed of its National Protestantism; and though in that House hon. Members treated all religions alike, the people had a National Religion, and were becoming aware that the Roman Catholics were beginning to make themselves as oppressive as they were in other parts of the world. He trusted that at the coming election the people would instruct their representatives as to the course to be taken on this important matter.

said, he wished to make one observation, and that was that should he be a Member of the next Parliament he would be ready to give his support in carrying the clauses now omitted from the present Bill.

said, he adhered to the opinion he had expressed that the Bill had been opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite solely on the ground of the religious clauses. He had, however, no help for it except, very unwillingly, to submit to the proposal that had been made. With regard to the clause which rendered persons liable to be punished who were relieved out of the workhouse and who refused to perform task-work, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that the clause merely gave the same power in regard to persons out of the workhouse that was exercised over those in the house.

said, it was exceedingly inconvenient to come to Parliament from time to time to continue the Board. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman extend the term from one to three years?

said, he thought he was meeting the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite by limiting the continuance of the Board to one year, and "to the end of the then next Session of Parliament." That was really a continuance for two years.

asked that the Report should be read by the Clerk, as it contained some important recommendations.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the second payment of the Lucknow Prize Money, already ordered to be distributed in India, is to be made in this country; and when a decision is likely to be come to with reference to the Kirwee Prize Money?

, in reply, said, the first question of the hon. Gentleman was exactly the same as that asked on the 28th of March. He had no information then to give as to when the payment would take place. He was surprised himself at the delay, and on the 31st of March he wrote to India on the subject, but he had not yet received any reply, and it was therefore out of his power to say when the distribution would be made. He wished he could persuade hon. Gentlemen that he had nothing to do with the duty of distribution; that rested with the Treasury. When the Court would decide on the question of the Kirwee Prize Money it was out of his power to say.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether a Circular or Memorandum or other document has lately been issued by the War Department or the Horse Guards, forbidding any of Her Majesty's Military Chaplains from officiating or preaching in the usual black gown, and requiring them to wear the surplice exclusively on all such occasions from the date of such Order; and, if so, what is the Ecclesiastical Authority who is responsible for having recommended the adoption of that course?

said, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, he would read an extract from the circular referred to. The direction given was the following: —

"The robe issued by Government for your use is the surplice. It is the only robe which you will be expected to carry with you in the event of your serving in the field. You are, therefore, to wear it with a scarf or stole, and the hood of your academical degree, if you be a graduate of one of our Universities, as often as you officiate to troops, whether in a consecrated or unconsecrated church, a chapel-school, a lecture or other ordinary room, or in the open air."

That circular was sent out on the recommendation of the Chaplain General, and it was rendered necessary by certain irregularities of some individuals in conducting the service, owing to extreme views held by them. He had not had an opportunity of seeing the Chaplain General, but he did not believe that there was any direction prohibiting the use of the black gown on the ordinary occasions, or that the surplice should be used exclusively.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House a copy of Sir Charles Trevelyan's Financial Statement previous to making his own on Monday next?

, in reply, said, he had had hopes of being able to make the statement upon Indian finances on Monday but he was quite unable to do so, and he must therefore postpone it till Thursday. With regard to Sir Charles Trevelyan's statement, he thought it would not be proper to lay that document on the table of the House. It was not an official document, and if the hon. Gentleman would refer to some papers moved for by the hon. Member for London he would find a Minute which contained Sir Charles Trevelyan's views on the subject of the income tax.

said, on behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for Queen's County (Colonel Dunne), he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the reason why Surgeons in the Royal Navy have been recently appointed to ships to do Assistant Surgeons' duty, and if it be owing to a scarcity of the latter Officers, or that there are no Candidates on the list for admission into the Medical Service of the Navy; and if the Admiralty have taken any steps to remove so great an evil?

said, that several young surgeons had been placed on promotion on foreign stations in order to retain their services on board ship as surgeons, partly for the purpose of keeping young surgeons employed, and partly because there was more or less difficulty in filling up the places of assistant surgeons. There was so much employment elsewhere, that they did not keep the number complete. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the Admiralty were in great want of assistant surgeons, but that was not the case; and the Admiralty did not think it necessary to take any steps for the purpose of giving additional facilities for the entry of assistant surgeons into the service.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Report of Mr. Galloway and Mr. Grey to the Board of Trade on the Chain Cables and Anchors Act of 1864, which was laid upon the table of the House 8th of March last. He himself had introduced a Bill in 1863 for testing chain cables and anchors He had originally taken up the question because his own experience had led him to the conclusion that it was expedient that all the anchors purchased from private firms should be tested by means of a public testing machine. That the testing machines throughout the country generally were inefficient, was clearly proved by the report of the officers whose names he had mentioned, and the only security, as far as he could judge from the inquiries which he had made, against the continuance of a similar state of things was that the cables and anchors used by our ships should be tested by a public machine. Indeed, he believed he might state that the committee at Lloyd's, and others interested in the matter, had remonstrated in every way they could with the Board of Trade against licensing the machines of private individuals. Brown, Lennox, and Co., to whom such a licence had been granted, were, no doubt, a most respectable firm, but then if a licence were given to them there was no reason why it should not be granted to every respectable firm throughout the country, and it was, he was informed, the practice of the Government to have the cables supplied to them, although they might be tested previously by the maker, retested by a special officer of their own before they were used. The Act was not imperative, but left an option to the Board of Trade to appoint testers and to refuse licences to private firms. Mr. Galloway and Mr. Grey were appointed by the Board of Trade to go round to the various manufactories, and they made a report on the subject last year, from which he would read some passages. They stated—

