said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether he has seen any grounds for changing his opinion, expressed in this House on the 27th of June last, that Mr. Patrick Robert Welch should be suspended from the discharge of his duties as Registrar in the Leeds Bankruptcy Court pending his criminal prosecution for corrupt practices in obtaining, of attempting to obtain, a judicial appointment; if so, to be so obliging as to state them to the House; and whether, after the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, he is of opinion that Mr. John Miller is a fit and proper person to discharge the very responsible duties of Chief Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy?

Sir, the opinion to which the hon. Member refers, as expressed by me on the 27th of June last, was given under the belief on my part that the Lord Chancellor had the power, if he thought fit, to suspend a Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy; but on examining the Act of Parliament under which that office is held—the Act of 1861—it appears that she office is to be held during good behaviour—that is, subject to dismissal by the Lord Chancellor by order, for some sufficient reason, to be set forth in such order. So that it does not appear that the Lord Chancellor has the power of suspension at all with respect to the office. I need not point out to the hon. Member and the House that while Mr. Welch is subject to a prosecution which I must be tried in one of Her Majesty's Courts, it would be impossible to institute another proceeding upon the same ground with a view to his dismissal from office. That is the reason why it has not been found possible to take any steps on the subject. With regard to Mr. Miller, he holds his office on the same terms, and, speaking for myself, I am of opinion, and am authorized by the present Lord Chancellor to say that he also is of opinion, that no facts appear in the Report of the Select Committee on the Leeds Bankruptcy Court on which it would be possible to found proceedings for the purpose of removing Mr. Miller from the office he holds.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If he intends to introduce a measure to alter the Companies Act, 1862, to enable Companies, by special resolution of their shareholders, to diminish the nominal value and increase the number of their shares, retaining intact the original amount of the capital of the Company?

Sir, the subject has been under consideration with the view of introducing a Bill, but all the provisions of the measure are not yet settled. I hope, however, to be able to lay a Bill on the table shortly after the Easter recess.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the 7-inch Whitworth Gun, tiled at Shoeburyness, proved, as regards endurance, to be a failure; and whether any subsequent and special experiments have been made, so as to justify the War Office in feeling confidence in the safety and serviceable qualities of the Whitworth system when applied to guns of 8 inch and 9-inch calibre?

said, in reply, that the Whitworth gun to which the hon. Member referred, although it was a rifled gun, was not constructed entirely on Mr. Whitworth's principle, but on a principle almost entirely similar to that of the Armstrong gun. That gun had been proved only experimentally, and, in general, with excessive charges, and no doubt it had suffered considerably by the firing. With regard to the experiments conducted by the Armstrong and Whitworth Committee, although they were not conducted with guns of the size referred to, yet they showed that guns constructed on the Whitworth principle, from 12-pounders to 70-pounders, possessed most extraordinary durability and endurance. There were no guns of 8 or 9-inch calibre in the service, and there were, therefore, no positive data as to their endurance. Some experimental trials had, however, been ordered to take place.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government have decided upon the compensation to be paid to persons whose cattle were slaughtered by Orders of the Privy Council or the local authorities, previous to the passing of the Cattle Diseases Act; and from what funds such compensation is to be paid?

Sir, the Question, although of no great extent, is of very great difficulty, and Her Majesty's Government, occupied as they have been with other matters, have not been enabled to determine in what manner they ought to frame any such proposal they may find it their duty to submit to Parliament.

said, he wished to ask a question in explanation of the answer just given by the right hon. Gentleman as regarded retrospective compensation; whether the House were to understand that it was the intention of the Government to give compensation in such cases?

I have nothing to add or to take away from what we declared in the discussion on the original Cattle Diseases Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir George Grey) then declared that it was the intention of Government to look to the question with a view, if possible, of framing some proposal on the point.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he proposes to introduce a clause into the Cattle Plague Bill, enabling lean cattle to be sold and removed from farms on or about Lady Day, especially when there is a change of tenancy?

said, it was quite necessary that the Privy Council in making new Orders should include in them provisions applicable to this subject. But when the hon. and gallant Member spoke of the next quarter day, he doubted whether it would be possible to issue Orders for the whole country in time for so early a day. Until the existing Orders were superseded by a general Order the Courts of Quarter Sessions might make provisions for changes of tenancy.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would object to substitute for the clause in the "Bill for the Representation of the People" which would deprive the artizans in Her Majesty's Dockyards of the franchise, one enabling those artizans to give their votes by ballot; he would further beg to ask, whether the disfranchisement proposed to be inflicted on the artizans would be extended to officers on full pay stationed in towns where there were dockyards?

Sir, with respect to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member, I apprehend that the clause in the Bill is perfectly clear as to the class of persons to whom it applies. With regard to the former part of the Question, as Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to admit the principle of secret voting, this is, I think, the last occasion in which it ought to be applied, inasmuch as the object is not so much to protect the artizans from undue influence as to protect the Members who represent them.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a change has taken place in the method of charging the indirect and other expenses in the Royal Gun Factories since the years 1861–2; and, if so, what difference would have been occasioned in the price of Armstrong Guns, as stated in the Royal Gun Factory Balance Sheet of 1861–2, had the change been made previous to those years?

, in reply, said, it was quite true that a change had been made in the system of charging the indirect and other expenses in the Royal Gun Factories since the years 1861–2. It would he impossible to say what difference would have been occasioned in the price of the Armstrong Guns as stated in the Royal Gun Factory Balance Sheet of 1861–2, had the change taken place previous to those years, without preparing a now balance-sheet, which would be a work of considerable time and labour; but the effect, no doubt, would have been to make the manufacture of those guns considerably more expensive.

said, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, looking to the great importance of the annual "Wreck Register" being published early during the Session of Parliament, he can state how soon he will be prepared to lay the "Wreck Register for 1865" upon the table of the House?

Sir, I hope the "Wreck Return for the British Isles for the year 1865" will be on the table of the House almost immediately after Easter, and that a similar Return of British ships lost abroad will be produced in a month afterwards.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any permanent measure for the prevention of Contagious Diseases among Cattle; and whether the Orders in Council now contemplated are, under any legislative enactment, to he submitted within any given time for the consideration of Parliament?

replied that it was important to have a permanent Act, similar in principle to that proposed by Her Majesty's Government two years ago, for the purpose of checking the spread of contagious diseases among the cattle, both as to those brought to this country from abroad, and to cattle removed from one place to another in this country. A Committee has boon appointed to inquire into this subject, and probably the better plan would be to wait for its Report before any measure was brought into Parliament. The Orders in Council would be laid before Parliament—the Act rendering this imperative.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he has had any Correspondence with the Board of Guardians of Downham Market, in the County of Norfolk, on the subject of a Retiring Pension to one John Chamberlain; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to remedy the injustice complained of; and if he has any objection to produce the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on this subject, if any has been given?

, in reply, said, there had been a correspondence between the Poor Law Board and the Guardians of the Downham Union on the subject of an officer named John Chamberlain. It had reference to a pension that he claimed under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act. It was found that this claim did not come within the provision of that Act, which requires that a man shall have rendered his services exclusively to the union during the period prescribed. It was found that he had been a Registrar of Births and Deaths in that district, which is not, at present, a union office. As the officer, however, is appointed by the guardians, he (Mr. Villiers) had proposed last year that it should be considered an office within the meaning of the Act; and as the Bill which he had brought in was only withdrawn, he intended to renew that preposition this year. With reference to the production of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which had been taken in Chamberlain's case, he understood it was not usual to produce such opinions in this House, but if the hon. Member desired to see the opinion, it would be open to him to do so, whenever he would call at the Department for that purpose.

said, he fished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state what Orders Her Majesty's Government intend to issue regarding the movement of Hides and Skins?

said, in reply, that the contemplated Orders, as far as he was then enabled to state them, were that hides and skins imported from foreign parts, India, Australia, and South Africa, for manufacturing purposes, should be allowed to be moved without restriction; that no hide or skin of any animal that had died from, or been slaughtered on account of, the cattle plague should be moved at all; that no hide or skin of any animal that had been in the immediate neighbourhood of any animal affected with the cattle plague should be moved, unless it was first thoroughly disinfected, and a certificate had been obtained from the local authorities of the district; that no local authorities should be empowered to give any other orders with respect to the movement of hides and skins; but it would be in the power of the Privy Council to make further Orders on the subject if it thought them necessary.

said, with reference to a Question he had put to the noble Marquess the other evening, as to the endurance of the 12-ton gun, which had burst after firing 400 rounds, he wished to ask. Whether the Government are still satisfied with the endurance of that gun; and likewise, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was receiving those guns on board the fleet, is also satisfied on that point?

said, the gun which the other day burst after firing 400 rounds was one of a pattern not yet adopted by the Government, and was certainly not of the same pattern as the gun which was now being issued to the navy. It was one which was lately constructed in the gun manufactory of the Government. He had not yet received any detailed report in reference to the matter, and therefore could not say whether the accident was to be attributed to any defect in the quality of the iron; but if the hon. Member would wait a few days he (the Marquess of Hartington) should be able to afford him fuller information.

(Mr. LAWSON) said, with respect to a Question put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) on a previous occasion, he wished now to state that, while no summons was issued for the meeting of the Convocation, the Senate did issue a summons for a meeting of their own body, which was afterwards countermanded. He understood that the Senate thought it would be better not to hold that meeting pending the changes which might be proposed to be made in the constitution of the institution.

said, in the absence of his noble Friend (Viscount Cranbourne), he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to propose any clauses in Committee on the Church Rates Abolition Bill embodying the suggestions made by him on the second reading of the Bill for the settlement of the question; and, if so, when he will lay those clauses upon the table of the House?

replied, that owing to the pressure of his other duties, he could not say that since the discussion on the second reading of the measure in question he had been able to make great practical progress in that matter. It should, however, be his endeavour to frame clauses embodying the suggestions which he had then thrown out, and he would take care that ample notice should be given to the House before they were brought on for discussion.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been directed to the Act 21 Geo. III. c. 49; and whether, in his opinion, that Act applies to Sunday lectures on scientific and religious subjects by persons learned and competent to explain the same; and, if so, whether the Act might not be amended with advantage?

said, in reply, that the point of law involved in this question would be brought before the Court of Queen's Bench in the next term; and, therefore, the House would see that, under these circumstances, he could not undergo any cross-examination upon the matter.

Sir, it will be for the convenience of the House if I now state the course which Her Majesty's Government, after due consideration, feel it their duty to pursue with reference to the Amendment of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has given notice. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members sitting around him have frankly accepted the principle of a uniform oath; and the division which took place on the second reading of the Bill demonstrated the all but unanimous opinion of the House that a uniform oath should be substituted for the several oaths now taken by Members of both Houses of Parliament. We attach great value to the principle of a uniform oath, because it involves the exclusion of those parts of the oaths now taken which are peculiar to the Roman Catholic oath, needlessly offensive to Roman Catholic Members, and which, according to the construction placed upon them by some persons, subjects them to some restriction of the freedom which, as Members of the Legislature, they ought to exercise, A uniform oath places them upon an equality with other Members of this House; whilst it narrows the area of debate by removing many of those topics which have been the subject of our discussions to a large extent on former occasions. We have been anxious to give a fair and candid consideration to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as the leader of a party in the House, and who, we believe, is sincerely desirous of facilitating the object we have in view, that of the establishment of one uniform oath. His Amendment consists of two parts, which have no connection one with the other The first relates to the Act of Settlement, and the second to the Royal Supremacy. With regard to the first part of the Amendment, in preparing a Bill to be submitted to Parliament we did not think it necessary to retain the words relating to the Act of Settlement, believing that the succession to the Throne rests upon the firm and sure basis of the Act of Parliament, and that it would derive no additional security from the retention of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The authority of the Act of Settlement, however, is most distinctly recognized in the second section of the Bill, because by that section the oath of allegiance required to he taken can be taken only to the Sovereign who, by virtue of the Act of Settlement, is the Sovereign for the time being of this realm, There is, therefore, no substantial difference between the general purport of the Bill and the first part of the Amendment which relates to the Act of Settlement. But as some hon. Gentlemen attach importance to the retention of these words, from the honest conviction that it is desirable to retain them, the Government are not prepared to offer any opposition to the adoption of them, subject to only one exception, to which I think there will be no objection. It was stated the other night that the Society of Friends objected to the use of the word "defend," because it implied the obligation to defend the succession to the Crown by force of I arms. I do not think that is the necessary construction of the word "defend," as there are other means of defending the succession to the Crown besides the taking up of arms. But as the scruple is entertained, and as those who entertain it are now exempt from that obligation, as the; affirmation does not contain the word "defend," I do not think there will be any I objection to omit that word, retaining the words "maintain and support." With reference to the second part of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say that Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot accede to t. I will not anticipate the discussion which may arise in Committee when it is proposed, but I thought it might be convenient to the House that I should make this statement, and I now move that Mr. Deputy Speaker leave the Chair.

Sir, although I feel it desirable not to defer going into Committee, where alone the Amendment can be properly discussed, perhaps the House will allow me to make one or two observations. The right hon. Baronet holds that the Bill, as it stood in the second section, would have provided for all that is proposed to be done by the Amendment. Now, on reflection, the right hon. Baronet will see that all the second section does is this—it provides the means of substituting from time to time the name of the new Sovereign in the oath. There is no doubt the rule by which the name of the new Sovereign is to be substituted is to be found in the Act of Succession. So far I agree with him. It is desirable, however, that there should be a pledge on the part of those taking this oath that they will maintain the Succession as established by law, but there is no pledge of this kind in the second section of the Bill as it stands. With regard to the word "defend," perhaps the right hon. Baronet will allow me to point out that the difficulty experienced by hon. Members on a former occasion related to another part of the oath than that he has indicated. In the old oath the words were—

"I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend her to the utmost of my power."

