said, that he had given private Notice to the First Lord of the Treasury of his resolve to call the attention of the House to the important de- cision which had been delivered in the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday last, relative to the rating clause of the Representation of the People Act. He should—although he was exceedingly unwilling to do so—conclude by moving the adjournment of the House, in order that he might be enabled to enter into a short explanation of the circumstances to which his Question related.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would not object to take the more legitimate course of bringing on the subject on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. By this means the necessity for moving the adjournment of the House would be avoided.

said, he regretted he could not comply with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, as several Questions 'stood for discussion on the Motion forgoing; into Supply: and as there were several lion. Members then present who took an interest in the subject to which he was about to invite the attention of the House, who might not find it convenient to be in, their places at a later hour. The circumstances of the case were these—Stamper was rated for the relief of the poor for the borough of Sundcrland—he being an occupier of a house with five other persons—to the amount of £3 10s. He appealed against being so rated, and the Court of Common Picas on Saturday last sustained that appeal. That decision was based on the construction of the words of the 7th section of the Act of last Session, by which the Court held that with respect to tenements let out in apartments the words "not separately rated" meant not rated at the time of the passing of the Act. The result of that decision went to show that persons similarly situated to Stamper were by the 7th section of the Reform Act debarred from rateability, and ns a consequence from enfranchisement. The extent to which such disfranchisement would be carried was exceedingly serious. It would, he believed, affect upwards of 100,000 persons throughout the country. Such, at all events, was the estimate made by gentlemen well qualified to judge in the matter. He could state confidently that in five boroughs within a radius of twelve miles in the North of England no fewer than 12,000 or 15,000 persons would be disfranchised by the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. The extent of the disfranchisement would, for instance, in Newcastle be about 6,000; in the borough which he represented (Sunderland) about 4,000; in South and North Shields about 1,000; while it would be of more or less extent throughout the whole country. He begged, under those circumstances, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consequence of the decision in the Court of Common Pleas on Saturday last, in the case of "Stamper v. The Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of Sunderland," having the effect of excluding many thousands in that and other boroughs from the franchise whom Parliament, by the Representation of the People Act of last year, intended to enfranchise, he will bring in a Bill this Session to amend the 7th section of that Act, so as to give the franchise to those occupiers of parts of houses whom that decision excludes from its possession?

By the Act of last Session, so far as the franchise of boroughs was concerned, the House gave it, and intended to give it, to every householder rated to the poor who paid his rate, and to every lodger who lived in a lodging of the clear annual value of £10 per annum. I do not understand that the decision of the Court of Common Pleas has impugned either of these qualifications, which are the qualifications of the new suffrage. The hon. Gentleman says that a great number of persons have been disfranchised in consequence of a section of the Act which provides that the owner of all tenements let out in several dwellings should be rated. If there is a section, and no doubt there; is, to that effect in the Act of last year, it is not the 7th, which was not at all passed in reference to the suffrage, but merely in regard to rating; nor was it introduced by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot myself say what number of persons may have been deprived of the vote they expected to enjoy in consequence of the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. I should myself imagine that the original estimate of the hon. Gentleman must have been greatly exaggerated; but there is no reason whatever why those persons should not claim to be rated under the provisions of the Act of last year, and if their claim is a valid claim it will be allowed. Therefore I do not clearly understand what it is that the hon. Gentleman maintains, and certainly I am not prepared to introduce any measure which would impugn the prin- ciple of the provisions of the Act of last year.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was not correct when lie said that those persons could claim to be rated, for, so far as he understood the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, it was to the effect that they could not be rated, lie did not, of course, now propose to impugn the decision of the Court of Common Pleas—it would he extremely inconvenient if the decisions of the Courts of Common Law were to be impugned or canvassed in that House; nor did lie think the Government could fairly be called upon to bring in a Bill for the purpose of settling any doubts which might have been the consequence of that decision, considering the time of the Session at which they were arrived, and that such a Bill would necessarily re-open some questions which might lead to considerable discussions. But he would merely state that the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, although, no doubt, it was a correct decision on the wording of the statute, did not appear to express what was the intention of the House when it passed the clause. He could not help thinking that the intention of the House was that the owner of every separate and distinct tenement in a house, where he was not a lodger with a resident landlord, should be entitled to the franchise, and that his hon. Friend was right in saying that a large number of persons who expected to be enfranchised under the Act, and whom the majority of the House expected to be enfranchised, would not be enfranchised. However, it was too late in the Session to expect Government to bring in a measure, and therefore he trusted his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the answer on that part of the case.