"As regards the Act itself we find that it is, with one or two exceptions, looked on and received as a boon. It was represented to us that it will he the means of raising the cable trade from what is described as the present lamentable condition, and that it will he of immense value to the honest maker in the foreign trade. We have been shown specimens of bad iron, almost resembling plateglass in brittleness, that has been used in making chains to meet the market, and we have been shown good iron that may be used, and if used that will make a chain guaranteed to stand 15 per cent beyond the Admiralty proof. We were told repeatedly that the honest maker now sees his way to making a really good chain at a profit, without fear of being undersold by a bad article made by a small maker. The great majority of chain-makers also object strongly to any maker being allowed to test his own cable for the purpose of giving a certificate of public proof. And many makers who intend to go to the expense of making their machines perfect have expressed their determination not to take out a licence, but to have all their work tested at a public machine. Many chain cable makers expressed a hope that the committee of Lloyd'sRegister will refuse to class a ship unless her cable and anchors are proved at a machine other than the one belonging to the establishment at which they are made. They stated that such a rule had been made, but they feared it had been departed from in favour of one or two makers. We stated that this appeared to us to be a point with which the Board of Trade cannot properly interfere, but we were nevertheless particularly requested to mention the subject in our report."

He (Mr. Laird) was sorry to hear that the Board of Trade had licensed Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co. If a licence was granted to them it must be granted to other parties, and instead of the Act being a great security, it might be worked in such a way as to be very injurious. If the operation of the Bill was not postponed for three or six months, its tendency would be to throw a monopoly into the hands of a few makers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the principle of the Act, and not go on licensing private individuals. As it was there was not sufficient public machinery to do the work of testing, and if the operation of the Act were not postponed for a few months, the result would be that a monopoly would be given to those firms which were in the neighbourhood of public machines. Under these circumstances he hoped the President of the Board would take care that the principle of the Act, which involved the application of a public test, would be adhered to.

said, he thought that as the Act was to come into operation on the 1st of July it would be advisable to wait to see how it worked before introducing into it any Amendments. The Board of Trade were doing all that lay in their power to abide by the provisions of the law, and did not license chain makers, but the testing machine itself, which it was authorised to do. It was the duty of the Board to satisfy themselves by inspection that the machinery used for testing chain cables was efficient in order that the cables tested by the machine might receive the proof stamp. They had certainly licensed the firm of Brown, Lennox, and Co., who had a testing machine which was their own property, and if they had not done so there would be no testing machine in London, although the Act would so soon come into force. Their machine had been found to be most effective, and Messrs. Lloyd had engaged to make such alterations as was requisite to provide an effective machinery also. His hon. Friend, he might add, was mistaken if he supposed that he could attain the object which he seemed to hare in view, by laying it down as a rule that no testing machine should be licensed which was the property of a chainmaker. The fact was, that chainmakers were members of joint-stock associations, and might do in that capacity precisely the same thing as the hon. Gentleman was opposed to their doing as individuals. In proof of the accuracy of what he had stated, he might refer to Lloyd's, who were of opinion that testing machines should be under the control and superintendence of some responsible public body, and they would only pass such chains as were tested by such bodies; and amongst these bodies were Messrs. Lloyd, of Poplar; the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board Testing Company, Lloyd's Public Chain and Anchor Proving House, and the Sunderland Public Chain and Anchor Testing House. These machines were all the property of chainmakers, who possessed most admirable machinery. If a man bought a chain from Messrs. Brown and Co. he might say, "I don't approve of testing it by your machine," and he might take it to Lloyd's. In fact, the purchaser had his security in his own hands. The question was whether they had not gone far enough in licensing testing machines. It would be only throwing dust in the eyes of the public if he were to pretend that by laying down some general rule as to the persons to whom licence should be given perfect testing machines could be secured. That could be done only by means of some independent corporation or the Government taking the testing machines under their own charge. But corporations would not, perhaps, be willing to sot up those machines. The trade should be allowed, therefore, to go on, and licences should be given to such machines as were found to be good and sufficient, and the purchaser left to go elsewhere if he pleased. An application had been made to the Board of Trade to postpone the operation of this Act, and he, thinking that the application had emanated from the great body of persons interested in the question, was favourably disposed to postponement. But he found, upon inquiry, that the great body of the trade in Staffordshire and other places did not desire any postponement whatever. The Board of Trade, therefore, had come to the conclusion to license before the 1st of July a sufficient number of testing machines. There would be one in London, two in Birkenhead, three in Staffordshire, one in Sunderland, and others in other places. He was informed by persons competent to speak upon the subject, that there was no necessity whatever for any postponement of the operation of the Act. The Board of Trade notices were published in December last, every one was prepared for the Act coming into operation on the 1st of July; if any one had neglected to provide proper testing machines the fault was his own, nor would it be fair to those who had taken the trouble and gone to the expense of providing machines, to postpone the operation of the Act, in order to suit the views of some manufacturers who had not acted with equal promptitude. A letter had been addressed to him, signed by the great majority of the principal chainmakers in Staffordshire, in which he was informed that there was not the slightest necessity for deferring the operation of the Act, inasmuch as the testing machines there and in Liverpool were very short of work, and were quite equal to the duties required of them. They further stated they had refused to concur in the application lately drawn up and presented to the Board of Trade, by one manufacturer who sought a postponement for his own private convenience, and not with a view to the public benefit. They had expended upwards of £10,000 on the machines, and they would suffer considerable loss if the operation of the Act were postponed. Under these circumstances, having consulted the Board of Trade Inspectors, and being assured that no general inconvenience to the trade would be caused by allowing the Act to come into operation on the 1st of July, he had changed the intention which he had at first formed.