Now, that was the part, I believe, to which members of the Society of Friends were averse. They believed that those words would put them under an obligation to defend the person of the Sovereign vi et armis. Allow me to point out that in the Amendment to be proposed the word "defend" occurs in a very different place, and for a very different purpose. In its present position, it implies that persons taking the oath shall defend not the person of the Sovereign but the Succession. I put it to the right hon. Baronet, whether it can possibly be supposed that by a pledge to maintain, support, and defend the Succession, you are pledged to defend it, if necessary, by force of arms? It is quite a different matter.

said, as he divided the House on the second reading of the Bill, he might perhaps be permitted to state that he believed, and had reason to know, that the large majority did not represent the unanimity which the right hon. Gentleman had assumed. The oath now sought to be disturbed was the result of an arrangement made after a contest in Parliament which, lasted for eleven years, and a conference between the two Houses of Parliament, and it was a settlement second only in importance to that of 1829, so far as principle was concerned. He knew well the current of public opinion in the country in reference to the subject, and of that current the eighty-nine petitions which he had that day presented afforded evidence. The last Report of the Committee on Petitions showed that 149 petitions had been presented against the Bill, signed by 22,000 persons, including eleven chairmen of public meetings. Considering how the matter had been postponed from week to week in the House, and how public meetings and petitions had been thereby interrupted, that was as extensive and rapid a manifestation of public feeling as could be presented to the House on any subject. He trusted, therefore, the House would give that attention to the subject which its importance demanded. It was due to the petitioners and to the intelligence which the substance of their petitions manifested, and due to the six Members who had concurred with him in expressing their strong convictions against the Bill, that he should then state the reasons which had decided him to divide the House on the second reading of the Bill, He believed that many hon. Gentlemen who voted in the majority did not agree in the substance of the Bill, and that they had voted more in deference to the opinion of their leaders in Parliament than from their own conscientious convictions.

said, he was very reluctant to urge any objection to the proposed compromise between the Government and the Opposition. There was not a Member in the House more sensible than himself of the little practical result which the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) could produce. If it had any practical result it could only be this—to make the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland feel that the disposition had not entirely disappeared of doing things towards them that were needlessly offensive. He was prepared to show that what was proposed to be done on the present occasion was entirely unnecessary, and moreover, that it was offensive to those who, like himself, professed the Roman Catholic creed. What they were called upon to do was not merely to submit, and to be loyal, to the Protestant Monarchy of this country, but to swear to maintain an Act of Parliament which was conceived in a spirit most injurious and offensive to the Roman Catholic religion, by the terms of which a Roman Catholic was bound, if at any time the Sovereign of the country were to become Roman Catholic, to take up arms and dethrone him. Now there was a wide difference between binding them to loyalty to the Sovereign, whatever his creed might be, and binding them by positive oath to take up arms and dethrone their Sovereign in case he adopted the Roman Catholic creed. No doubt it was a purely speculative and theoretical objection, but at the same time he thought it unworthy and unbecoming the dignity of the House to make a difference between a small minority of its Members and the great majority, and compel the minority to take an oath which they could not but regard as offensive and injurious; and he could not help regretting that when the Bill was introduced in a generous and liberal spirit, a movement should have been made on that (the Opposition) side of the House to take from it the merit which it possessed. But he had another objection to the Bill, and he trusted hon. Members would not suspect that it was made in a captious and offensive spirit. He, as a Roman Catholic, was to be bound by that oath to be loyal to the Sovereign of England so long as the Sovereign should remain Protestant. That imposed on him the obligation of knowing what was a Protestant. Considering the changes which were going on, it might hereafter become very difficult to say whether the personage occupying the Throne did or did not belong to that creed. He should like to ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) if he considered those clergymen to be ministers of the Protestant religion against whom he had been presenting multitudinous petitions during the last few weeks, complaining of their introducing obsolete vestments, and devoting themselves to what were called Romanistic practices; and whether he considered a Sovereign would be a Protestant if he happened to adopt those particular practices? He was at a loss to know whether a Unitarian could be considered a Protestant, and what were the limits beyond which a man could not go without ceasing to be fit to occupy the Throne of England. The Amendment would only introduce an element of ambiguity, the getting rid of which was the principal merit of the Government Bill. Considering it to be needlessly offensive to the Roman Catholics, he begged to record his vote against the Amendment, if adopted by the majority in that House of course he must submit, but he should do so with a very bad grace.

observed, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) bad stated that by adopting the first part of the Amendment he would add no- thing to the significance and force of the Bill; but the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must have convinced him how mistaken he was in supposing that the form of oath proposed in the Government Bill and the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) were one and the same thing. The hon. Member said that the two things were totally different, and that the oath proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) imposed upon him and his friends a very different obligation from that to which under the new oath in its original shape they would have been subjected. What was the difference between the form of oath in the Government Bill and that proposed in the Amendment? The Government form of oath was merely an oath of personal fealty to the individual Sovereign, It spoke of nothing but the individual Sovereign for the time being- He did not consider it, strictly speaking, an oath of loyalty at all. At any rate, it was only an oath of loyalty to the Crown. It was no oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Personal admiration, personal devotion to the occupant of the Throne was not loyalty. Loyalty was a constitutional sentiment, not a personal one. To be loyal meant to uphold the Monarchy, not simply the individual who at the moment happened to be the occupant of the throne. The distinction drawn between the Amendment and the Bill was a vital one, and he thanked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon) for his candour in pointing it out. The hon. Member objected to the Amendment because he objected to the Act of Settlement. The House considered the Act of Settlement one of the foundations of the Monarchy, but the hon. Gentleman regarded it as an Act of Parliament among other Acts of Parliament, to be repealed, or amended, or adridged, or altered, according as circumstances might render change desirable. [Mr. DILLON: Hear, hear!] He (Mr. Chambers) did not complain of Roman Catholic Members taking that view, and he was thankful to them for expressing it. The question now was, what was the House prepared to do? He regretted that the Government had introduced the Bill, and that a proposal bad been made to disturb the settlement not long since effected, but no doubt they had felt themselves pressed by what passed in the last Parliament to introduce the subject. When the Bill was brought in he felt thankful that it was proposed to establish a single oath for all Members, for it was most desirable that all hon. Members who came there to discharge a common function should do so under a common sanction. He was thankful that they intended to adopt a single form of oath, and he thought the oath should be the shortest possible, that it should contain a minimum number of obligations and principles, and that it would be bad if it included anything except what was fundamental and of the highest importance. He thought they had gone far enough in the abolition of oaths, if not too far, and though he had earnestly supported proposals to abolish oaths that were multiplied without reason and without reverence, still on proper occasions he thought it was a suitable thing for Members to be bound by an oath as, for example, when they were about to discharge the most momentous of all functions. The oath, though short as possible, should be full enough to secure its object, but he thought the oath in the Government Bill was not full enough. No oath to be taken by all the Members of the House should contain any single assertion or obligation in which all could not join. They were not called upon to take the oath as Protestants, as Roman Catholics, or as Dissenters, but as citizens; and there ought to be nothing in it which every man ought not to feel himself bound to recognize in virtue of his citizenship alone. But the second portion of the oath given notice of by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire was, it seemed, objected to by Roman Catholic Members. Why should they so object? Let them take the term "loyalty" in its constitutional sense; it meant the recognition of the Monarchy as limited by the Act of Settlement. Every man was bound to be loyal, not by statute merely, but by the highest à priori obligations of his birth—his citizenship in the State of which he was a subject. Then how could the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown object to make a declaration to that effect? Loyalty meant loyalty to the Monarch as Sovereign of England, and to a particular line of succession, being Protestant. The Roman Catholics were not asked to approve the line being Protestant, but were asked merely to recognize the fact. Again, what objection could properly be taken to the next declaration, with regard to the supremacy of the Sovereign in the Courts of Law? The prime function of Government was the administration of justice, and the Monarch was the fountain of justice, administering it through the Courts of Law. In every one of those courts the Queen was supreme, and how could it be offensive to Roman Catholics to say that in the Queen's courts the Queen was supreme? It was of no use objecting to it, because it was true, and would remain so, he hoped, so long as the country lasted. How could it wound the consciences of any one to be called upon to say that which they could not deny, and which they could not alter? There was nothing objectionable in the word jurisdiction. The word itself necessarily excluded all "foreign Princes, Prelates, States, or Potentates whatever." The words, perhaps, were more numerous than they might be, but the word "jurisdiction" was a legal term, and it was impossible for any man to contend that any foreign Prince had jurisdiction or authority in any of the courts within the realm. Jurisdiction meant coercive jurisdiction, backed by all the power of the State. On these grounds it appeared to him that Roman Catholics ought not to object to the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, because it was nothing but a statement of facts. However, if the bare and dry recognition of facts were objected to, it became less likely than ever that the Members of that House could be brought to unite under one common bond, when they presented themselves to discharge their duties. What was now proposed was more for the sake of the Roman Catholics than any one else, and he would regret if they did not lend their help in the settlement of the question.

said, he thought the discussion was ranging inconveniently wide. His right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey) had stated for the information of the House the intentions of the Government with respect to the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and it was natural for him to have made some remarks on that part of the Amendment which it was proposed to concede. His right hon. Friend also explained what portion of the Amendment he objected to, but he did not state his reasons, because it would have been inconvenient to provoke a discussion, which could at the present stage lead to no result, on that part of the subject, antecedently to going into Committee. It would be much better to take that discussion in Committee.

said, it might be inferred that he had suddenly changed his opinion on this subject, for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had just now repeated words to that effect, similar to those he made use of on a previous evening. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) reminded the House of the fads of the case, and he had himself since then referred to the authentic record of what took place last year, and he found that he absolutely requested the Government—a favour which they accorded—to give a morning sitting for the discussion on the second reading of the Bill of the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), giving notice of his intention to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with an instruction to frame a uniform oath for all Members. He was obliged to abandon that intention on account of a technical reason, for he was informed by the highest authority that such an instruction could not be referred to the Select Committee. He, therefore, was at a loss to understand how it was that he was charged by the right hon. Baronet with having opposed the enactment of a uniform oath. He was delighted when he heard the Government this year announce their intention to propose a uniform oath, but they had produced one in which he had no confidence. He had therefore suggested one in accordance with the principles he had laid down last year, in which he had confidence.

said, that on the first clause, containing the following form of oath proposed in the Government Bill:—

"I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend Her to the utmost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatever which shall be made against Her Power, Crown, or Dignity. So help me GOD.

he begged to move that after "Victoria" the following words be inserted:—

"And I do faithfully promise to maintain and support the Succession to the Crown, as the same stands limited and settled by an Act passed in the reign of King William III., intituled 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and liberties of the Subject.'"

He had made three alterations affecting the original form of oath. He had left out the words "her heirs and successors" after "Her Majesty," because they were unnecessary; he had retained, in the third clause of the oath, the words "Her Majesty is, under God, the only Supreme Governor of this Realm," because he found them in the Act of Elizabeth, and did not presume to alter them; and thinking it more consonant with the feelings of the present day, he had introduced a limitation in the same clause which no one could object to in the words "That no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath any jurisdiction in any of the Courts within the same."

hoped he might be permitted to make a few observations on the Amendment, as this was the first opportunity they had had of discussing it; and he would briefly state the objections he entertained to it. He would first call the attention of the Committee to the omissions from the original form of oath which were contemplated by the Amendment now before the House. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire proposed the omission of the following paragraph from the oath as settled for all the Protestant Members of the House, which included the vast majority. The paragraph to be omitted was—

"And I will defend tier (Majesty) to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which may be made against Her Person, Crown, and Dignity, and I will do my utmost to disclose and make known to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies that, may be formed against Her and them."

Under the oath of 1858 allegiance to the Crown was allegiance to the Throne not only as occupied by Her Majesty, hut as it might be occupied by the person who, under the Act of Settlement and Limitation of the Crown, should succeed to it. He objected to the omission of these words. It was also proposed to omit all reference to the fact that the succession to the Crown was limited to the person of "The Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body being Protestants," thereby utterly renouncing any fealty or allegiance to any other person whatever. The next omission was with reference to the words in the Oath of Supremacy—

"That no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, authority, or pre-eminence within this realm."

The right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit from the oath at present taken the words, "or ought to have," and he wished to point out that fact as one of great importance; in fact, every passage in the existing oath having a prospective effect and containing a prospective obligation, was omitted by the Amendments to the oath which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks had proposed. The next words which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to omit were that the pre-eminence of the Crown should be asserted over all persons in this country. The old words were, "over all causes and all persons," and the alteration would make a very great difference, because it was stated by Lord John Russell, in 1851, that an attempt was then made by the Papacy to establish a separate jurisdiction in this country, and that the course pursued by Cardinal Wiseman and Legate Cullen was an attempt to set up the jurisdiction of a foreign Power by the side of that of the Crown. He prayed the House to deal carefully with these alterations, and not to omit any portions of the oath which might, under existing circumstances, favour the attempt which they knew was being made. Cardinal Wiseman stated publicly, in 1851, that his object was to constitute the Roman Catholics a separate community in this country, subject in all things to the "spiritual" authority of the Pope in a Papal sense. He hoped the Committee would consider that the words in the existing oath were not the product of uninformed intellects, or that they were carelessly produced. The terms of the oath had a historical meaning which was brought down to the altered circumstances of the present day, but were still applicable. The omissions proposed were, that all the words at the conclusion of the oath which described the universality of Her Majesty's supremacy should be omitted, and the words "in the courts" should alone be added. It, therefore, seemed that, as the claim of the Papacy was that the authority of the See and the Court of Rome extended over all baptized persons, that might be a matter of indifference to Protestants, but he believed that the prohibition of that doctrine by the laws of this country, and by the solemn declaration of the Members of the Legislature made in Parliament, was important in order to extinguish the vain hopes that might be raised hereafter, and had been used before, for the purpose of creating discord. He therefore objected to the Amendments proposed as invalidating the supremacy of the law, the law being the exponent of the justice of which the Crown was the source, and of the national independence which it had been the wisdom of this country ever to cherish.

said, he wished to know whether the Government agreed to abandon these words?

said, that the Question now was as to word proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) to be added after the word "Victoria."

said, he would ask the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) whether he considered it prudent to omit from the present oath the words "And I will defend Her Majesty against all conspiracies whatever?"

said, no Question had been put as to the omission of these words; the Question now was the insertion after "Victoria," in line 12, of the words proposed to be added by the right hon. Member (Mr. Disraeli). The Question whether the words proposed to be omitted should or should not stand part of the clause would arise after the Committee had decided on the insertion of the words proposed to be added.

said, with reference to some observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate), that it was unnecessary for the oath to refer to the words "being Protestants" or to the succession to the Crown. The omission was of no importance whatever, as the Act of Settlement contained the words and the limitation.

I propose to omit after the word "subject" the words—

"And will defend Her to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever which shall be made against Her Power, Crown, or dignity."

This will be, in effect, the adoption of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli).

I now propose to add after the word "subject" the following words:—

"And I do further solemnly declare that Her Majesty is, under God, the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and that no Foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath any jurisdiction or authority in any of the Courts within the same."