said, the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish), when the Reform Bill was under discussion in Committee last year, applied not to the definition of rating, but to the construction of the word dwelling-house. The hon. Member said that in the borough he represented there were a large number of persons occupying parts of the same house who were separately rated. The question decided by the Court of Common Pleas was, that where the owner was actually rated, and not the occupier, at the time of the passing of the Act, he should so continue under the 7th section. As regarded the number of persons likely to be disfranchised, he had received letters from Manchester, Birmingham, and various places in the North of England, stating that they had accepted the interpretation of the Reform Act thus laid down, and had in all those places rated the owners, and not the occupiers. A letter had appeared in the Sunderland Times—a paper which upheld the same opinions as the hon. Member—stating that the decision of the Court of Common Pleas would not affect the register very materially one way or the other, as the class whom it was said the decision would affect in that borough consisted of persons who occupied rooms or tenements for which they did not pay more than 3s. a week, who were constantly moving from place to place, so as never to get the qualification of residence, and who were only a shade removed above vagrants.

said, he had received an authentic report of Mr. Justice Smith's judgment from Mr. Scott, the official reporter of the Court of Common Pleas, from which it appeared that the house to which it related was built with six rooms for one family, and afterwards let in separate rooms to six persons, there being only one street door and one set of domestic offices for the whole. The owner did not live there, or exercise any supervision. The effect of the decision, as stated by the Judge himself was, that by the operation of the 7th section of the Act occupiers of small houses and separate parts of houses would for the future be liable to be rated, whatever might be the value of their holdings, notwithstanding the Small Tenements Act, and the owners would no longer be rated. Such occupier would be qualified to vote on the occupation franchise; but as regarded the occupiers of lodgings, where the house was separately let out when the Act was passed, the owner and not the occupier would be rated, and the occupants might claim under the lodger franchise. It was well that the real scope of the decision should be known, in order that overseers might not attempt to strain it, and thus exclude from the franchise persons whom the Court did not intend to disfranchise.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, on Monday last, three or four hundred head of Cattle, imported from Algeria, were exposed for sale at the Me tropolitan Cattle Market; whether it is true that the greater part of these animals appeared half-starved, in filthy condition, and more or less diseased; and whether there is reason to expect any further importation of a similar character?

said, in reply, that the importation was not from Algiers, but from Tangier. Last May the Government were asked for permission to land cattle from that locality, and they having ascertained that neither the cattle plague nor any other contagious disease existed in that part of Africa, gave the required leave. The cattle were inspected on arrival by Professor Simmons and the Custom House authorities. Only a very few suffered from any disease, and that not a contagious disease; but it was true that they were all starved and had suffered much from the voyage. He did not think that there would be any other such importation, for the importer could obtain no sale for the cattle, and he has suffered great loss from the transaction.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of Captain Galton's Memorandum on the Draft Regulations of the Control scheme, with the Reply by the Controller in Chief; and of the Draft Regulations for an independent and efficient audit of Military Expenditures, as prepared by the Controller in Chief?

said, in answer to the Question of his lion, and gallant Friend, he had to state that it was true Captain Gallon, the Assistant Under Secretary in the War Office, had written a Memorandum on the Draft Regulations of the Control scheme, and that Sir Henry Storks, the Controller in Chief, had written an answer to that Memorandum. Both the Memorandum and the answer referred to I the first Copy of the Draft Regulations, which had been superseded by the Regulations on the table; and it would conduce to no good end to lay on the table either the Memorandum or the answer; therefore, as at present advised, he must decline to produce those Papers. With reference to the latter part of the Question which referred to Regulations for an independent and efficient audit of Military Expenditures he had laid those Regulations on the table some time since; and they were referred to the Committee on Public Accounts. Whether they had been ordered to be printed he could not say.