said, he had the honour of attending a deputation to the Board of Trade with the view of obtaining a postponement of the time at which the Act was fixed to come into operation. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was good enough to assent to the request that a Bill should be introduced in order to postpone the commencement of the existing Act to the first of January. That deputation represented the views of gentlemen in the trade at Chester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Staffordshire, and Newcastle, and those who were present were satisfied that the postponement would take place in accordance with what was stated at the time. They felt aggrieved, therefore, that an alteration in the intention of the right hon. Gentleman should have taken place without having had an opportunity of making a reply; but the real question after all was, whether private machines were to be licensed or not. The feeling of the trade was, that it would insure more satisfactory work, if no testing machines were licensed except public machines or machines at which a man could not test his own work. That seemed a fair recommendation coming from the trade. The members of the Goldsmiths' Company did not test their own work; there was a public assay master to whom they sent their goods to be tested, and the test was accepted all over the world. The chainmakers, for whom he spoke, wished the same principle to be adopted, and he thought it a small request to ask for a postponement for six months. The public would be better satisfied if only public machines were licensed, and to enable a sufficient number to be constructed a postponement to the 1st of January was required. He hoped if the right hon. Gentleman would not introduce a Bill for that purpose, he would avail himself of the discretion which he undoubtedly possessed of not licensing private machines.

said, the original proposal was for a public testing machine. The clause for granting licences to private testing machines had been subsequently introduced. If he was correct in that statement, it should be taken in connection with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that security such as was sought for could only be obtained by a public test. A private test was useless. But that was the very question, whether private persons should stamp the Hall-mark on their goods or not. What was wanted was that the stamp should be really what it professed to be, a warrant to the public that the machines did really test. The inspectors of the Board of Trade stated that a great many of the machines which they had tested could be relied on. He would suggest that if the property of private persons were to be licensed there should be such a system of public inspection as should show not only that the machine was once good, but that it continued to be good.

said, the Bill of last Session appeared not to be sufficient for the purpose for which it was required, but he thought it would be a very strange proceeding to call upon the Government to suspend its operation. Next to the machines being good it was essential that the test should be a fair and honest one. In the discussion of 1863 the impression was that the test should be carried on in the presence of public officers, and if that were done it would not much matter to whom the machine belonged, provided it was a good one. A private individual might use it, and probably would use it honestly with regard to his own work; but he doubted if the public could be induced to believe in it unless a public inspector certified to the completeness of the test. He thought the present law wanted amendment in that particular.