Sir, I think I can lay before the House several reasons for the non-acceptance of this Amendment, I fully recognize in the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) has taken a sincere desire to avoid difficulties and to agree upon such a form of oath as shall give general satisfaction to all parties. The objections I have to make to this part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal are of a twofold character. In the first place, the words that he proposes to introduce are incongruous with and unnecessary to the object of the oath as we now propose to frame it; and secondly, the Amendment is not only unnecessary but is positively mischievous. With regard to my first, objection, that the words proposed to be introduced are incongruous and useless, I say that the oath as we now propose to frame it is intended to embrace two things—namely, the great principle of personal loyalty to the Sovereign, and that of loyalty to the Monarchy as established by the fundamental laws of the Constitution. We have agreed as to that, but we are now asked to go further, and to introduce into the oath an abstract I proposition, which has nothing whatever to do with these great principles—which is neither a pledge of personal loyalty to the Crown nor of loyalty to the Monarchy. What can be the use or advantage of introducing abstract declarations of this kind into the oath? I can only suggest one possible use of them—namely, to act as a test. There may be occasions on which it might be desirable or even necessary to introduce into an oath of this kind words which should operate as a test, but the object of such a test and the criterion of its necessity is the exclusion of persons whose opinions would render their admission dangerous. This object was the foundation of all declarations respecting the I Royal Supremacy which were introduced into the oath formerly taken by Members of Parliament. It was thought, that there were dangerous opinions, perilous to the Constitution, held by certain persons upon that subject, which rendered those who held them unfit to sit in Parliament. Accordingly, it was deemed necessary to insert such words in the oath as would be a bar to the entrance of such persons beyond the threshold of this House. That was a very effective test, as it practically excluded all who entertained opinions in favour of the Papal supremacy in this country. By degrees we began to place more confidence in our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and in the course of time we took the very singular course of framing an oath which, while it permitted Roman Catholics to enter Parliament without abjuring certain opinions, compelled those who were never suspected of entertaining such opinions to abjure them. I think the time has arrived when we all agree that we may depart from that course, and I therefore object to the introduction into the oath of abstract propositions which are useless as tests, and which can answer no useful purpose whatever. Is there a single human being in Tier Majesty's dominions who doubts that, under God, she is the only supreme Governor of this realm? When any person has taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, and has faithfully promised to maintain and support the succession to the Crown, as fixed by the Act of Settlement, can it be necessary to ask that person to go on and to declare that "Her Majesty is, tinder God, the only supreme Governor of this realm?" That merely expresses a political truism which no person doubts. Unless it is intended to make the oath a sort of political creed, and to insert in it all other political truisms regarding our Constitution, such statements should be omitted altogether. Is not the next portion of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition open to equal if not to stronger objections? It is—

"And that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath any jurisdiction or authority in any of the Courts within the same."

Most lame and impotent conclusion! Whoever said that any foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate has any jurisdiction or authority in any courts within this realm of England? In which court should they have any jurisdiction or authority—in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the Court of Common Pleas, in the Court of Exchequer, or in which of the other Courts? The proposition may be perfectly true, but why insert into the oath that which is the greatest truism and platitude that was ever put into words? All previous tests have been directed against real opinions, which were held to be dangerous, and which persons really believed and professed to hold, but never before have such words as these been introduced into an oath. But are the words simply idle and harmless? They actually limit the jurisdiction of Her Majesty to the Courts, as though Her Majesty's Supremacy only extended to the judicial power of the Crown. Is there any principle of constitutional law which so limits the Royal Supremacy? If we go back to the old statutes we shall find that the Supremacy of the Crown is referred to as being much wider and more extended than would appear from the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. In a statute passed even before the Reformation, in the reign of Richard II., the Supremacy of the Crown is referred to in these terms—

"The Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God in all things touching" [not all the Courts within the realm] but "the regality of the same Crown, and to none other."

Again, a statute of Henry VIII. says—

"The realm of England, recognizing no superior under God, but only the King, hath been and is free from subjection to any man's laws, but only to such as have been devised, made, and obtained within this realm, for the wealth of the same, or to such others as by sufferance of the King, the people of this realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used among them."

And, lastly, the statute of Elizabeth, establishing the ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Crown, for I have been speaking hitherto of the general and of the legislative Supremacy of the Crown, says—

"No foreign Prince, Peer, Prelate, State, or Potentate, spiritual or temporal, shall use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, authority, superiority, or privilege, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, or any other of Her Majesty's dominions or countries."

If you are to insert anything about one branch of Her Majesty's Supremacy, you should refer to the other branches of it in the terms of the statute-book; but by omitting to say anything concerning it we leave it in full force as it stands on the statute-book and it is binding on all men. If it be desired to undermine Her Majesty's general supremacy, then nothing can be better for the purpose than the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. On these grounds I ask the House to decline to adopt the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to insert these words.

And I, on the contrary, hope that the House will see the wisdom and the propriety of adopting the proposed Amendment. The first objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the words is that they are incongruous with the rest of the oath, because they point to Supremacy, while the rest of the oath points to allegiance. Has not every oath that has been taken by Members of Parliament dealt not only with allegiance, but with Supremacy? Incongruity in such a matter is not a fault, and, therefore, I put aside altogether the first objection raised. The next objection to the words is, that they only enunciate a truism. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman is, that as the form of oath proposed states nothing but what is most palpably true, it is only degrading the truth to make hon. Gentlemen subscribe to it. But the affirmative portion of the oath is in accordance with the form which has existed since the earliest period, and I maintain that in requiring a subscription to the declaration that no foreign Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate has jurisdiction or authority in Her Majesty's Courts of Law, so far from lowering and lessening the value of the oath, we are simply repeating the practice which has heretofore been observed, with this exception, that by the addition we propose as to Her Majesty's Courts of Law, we are clearing away that possibility of doubt which on so many occasions has given cause of offence. What does this jurisdiction and authority of the Sovereign mean? It means jurisdiction and authority in Courts of Law of a coercive character, and there is no jurisdiction or authority of that description in this country except that to which effect is given in our Courts of Law. The hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the oath of Queen Elizabeth's reign; but I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten the history of that period. The Roman Catholics at that time said that they could not take the oath because it denied jurisdiction and authority in a quarter where they acknowledged their existence. What was done? If I remember rightly, one of the Ministers of the Queen prepared a memorandum, with her sanction, explaining that the view of the Crown and of those by whom the oath was framed was that the jurisdiction and authority mentioned in the oath referred only to those of a coercive character, and did not refer to jurisdiction and authority in foro conscientiœ, which could not be enforced in a Court of Law. The oath was accordingly taken freely by those who at first objected. All, then, that is now done is to declare in black and white what in the oath framed in the time of Queen Elizabeth was explained by a verbal comment. In the proposition we have made we are, therefore, adhering to, instead of departing from, constitutional principles. We are, in fact, simply doing what it is a pity was not done then—namely, adding to the oath the explanation given of it at the time it was first imposed The lion, and learned Gentleman has referred to the statute passed in the reign of Richard II., and has taunted us with not having framed our oath according to that Statute; but I am afraid that at the time that statute was passed our constitutional form of government was scarcely as will defined as it has since been. All I can say is, that if we had framed an oath in a form similar to that adopted by the statute of Richard II. we should have heard this evening observations, if not from the hon. and learned Gentleman, at all events from some other Member of the House, not favourable to our proposition. The statute of Henry VIII., to which the lion, and learned Gentleman also referred, declared that the King's supremacy was limited by the laws of the realm, thus referring to the laws as showing its extent. We, bow ever, refer to the Courts which administer the laws, and the standard is therefore in reality the same. Then the Attorney General says it is an abstract proposition. I do not think it an abstract proposition, any more than the oath of allegiance It is a most practical proposition in reference to the subject with which it deals, and I need not therefore follow the arguments of the Attorney General on that point. His last objection is, that as the Supremacy is a matter of fact, and the law of the land, this oath is unnecessary. But that argument is one which applies with equal force to the oath of allegiance. I will read the answer given by Lord Coke to the statement that the oath of allegiance was unnecessary—

"All our subjects are equally bounden to their allegiance as it they had taken the oath, because it is written by the finger of the law in their hearts, and the taking of the corporal oath is but an outward declaration of the same."

An argument of this kind may be applied with equal force to the form of oath proposed by the Government. The present proposition of the Government is based upon the necessity of the oath of allegiance; and, therefore, this argument of the Attorney General has as much force against the Government proposition as against the Amendment. I trust, therefore the Committee will adopt the Amendment.

said, that he should be sorry to appear ungrateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite. One of the earliest measures of practical kindness to the Roman Catholics came from Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, who were the first to give them Roman Catholic chaplains for the army, but their views respecting these oaths contrasted unfavourably with those of the Government, He looked with suspicion upon words borrowed from old Acts of Parliament, for they reminded him of intolerance in times gone by, which he would fain hope would soon he forgotten. Roman Catholics had always been loyal to the Queen and to the country; and why were they to be subjected to tests which implied doubt and distrust? He therefore entered a protest against all the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), and left the matter, without the slightest fear of the result, in the hands of the House.

I would correct a slight error into which the noble Lord appears to have fallen. He has spoken of this oath as if it were to be administered to the Roman Catholics alone; but such is not the case. We propose that it should be taken by all the Members of this House, if it were levelled at any particular sect, I am prepared to admit it would be objectionable; but the principle asserted in it has never been disputed. I beg permission to remind the Attorney General that Lord Hale says that the Oath of Supremacy is but an expansion of the oath of allegiance, and that Chatham said on one occasion that Parliament had no more right to interfere with the principle of the Supremacy of the Crown than it had to set aside the Bill of Rights or Magna Charta. That is a principle of our Constitution which is not to be got rid of by any ingenious observations as to the absence of any necessity for making such a declaration. The term "spiritual jurisdiction" was explained in this House by Lord Westbury when Attorney General. He observed that—

"Much misunderstanding had arisen respecting the matter, mainly in consequence of a misconception as to the meaning of the words of the original statute. The House would there find the words 'spiritual' and 'ecclesiastical' used to express different things. The word 'spiritual' referred simply to jurisdiction."

That, is the argument of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli), and that is also the argument of my hon. and learned Friend beside me (Sir Hugh Cairns.) The word "spiritual" here employed refers entirely to the authority to be exercised in courts of justice. Sir Richard Bethell read the old oath altered at the time of the Reformation, which declared that all jurisdiction in the realm should be derived from the old foundation of jurisdiction—namely, the Sovereign, and said that—

"All that was meant by supremacy of the Crown was that no power or jurisdiction should be exercised by any tribunal or court of justice which was not derived from the Sovereign."

This contains the very words of the Amendment we are discussing, and is the great principle on which the Constitution of the country in my judgment mainly depends. When King Charles II, was restored—and he was himself a Roman Catholic if he was anything, and I hope he was—that oath was taken by the most distinguished Roman Catholic noblemen in the land, who actually went so far as to disclaim any spiritual jurisdiction in any foreign Prince or Prelate which could affect their allegiance to the Sovereign. Dr. O'Connor, the learned Roman Catholic divine, regarded that as a fair and a legitimate view of the question. Lord Plunkett endeavoured to settle that point in 1821, and a Committee which had then inquired into it declared that the disclaimer of any foreign jurisdiction meant only the denial of any jurisdiction which would be incompatible with the allegiance which was due to the Sovereign of these realms. This is all it is proposed to do in this oath; and I would remind hon. Gentlemen that it is to the advantage of all of us, irrespective altogether of our several creeds, that the jurisdiction should lie in the quarter where it can give protection to all.

said, he thought that the word "supremacy" included spiritual supremacy. It was an ambiguous expression, and he, as a Roman Catholic, objected to an oath which would call upon him to declare that no such authority was vested in the head of his Church. It was very hard that Roman Catholic Members should be exposed to observations and charges to which the term might subject them.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee told them that the word "supremacy" was open to more than one interpretation. But he should remind the hon. Gentleman that that word was not at all contained in the oath which was then under their consideration. Ha had to observe, in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edward Howard), to whom he always listened with the respect which was due not only to his talents, but to his character, that in dealing with that subject he had taken as his guide the course pursued by Queen Elizabeth, which was regarded at the time by her Roman Catholic subjects as the happiest solution of that question, and which met with their general approval.

said, he did not approve the Amendment as it stood, but thought it could be rendered satisfactory by making a slight addition to it. He felt the force of the Attorney General's objection to the clause; but as the alternative would be no declaration of the Queen's supremacy at all, he would vote for the words with a view to propose such an addition to them as would render them satisfactory to his views.

said, he would move that the Chairman should report Progress, in order that the Bill might be reprinted, with a view to its re-consideration in Committee. In the opinion of many the alterations proposed came within the category of those changes of the Constitution which Lord Chatham held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. The only argument brought forward in favour of the Bill was that it would give satisfaction to the Roman Catholics. But the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had declared that, even as regarded the first part of the oath, he and his coreligionists would not accept it as anything satisfactory. At a great meeting in Ireland of a body called the National Association, at which the two archbishops of Ireland, thirteen bishops, eighty associates, and 500 members handed in their names or their subscriptions, the hon. Member for Tipperary, supported by the Dean of Cork, stated that however inexpedient the Fenian movement might be, it represented a Catholic spirit as widespread throughout Ireland as the Catholics themselves; that they must look for the redress of their grievances not to what Parliament could do for them, but to the sympathy that Ireland, the Poland of England, could command from America and France.

said, he did not recognize any speech of his in the description given by the hon. Member. He certainly never said what the hon. Member ascribed to him, nor anything like it.

said, the hon. Member was reported to that effect in the ordinary journals, but it was almost impossible to fix the Protean character of Roman Catholic sentiment. On the occasion to which he referred the Dean of Cork stated that it did not follow because Members of the Government did not think fit to embark in the particular vessel proposed by the Fenian movement that therefore they would give up their purpose, which was to obtain for the people of Ireland rights at present with- held from them. They regarded the Fenian movement as mistaken but heroic. This Amendment of the oath, then, not being one of the grievances alleged by Fenian heroes, or any of the Members of that House who had spoken upon the wrongs of Ireland this Session, the Government were preparing the alteration on grounds of sentiment alone. It appeared that they were to run the risk of upsetting the allegiance not only of Roman Catholics, but of Protestant Members, and then, according to the hon. Member for Tipperary, the Roman Catholics would derive no satisfaction from the Act. What was to be the limit of the concessions they were prepared to make to Roman Catholic sentiment? How much longer were Roman Catholics to be humoured by breaking up the Protestant Constitution of the country? The Government, he contended, by introducing this question into the Royal Speech, bad placed Her Majesty in a false position, for she was bound by her coronation oath to maintain the Constitution, and, as the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. White side) had shown, this oath was really part of the Constitution. He thought, therefore, that the Queen ought not to be placed in the position in which she would be placed if called upon to assent to this measure The Queen had made herself personally responsible to protect the Protestant Constitution, The Roman Catholics were sincere men, but they recognized as part of their religion that liberty of conscience was not the right of any man, and that it was monstrous heresy to suppose the civil power supreme over the spiritual power of the Pope. In what position would Her Majesty be placed by her advisers when any of the dogmas enunciated in the Encyclical Letter—such as that liberty of con science was a pernicious doctrine—should be brought before her, and she should be called upon to recognize those sentiments? How could she say in that ease that she was bound by the Constitution and by her oath to protect the Constitution? Considering that this oath formed part of the settlement of 1688, that ii was approved by the leading Members of the Roman Catholic faith when it was enacted, he thought they were bound, in dealing with the Roman Catholics as a body of honourable and sincere men, to recognize their loyalty and embody it in the oath. The discussion that night had confirmed the expediency of his suggestion that this measure should be dealt with by a Select Com- mittee, because the question involved legal words and other minute considerations. Whether his view was right or wrong—and he sincerely hoped it wa3 wrong—the House was very unfit to consider the exact force of words, the intention of the oath, and the objects for which its alteration was promoted, and to have referred it to a Select Committee would have been more consonant with the importance of the subject and with the dignity of the House. Without at all wishing to interfere with the progress of the measure, he ventured to move that the Chairman should report Progress, with a view to the Bill being reprinted and recommitted.