said, they had been ordered to be printed. The Paper purporting to be an answer to the Memorandum, however, did not appear to be included in the Papers.

said, he was not aware that any of the Papers were wanting. He would, however, make inquiry.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Hants Telegraph:"—

"The steamer Princess of Wales, belonging to the Port of Portsmouth and Ryde Steampacket Company, left Southsea Pier on Thursday morning at half-past nine o'clock, on her passage to Ryde. When opposite Fort Monckton a shot passed between the foremast and jib stay, causing considerable consternation among the passengers, many of whom were so frightened that they laid down upon the deck. This occurrence will serve to show the immense amount of danger resulting from the shot practice at this fort, for if the shots had struck the vessel beneath the water-line, the probability is that she would have sunk, and that many lives would have been sacrificed."

Similar incautious proceedings had occurred at Dover. He wished to know, whether measures have been taken to prevent the recurrence of a practice so dangerous to the lives of Her Majesty's subjects?

said, he had received several letters relating to this matter. He was afraid there could be no doubt that both at Dover and at Portsmouth there had been considerable want of proper and due care in the practice of the artillery; but as the conduct of Officers was involved the House would sec it would be right he should be in possession of the fullest information before he was called upon to say more on the subject. He must decline to give any final answer to the Question till he was in possession of the whole facts of the case. He had not yet received any information from Dover.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps this Session to give effect to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of Rates, particularly with reference to the payment of Rates by four quarterly collections?

said, in reply, that he did not think it desirable at this period of the Session to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Committee on the subject of Rates; but the overseers had the power of doing voluntarily that which the Committee recommended should be compulsory—that was to say, they might collect by instalments, or they might make quarterly rates.

said, that about ten days ago he asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government intend to institute any inquiry as to the rumours of insubordination of Volunteers after the Windsor Review, and with the view of taking steps after that inquiry, he wished now to ask, Whether that inquiry has taken place, and whether the Government intend to take any action with regard to the result of it?

said, in answer to his noble Friend, he had to state that since he answered the Question on a former occasion he had had communication with General Lindsay on the subject, and the result had been he agreed with him that in regard to the conduct of one Regiment a Court of Inquiry should be held. With regard to another, the conduct of the commanding Officer required explanation; and in two instances it had been found necessary to write to the Lords Lieutenant of counties. That was the present state of his information; and, until further information was received, it would be impossible to state what action the Government would take in the matter.

said, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he proposes to take action on the Memorial transmitted to him in April last from the parochial board of the parish of Old Machar, in the county of Aberdeen, respecting the Valuation of Railway Property Act for assessment?

said, in reply, that owing to the pressure of the Business of the Session it had not been in his power to bring forward a measure for the settlement of the question between the parochial board and the railway company, and it could not be expected that any would be passed in the present Session.

said, he understood that Reports had been made to the War Office by the Officers who had been employed by this Government in the last campaign between Prussia and Austria as to the number of rounds per gun fired during the campaign. He wished to know, Whether these Reports would be laid on the Table?

said, he thought that the House would see at once that he ought not to produce the Papers.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that at an earlier period of the Session he had put a Question respecting the case of a prisoner confined in Mountjoy Prison, near Dublin, who had been put on penal diet and under penal regulation for refusing to state his religion. He now begged to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state to the House what new rule, if any, he has thought it advisable to lay down in respect to the treatment of prisoners in Ireland who are neither Catholics, Anglicans, or Presbyterians?

said, in reply, that he had made careful inquiries into the subject, and had found that it was impossible to frame any general rule that was applicable to all cases. In the case of any prisoner refusing to state what his religion was directions had been given that the Governor of the Gaol should make a Special Report to the Government upon the subject, when full inquiry would be made into the circumstances of the case. It would not do to permit any prisoner, by declining to state what his religion was, to escape from all the rules and regulations of the prison.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the Dublin Freeman's Journal, that the Commissioners for investigating the subject of Primary Education in Ireland have come to the conclusion that Irishmen are not competent to discharge the duties of Assistant Commissioners, and have appointed seven Englishmen and three Scotchmen to discharge those duties?

said, in reply, that the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner did not rest with the Government. He had had a communication with the Chairman of the Commission, who had informed him that, with the unanimous concurrence of his colleagues, he had selected a gentleman who had been lately engaged upon an ecclesiastical inquiry similar to that of the Royal Commission in different parts of the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, and they were unanimously of opinion that in selecting that gentleman they were selecting a man who was best able to perform the duties to be intrusted to him.