, said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the policy of the Government in relation to the Naval Reserves. There was no branch of our naval organization which offered so great an inducement to short-sighted economy as our reserves of seamen and marines, and there was none, therefore, which required to be more closely watched by those who took a special interest in naval affairs. He was, however, afraid that at a time, when we had so much reason to congratulate ourselves on the formation of a valuable reserve of merchant seamen, the House might find it difficult to understand why he should think it necessary to call attention to the subject. He thought, however, that any such difficulty would disappear on a comparison between the state of the Naval Reserves in general at the present time with what it was three years ago. During this period the Royal Coast Volunteers and the Royal Naval Reserve had increased, but, concurrently with this, the Coastguard, the reserve of Marines on shore, and the reserve of man-of-war's men disposable for the service of the home ports had been reduced. Thus the irregular and imperfectly trained reserves had been increased at the expense of the regular and thoroughly trained reserves, and, as the difficulty we should experience at the commencement of a naval war would lie rather in obtaining the quality than the quantity of men that would be required, he considered this state of things to be eminently unsatisfactory. He considered it to be the more unsatisfactory because his noble Friend, in moving the Estimates, had indicated the probability of further reductions in the Coastguard and the Marines, which were by far the most valuable of all the reserves, and it was in the hope of arresting this retrograde policy that he ventured to direct attention to the subject which he was prevented from doing by unavoidable absence on the night when the Vote for the Reserves was under consideration. The necessity of maintaining large and immediately available reserves at all times, however secure we might feel in the prospect of peace, was forced upon the country by the Russian war. We were then at war only with a third-rate naval Power, and we were in alliance with another naval Power only second to ourselves. Our colonies, our commerce, and our shores were as secure as in time of peace, and the efforts which we wore called upon to make were, therefore, insignificant compared with what they must have been if we had been at war with a first rate maritime State; but, even under such circumstances, we experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining men for the ships it was necessary to commission, and it would have been impossible to do so without the greatest risk of disaster and disgrace, if it had not been for the reserve of seamen we possessed in the Coastguard. But, although the war showed the great value of the Coastguard as a Naval Reserve, it also showed its deficiencies and defects, and immediately after the peace in 1856 his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood), then first Lord of the Admiralty, introduced a measure, the principal objects of which were to transfer the management of the Coastguard from the Board of Customs to the Admiralty, and to provide for the gradual increase of the force from about 4,500 to 10,000 men. But even this addition was thought inadequate to meet the contingency of a great naval war; and in 1858 Lord Derby's Government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject of the manning of the Navy. The spirit of the recommendations made by that Commission was adopted, not only by the Administration of Lord Derby, but by the present Government. The Commission advised that a reserve of merchant seamen should be formed, consisting of 20,000 men, taken from sailors who were never long absent from their ports, that is to say, of men who would be immediately available, and of 5,000 men usually employed on long voyages, and they also advised that the Royal Coast Volunteers should be raised to 10,000 men. These were the principal recommendations applicable to the irregular reserves, and it was also that the Coastguard should be raised to 12,000, that the Marines on shore should be raised to 11,000, and that there should be always 4,000 sailors disposable in the home ports, of whom 1,000 were to be seamen gunners. In 1860, in reply to the late Sir Charles Napier, who had brought forward a Motion on the subject, his noble Friend said he hoped to be able to satisfy the House, before he sat down, that the Admiralty were carrying out one by one the recommendations of the Commission. He stated that he agreed entirely in the expediency of increasing the number of Marines—that the late Government (Lord Derby's) had taken a Vote for 2,000 extra Marines—that the present Government had added 1,000 more—(the very 1,000, numerically, which had been reduced by this year's Estimates)—that the Coastguard was about to be increased by 500 men, and that it was the desire of the Admiralty to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and that there should be a considerable number of seamen in the home ports available for any emergency. These early aspirations of the Admiralty for a time influenced its action. In 1862 his noble Friend informed the House that there were 4,400 trained seamen and boys in the home ports available for service, exclusive of the complements of all the ships in commission; and in 1863 the Navy Estimates provided for a reserve of 10,000 Marines on shore and 10,000 men in the Coastguard. This year, however, the reserve of men disposable at our home ports was reduced from 4,400 to 1,500, as had been stated by his noble Friend, but he doubted, from information he had received, whether he could lay his hands on anything like that number. The Marines on shore, who numbered 10,000 in 1863, were reduced this year to 9,000; the Coastguard, who were 10,000 in 1863, were now reduced to 7,750 men. These reductions showed a diminution of 6,150 men in the regularly trained reserves; and while these men were greatly superior in quality to what any reserve of merchant seamen could possibly be, he doubted whether the whole of the Royal Naval Reserve, set down at 17,000 men, would furnish a force even numerically equal at the outbreak of a war. The reasons assigned by his noble Friend for these reductions were so unsubstantial, that he could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have given a better explanation, and that the Coastguard and Marines, and the men disposable at the home ports, had been required to contribute to his estimated surplus for the current year. His noble Friend said that the reduction in the number of Marines was a natural sequence of the reduction of the fleet; and he added, with the enviable talent he possessed of making things pleasant, that it would be a great benefit to the force, because Marines lose the characteristics of the sailor unless they have the proper turn of service afloat. But the whole reduction in the fleet, by this year's Estimates, was 1,000 men, and it would be difficult for his noble Friend to show that this rendered necessary a reduction of 1,000 Marines; the proportion of Marines to 1,000 seamen would be nearer 100 than 1,000, and he (Mr. Corry) would observe that the Royal Commission did not lose sight of the necessity of the Marines bearing a proper proportion to the fleet. They stated in their Report—

"There is a limit beyond which the Marines cannot properly be increased, because it is necessary to their efficiency that they should spend a large portion of their time afloat."