said, he had not the slightest objection to reprint the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman must know that no order for reprinting could be made till the Bill had been reported, and that by reporting Progress the reprinting would be prevented. After it had passed through Committee he should move that it be reprinted with a view to its consideration on the Report.

said, he understood that another opportunity was not to be given for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, which was the object he had in view, and that the Government merely negatived his Motion.

said, he could not consent to a Motion for reporting Progress, as there was virtually only the short title of the Bill remaining for consideration, but there was no objection to reprinting the Bill as soon as it was reported.

said, his object was to give the House another opportunity of considering the Bill.

said, he wished to ask when it was intended to consider the Report? The important question with respect to the Supremacy of the Crown had been discussed under disadvantageous circumstances.

said, he proposed that the Bill should be reprinted at once. There were no important alterations. He proposed to take the Report to-morrow, and the third reading the first thing on Monday, when the hon. Member would have an opportunity of recurring to the subject.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the importance of continuing the construction of the Iron-clad Men-of-War, and to move for Returns of the total cost of the building and equipment of the Warrior and the Agincourt respectively. In bringing under the consideration of the House this very important subject, they must bear in mind that the iron-clad vessels hitherto completed were for the purpose of supplying the place of the great wooden three-decker fleet which formerly existed, and that vessels of a new class were needed of smaller tonnage and less draught of water than had hitherto been launched. He had observed with great satisfaction that the Admiralty had turned their attention to this subject. Every one knew that frigates, corvettes, brigs, and sloops of war, were a most important part of our navy, and it would be a great blow to our naval efficiency unless means of supplying the wants of that important branch of the service could be contrived by the ingenuity of modern naval constructors. In the late Parliament he drew attention to the subject of the naval power of England. Some remarks he had then made attracted a degree of attention which he had scarcely anticipated, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an important speech he delivered to his constituents at Liverpool, made reference to those remarks. He begged to thank his right hon. Friend for the courteous and friendly terms in which he had made reference to him, but he thought his right hon. Friend's observations were calculated to give an erroneous or exaggerated impression of what was said. His right hon. Friend had characterized him as the friend of profuse general expenditure, and had intimated that his suggestions, if adopted, would place an obstacle in the way of economical reform. But it would be impossible to replace our wooden fleet by an iron-clad fleet without considerable outlay, and his remarks were directed to that point. He did not arraign the general peace establishment as it existed in 1864. At that time Parliament voted 70,000 men for the navy, just one-half of the total number they had during the last great war, when they met all the navies of the world, and were supreme upon the seas. He did not question that that was a sufficient peace establishment; at the same time, he had always been the strongest advocate of an efficient Channel fleet. He considered that this country should never be left at the mercy of an unforeseen contingency which might plunge us into war, and even prevent us from defending our own shores. In 1864 and 1865 there existed, and he trusted there would continue to exist, a very efficient Channel fleet, and he dare say that many Members of that House had witnessed with gratification the friendly meeting of the French and English fleets in the course of the last year. It was not the question of the peace establishment to which he wished to draw the attention of the House, but he did not think that either the House or the country had ever realized to themselves sufficiently the immense consequences to England which had resulted from the great revolution in the mode of naval construction and naval warfare. At the close of the last war England was undisputed mistress of the seas; not all the nations in the world combined could for one moment stand against the number, the power, and the efficiency of the English fleet. But what was the position of England up to the time that iron-clads had practically superseded wooden ships? During a large portion of the time her peace establishment was inadequate, much more so than under the present Admiralty. But in those days they did not depend upon the peace establishment as constituting the naval supremacy of England. Behind the peace establishment existed two great arms of strength which England alone possessed, and that was the point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. The immense number of ships in ordinary constituted the great naval strength of England during forty years. At any time if she had been called upon to put forth her strength and energies upon a sudden demand, these ships in ordinary at Portsmouth, in the Hamoaze, at Sheerness, in the Medway, and at Pembroke, might have been equipped, manned, and put to sea. But no other Power had anything like that naval force laid up in ordinary. There was another immense reserve which they possessed in a peculiar degree, and which happily still remained. It was a most difficult thing to convert a landsman suddenly into a sailor. The sailors of England's merchant marine approached nearly the number of 300,000, and nothing was easier than to convert a merchant seaman into a very good man-of-war's-man Taking the average, the merchant seaman was a better practical seaman than the man-of-war's-man; he worked on smaller craft, and had to turn his attention to everything, whereas the man-of-war's-man probably confined his attention to one or two things. The main thing was to teach the merchant seaman the use of the guns, and this was not very difficult, as he would be under the direction of a practised artilleryman to each gun. England, therefore, stilt possessed the means of rapidly equipping a fleet such as no other nation possessed. Therefore, during the whole of those forty years this country had a means of equipping a fleet, and again of manning it, which no other nation in the world possessed, and which would have placed us in a short time in the position in which we stood in 1815, at the close of a gigantic struggle. But be wished to call attention specially to this fact—that the whole of that wooden fleet which had been our strength had become as useless, as incomplete, and as valueless for all purposes of war as if their timbers had become rotten, or as if they had been sunk to the bottom of the sea Our wooden ships were now as practically obsolete as the old Roman triremes, the appliances of modern warfare completely superseding them. Iron-clad vessels were comparatively speaking invulnerable, but if he might coin a word to express his meaning, he would say that the incombustibility of the iron-clad was more important even than its invulnerability. By the recent improvements in naval gunnery the shell was projected with the greatest ease and precision at point-blank range into the vessel's hull; whereas, under the old system, it required great knowledge of conic sections, and deep acquaintance wish mathematics, to cast effectually a shell upon a wooden ship, especially in a state of motion. Such were some of the altered conditions of modern warfare. Mr. Cobden, whose accuracy in details was so remarkable that one might almost venture blindly to follow him, in a speech which he made three years ago on going into Supply on the Navy Estimates, stated that we had at that time 66 ships of the line, 40 large frigates (of a more powerful class, he believed, than the old 74), making together 106 of what might be called first-class ships, besides upwards of 150 vessels of smaller construction, which were of immense use in representing our flag in all parts of the globe. Now the unfortunate result of the particular direction that progress had taken had been entirely to confiscate the whole of this great naval force. This involved not only an immense loss of capital, but, what was more important, of power. England had lost immensely in power from that great change, and stood no longer the first great naval Power. He feared that the public mind had not been properly awakened to this fact, though it was still the constant habit to speak of England as the mistress of the seas, and as holding the trident of the ocean. That was all very fine, but, unfortunately, it was not true. The trident of the ocean had slipped from her grasp, and if war were now suddenly to break out it would be found that there did not exist the means of defending our own shores from insult and from plunder, our commerce from interruption and from privateers, and of ensuring those supplies of food which were now necessary to the existence of the nation. Perhaps we should scarcely be safe from invasion itself. England, though she had to some extent replaced her power, had not one tenth of the force in iron-clads that she formerly possessed in wooden ships. The Secretary to the Admiralty told them that at the end of the year the country would have 30 iron-clads afloat, but what was that compared with 106 sail of the line, and large frigates almost equal to ships of the line, besides 150 ships of smaller calibre, which carried the power of England all over the world, and made her flag known in every sea? How could a fleet of iron-clads, drawing 28 and 36 feet of water and even more, compare in utility with that wooden fleet, for entering rivers and harbours in every part of the world? These were facts, mortifying and distressing facts; but it was not well wilfully to shut their eyes to them. It would be far wiser to look them steadfastly in the face, and prepare in time for any emergencies that might arise. It was the part of true wisdom and national foresight to examine calmly into what stops could be taken for placing the country in the proud position of naval superiority which it occupied before these vast changes. Sound economy and judicious retrenchment ought by all means to be strictly observed; but in doing that they must not forget to measure what they were likely to save immediately in money and what they sacrificed in permanent safety and power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow that, in case of necessity and with an adequate motive for putting forth her strength, England was not too poor to provide the means of vindicating her position among the nations. He did not come forward with any specific proposal that we should build so many iron-clads in a certain time, or that we should replace our old wooden force at once by a corresponding number of iron ships. That must be a matter of time. But what he would impress on the House was this, that there was a work before us which we must not lose sight of; that we must not suppose, because the noble Lord with his happy power of exposition gave us a flattering account of our naval strength, we had therefore got all we required. There was a vacuum to be filled before England could become what England had been, and she had not only all the pecuniary means, but all the constructive resources that were needed to fill it. England, with her inexhaustible stores of coal and iron, with her great mechanical and manufacturing skill, was the very centre of construction of those ships for the whole world. If the Emperor of Russia wanted an iron-clad, he would send to Limehouse; if the Sultan wanted one, he would go to Liverpool; if the Brazilians or the Peruvians wanted iron ships, they would come to us. There were few nations which could construct those vessels at all, and none which could do so in so quick and effective a manner. The Government had, therefore, only to take time by the forelock and to keep in view the position in which we stood, and the urgent need of supplying the want, in order to become a greater naval Power than we were even under the old heart-of-oak system.

said, that the House as well as himself always listened with the greatest respect to whatever fell from the hon. Baronet on this subject, because they were sensible that he could have no other object in view than the safety and honour of the country. Our annual Estimates, however, were very large, and he had failed to discover any reason from the hon. Baronet's speech for proposing to make them larger. The hon. Baronet had on this, as on former occasions, compared the number of iron-clads which we now possessed with the line-of-battle ships of former days. It was quite true that if we took numbers alone into account our fleet might be said to be inferior to what it was at the close of the great European war. In those days we had more than 100 line-of-battle ships; but the number of the large and costly ships required for the present day was much less than it was then, and the real question was, what was our naval strength as compared with that of other nations. He would not go into comparisons or refer to what was done in other countries, for that it would be well, if possible, to avoid; but he could say that he confidently believed that the armour-plated ships which we had constructed during the last few years had placed this country in a very safe position. He would not say that we were now in the same relative position as we were at the close of the great war. In these days it was not to be expected that we should at once be able to sweep the seas, as in those. What we did expect, however, was this, that if we were obliged to go to war, we should be able to maintain our rights, and that our fleet would be found to be worthy of the dignity of the country and quite sufficient for her safety. It would, undoubtedly, be necessary that the Government should come annually to that House for a large sum for the construction of more of those armour-plated ships. But even now he would like to ask the hon. Baronet whether he would not rather go to sea with our thirty armour-plated ships than with the 100 line-of-battle ships, of which he talked with so much pride. It was certainly desirable that we should go on constructing those iron-clads, and constructing them regularly, and the Government were responsible for this—not to allow other nations to build more powerful armour-plated ships, or ships of any other description to an extent which, compared with our own force, might endanger the liberty, the honour, or the dignity of this country. He was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet say that England was in an unprepared state as regarded her seamen. He understood the hon. Baronet to say that in former days we could call forth any number of seamen we pleased, and that thus we were in a state of full preparation for war. Now, there precisely lay the distinction between these days and those, but the distinction was quite in the opposite sense from that intended by the hon. Baronet. It was quite true that there was at the close of the war a vast number of seamen available for any purpose that might be required; but we entirely neglected that which of late years was considered so important—namely, the question of naval reserves. It was also true that the number of men we voted for the navy was not so very large, but he would say, without the least, fear of contradiction, that of late years we were in such a position that we could in crease our naval force, if required, to such an extent as to be quite able to meet any fleet that might suddenly be brought against us.

said, the noble Lord had misunderstood him. He had stated that we still retained the men, but had lost the ships.

said, he was glad the hon. Baronet appreciated the efforts which the Government had made to maintain the reserves. He did not wish to be always parading our force, but if he were to enumerate all the available reserves over and above the actual number of men at sea, the hon. Baronet would be far from dissatisfied on that head. With regard to ships, their numbers, though very much less than in former times, were, in comparison with those of other nations, very considerable. With regard to both ships and men, be believed that this country had not, since the great war, been in so satisfactory a state as it was at the present time.

said, that the noble Lord was correct when he stated that the question of naval armaments had resolved itself into a question of comparison. All nations were re-constructing their navies, and each was trying to build the most powerful armour-clad ship. He, however, doubted the correctness of the noble Lord's assertion, that the position of England in this respect was satisfactory, and asked whether our navy was predominant or oven adequate for the defence of our interests in any part of the world. He pointed to the Mediterranean, and asked if there was a sufficient naval force there to protect British possessions in that sea, even against any aggression on the part of Italy. He believed there was not, for the Italian Government had more iron-clad vessels in that sea than England had. Were there any iron-clads belonging to England in the Pacific? America had some there. [LORD CLARENCE PAGET: We are going to send two to the Pacific Ocean.] The naval expenditure was very large, and he doubted whether the money was wisely disposed of. He thought that it would be much better to construct smaller vessels instead of those huge iron-clads which it was impossible to use at distant foreign stations, because there was no port where they could be repaired except in Great Britain. If the Government desired to defend the interests of England in every part of the world, and to meet, when necessary, the iron-clads of other countries, it was imperative that; smaller iron-clad vessels should be constructed.

said, he wished to suggest the inauguration of a volunteer naval force. Such a force might be of great service to the country, and it would be nothing more extraordinary than the Volunteer corps established during the last few years, which bad given so much satisfaction. He thought that the money, and the energy, and intelligence now do-voted to yachting might be made available for the defence of the country. He believed that Lords Yarborough and Alfred Paget favoured the project.