I rise, Sir, to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty upon the birth of a Princess to the Royal Consort of the Heir Apparent. The Prince and Princess of Wales live so much among the nation that on an occasion like the present it is impossible that such a domestic event should not excite some political feeling. While I am sure that we shall cordially and unanimously assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction with which we hear that by the birth of another member of the Royal Family there is an additional security for the continuance of the dynasty with which are so indissolubly connected the liberties of the country, we can, at the same time, express our feelings of gratification at the restored health of the Princess of Wales—a fact which I am certain must be to the people of this country a source of infinite satisfaction. I move, therefore, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty upon the Princess of Wales having happily given birth to a Princess, and to assure Her Majesty of our feelings of devoted loyalty and affection to Her Majesty's person and family.

I rise to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, to which I am sure that this House will, as on former occasions, accede with unanimity and with the greatest cordiality. The domestic relations of the members of the Royal Family have assumed, to the great satisfaction of the country, a position in recent times which is almost novel with regard to the degree in which the people of the country are permitted to become acquainted with them, and the interest of the people in those domestic relations is proportionately enhanced. All that tends to exhibit the Royal Family, and the various groups of the Royal Family, in the light and attitude before the eyes of the nation of families knit together by mutual affection, and growing and prospering in mutual love, gives cordial satisfaction to the country in all classes and throughout all parts. It is undoubtedly quite true that we derive, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, an additional pleasure from the mercy which has been vouchsafed to the Prince and Princess of Wales upon the present occasion, from observing that no new strain has been imposed upon, no renewed detriment has occurred to the constitution of one whose pure and lofty character, and whose gracious manners have, not less than her high station, caused her to be an object of the greatest interest.

I shall move tomorrow that the House take into consideration, in Committee, Her Majesty's most gracious Message.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) asked me some short time ago what was the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to take with reference to the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, which stands as the sixth Order upon the Paper for to-day. I then said I thought it would be more convenient to reserve my reply until I had the opportunity of stating to the House what our intentions were generally with regard to this Bill. The important decision at which the Committee upon this Bill arrived the other night virtually brought back the Bill to the scheme originally proposed by Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, that plan has been the result of very deep deliberation. It was of course the decision of the Committee. Although we did not think ourselves justified in adopting the course which apparently the House had rejected some months previously—or at least the course which it had not sufficiently encouraged Her Majesty's Government to proceed with—we did not think, considering the position of the House generally, and the approaching termination of the Session, that we ought to run the great risk of assenting to that proposition. We thought, on the whole, that it would be more prudent to adhere to the Bill as it was introduced to the notice of the Committee. The Committee, however, having come to a decision, and by an unequivocal majority expressed an opinion upon the subject, it appears to me it would be a matter very deeply to be lamented if we should allow any difficulties to prevent us from carrying out the proposed legislation) or from fulfilling our promises on this subject. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government have considered whether, notwithstanding the obstacles that apparently present themselves, it will not be possible to legislate upon the subject this Session, and fully enter in the spirit of the Resolution of the Committee which was the other day agreed upon. And after deliberation and taking such steps as we thought would be conducive to the success of the proposition which I am now about to make, I will very briefly state the proposition I am authorized by my Colleagues to submit to the House; and I will take care in the course of the evening to lay upon the table clauses to carry out this proposition. What we propose is the following:—We propose that at the commencement of every Michaelmas Term each of the Superior Courts of Common Law should form a rota, and by the decision of the majority one of the Judges of each of those Courts should be selected to try these Election Petitions. We propose that each of the Judges so selected should receive an increase of income of £500 per annum, but that sum is not to be taken into consideration in calculating the pension to which he would be entitled after a certain duration of service. We propose also that the chief of each of the Superior Courts shall be exempted from this duly. But considering the very great increase of business in the three-Superior Courts, and the great pressure which is now experienced in getting through it, we propose that three new Judges shall be appointed to those Courts, and we shall make provision that the services of a Judge of each of the Superior Courts shall be at the command of the other Courts—such as the Divorce Court, where occasionally there is a great pressure of business. We propose that if the three Puisne Judges thus selected and forming a rota are not sufficient to transact the business of the Election Committees, which after a General Election is peculiarly heavy, to reserve this power—that if the three Judges on the rota should make a requisition to the Secretary of State or other officer of the Government, that a fourth Puisne Judge of the Court of Exchequer should be associated with them for that purpose. I must say, however, I cannot doubt without this provision there would be ample power to transact this business of Election Petitions. I have now stated one provision we propose. The remaining provision is this—After all, this measure must be considered but an experiment; and we therefore propose that if there should be any vacancy in either of the Superior Courts of Common Law it shall not be filled up without the consent of Parliament. These are the principal outlines of the scheme which is embodied in the clauses which I shall lay upon the table of the House in the course of the evening. I think it is a subject which has been well-considered; and, as time is now very pressing, I propose that the House shall meet at two o'clock to-morrow, when it may not be impossible that we may get into Committee, and resume our labours upon this Bill. I therefore propose to take the consideration of these clauses to-morrow.