But the Commission, nevertheless, recommend that the reserve of Marines on shore should be raised to 11,000, although at this time the seamen and boys voted were only 37,000, whereas this year the number of seamen and boys was 42,000, so that, in the opinion of the Royal Commission, at a time when the number of seamen voted was 5,000 less than at present, the reserve of Marines might, with advantage, be 2,000 more. The hon. Member for Sunderland, who was a Member of the Commission, had, in a separate Report, recommended that the Marines should he raised to 30,000 men, which he (Mr. Corry) considered an extravagant proposal. In the whole navy, however, there was probably no officer more distinguished for his ability, his experience, or the moderation of his views, than Sir Alexander Milne, who expressed the opinion, in his evidence before the Commission, that it would be an advantage to increase the number of Marines to 25,000, provided the number of seamen was not reduced, and, as already stated, the number of the latter was now 5,000 more than at that period. But naval officers were often supposed to entertain exaggerated notions on such subjects. He would, therefore, quote the opinion of a civilian who could not be suspected of extravagance on any question of naval administration, This year the Marines had been reduced from 18,000 to 17,000, but, in his evidence before the Commission, Sir James Graham said—

"I should rejoice to see the Marines raised to 20,000, never to be diminished. I saw with great pain the recent reduction of 1,000 men. I regarded that as an imprudent measure."

Hon. Members might think that he (Mr. Corry) attached too much importance to a reduction of 1,000 marines. He was glad, therefore, to be supported by so great an authority as Sir James Graham, and he said, with him, that he saw with great pain the recent reduction (in this year's Estimates) of 1,000 Marines, and that he regarded it as an imprudent measure. He would make only one more quotation from the evidence before the Commission, but it was so apposite to his present purpose that he could not refrain from adverting to it, more especially as it expressed the opinion of an officer of great administrative as well as naval experience—an opinion which his noble Friend could hardly dispute, because it was his own. Lord Clarence Paget said, in his evidence, "I propose to increase the Marines by 6,000."This would have raised the number to 21,000—the Vote at that time having been for 15,000."

I should have no hesitation in recommending that increase as a Member of the House of Commons."

His noble Friend, after stating other reasons, went on to say—

"I have a still stronger reason for recommending an increase of Marines. Our present number of Marines is only commensurate with our number of seamen, and proportionate to the actual wants of the fleet; but we have, or soon shall have, a reserve of seamen of 20,000 men, but we have no corresponding reserve of Marines, and for this reason, also, I recommend an increase of 6,000 men."