Sir, since I placed upon the Paper the notice of Motion which stands opposite my name, I have enjoyed an opportunity of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House to the nature of the information which I venture to think is necessary before this House should be invited to legislate upon the question of "Reform." And I can assure hon. Members that I have no intention of inflicting on them a repetition of the arguments which I employed on that occasion. But, while I gladly acknowledge that I received from the right hon. Gentleman a most patient and attentive hearing, I would remind him that I did not receive what, perhaps, I should have valued even more—an answer. Availing myself, therefore, of the forms of this House, I now repeat the Question which I put upon a previous day. Can the right hon. Gentleman, and, if so, will he, lay upon the table of this House a Return of the number of electors on the existing registers, who are assessed to the Property and Income Tax? Because, Sir, we know that the new voters will not pay it; and when we know how many of the present voters do not pay it, we shall see to what extent the taxing power is to be placed in the hands of those who do not pay direct taxation. In the next place, Sir, I ask the right hon. Gentleman when I may look for the production of the Returns, for which I moved five weeks ago, following the rentals in cities and boroughs upwards from £10 to £20, both figures inclusive? Because, Sir, I am confident that when this House and the country see how heavily the present constituencies are grouped at and just above £10, they will—if that be possible—be less than ever inclined to the Reform Bill of the right hon. Gentleman.

I am very sorry that through inadvertence I omitted to reply to the Question put to me by the hon. Gentleman. In his speech on a former evening, which I heard with great satisfaction, I did not catch his Question. With regard to the first of the Questions which he has just put—namely, that with respect to a Return of the electors assessed to Income and Property Tax—I am afraid that it would be extremely inconvenient to furnish that Return, It would take a considerable time, and, I am afraid, would involve great expense. I doubt very much whether its value would be at all commensurate with the time and expense which the collection of the facts would require. As regards local taxation, an important distinction may be drawn between those who pay and those who do not pay; but as regards Imperial taxation, I am not disposed to think that a very important distinction can be drawn between those who pay and those who do not. I think the hon. Gentleman's Question seems to proceed from the supposition that those classes who pay direct taxation are more heavily taxed in proportion to their income than those who do not pay direct taxation. Now, I believe that is an entirely erroneous supposition. I think that persons in humble circumstances must pay in indirect taxation—most of all in the taxation on spirits and tobacco—quite as large an amount of taxation in proportion to their income as those classes who pay direct taxation—probably, a larger proportion. I may be right, or I may be wrong. I know that an opposite opinion is held. Four years ago an article appeared in the Edinburgh Review from an able writer, to whose views I attach considerable weight. He did not carry his conclusions to the point that there was any material difference. I think he contended that the wealthy classes were more heavily taxed. My impression, however, is that he argued there was only a very small difference. But I never assented to that argument. On the contrary, I think, if anything, the difference lies the other way. The hon. Gentleman has also asked when certain Returns relating to the grouping of rentals will be laid on the table. I cannot give him an answer. Such Returns are not prepared under me, and I was not aware that they had been asked for. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman communicated with my right hon. Friend the bend of the Pool-Law Department (Mr. C. P. Villiers). They will be prepared under his superintendence. But I suggest that for all practical purposes the Returns on the table, showing as they do that a large proportion of the property of the country rests with the wealthier classes as compared with the masses, will enable hon. Gentlemen to found any argument that may be derived from that fact. It would be a matter of extreme complexity to bring out the holding of each person. I think we may push a great deal too far these inquiries into persons' means; for, after all, though the consideration of money and property is an important consideration, it is a secondary consideration. I think it a great error to assume—as is commonly assumed—that though a working man may have a wife and children, yet, because he is not blessed with any property beyond such things as his furniture and the tools he uses in his trade, he can have no interest in the welfare of the country. [Mr. Schreiber: The proposal is that taxing powers should be put in his hands.] I think there is great inconsistency in respect of this matter—primâ facie, it is not to be supposed that such a man is a revolutionary character. Though I look to property as a consideration, I do not think it is correct to consider the matter as merely one of pounds, shillings, and pence. I do not think the flesh and blood, and mind and soul of a man are to be regarded only according to the exact number of sovereigns, shillings, and pence which he may possess. It is pushing the matter rather far. I do not wish to withhold whatever we can put the House in possession of; but the hon. Gentleman will feel that there are limits to the machinery for the collection of Returns, and that too much in the shape of details may be put in papers to be laid before Parliament. With respect to the courteous remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Radnorshire (Sir John Walsh), I am glad that an opportunity now offers of making an explanation. I find that the words used by him on the occasion to which I referred were—"I say if these Estimates were doubled we should not do more than meet the exigencies of the present, year" The Estimates referred to by my hen Friend were partly for ships and partly for forces. I think a little limitation was required in such a statement; and I am glad my hon. Friend is of that opinion. All of us in speaking omit sometimes to limit our observations within the bounds to which we intend them to apply. But Veniam petimusque damutque vicissim.

said, that the amount asked for by the Government for the purposes of the navy this year was a very large one, and that it was the duty of the Committee to inquire whether any, and, if so, what improvements had been made in the construction of our iron-clad ships. The building of that class of vessels was commenced five or six years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droit wich (Sir John Pakington), and they were originally intended to have a certain rate of speed. The Admiralty, however, after wards came to the conclusion that they were too long for the purpose, and set about constructing shorter ships, by which it was contended the same results might be attained. A number of these vessels, however, including the Warrior and others, were first constructed. Mr. Watts was thee, displaced, and the new system of building shorter and wider ships was adopted. It was stated that we had twelve ships entirely plated and twenty partially plated. In the case of iron ships of the Royal Oak class partially plated, it was possible to make them comparatively sale, and so far as small vessels were concerned, it might be necessary to adopt that principle. He, at the same time, concurred with the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Samuda) in thinking that to ensure a first-rate ship entire plating was requisite. When the Royal Oak was laid down the plan was to plate from end to end, but that system had since been altered, and although there was some security in partially plating iron vessels, it was useless to do so in the case of wooden vessels. In illustration of his argument he would mention the ease of the Alabama, whoso sides were so severely injured by the second shell which struck her that she immediately sunk. We were now engaged in building some eleven ships with a tonnage of 33,000, at an estimated cost of £2,262,000. Those ships were being built on Mr. Reed's plan, in accordance with the views, of the Admiralty, who must be held to be responsible for the acts of those whom they employed. He could not, he thought, demonstrate in a better way the results of the new system and the old than by citing the eases of the Agincourt and the Bellerophon. According to a Return which he had in his hand, the displacement of the Agincort was, he found, on the 11th of December, 1865, 9,000 tons, the indicated horse-power 6,867; the speed 15·433. He took his statement with regard to the Bellerophon from The Times, which, in giving an account of her trial on the 23rd of September last, set down her displacement at 5,630; indicated horse-power about 5,000; speed, 13·645. Now, from the displacement and the indicated horsepower it was possible to form a judgment as to the nature of the models on which both vessels were constructed. He found, then, that while an indicated horse power of 4.426 drove 9,000 tons displacement in the case of the Agincourt 13,548 knots. 5,000 indicated horsepower drove 5.630 in the case of the Bellerophon only 13·645—thus showing—the power exerted and the weight to be driven being taken into account—that the lines of the former vessel were much, superior to those of the latter.

The trials not being complete, the horse-power of the Bellerophon is not given in the Parliamentary Return.

said, he had quoted the figures which he mentioned from the account of her trial given in The Times, and that if they were incorrect he hoped the noble Lord would set the mistake right. We had so many of these new ships built on a new principle, involving the large outlay of over £2,000,000, that he thought it was the duty of the Government to send some of them out to sea, across the Bay of Biscay for instance, and to allow them to pass a whole winter in the Atlantic, with some of those built on the old principle, in order to enable the country to form an opinion as to whether the public money was being well expended or not in their construction. A question arose, also, with regard to the wooden ships of the Amazon class which we were now building. Those vessels had been represented by the noble Lord as intended to be the fastest ever built, surpassing in that respect even the Alabama. Now, the speed of the Amazon was, he believed, after several trials, found to be 12¼ knots—a small speed for the size of the ship and great engine power. It was said to arise from some defect in her machinery, but her capabilities ought, he thought, to have been better tested before proceeding with other vessels on the same model. He would now, with the permission of the Committee, quote an extract from a statement made by The Times' Portsmouth correspondent, who, writing on the 8th of this month, said—

"The Dan´e, 4, screw sloop, 1,081 tons, 300 horse-power, the further construction of which, at Portsmouth yard, was temporarily suspended some little time since, has been again taken in hand and will now be completed with her new form of fore-body—an entire alteration of her lines from the 'dead flat' forwards, and the substitution of an upright for an infalling stem from above the water-line. By this alteration it would appear that the Admiralty have at length discarded the fanciful theory of the modern school of French naval architecture—the submerged bluff plough-coulter shaped bow—and have allowed their Chief Constructor, Mr. E. J. Reed, to give the Dan´e a fore-body more in accordance with his own ideas."

He would like to know whether that statement was correct? What we required for the protection of our commerce was not vessels with great speed, at the measured mile with engines indicating a very large horse-power, but vessels that could cruise for months together under canvas, and be a match for any cruisers in the world without using a single pound of coal, and yet when occasion required make use of steam. He believed the Amazon could not carry more than six days' coal. While finding fault with the class of vessels which were being built, it was only fair that he should state his own views on the subject. The noble Lord said that until we could reduce the number of men it was impossible materially to reduce the Navy Estimates. Under those circumstances, and considering the difficulty we had in getting men, it was expedient that we should turn our attention to the adoption of such a plan in the construction of ships as would enable us to secure equal efficiency with greater economy, by diminishing the number of men required, and, as a consequence, our expenditure. That end might in his opinion be attained by adopt- ing the system of building small iron-clad vessels—a view which the noble Lord would seem to favour in a speech which he made on the 6th of March in last year. He would refer to the comparative numbers of men on board broadside and turret-ships, and he believed the figures he was about to quote were accurate. The broadside of the Minotaur was 1,324, tonnage 6,621, number of men 705; the broadside of the Prince Consort 1,256, tonnage 4,065, number of men 505; the broadside of the Research 200, tonnage 1,253, number of men 135; the broadside of the Enterprise 220, tonnage 993, number of men 130; the broadside of the Scorpion 1,200, tonnage 1,833, number of men 170; the broadside of the Huascar 680 lb., tonnage 1,100, number of men 100. There was required for foreign service, especially for the coast of Africa and South America, a class of iron vessels of about 1,400 tons burden, which could go fully 12 knots an hour, fit to cope with wooden vessels, and which could be docked in the foreign stations. The country, rich as it was, could not afford to have vessels like the Agincourt and Bellerophon at those stations, which must be sent home for repairs in consequence of there being no dock large enough to receive them or repair them in. The class of vessel which he wished to see built would have sufficient accommodation for officers and crew, and would be of a sufficient height out of the water for any weather. Then the cost of constructing and working such vessels as the Agincourt was far too great. Indeed, unless we built smaller vessels which could cope with any wooden vessels in the world, there would never be a reduction in the Navy Estimates. With regard to the comparative power of iron-clads of small size over large wooden frigates, he would read an extract from a letter referring to the case of the Stonewall and the Niagara and the court martial held upon Commodore Craven—

"The question of saving of men must not be merely considered as in proportion to tonnage, but in proportion to the weight of broadside thrown and the work that can be done in actual warfare by such engines of war as well as the moral effects. To illustrate this I must call your attention to the late court martial on Commodore Craven, of the United States Navy, for not having attacked the Confederate iron-clad Stonewall with the two ships under his command, the Niagara and the Sacramento, the united tonnage of these vessels being 4,000 to 5,000 tons, with not less than 1,000 men, while the Stonewall had only one 300-pounder in a fixed turret, and a crew of 86 men. Commodore Craven refused to accept the challenge of the turret-ship, as it would have been certain destruction. The Court acquitted him. This proves what one small iron-clad can do against the large class of wooden ships with a number of men."

A good deal had been said in that House about a vessel called the Huascar, which, however, he should not have alluded to at the present time if the noble Lord had not the other night depreciated her capability of carrying her crew. He wished to state to the Committee some particulars relating to that vessel. She was of l,100 tons, and 300 horse-power; a full rigged brig, armour-plated all round, 4½ inches thick, tapering at the ends. Her speed at the measured mile was 12¼ knots, and her armament consisted of two 300 lb, Armstrong guns in one turret and two broad side 40-pounders. The weight of her broadside was 680 lb., and she carried 100 men, the area per man for crew being 19·41. Now, he thought that was a fair amount of space for the accommodation of the crew, and the noble Lord would find it was greater than that afforded by many vessels in Her Majesty's service. In order to show the erroneousness of the idea of the noble Lord that the accommodation on board the Huascar was insufficient he might, perhaps, be allowed to read an extract from a letter received from the captain of that vessel after a severe storm in January last—

"Huascar, Brest, Jan. 23.

"Captain Salcedo wishes me to inform you that we arrived here all safe at noon to-day. We left Holyhead about 4 p.m. on the 20th; weather moderate, until midnight; made the run to Bardsey (32 miles) in 2½ hours. After that it blew harder and harder, with a heavy sea right ahead; shipping heavy spray, but nothing you could call a sea. When nearing Scilly it moderated; after passing the sea and wind were much less, made Ushant lights at 10 p.m. oil the 22nd. The ship behaves remarkably well at sea. Captain Salcedo thinks that when we have a little more weight out of her forward to lighten her she will be everything he could wish. The engines behaved remarkably well, with very little trouble."

He might add that the Huascar had now arrived at Madeira, and that the letters received continued to give a most satisfactory account of her. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: What is her height out of the water?] It was about five feet. There had been a good deal of discussion about a new ship which was going to be built, called the Monarch, and which was to be a very large turret-ship carrying four 600-pound-ers. A statement had been made the other day that vessels of 3,500 or 3,600 tons could be so constructed as to make fourteen knots an hour. Now, some friends of his had been called upon some months ago to investigate this matter, and he would state to the Committee the result of their inquiries. They had no doubt whatever that a vessel of 3,500 or 3,600 tons could be built so as to be capable of attaining that speed, and of carrying four 600-pounders, but then she could not be plated with 8-inch plates. She might, however, be plated with 6-inch plates, and yet he ten feet out of the water, which would be sufficient for all sea-going purposes. The noble Lord had made a great point of the importance of an additional four feet out of the water, but that would only present an additional target to the enemy without any corresponding advantages. He had procured some practical information on that subject from Mr. Inman, the manager and principal proprietor of the line of New York and Liverpool steamers. He had received from Mr. Inman the following memorandum of the height of side out of the water of several Liverpool and Now York screw steamers sailing for New York during the severe weather in December and January, about the time the London and Amalia were lost:—

"City of Baltimore, 9 feet; Kangaroo, 10 feet 3 inches;City of New York, 8 feet 10 inches; City of Boston, 9 feet; Etna, 10 feet 8 inches; City of Cork, 10 feet 3 inches."