desired to know how it was possible that lion. Members could pro pose any Amendments on clauses which they would not receive till to-morrow morning. Hon. Members would, by the course now proposed, be virtually deprived of the opportunity of proposing any Amendments; and he trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would to-morrow proceed with the other portions of the Bill instead of with these clauses.

I should have thought that four or five hours devoted uninterruptedly to the Bill would have been sufficient for all purposes.

said, he felt that this was an exceptional matter; and though lion. Members had, no doubt, a right to demand at the hands of her Majesty's Government time to enable them to propose Amendments which they desired to bring forward, he could not but acknowledge that the question of time was really a pressing one. The right hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, would no doubt give due weight to any suggestions that might be made. He desired, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman—and if the right hon. Gentleman could not give an answer at present he might, perhaps, be able to do so to-morrow—what it was proposed to do with regard to a point of considerable importance—limiting the duration of a Bill which, after all, was of an experimental character?

said, the Lords had made an Amendment in the Definition Clause, which enabled him to move an Amendment thereon, within the rules of this House. He should briefly explain the objects of the Amendment. It was agreed, when the Bill was in the House of Commons, that all the words about rating should be struck out. That was done in all the other clauses; but in the Definition Clause, by an oversight, the alteration was not made. The Definition Clause says a house shall "include any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, which dwelling is separately rated to the relief of the poor," whereas the clauses of the Bill made it sufficient that a householder should be placed on the Valuation Roll, and not in arrear of poor rates, to entitle him to the franchise. In Edinburgh this definition would disfranchise 4,500 persons who occupied premises of a less value than £4—premises which were not rated and which, therefore, could not have paid the rates of the poor; and he believed there were other burghs which were similarly situated. The effect of the Amendment he had to propose, would be to suspend the operation of the rating sentence in the clause during the present year; and all the parties affected could be rated next year. What he now proposed was merely to add the words, "after the expiration of the present year, and," in the place pointed out after the word "levied." In the city he represented there were 4,500 householders who would not enjoy the franchise under the Amendment during the present year, because the Poor Law authorities did not think it worth while to lay on and collect the small rate they might have obtained from those persons; but he apprehended that the House was most anxious that every man who was a householder should be placed on the register.