So much for the reduction of the Marines as the natural sequence of the reduction of the fleet; and in this opinion of his noble Friend be entirely concurred, for unless there wore Marines to embark on board the vessels which would be manned by the reserves of merchant seamen in case of war, it would only be another instance of that want of comprehensiveness which had always been a defect of our naval system. But he (Mr. Corry) considered the reduction of the Coastguard still more objectionable than that of the Marines, and it amounted to no less than 2,750 men in the last two years. The noble Lord would probably say that no reduction had taken place this year in the numbers of the Coastguard on shore, which was by far the most valuable part of the force. Comparing the figures, however, with those of 1863, the Estimates showed a reduction of 500, and, if he was not misinformed, there had been a positive reduction this year, although it did not appear in the Estimates, as he believed the number borne on the 1st of January was 300 more than the number voted. A reduction to this extent had been effected, as he had been informed, not by discharging the older men, but by stopping the introduction of younger hands, thereby increasing the average of age and consequently diminishing the efficiency of the force. The reasons assigned by his noble Friend for reducing the Coastguard were that it was a very costly force, and that its numbers might safely be diminished as we had now a magnificent reserve of merchant seamen; but, so far from regarding the Coastguard on shore as a costly force, he regarded it as very economical, considered as a reserve, for it was the only reserve of seamen giving a return for the outlay on it in time of peace. In 1856, when the management of the force was transferred from the Customs to the Admiralty, the Estimate relating to it amounted to £480,000, an amount which the then First Lord of the Admiralty stated to be wholly inadequate to provide for the protection of the revenue. The additional amount then considered necessary by the First Lord for mere revenue purposes was estimated at about £130,000 —making a total of £610,000, and in the year 1863—when a Vote was taken for 10,000 Coastguard men on shore and afloat—the total Estimate was £790,000, or only £180,000 more than what was considered necessary for the mere protection of the Revenue in 1856. It might be said that the treaty with France had rendered it unnecessary to maintain so large a preventive force, but it never was the business of the Coastguard to prevent smuggling at the great emporiums of commerce, but only, as their name implied, on the bare coasts, where brandy and tobacco were the principal articles attempted to be run, and he had yet to learn that free trade had gone the length of admitting brandy and tobacco duty free, He could not pretend to say what was the actual expenditure on the Coastguard now required for the protection of the revenue, but, whatever its amount might be, the difference between it and the entire cost of the force was all that could be charged to it as a Naval Reserve. But the protection of the Revenue was not the only service rendered by the Coastguard in time of peace. It appeared from a return which he had obtained of the value of property saved and protected, and of lives saved by the Coastguard during the last six years, that in that short period the amount of property saved and protected was within a few pounds of £4,000,000, and the lives saved about 4,000, so that the force had in this respect alone almost returned to the country the entire cost of its maintenance, and by diminishing its numbers the Government would be diminishing the means of saving life and property. The other reason assigned by his noble Friend for the reduction of the Coastguard was that he had now a magnificent reserve of merchant seamen. He (Mr. Corry) had always been in favour of forming that reserve, but if he had supposed it was in any respect to supplant instead of supplementing the Coastguard on shore his views respecting it might have been different. It could be no affront to the Naval Reserve to say that it could not be compared, in point of efficiency, with the Coastguard. On the contrary it would be an insult to their understanding to assert that men who received instruction in the special duties of man-of-wars men only twenty-eight days in the year, which might be broken into four periods of seven days each, could be compared with men who must have served eight years in man's ratings in the Royal Navy—many of whom had attained to the rank of petty officers, and the whole of whom were selected in reference to superior qualifications and good conduct. No one had taken a greater interest in, or done more towards the formation of the Royal Naval Reserve than Captain Browne, the late Registrar of merchant seamen; but he held a letter from that lamented officer in his hand in which he stated that, for every 200 of that body embarked for service, from fifty to sixty men should be added from the Coastguard on shore, and this would require from 5,000 to 6,000 of the latter as the proper proportion to a reserve of 20,000 men. Another great advantage possessed by the Coastguard over the Naval Reserve was that it was more immediately available for service. The whole of the Coastguard might be assembled at Portsmouth in forty-eight hours, even from the furthest stations on the coast of Ireland, while he believed the calculation was that not more than one-third of the Naval Reserve could be depended on as being within reach at the commencement of a war. Moreover, the men of the Naval Reserve could not be called out except by Royal Proclamation under an Order in Council. This he had always thought a great defect in the Act constituting the force, for so long as negotiations were going on with a Power with which we had a difference, the issuing of a proclamation calling out the reserves would be tantamount to a declaration of war; and the practical result would be that they never would be called out until after the actual commencement of hostilities. He remembered when he was at the Admiralty, many years ago, and when there was great apprehension of a war with France on the Tahiti affair, the Government would not even allow a single ship to be put into commission lest it should precipitate the war they otherwise hoped to avoid, and, if war had actually occurred, we should have found ourselves in a very dangerous predicament. For those reasons, although he wished to speak of the Royal Naval Reserve with the greatest respect he did not think it ought to be considered as a substitute for the | Coastguard. Both the irregular and the regular reserves were many thousand men below the numbers recommended by the Royal Commission of 1858, and he did not think the increase of the former compensated the reduction of the latter. He saw in this reduction a great want of system. The number of men to be voted for the fleet of necessity fluctuated, from year to year, according to the aspect of political affairs on which the Cabinet were alone competent to decide, but the reserves were intended to meet contingencies which could not be foreseen, but which, although unforeseen, were of frequent occurrence in the history of nations, and often arose when least expected. The reserves, therefore, ought to be fixed according to a well considered and well defined scale, and he trusted that, if his noble Friend should announce, next year, a further increase of the Royal Naval Reserve, and a further reduction of the fleet, he would not also have to announce a further reduction of the Coastguard and Marines.