Now, none of these vessels put back or met with any accident on the voyage to New York, though they were driven against westerly gales in such a manner as no man-of-war ever was, he thought, therefore, that a cupola ship ten feet out of the water would be quite adapted for all sea-going purposes. He would now say a few words about Captain Cowper Coles. The firm with which he (Mr. Laird) was formerly connected had built or were building six vessels from his plans. They had received much advice and assistance from that able officer, and he must state that they never had any trouble whatever in working with him. It was true that Captain Coles was not a ship-builder—indeed, he never professed to be one—but his invention was nevertheless a wonderful one; and if the country took it up fully and fairly a great saving might probably be effected, both in the cost of constructing vessels and the number of officers and men required in the service. In his opinion Captain Coles ought to he allowed full scope, and it would have been better if he had had the designing of the ship to be built by the Admiralty, instead of its being placed in the hands of a gentleman who was wedded to a rival system. He believed that Captain Coles was sincerely desirous, without being actuated by a wish to acquire money, to make his invention useful to the country. Some disparaging allusions had been made to the Scorpion and Wyvern. They had been called unfortunate ships, but they were not originally intended to be seagoing vessels. When they were constructed the effect of firing over the deck was not known, and therefore the deck was plated with iron; but it had since been proved that such a measure was not necessary. In another place they had been called the greatest of failures, but they were not failures. They were perfectly seaworthy, and the success of the cupola system had been more advanced by those vessels than by anything else.

said, that according to a late Return the stock of stores in the Government yards amounted in value in April 1865 to £4,884,573. If he compared the amount of stores, the work done in a year in Government yards with the amount of stores and work done in private yards, he found that while in the latter the value of the stores was one-fourth of the value of the work done, in the former, the value of the stores was about three times the value of the work. He asked the noble Lord to point out a single instance of such extravagance in any private establishment. He thought, therefore, that instead of being called on to vote the large sum which was now proposed a smaller amount would be quite sufficient. As the Government had £5,000,000 stores in the yards it was unnecessary now to vote another million. The stores were now at too high a figure by £2,000,000. He believed that if an independent Committee, not composed of officials, were called upon they would unquestionably say that this £5,000,000 of stores was unnecessary for the amount of work done in the Government yards in a year.

said, the Estimate included coals.

Coals! I refer to a Return of naval stores presented to the House, including wood, iron, and so forth, but not coals.

said, he rose to order. The hon. Gentleman was not speaking of the Estimates, but of a Return.

said, the Vote under consideration was a Vote for stores for the naval dockyard.

said, he thought therefore that he was quite in order. If there was kept up from year to year a larger stock of stores than was necessary by an amount of £2,000,000, and if the interest on that value was taken at 3 per cent, it appeared that the Admiralty were wasting some £60,000 a year. He would now compare the expense of building ships in private yards with the cost of ships constructed in the Government yards. It appeared from a Return before the House that the Warrior, of 40 guns, 6,109 tons, and 1,250-horse power, which was built by the Thames Shipbuilding Company, cost £286,285, and £74,710 for engines, total £360,995, and that the Black Prince, with the same amount of guns, tonnage, and horse-power, built by Napier and Sons, cost £288,911, and £74,902 for engines, total £363,813. On the other hand, the Achilles, of 20 guns, 6,121 tons, about the same amount of tonnage therefore as the other two, and 1,250-horsc-power, built by the Admiralty at Chatham, cost for hull and fittings £388.219, and for engines and fittings, £69,571=£452,790. No doubt, the Achilles had extra work in the shape of a belt, which neither the Black Prince or the Warrior had. He had inquired of a naval architect of some position and of an hon. Member of the House who had a large shipbuilding-yard, and they both stated, independently of each other, that the cost of that belt would not exceed £25,000. He, therefore, deducted that amount from the cost of the Achilles, which left £427,790. But there was no charge made in this for salaries of clerks and foremen, pensions, interest on plant, stores, &c., which would add, as he had on a previous occasion shown to the House, about 40 per cent to all the ships built by the Admiralty. Therefore, we must add 40 per cent to the cost of the Achilles. So that if he instituted a fair comparison between the cost of an Admiralty-built ship and one built in a private yard, he should have to add £171,116 to the £427,790, the cost of the Achilles, making in all £598,906 against £360,995 for the Warrior, and £363,813 for the Black Prince; so that the Warrior cost less than the Achilles by £237,911, and than the Black Prince less by £235,093. There was another point—the cost of repairing certain old vessels. He alluded on a former occasion to the Return for 1863–4; he would now allude to that of 1864–5, and he found that the Admiralty had not improved. They had, in fact, gone from bad to worse. He would show that by reference to three vessels. The Niger, designed and built by Lang in 1816 at Woolwich, was lengthened there in 1848. She had 13 guns, was 1,072 tons, and 350 horse-power. She might have been built at £33 per ton, and £55 per horse=54,656. The repairs; of this old wooden vessel in 1864–5 cost the Admiralty £62,437, and adding into rest on plant, stores, and superintendence, items omitted by the Admiralty—20 per cent only in this instance, because the Admiralty have now adopted my suggestions and added the cost of clerks and foremen to ships—the repairs cost £75,000, being upwards of £20,000 more than they could have built a new vessel for. The High flyer, designed by Watts and built by Mare, in 1851, of 21 guns, 1,161 tons, and 250-horse power, would cost now, at £55 per horse-power and £33 per ton, £52,063. In 1864–5 the repairs made by the Admiralty on her cost £30,850, according to Admiralty figures, but adding 20 per cent for interest on capital and plant, her cost would be £37,000. In 1863–4 her repairs cost £26,255. to which 40 per cent must be added, because in this year, the wages of clerks and foremen were not added to the cost of ships, making in 1863–4, £50,000. These repairs, then, cost the Admiralty in two years, according to their own figures, £67,102, but really adding interest, and wages of clerks and foremen, £87,000. The Sparrowhawk, designed by Watts, and built by Young, of Limehouse, of 4 guns, 676 tons, and 200 horse-power, cost new £33,308. The repairs to this ship in 1864–5 cost the Admiralty, according to their figures, £32,653, but really £40,000. The value of old materials when ships were broken up, clear of all expense, was £2 per ton; so that if sold for old materials the Niger should have fetched £2,144, the Highflyer £2,322, and the Sparrowhawk £1,352=£5,818. The repairs of these three vessels cost £202,000; new vessels would have cost only £134,209, so that there was a loss occasioned by not selling the old materials and buying new vessels of £67,791. He confidently appealed to the hon. Members for Tavistock and Birkenhead, whether the rule was not that no ship should be repaired if the repairs would cost half as much as a new ship. If so, deducting the half cost of three similar new ships from the cost of the repairs would show that under this head the Admiralty had fueled away no less a sum than £132,000; and the loss through the excess cost of the Achilles, excess of stock, of stores, and repairs of these three ships, was £430,000. He put it to the Committee whether the Admiralty should be permitted, in defiance of the opinion of the country, to repair year after year old ships at such enormous cost.

said, the Estimate involved three distinct matters. It involved an entire substitution of Royal yards for private yards for building. It involved partial armour-plating. It involved also, what he considered to be the unnecessary size of the vessels. The entire substitution of the Royal yards for private yards was a grave question. It was proper that the Government should to some extent be able to manufacture their own vessels, but it would be most disadvantageous to do this as a general system. The Return which the Government had put forth clearly showed that (without increasing the cost by the large percentage stated by the hon. Member who had just spoken) the cost was greater in the Government than in the private yards. The vessels built in private yards were from 20 to 25 per cent cheaper than those built in the Government dockyards. Thus the Agincourt and the Minotaur, built in private yards, cost 20 per cent less than the Achilles, built by Government, Then if the vessels were to be built in private yards the Government might save the £60,000 or £70,000 which it was pro-posed In spend on new machinery for constructing vessels in Government yards. But by building vessels of war in the dockyards exclusively, Government lost the advantage of the advice and co-operation of the private shipbuilders. So long as Government vessels were built entirely in the public yards the Admiralty shut themselves out from the advantages of the competition of the private builders. Personally, he was not concerned in the matter. He did not tender for the building of Government vessels. But where the whole affair was novel the interchange of the ideas entertained inside and outside the public dockyards was of great importance. When Government vessels were constructed of wood there was considerable advantage in building in the Royal dockyards on account of the large stock of seasoned timber contained in those yards, and which no private yard could command. Another reason, then, was that the Government yards had the advantage of large experience, the experience of centuries, of what had been done with wooden vessels, and as the commerce of the country had not been developed, the Government had accumulated in their dockyards the principal experience that existed with regard to large ships, and especially large war ships. This was now entirely altered, and the amount of knowledge possessed by the principal private builders in the country was very considerably in advance of that which the Government could command, whose officers were, as to construction in iron, possessed of a very limited experience. The next thing was the mode of construction contemplated in the intended ships. As to the Hercules, she was to be a porthole ship, built on the system to which the Government had adhered, and that was the partial instead of the entire armour-coating, the armour being increased in thickness. The midship section and waterbelt were to be covered with a coating of 8 inches of iron; but from one-half to two-thirds of the vessel would be left wholly unprotected. But weight of armour and speed depended on each other inversely—that is to say, armour and speed were exchangeable terms, and the amount of exchangeability could almost be defined. It was impossible to have a vessel covered with heavy armour and at the same time possessing great speed, and a fast lightly plated vessel would easily destroy a slow though partially heavily plated ship. He thought a fast cupola ship plated from stem to stern with 4½ inches of iron would easily destroy a vessel like the Hercules, with its thickly-plated central battery and its unprotected ends. Armour of 6 inches thickness might exist with 14 knots of speed, while 8 inches would give only 12 knots; and in this case the advantage would be with the ships of the thinner plating and the greater speed. In the case of the fast vessel, her cupola or turret guns might have the range of nearly the semi-circle, at least 150 degrees out of the 180; while the vessel with the thicker plating and slower speed would be confined to a range of 50 degrees. It followed that the faster vessel had only to choose its position, fire, move out of the range of the slower vessel, and then pass round and again fire into the unprotected sides of its opponent. If a vessel could command speed, so as to play on its adversary, and the adversary could not return the fire, the destruction of the slower vessel was only a question of time. If the slow vessel ran away, the fast vessel would fire into its stern as it had before done into its bows. Speed, then, was the great matter to be sought, but this was impossible with an extra weight of armour. And what was the necessity for such thick armour? He believed that no instance was known of shells having been carried through armour, even of 4½ inches thickness. Unquestionably portions of shell had penetrated, but after they were broken up by the force of the impact, and he believed no instance existed of a shell having passed through such armour whole, and having been subsequently exploded by its contents when clear of the vessel's side which had been penetrated by it. In fact, the stern-pieces of the shell remained on the outside of the target, showing that they never could have acted as shells at all. When the Admiralty called on Captain Coles to give them his ideas of what he would require to have built for a sea-going cupola ship they received from him a letter which they submitted to a Committee. He thought the Admiralty had got into the right road when they submitted the matter to a Committee, but he could not conceive why they had branched off in other directions. He thought the Admiralty were making a great mistake in building a cupola-ship with 14 feet of freeboard, as they could easily obtain a good sea-going ship that was not so high out of the water. He had suggested a cupola-ship 9 feet out of the water, but that was too little to please the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), however, had instanced vessels very little more than 9feet out of the water which had crossed and re-crossed the Atlantic. He (Mr. Samuda) would mention three vessels which he had built, the progress of which he bad watched for three years with great satisfaction in their voyages to and from Odessa. The vessels were 3,000 tons each, 265 feet long, with a freeboard of 7 feet. They had performed their voyages with great regularity, and had brought home cargoes of from 1,800 to 2,000 tons of dead weight. They had neither poops nor forecastles, and their cargoes had never been damaged. In building a vessel for commercial purposes, the question of a foot of freeboard was a matter of no importance; but in the case of a cupola vessel, if they were lavish of the freeboard when it was not required it was bad engineering, He did not propose to cut down the size of the vessel in the way suggested by many hon. Gentlemen, but was prepared to accept the position which the Admiralty laid down, that they wanted a good sea going vessel with the qualities of a cruiser. With reference to the Prince Albert, he was not prepared to say that she would not make a good cruiser, but he believed she would not be so good as some other ships might be made. She, how ever, had been tried, and the trial was satisfactory, and he was glad to find that she had been commissioned, and that an opportunity would be given of testing her qualities. While on this subject, he was anxious to remove an impression which had been caused by some remarks which he had made on a previous evening. He had expressed his regret that the Prince Albert had been twelve months out of the builder's hands without having been tried. He did not intend to convey the impression that nothing had to be done by the Government to the Prince Albert, after she had left the hands of the builders. The fact was, that a good deal of work had to be done, for they had to put in the turrets, which consisted of large and heavy-ironwork, and as this work was of an entirely new character, and one which the Government officials were unused to, he would go further, and say that fie did not wish his remarks to convey censure on the Admiralty in regard to the Prince Albert, but that his criticisms should he considered I to be restricted to the genera] policy of the Government in the re-construction of the iron clad fleet. He did not wish to interfere with the progress of the Estimates, but thought that as the great object was to get the right description of vessel, the best course would he to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole matter, with the view of suggesting a general and comprehensive system, which should enter into the construction of all future vessels.

Sir, I am anxious to remove from the mind of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) any impression that I intended the slightest discourtesy to him when I stated that in my opinion he had exceeded the fair limit; of discussion. I may add that we are all very much indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the labour with which he devotes himself to the examination of the Estimates. It appears, indeed, to me that the hon. Member for Lincoln is pursuing, with re- gard to the present Board of Admiralty, the same line of policy as that adopted by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Clarence Paget) with regard to the Admiralty which preceded him. That policy of my noble Friend was very successful, because it secured to him the office which he has held for seven years with such distinction, and I hope that the course which the hon. Member for Lincoln has now adopted may be similarly successful, and meet with its appropriate reward. [Mr. SEELY: I do not want it.] I should like to say a few words with reference to what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), and here I may remark that I am glad to perceive that he is so far recovered as to be able to resume his seat in the House and take part in our debates. My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead and Tavistock, and other competent judges, have agreed in their opinions on the policy of the Admiralty in building for Captain Coles so large a ship as one of 5,000 tons, and having listened to these discussions it appears to me that the question really is whether it is necessary or not that this ship should be of so large a size, or that it should he fourteen feet out of the water. I therefore desire to ask toy noble Friend whether or not he intends, notwithstanding all that has been said in this House, to persevere in his intention to build ships of 5,000 tons, and of such a height out of the water? If it be his intention I desire further to ask him whether the Admiralty is going to build those ships with the full approbation of Captain Cowper Coles. I trust that as the Admiralty have at length consented to build a seagoing ship upon the turret principle, their Lordships will fairly test the invention of Captain Coles, and allow no consideration to interfere with that trial, and I would state how heartily I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead in expressing his very great satisfaction at hearing that Captain Coles has been reinstated by the Admiralty in the place he formerly held. I think the Admiralty have acted kindly and generously in so doing; and I hope they will not expend money on sea-going ships, professedly built upon his plan, without his full approbation and sanction as to the mode in which it should be done. As I have thus adverted to Captain Coles, Sir, I trust I may be permitted to trouble the House with a matter which is somewhat of a personal nature. I have been extremely surprised in consequence of having had reason to be- lieve that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty (the Duke of Somerset) has stated that when he came into office Captain Coles had already applied to the previous Board, of which Sir John Pakington was at the head, requesting that his plan might be tried. That Board intimated to him that his application had been laid before the then constructors, that they had disapproved the system, and that consequently the Admiralty declined to adopt it. Sir, when these words came under my notice, I confess I felt great surprise, he-cause I had no recollection of anything of the kind. But several years have passed away since this is alleged to have occurred, and the method of building armour-plated ships has undergone changes. At that time, in 1859, I was engaged in commencing the Warrior and Black Prince, the first armour-ships we had; and I certainly think that if the Admiralty of that day had declined to consider the proposals made by Captain Coles they would not have been open to the least blame. My complaint of the Admiralty with regard to Captain Coles is not that they have not made experiments to try Captain Coles' system, but that having approved the principle he offered for their acceptance and declared that it was worth a trial, they have never fairly tried it. My right bon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) who I am sorry to say is prevented by illness from being here to-night, has supplied me with two letters written by him to Captain Coles, which the Committee will doubtless permit me to read. The first is as follows:—

"Admiralty, March 21, 1859.

"Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 17th inst. I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that your plan of a shot-proof screen has been received and is under consideration.—I am, Sir, your very humble servant, H. Corry."

The Committee will perceive that this is no summary rejection of Captain Coles' plan. The other letter runs—

"Admiralty, 18th May, 1859.

"Sir,—I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that in compliance with the request of the Secretary of State for War, Major General Peel, they are pleased to permit your employment on a Committee in the War Office.—I am, Sir, your very humble servant, W. G. ROMAINE."

I am in a position to state, therefore, that to the best of my belief we never disapproved of Captain Coles' system, and that the Admiralty never declined to adopt it. On the contrary, my hon. and gallant Friend Sir William Martin, the first sea Lord at that time, received Captain Coles' suggestion with the greatest courtesy and kindness, and paid great attention to the exhibition of models, and the substance of Sir William Martin's communication to Captain Coles was, that as the War Office had undertaken to construct an experimental cupola the Admiralty would await the result It is of very little importance whether the Admiralty did at that time decline to adopt Captain Coles' invention or not, but it is only just and right that the truth should be known. I think I have stated enough to show that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty has unintentionally, and through mistake, been led into an error of the facts.

Sir, with regard to the observations which have fallen from my right hon. Friend opposite respecting certain statements made by the noble Duke in another place, I think it would, perhaps, be better to leave that matter to be dealt with by the noble Duke himself. But, Sir, I wish to lay before the Committee my opinions respecting the armour-ships. But previous to doing so let me assure the hon. Member for Lincoln that he does the Admiralty considerable injustice. No one approves more than I of his undertaking the task which he has assumed. I am very proud to hear it said that I also in former days undertook the same task; for I think an invaluable service is rendered the country by hon. Gentlemen who keep a sharp watch upon the naval expenditure. At the same time, it is well that they should be accurate in their remarks. I think he said that our stores were something like five times the amount of our annual consumption. [Mr. SEELY: Or thereabouts.] This of course comprises the consumption represented by Section 1 of Vote 10, which amounts to £1,000,000 in round numbers. My hon. Friend really ought to state fairly what the expenditure is when he makes such a charge; for whereas the expenditure in private yards is entirely on account of shipbuilding and repairing, our Vote includes an item of £380,000 for coals consumed by the fleet and in the dockyard. He will also find that the Vote includes an item on account of materials for making dockyard machinery. This, it will be observed, materially qualifies the statement he made. I am sure he did not do it intentionally, but the statement conveys an erroneous im- pression to the Committee Now, Sir, with regard to the very important question of armour-ships—and I will first deal with the defensive part of the question—do you want a ship to resist heavy guns, or do you simply want a ship to keep out shells? Now, let us consider the question in the light of results. We have a 6½-ton rifled gun, the same that most of our ships carry in their broadsides, and the Warrior target has been pierced by it. Now, let me give you an idea of the defensive power of the Warrior. Her maximum weight per square foot, and that really represents the defensive power of the ship, is 427 lb.; and the Scorpion's maximum weight is 340 lb.: per square inch. With these facts before us, I ask my bon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) who built her, whether he would be satisfied if the Admiralty proposed to build a really powerful turret-ship for cruising purposes and to take a place in the line-of-battle if it could be pierced by a 6½-ton gun. Now, I will show you what a 12-ton gun which we can also and do carry, will do, and scientific men will tell you that a 20-ton gun could, be carried. The 12-ton gun has pierced the Lord Warden target. The Lord Warden has 4½-inch iron plates, 8½-ineh teak backing, 1½-inch iron skin on 12½-inch timbers, and 8-inch inside planking. Her maximum weight per square foot is 428 lb., but I should have said that she differs from the Warrior in this respect, that, she has thicker plates but thinner backing. The 12-ton gun pierced the Lord Warden target, but it failed to penetrate the Hercules target. The Hercules has 8-inch plates, 12-inch teak, 1½-inch inner skin, over 26-inch of teak, and ¾-inch skin; her maximum weight being 737 lb. to the square loot against 427 lb. in the Warrior and 428 lb. in the Lord Warden. Have yon any desire that vessels should now be commenced to be pierced through and through by a 12-ton gun, bearing in mind that, we expect to arm them with a 20-ton gun and that we have no right to suppose that the enemy opposed to them will carry less than a 20-ton gun? If my bon. Friend (Mr. Samuda) went to sea with me, would he like to he in a ship which would be to a dead certainty pierced through by a 12-ton gun, and when in all probability he might be opposed by a ship carrying a 20-ton gun? Of course, if hon. Members are of opinion that the Admiralty should build ships that would not offer a resistance to these heavy guns, we need not build ships of 5,000 tons. [Mr. LAIRD: Would the turret-ship be wholly or partially plated?] She will be partially plated—plated down to the water-line—and her central battery, her turrets, all her machinery, and, indeed, all her vitals will be protected. I may also add that there will be a shield for her bow gun, The greatest thickness of the plating of the Monarch will be 7 inches, tapering at the ends. Besides that she will have an inner skin and a backing. The question is whether we are to have a vessel that will resist these heavy guns. As yet the target, of the Hercules has not been penetrated. She has been fired at by the 12-ton gun with a steel shot of 221 lb. and a charge of from 14 lb. to 501b. of powder She has resisted that shot, and we believe that she is not as strong as the Bellerophon. Hon Members most not suppose that we have not had all the difficulties of the case under our consideration, and all I ask is if it is meant that we should send a ship into action built as a first class ship which is liable to be pierced through and through by the guns which may be brought against her? I now come to the question of speed. We can have this thickness of plating in much smaller vessels, but we must sacrifice speed. If you mean to get, with a given weight, fine lines, you must give tonnage in order to get speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead will, I believe, fully corroborate that assertion. The next question is the question of free-board or the height of the deck out of water. It will, no doubt, be said that vessels go to sea with a less proportion of free board than we propose. Now free-board is a matter of comparison, and depends upon the length of the vessel, A boat 100 feet long does not require to be s I high out of the water as a boat 200 feet long. It is not the opinion of Mr. Reed alone that we have studied, it is a question of practical seamanship: we take upon ourselves our full share of the responsibility, and we have no wish, to send out a vessel to cruise which has not a decent free-board. The hon. Baronet the Member fin- Bristol (Sir Morton peto mentioned the American Monadnock, a vessel which has been sent round the Horn. She is going out in defence of the port of San Francisco, and she is one of tin; most formidable engines of war in existence. Site carries heavy guns, but they carry comparatively a smaller charge; and she has only 2 feet of free-board. I have received a letter in reference to her from Rio Ja- neiro, which describes her as being in that harbour with a slight sea breeze coming in and the water washing over her decks. Yet the Americans say that vessel is perfectly fit to go round the Horn. But is that vessel fit to blockade a port and remain out at sea; and would the House submit to our building vessels which when they went to sea would be like a half tide rock; half under water if a breeze came on? We want ships not only made to fight, but ships upon which we must be able to live as well as fight. It is said that in going into action a vessel with much free-board will expose too much side to the fire of the enemy. No doubt that is an inconvenience, but you must have a compromise of some sort. One of the principles which is supposed to constitute the value of a ship in the present day is its power as a ram. There are many people who tell us that the next great naval action will be decided by vessels running into one another. But what chance would a vessel of 2 feet, 5 feet, 8 feet, or 10 feet free-board have against a vessel with 14 feet free-board? The latter would cut her right down, being so much above her. These, however, are all questions of detail, which are perhaps almost tedious in their relation; but they are practical questions for sailors. It is not a shipbuilders' question only, for nobody knows better than a practical sailor the inconvenience of a large vessel. Take the case of the Agincourt. Magnificent as she and ships of that class are, I would infinitely prefer the command of a smaller vessel, even at some sacrifice, because large ships are so unhandy. We know that the smaller you can build a vessel to do a certain work the better, and in coming to the decision we have arrived at it is not a question of Mr. Reed's opinion, or, indeed, of the opinion of Captain Coles, but we have acted upon the advice of practical naval officers, who are decidedly of opinion that if we mean to combine great speed, great defensive powers, and great sea-going qualities along with great offensive powers—that is to say, carrying these enormous heavy guns—we should not be justified in constructing vessels of a smaller tonnage than the turret-ships we are about to build. In making these remarks, I have no intention of casting any reflection upon the vessels built by the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead or any other shipbuilding firm. Let it be remembered that we have small turret-ships and ships that do not possess this power, and I have no doubt that they will do good service; but the question is whether the country will take our opinion, as practical naval men, that if you want to build a real first-rate ship for line-of-battle and to carry two turrets you must have nothing less than a ship of 5,000 tons. In regard to the question of cost, I am bound in justice to tell you that there is no comparison to be drawn from the cost of a ship built in our dockyards and the cost of one built in a private yard. I believe that the firms which have built ships for warlike purposes in private yards will tell you that the ships they have built have not been a source of profit to them, and that they would require a higher price if they built again. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. SEELY) referred to the Hercules, the last ship we built. Now, that ship is built upon an improved principle. She has a double bottom up to a certain height, which would give her very great advantages in case she got aground. Her tonnage was quoted by my hon. Friend as the same as that of the Warrior and Black Prince. But what was the amount of material we put into that ship? The weight of material was 6,740 tons in the Hercules, 6,300 tons in the Black Prince, and 6,020 tons in the Warrior. The Hercules cost £60,000 more than she would have done, but for the peculiar circumstances under which she was finished at Gillingham, whence the artificers had to be taken from the dockyard at Chatham, at some miles distance, involving an expense which was properly charged against the ship. At that time they had no means to finish her in the dockyard. That could never occur again, as they were improving the dockyard there, and for the future they would be able to build ships there at a much cheaper rate. There were also peculiarities about her construction which caused a complication that has been avoided by improvements introduced in the construction of her successors; and the attainment of simplicity is one of the things in which Mr. Reed has saved vast sums of money. I shall feel obliged if the hon. Member for Birkenhead will state what the speed of the Alabama was?

With 400 tons of dead weight, 12 knots an hour.

We intended and expected that the speed of the Amazon would have been 13 knots an hour; she went 12½ knots. She is 53 feet shorter than the Alabama.

The Amazon has not been tried at her deep-lead line. The engines of the Alabama indicated 1,100 horse-power; those of the Amazon 1,800 horse-power.

If our ship does not turn out to be so fast as the Alabama, I shall be glad if the hon. Member will bring the subject before the House. I think she beats the magnificent ship of the hon. Member. There is always some difference between the estimated and real speed which cannot he guarded against Nothing is more uncertain than what the speed of ships will be; and a most extra ordinary illustration is furnished by the Warrior and the Black Prince, They were built, so to speak, in the same mould Every line was the same; the engines were similar, and built by the same makers, and yet the difference in their speed was one knot an hour. My honest belief is that the speed of the Amazon will turn out to be within half a knot of the speed anticipated. I will say nothing of the Huascar as I know nothing of her, but neither the Scorpion nor the Wyvern are vessels fit to put British sailors into, Their accommodation is faulty, and the captain of one reported that the men could not be kept tidy and clean, in fact, that discipline could not be maintained. I hope the Committee will not press us in respect to the size of our first sea-going turret ship, but will put confidence in the Admiralty, and hereafter we shall only be too glad to be guided by what experience may determine.