said, one of the main principles of the Bill was that no person should be entitled to be put upon the register who did not pay to the relief of the poor. In the course of the discussion, however, it was agreed that the test of being rated to the relief of the poor should not be insisted on that year; but the Lords have made an alteration in the clause, by which that object was to be effected; and the result was that certain parties were not at present entitled to be put on the register because they had not been put to the test of paying to the relief of the poor. There was no doubt, however, that they would be entitled to be put on the register in future years, after they had been put to the test.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh had done good service in the Amendment he had brought forward, because the clause to which he had drawn attention was inconsistent with the Amendment which he himself proposed, and which was carried during the earlier part of the discussions on the Scotch Reform Bill. He did not think the matter ought to be passed over in quite so light and airy a manner as that in which it had just been dealt with by the Lord Advocate; and, for his own part, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would persevere in the Amendment he had proposed, and that it would meet with the acceptance of the House.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh was one to which he trusted he might express a hope that the Lord Advocate would agree.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is willing to produce a Return of a Copy of the censure passed by the Horse Guards upon the members of the Court Martial appointed to try an acting Sergeant Major of the Grenadier Guards, on account of the leniency of the sentence they had passed upon him, such censure having since been virtually abandoned, but without any explanation or justification of the grounds of such censure upon the members of that Court Martial, one of whom is a Member of this House, and to make a Motion. The hon. Member stated that in or about the month of April an acting Sergeant Major of the Grenadier Guards was sent to a Volunteer corps with regard to a quantity of ammunition, on which occasion the Volunteers pressed on him their hospitality, the result of which was the absence of the acting Serjeant Major for six hours and the loss of parade. For this he was tried and sentenced to be reduced to the grade of a simple sergeant, whereby he would lose 10d. a day. The colonel demurred to this finding, on the ground that he could have punished the Accused to that extent himself, and that a Court-martial was obliged to inflict a severer penalty than the commanding officer could himself do. The Court, however, adhered to its decision; upon which the colonel appealed to the Horse Guards; and they referred the point to the Judge Advocate, who ruled that the sentence was perfectly legal. On this the military authorities quashed the sentence, re-sentenced the man to exactly the same penalty, and finally sent for the members of the Court to the Horse Guards, where a censure was read to them, of which they were refused a copy. As the President of the Court (Colonel Sturt) was a Member of Parliament, he (Mr. Darby Griffith) maintained that he had a right to bring the subject before the House, and he submitted that the question was one of no little importance, for it was whether Courts-martial were to be independent tribunals, or whether they were to be subject to dictation. He moved for a copy of the censure.

, in rising to call attention to the late promotions in the Coldstream Regiment of Guards, said, the complaint that he had to make in connection with them was that the well-known Warrant and rules of the service had been completely disregarded by the military authorities. Some two or three months ago vacancies had occurred in the regiment in question on the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Clive, and by the rules of the service no officer could be appointed to a company if he did not happen to have served in it two years, it being also necessary that before being made a captain he should pass an examination. At the time of Lieutenant Colonel Clive's promotion there were six or seven of the senior ensigns who had not complied with those conditions. On a former occasion the right lion. Gentleman the Secretary for War quoted the Warrant of the 3rd of February, 1866, setting forth that the vacancies caused by officers being permitted to retire, should be given to the next senior qualified officers, who were prepared to purchase, unless it should be deemed expedient by the Secretary for War to act otherwise, and in that case officers of the same rank should be brought in from half pay, or officers of the same rank in other regiments might be allowed to purchase. These latter words in the Warrant were not read by the right hon. Gentleman, and he therefore supposed that the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of them. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I was aware of them.] He wished to know why the Royal "Warrants, which were plain in their language, had not been complied with?