said, that his right hon. Friend, in objecting to the reduction in the number of Marines and Coastguard on shore, founded his observations on the valuable Report of the Commission on Manning the Navy which sat in 1858. It was true that the evidence of most naval officers, including himself, who appeared before that Commission was to the effect that it was desirable rather to increase than decrease the body of Marines. He had no hesitation in stating that the burden of his recommendations to the Commission was to increase the body of Marines, for at that time the seamen had not got into the admirable system of continuous service. But circumstances had greatly changed since then. At that time the boy system was in its infancy. We had not brought up large numbers of youths who belonged to us, who knew us, and who had acquired a real affection for the service. The Royal Navy, six or seven years ago, was only one among many of the occupations of a seafaring life. A man entered a man-of-war, served in it, and then went into the merchant service. Officers always felt the great inconvenience of that uncertainty in the manning of their ships. The fact was well illustrated in 1859, when a great bounty was offered to induce seamen to go into the Navy. All these things had changed. At that time we had no reserve at all, so to speak; we had nothing but the Coastguard, and that Coastguard was not altogether so efficient as it had been of later years; and the reason the naval officers on that occasion recommended a large increase of Marines was that they thought it was a body of men we could always count upon. His right hon. Friend lamented that there seemed a prospect of reducing the Coastguard, which, as he truly observed, was really the nucleus of the reserve force, and which, he added, was necessary for the purpose of providing petty officers in the event of the Reserve being called out; but the right hon. Gentleman should remember the petty officers and seamen of the navy were mostly continuous service men, and that on board ship there was also a vast number of young men quite fit to make petty officers of. This was a state of things which did not exist formerly. He was not aware of any want in the organization of the navy, except in reference to artificers, and he trusted that shortly the finishing stroke would be put to the means of remedying that want. Many circumstances had contributed to the gradual reduction of the Coastguard on shore. His right hon. Friend had quoted figures to show the necessity of the Coastguard for the protection of the revenue; but did the right hon. Gentleman think that 5,000 Coastguard were required at the present moment solely for the protection of the revenue? Smuggling was almost a thing of the past, though in certain places of great commerce it was still thought necessary to take precautions against it. In consequence of the changes which had taken place in legislation it was not necessary for the protection of the revenue to keep the force of Coastguard equal to what it used to be; and he had no doubt that, as the result of inquiries now making on the subject, it would be established that a further reduction of the Coastguard on shore might safely, as far as revenue purposes were concerned, be effected. There now existed a large body of Royal Navy Reserve, and he thought his right hon. Friend had not done justice to them. Many Members of the House, and officers who had seen them, reported favourably of them, that they were efficiently trained men. Under good captains of a gun they would be efficient at once on board ship. The right hon. Gentleman stated that one-third of the number could not be considered to be available at any moment. That really was not the case. According to the last return the number was 18,000; those drilled, 16,280; available in from one to fourteen days, 9,000. The larger proportion were thus available in from one to fourteen days. In addition, there was the valuable body of Coast Volunteers, little inferior to the Navy Reserve, because the Act of Parliament passed a year or two years ago introduced a now system, and now more care was taken in the selection of men. About two years ago there was no power in the Admiralty to send these men more than 100 leagues from the shore of this country but, in consequence of the inconvenience felt there from, the Act of Parliament was amended in that respect, and power was taken to send them anywhere. Taking the Naval Reserve at 18,000 men, and the naval Coast Volunteers at about 6,000 men, there was a force of 24,000 men provided by those two bodies. He had described on a former occasion the tendency, by the introduction of armour ships, to decrease in the crews of ships. The armour ships had less numerous crews than the line-of-battle ships. A great change was coming over the service in this respect, but what was lost in numbers was gained in skill, for an infinitely more skilful class of men were now on board ship. At great cost we were training them as gunners, and what was lost in numbers was gained in skill. If the naval force were analyzed, it would be found that the number of pure blue jackets was not much above 20,000. But, with a reserve of 24,000 men, there existed, in fact, a second navy. It was said that that force could not be called out in case of emergency except by an Order in Council, but he thought that Parliament and the country would soon cry out for the Order in Council to be issued if any necessity should arise for their services. When the Royal Commission recommended a large increase of the Marine force it was, he believed, contemplated that the Marines should garrison the dock ports. He confessed he should like to see those ports garrisoned by them. On the other hand, it must be admitted that our Marines were now just sufficiently employed afloat to afford them that necessary exercise which should give them their sea legs and those sea habits without which they would be useless on board ship, and if they were greatly increased they would not have sufficient sea service to keep them efficient in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the process by which the Coastguard were being reduced. A careful medical examination had been going on at all our stations, and a principle of superannuation was being adopted by which about 300 of the older men would be taken from the force. By reducing the Coastguard, men were relieved who were somewhat past their work. He believed that although there had been a decrease of numbers, there was improved efficiency.

said, he rose to call attention to the claims of the Satpoora Field Force and of the Goa Frontier Field Force (portions of the Indian Army) to the Indian Mutiny Medal, the Government of India having rejected these claims. He regretted to be obliged to bring forward the subject in the absence of the Secretary of State for India, but he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would not deem it discourteous on his part if he could not at that period of the Session defer doing so any longer. He had not the slightest personal interest in the matter, and in calling attention to it he was actuated only by a sense of duty, and a desire to see justice done to an honourable body of men who had fought gallantly and success- fully for their Queen in India, in the suppression of the unhappy mutiny and rebellion which broke out there a few years ago. The mutiny was not confined to Bengal, but extended to parts of the other Presidencies, especially to Bombay, where these particular field forces were employed, and their active services were called into requisition against the mutineers and rebels, some of whom were afterwards executed. He wished the House to consider the decision come to by the Commander-in-Chief in India, in opposition to the Governments of Bombay and Madras, in order that these troops might have granted them that medal which it was the express intention of the Sovereign should be given to all who had been engaged in suppressing the rebellion. He would explain the particular circumstances under which the services of these troops were required. In the month of February, 1858, certain native chiefs assembled a considerable force in the immediate vicinity of Goa, with a view to create rebellion against us. They took up a position and stockaded it, making it as defensible as the circumstances would permit. Lord Elphinstone called in the assistance of General Jacobs to suppress the movement, and the operations were under the direction of that distinguished officer. There was no question that the military authorities of Bombay regarded the duty imposed on these troops as the suppression of rebellion. The whole of the testimony on the subject went to establish that the military authorities who were parties to the operation were clearly of opinion that the rising partook of the character of a rebellion. The brothers Saal were the leaders of the mutiny, and the rebels were dispersed by means of a force called the Goa Frontier Field Force acting in the particular locality in question, and consisting of 1,500 regular and irregular troops from the Bombay, and a similar number from the Madras, Presidency, making in all 3,000 men, there were also 1,000 Portugese, and by those troops the rebels were dislodged from the position which they had taken up, and dispersed. General Jacob was summoned to Goa to concert a plan of operations with the Portugese authorities in the following spring, but the leading rebels finding they could not make head against the military arrayed against them surrendered themselves. The Goa Field Force was then disbanded, and the troops returned to their respective districts, and when the whole mutiny in India was at an end an order was sent out awarding medals to all the military and civilians who were employed in its suppression. Colonel Fitzgerald, one of the officers who commanded the combined Goa force, addressed a letter in October, 1860, to the Adjutant General of the army at Fort St. George, making a request for medals, and setting forth the services of those employed under him; but the result was that in proportion as the application for those medals became more numerous the official snubbing given to the applicants increased. In July, 1861, a Minute of Council was forwarded, from which it appeared that the Commander-in-Chief, being of opinion that no military operations had been undertaken against us by the rebels in the particular quarter referred to, decided that there had been nothing to warrant the issue of the medal; it was therefore countermanded, although the home Government had been prepared to grant it, and the medals were actually struck and sent out to India. This gross inconsistency was therefore sanctioned, that a medal was denied to the Bombay force which the Madras army obtained, and were actually wearing. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would consider this subject during the recess, and be prepared next Session to view the case favourably.