said, he happened to have the advantage of knowing neither Mr. Reed nor Captain Coles, but bethought that the conflict of opinion upon this subject was remarkable in such a great ship building country. A vessel of 5,000 tons he thought too large, and it would imply a cost of nearly half a million, he would have appointed a scientific committee to take the opinions of practical men; and, while accepting the results of its labours as a guide, he would not have relieved the Admiralty of responsibility. A ship of 3,500 tons was sufficiently large for all purposes. As the Royal Sovereign had been converted from a three-decker into a cupola-ship, would it not be economical to use her as a target, to have her fired at in earnest with a large gun at close quarters, to strike her cupola, and see what the effect would be? If it were damaged so that it could not turn round, a defect would be suggested. It was well worth consideration whether that vessel ought not to be used in some such fashion; and even if she were destroyed, the loss might prove a gain. It was expedient that our dockyards should be maintained in perfect order and thorough efficiency, though in a skeleton shape without too many men or too many works in hand, healthy competition being produced by the giving of a few orders to private yards. In case of war on an emergency it would not do to have to trust to private yards to produce the vessels necessary for the defence of the country It was no satisfaction to the country to fine a contractor by insisting upon the forfeiture of his deposit for non-fulfilment of contract. The accounts now submitted were in a form much clearer and more complete than be had ever before seen them, and whoever bad re-arranged them deserved the thanks of the country; but he missed the "plant" account which the Government bad promised to supply, and which would show at once the loss sustained by having large public yards. The noble Lord had stated that there was a saving of £4,000 this year, but, the Estimates last year were £10,234,000 while this year they were £10,238,000, showing an increase of £4,000, He wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to one particular point in connection with this Vote, and he hoped that the noble Lord would give the Committee some explanation of the extra receipts and repayments in respect to the Vote of last year; because it appeared to him (Mr. Fleming) that instead of the Estimate being £4,000 less this year than the last, it was really £4,000 more, arising from this important item of extra receipts and repayments, he wished to know whether there was any proper check with regard to these estimated receipts and repayments, from what source they came, and whether there was any limit to the amount. He observed, too, in the dockyard valuation account that the year began with materials valued at £.5,000,000, while at the close of the year the value had declined to £4,884,000 He should like an explanation of the way in which that valuation was made, because if it did not consist, of materials which might at any moment be made available in building or repairs, the figures were misleading, He would urge the propriety of getting rid of odd materials such as he bad seen in the dockyards, for by keeping them in stock they lost the interest of the money, and their value became depre- ciated. He knew that there was a great number of parcels or pieces of timber always lying about, which in private yards were used up for some purpose or another; whereas in the public yards he believed they were allowed to accumulate. Another item to which he desired to call attention was that of £88,000 as the increased value of timber and stores in the re-valuation. He wished to know if this was included in the before-mentioned sum of £4,884,000? Passing on to the dockyard expenditure account, he observed that an item of £19,573, received for chips and odds and ends, had not been paid into the Exchequer, as was the usual practice. There might have been a good reason for this, but an explanation should be given. The next point he would notice was as to breaking up old ships and of half finished new vessels. There are, by the blue book, page 2, about 100 vessels building, converting and fitting for the year 1864–5, and of these, about one-third were ordered to be taken down and materials returned into store. There was about 44,000 tons of shipping and about 9,000 horsepower. What was the cost of this large number of useless vessels? It was obvious that by breaking up a large number of vessels the Estimates might be reduced by £100,000 without the cause of the reduction being known. The noble Lord had stated the number broken up since 1859 as 350 or 360, but he should much like a Return showing all the vessels which the country possessed, whether in commission or in reserve, the date when each was laid down and finished, or when purchased, and, what was still more important, the total sum that each ship had cost. It appeared from the blue book that there were about 800,000 tons of shipping, the property of the country, the value of which might be taken atfroui£35,000,000to £40,000,000. The interest of that at 3 per cent, with the requisite amount for depreciation, would amount to a very large sum. It seemed that the sum produced by the sale of a large number of old vessels was only £58,339, to which might be added a small sum for the metal returned into store. He objected to the system of breaking up ships without sufficient consideration; they ought rather to be sold without breaking up. [LORD CLARENCE PAGET: We do sell a great many.] Yes, but considering the great amount of metal in them it was the small results that came from the sales that he complained of. And not only should vessels be more fre- quently sold without breaking up, but every portion of material which could not be used ought to be sold at once, instead of being allowed to accumulate in the dockyards, and while uselessly occupying space gradually deteriorating in value. The Government paid a large sum for transport service, especially when there was any pressure upon them for the conveyance of troops, and it was worthy of the consideration of the Admiralty whether it was not possible to make a large number of their vessels available for the transport service. Private persons often made the value of the ship in a couple of these trips. The Returns in the blue book showed that some of the vessels repaired cost an excessive sum of money. The net charge in one year 1864–5 for repairs to the Basilisk, for example, was £33,000, or nearly £30 per ton. The Cadmus cost about the same per ton, the Clio £14 a ton, and so on. He should like to know whether there was any proper and systematic arrangements at the Admiralty by which these and other similar matters were discussed year by year, and carried out under one responsibility. The fluctuating character of the Admiralty was a serious evil, and he doubted whether they would be able to carry out the economies promised in these accounts unless the affairs of the navy were managed under one settled and continuous responsibility. There ought to be a more continuous chain of responsibility as to the purchase of materials, the employment of men, and all other branches of expenditure, than there now appeared to be. He attributed much of this to the shifting composition of the Board of Admiralty, which often gave the finishing of work to different persons in the place of those who commenced it.

said, that if he hesitated to give his approval to the intention of the Government to build new vessels it was because he believed that naval construction was still in a state of experiment, and that little was as yet known either of the best shape of vessels or the best description of ordnance. The noble Lord had given the Committee two or three instances of the resisting power of the vessels now afloat. The Hercules, it appeared, possessed a resisting power given by plates of 8 inches of iron in addition to a 12-inch backing of teak, and the Monarch was to have armour-plates 7 inches thick. He failed to gather from the noble Lord the thickness of the backing, but he supposed there was to be an equal backing of teak. These facts to a large extent showed that the Admiralty—and he was not disposed to blame them for it—had not yet made up their minds, he was entitled to assume that the Monarch I would not be a more heavily armed ship than the Hercules. The ships which we had afloat had iron plates of from 8 to 4½ inches thick, with from 19 to 8 inches of teak backing, and were from over 0,000 to 2,000 tons, and differed materially in almost all their classes; neither with regard to; them nor with regard to the cupola vessels had they reached anything which the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would take upon himself the responsibility of saying was a perfect ship of war Without expressing an opinion for or against the cupola system, he might observe that we had never built a ship carrying the cupola which bad yet been tried under fire. The cupola vessels that had been used during the coast warfare in America were of a totally different construction from those which were built here, the latter were of heavy tonnage, with a large sea-board. The Government should pause before it expended a considerable sum of money in building vessels of a class which certainly up to the present time had not proved quite satisfactory. Admiral Halstead had made a very striking remark respecting the united fleets of England and France, which assembled on our shores last summer He stated that the French ships as they went away looked like a squadron that could sail well and fight well together, whereas the English fleet sailed irregularly and everywhere. It would he, in his opinion, advisable to vote liberal sums for further experiments before they incurred a heavy outlay in building upon models which had not as vet been found suitable to the purpose intended. He would go much further and say that the Royal Sovereign, costly as she may have been, if fired at as an experimental ship, would, although destroyed by the trial, save thousands if not millions to the country, if the result of the experiments gave solid proof of what such a ship ought to be.

said, he thought it would be well for the Committee to consider whether the assurances held out that night by the Secretary to the Admiralty were likely to be realized. Having carefully watched the statements made year after year when these Votes were taken, he had arrived at the conviction, which was confirmed by the testimony of high practical authority, that the results had not been equal to the promises and expectations under which the public money had been voted. Such assurances as had been offered to them that night were to he regarded in the light of contracts, on the faith of which large sums of money were granted for the purposes of the navy; and, wholly irrespective of party consideration, he should feel it his duty to point out the discrepancies which might arise between those contracts and the results obtained. When, a few years ago, the progress of science rendered necessary the re-construction of the navy, the public generally felt that the substitution of iron for wood would place this country in a position in which it never stood before. Iron was a specialty of England, and the facility with which our shipbuilding artizans—both in our public and our private yards—had changed from the one material to the oilier showed that the handicraft of iron was a specialty of Englishmen. With these advantages they might not now to be still in the experimental stage alluded to by the last speaker, but they ought to have results to which they could point with pride. They possessed great advantages in these combinations; but one important element was wanting to insure success, and that was simply design; and yet it was in this most essential necessity that naval construction had most signally failed. The discrepancies which he had previously pointed out between the promises held out to them and the performance was not confined to the ease of the Amazon, one of a class of seven or eight vessels laid clown and built avowedly for the protection of our commerce and as the police of the seas. The sister ship of the Amazon, the Danae, had been in perfect frame; she had been taken down from the midship section, but thirty one frames were now standing; she was to be lengthened, and a completely new bow was to be put into her, irrespective of the waste of public money which such a system involved. He would ask, what was to become of the five or six other vessels of that class—whether they were to he subjected to this new style of naval construction, or are they to remain failures, was a question into which he was unable to enter. We had not of recent years constructed a single man-of-war to which considerable objection might not fairly be taken. Take the most perfect vessel stated to be yet produced—the Bellerophon, he had visited her with great interest, and while he saw in her much to admire, he also saw much that excited disappointment. If the original design of that vessel were placed in the Library side by side with her design at the present moment, no Member of the House could possibly recognize her as the Bellerophon that was described in the House some years ago. It was stated in the papers that she had her preliminary trial yesterday, that the trial was to be repeated that day, and that the final trial at the measured mile was to take place tomorrow. But the papers did not state that for the purpose of that trial at the measured mile sixteen feet more funnel had been added with the intention of its being removed again as soon as the trial at the measured mile had been completed. What dependence was to be placed on results so produced? With regard to motive power, the class of engines employed, they were unexceptionable as regards make, but judged by the fuel consumed, he did not think that that economy which had been effected in the mercantile service, had been carried out by the Admiralty, as the Returns he had moved for would show. Captain Coles had been reinstated, and be hoped the promise made by the noble Lord last year would be carried out. The noble Lord stated then that Captain Coles had been directed by the Admiralty to prepare drawings, that he had the assistance of draughtsmen, that every other aid would he rendered him, and when he had sent in his designs, if they were approved contracts would be invited from the shipbuilding firms of the country to carry them into effect. He would only ask that that promise should be fulfilled in a bonâ fide way, and that Captain Coles should be allowed to decide whether he could not do all he undertook to do, with a vessel of less tonnage than the ship now proposed to be built.

said, in reply to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Fleming) that his hon. Friend, if he referred to the accounts, would find that they had been prepared in proper form. The last item of £21,937 was the actual difference between two valuations at the commencement and at the end of the year, and it was such an item as must have appeared in any account to make it balance correctly. The Estimates under Vote 10 provided for that amount of the stock only which was required to keep up or increase the quantity necessary in the view of the Government. His hon. Friend would find that in this re- spect the account for the year was precisely such as a shipbuilder would furnish. It was impossible to include in the money Estimates a statement of the value of every material which would he employed in the building or repairing of ships in the course of a year.

said, he was very much struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Graves) that sixteen feet of temporary funnel had been added to the Bellerophon, in order that she might gain additional speed. Any speed so obtained was delusive, and he wished to ask whether it was true or not that any such discreditable trick had been resorted to? If it were true he hoped the noble Lord would say that it should never occur again.

said, he had gathered from the sketch which the noble Lord had given of the Achilles, that the cost of the vessel had been increased by about £50,000, owing to the fact that it had been found necessary to take down the vessel from Chatham to Gillingham in order to complete the fittings. He wished to know whether, when the ship was laid down, the Admiralty were not aware that there were not facilities at Chatham for completing her there?

said, that the establishment of an iron shipbuilding yard at Chatham was decided on from grounds of public policy. It was a snug place far away inland, and the Admiralty knew very well that the approaches were difficult, and that no vessel drawing above a certain depth of water could he alongside. The river now was in process of being deepened, and he trusted that such an occurrence would not take place again, but that where a vessel was laid down there she would be finished. He was sorry the hon. Member for Liverpool should have imputed to him that he had made statements to the House which were not correct. What he stated with respect to the Amazon was exactly what any one who knew her draught of water could confirm. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have minute, if not correct, information, with respect to what they were doing with the Bellerophon. He could not say whether they had or had not lengthened her funnel. But would the hon. Gentleman tell him that private yards did not do the same thing. Lengthening the funnel had nothing to do with the build of a ship, it was a question of fires and of the engine- room. Was it pretended that if a private shipbuilding firm found that there was not a sufficient draught from the engine-room they would not lengthen the funnels of a vessel? Mr. Reed had been anxious to build the Amazon rather larger, but the Admiralty thought it better to construct the vessel of the proposed dimensions, In the case of the vessel which had had a shield fixed round her bow, this course had been adopted in order to put her in a better position for fighting, there being no necessity for placing the guns so as to fire over the decks in a diagonal line as in the Research and Enterprise. He had been taunted for using the term "police of the seas," but as a fact the vessel which had been so much disparaged was fit for such service as was implied in those words, It was true that at first the requisite speed was not attained, but two feet had been added to its length to produce this result In future he trusted that people who had propagated incorrect statements in reference to proceedings in the dockyards, would make due inquiry before talking as they had done.

said, he hoped nothing that had fallen from his lips had led to the inference the noble Lord had drawn. He had not supposed that the noble Lord would come to the House and make statements which were incorrect; he believed every one of his statements. All he had said was that the results were not in accordance with those statements. With regard to the Bellerophon he merely stated facts, and left it to the Committee to draw their own conclusions. In the merchant service, he had never heard of an instance in which for the purpose of a trial trip a funnel was placed upon the ship, and removed immediately after that trial. On the other hand, he believed it was usual to try ships at the measured mile as nearly as possible in the trim in which they would ordinarily go to sea.

said, that, however brave their naval officers might be, they were not competent to design the vessels they had to command. If the turret-vessel were to be submitted to those officers the country would be put to an immense expense, and in all likelihood the experiment would turn out a failure. Instead of themselves designing a form of ship to give a fair trial to Captain Coles' principle, the Admiralty should appoint a body consisting of three or four shipwrights not connected with the Admiralty, and add one or two skilful artizans, and allow the committee so composed to decide upon the form of vessel employed to test Captain Coles' principle. If they declined to do that they would not do justice to Captain Coles, and they would do a gross injustice to the country.

said, he was sorry that his noble Friend had dealt so lightly with the way in which, as had been alleged, the funnels had been placed on a vessel in order to give her artificially increased speed on a trial trip, and thou removed. He was perfectly ashamed of the trick. If it were true, as had been stated, that means were resorted to to give a vessel artificially a speed she could not otherwise have, and if those means were withdrawn afterwards, he (Sir John Pakington) must say that the speed so obtained was a deception, and that any statement to be afterwards made to the House respecting that speed would be a false statement. His noble Friend said he had never heard of it, and he (Sir John Pakington) would put a question to him on a future day to ascertain if such a trick had been resorted to, and he begged his noble Friend would ascertain what was the fact.

said, the Resolution he had to propose referred to the Customs tariff in the Isle of Man. The House was aware that the Customs Consolidation Act of 1853 contained provisions by which articles could be introduced into that island at duties considerably less than those required in the United Kingdom. The proceeds of those duties were applied in the first instance to the civil government of the island, then £2,300 were applicable to certain public works, and after a payment of one-ninth of the gross amount for a similar purpose, the balance went to the public revenue of this country. The Customs' revenue was something under£30,000 a year. The Government of the Isle of Man now proposed to Her Majesty's Government that the duty on certain articles imported into the island should be increased in order that a further expenditure might be made upon public works. It was therefore intended to raise the duty on foreign spirits to 8s. per gallon, on rum of the British possessions to 6s. per gallon, and on British or Irish spirits exported from a duty-free warehouse under bond in the United Kingdom to 6s. There would also be an increase in the duty on sugar and tobacco. These alterations in the tariff, it was estimated, would make an addition to the revenue of about £20,000 a year. The new arrangement would be that, after defraying the expenses of the civil government of the island and paying £10,000 per annum into the Exchequer, the balance would be applicable for public works. The proposition was subject to the approval of the Tynwald, of the Isle of Man. If so approved a Bill founded on it would be introduced. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolution:—

said, that he and some hon. Friends of his had proposed clauses, the provisions of which had been introduced into one of the Cattle Bills, and had passed unscathed through the House of Lords. With the view of extending the principle of those provisions to Scotland, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the inspection of cattle-sheds, cowhouses, and byres within burghs and populous places in Scotland.