said, he had been requested to answer the question of the hon. Member, as it was not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India (Sir Charles Wood) to attend that evening. The case brought before the House by the hon. Member was one that ought, he believed, to be left to the Government of India to decide. The authorities in India had laid down the conditions on which medals were to be given. The regulation on this subject was that for any military force to become entitled to the distinction of the medal, it must have been engaged in actual conflict in the field. A letter had been addressed to the Commander-in-Chief on the subject, and he had stated, in reply, that there was no rule of the service which would authorise the granting of the Indian mutiny medal to the Satpoora Field Force. The hon. Gentleman referred to the decision of the Commander-in-Chief, but he had omitted to state that the Government of India concurred in his opinion. That House was hardly in a condition to discuss the details of military operations against the mutineers, and he therefore hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to move further in the matter.

said, the House was evidently unwilling to listen to the details of this matter, which he was quite prepared to go into. He should, therefore, confine himself to an expression of opinion that, as a matter of gratitude, the Government ought to have seized the opportunity of doing justice to troops who had stood by us in the crisis of danger, prevented our being driven to the coast, and thus saved our Indian empire.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Pontefract, If there be any valid reason for limiting the tenure of office of the Superintendents of the Royal Dockyards to five years, and whether lie will object to furnish a Return showing the length of time which each Superintendent held office since 1841. He had been acquainted since 1815 with all the dockyard superintendents employed at Chatham, and he bad never known a single instance in which the officers selected for that post were not men of distinction who had rendered good service to their country. The duties in the dockyards required their whole time and undivided attention. Even the accounts came under their supervision, and he maintained that the working of the system had been attended with rigid economy. He hoped his hon. Friend before the next Session would reconsider the rate of wages of the men, for they were obliged to live where lodgings and provisions were dear, and that he would place it upon a more equitable footing. He hoped also that the Government would not feel restricted to a period of five years for the employment of the superintendents if those gentlemen rendered good service, for no one could become acquainted with the various duties of the dockyard until after a long period of time.

said, he would not follow his hon. and gallant Friend into all the questions which he had raised, nor would he attempt to revive the debate which had taken place last week upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely). With regard to that debate he would merely say that he would take an opportunity before the House rose to lay some papers upon the table, and to make a statement on the subject. The Return as to the superintendents who had held office since 1841, which had been asked for by his hon. and gallant Friend, should be given. His hon. Friend had asked whether there was any valid reason for limiting the tenure of office by the superintendents to five years. The reason was this, that if it were right that naval officers should he-come superintendents in consequence of their experience at sea, it was also right that those who had been superintendents should bring their experience acquired in the dockyards to bear upon their duties afloat. To carry out both these objects properly there were decided reasons why the superintendents should not hold office for a very long time, for if so they would soon revert to the old system which existed before the time of Sir James Graham, when the Commissioners of Dockyards held their office for a long period, and the House of Commons put it down. The present arrangement was that the superintendents were appointed for five years. However, the First Lord had a discretion vested in him to re-appoint particular officers for a second period of five years, if their re-appointment was very desirable.

said, he had to complain of the burden which the measure would cast upon the taxpayers of this country. It was proposed to give to a Colonial Governor who had had a salary of £5,000, a pension of £1,000 after four years' service; a Governor who had been in receipt of a salary of £2,500, would obtain a pension of £750 for life; while Colonial Governors who had enjoyed smaller salaries were to receive proportionate retiring pensions. These pensions would be allowed them quite independently of their having performed any previous service, and it might be paid to them between the age of forty and sixty. Considering, therefore, that we had forty odd colonies, each with a Governor of its own, it was easy to see how costly an arrangement this would be to the public. He looked upon the Bill as a convenient mode of rewarding Government supporters. He thought that, with the professed desire of economy on his side of the House, this measure ought not to have been allowed to go through almost sub silentio. By accident he was absent when it was read a second time; but he now felt bound to say that he was no consenting party to the measure.