rose to put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, respecting the proposed position and duties of the Controller-in-Chief, and to move a Resolution thereon. In consequence of the disasters arising out of the defective military organization during the Crimean War inquiries were made into the state of various War Departments. A vast chaos seemed to exist, Departments being without heads, and beads without control. That came out most clearly in the Committee of 1860 on Organization, and Lord Herbert recommended that they should most seriously consider the importance of introducing the French Intendance system. Lord De Grey, when at the head of the War Office, very properly brought forward the question, and recommended that the Administrative Departments of the War Office, which were under a dozen different heads, should be brought under the control of one chief. They could not over-estimate the importance of such a position. In fact, the officer in that position would bonâ fide have the control of four-fifths of the whole army expenditure; and it might well be thought that the Secretary of State would regard him as his right-hand man, his chief adviser. Such certainly was the idea of Lord Strathnairn'sCommittee—such also seemed to be the opinion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) himself when ho wrote his letter in December; but between that date and the 29th of June a very extraordinary change of feeling seemed to have come over the Treasury. It seemed then to have been thought that the Controller-in-Chief was by far too important a personage—that, in fact, they were creating a new and great power in the War Office—a sort of control over the Secretary of State. Having secured one of the greatest men in the country, Sir Henry Storks—who years ago was Under Secre- tary for War, and had filled the most important positions—having got him to arrange the whole scheme as perfectly as it could be done, they appeared to turn round upon him and say they did not want him any more ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] The letter from the Treasury of the 29th of June stated that, having re-considered the whole matter, their Lordships were of opinion that the Controller-in-Chief should not have the rank of permanent Secretary of State, that he should have a salary of £1,500 a year, and that he should he either a military man or civilian, as circumstances should determine. Whether the Controller was a military man or not, he would say this, unless he was to be master over the Department it would be bettor not to have him at all. Their Lordships, it appeared, were also of opinion that the functions of the Controller-in-Chief should be kept entirely distinct from those of the Financial Department. If that was the case he said again, better not have such an officer. Then it was added, "all expenditure proposed by him should be referred to the Financial Department." Now, he wanted to know what were the duties of a Controller-in-Chief if they were not financial duties; and whether it was not absurd, after selecting a man like Sir Henry Storks to look after the expenditure of £13,000,000, that they should then appoint another high official to look after him? There could be no question that the action of the Secretary of State was very much cramped by the extreme difficulty of getting the heads of Departments to coalesce, because although each was anxious and willing to give the Secretary of State all the assistance in his power, they entertained considerable jealousy of each other. Lord Strathnairn's Committee was composed of some of the ablest men connected with the service, and they recommended unanimously that the Chief Controller should have the entire control of the finances under the Secretary of State. The Marquess of Hartington had stated that it was the general opinion of the War Office that the only way to economize was to bring the various Departments under one head. Earl de Grey and Ripon was equally strong on the point—namely, that there should only be one head to communicate with the Secretary of State; and Sir Charles Trevelyan was strongly in favour of one system of control. If the Controller had to submit the Estimates in the first instance to the Financial Secretary, it was obvious that he must possess some kind of control over them; whereas the only real financial authorities were the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretaries of State, and it was for them, and them only, to sanction what Estimates should be submitted to Parliament. If the Secretary of State for War was to have a financial as well as a military wet-nurse he was not in the position in which he ought to be. Having had twenty years' experience of the War Office, he asserted that it was in the most complete confusion that it had been in for years. After a long and careful inquiry, the War Office had been empowered to seek the assistance of any man they pleased to assist in its re-organization; and that ought to be done. If it were not, he warned the right hon. Baronet that a new Parliament would insist on such a searching inquiry as had never taken place before. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would have strength of mind to carry into effect the well-considered changes which he had determined, after eight months' consideration of the subject, to adopt. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he agreed with the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) that for the last ten or twelve years the War Department had been remarkable for confusion, extravagance, and blundering. It had been with some feeling of relief that those interested in the subject looked forward to the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Strathnairn, as they saw in it germs of future change, which would alter not only the regulation of this Department, but also those of other important branches of the administration of the army. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, by showing a determination to carry the recommendations contained in that Report into effect, had earned the gratitude and the approbation of all parties. There was a general desire on the part of the country that the army should be more economically and more efficiently administered. While, the present administration of the War Office might appear ludicrous to lookers-on it was death to the army. The spirit of self-immolation upon which the right hon. Gentleman had relied for effecting improvements in the administration of the War Department was not likely to show itself in any marked manner, because every clerk in the Department was sure to be willing to admit that changes should be effected in every Department but his own, which, in his opinion, would require to be extended, instead of being reduced. It was on the 1st January that Sir Henry Storks had been appointed Controller-in-Chief, to introduce the proposed reforms. He had been told (hat he was to alter the weak, inefficient administration of the Civil Department of the army, and to try and revise the organization of the War Office itself. Sir Henry Storks had shown the greatest aptitude for the post to which he had been appointed, and, in fact, the only objection that could be urged against his appointment was that he was a soldier, lie thoroughly believed that Sir Henry Storks, Sir Edward Lugard, and other officers of high military rank would perform their duty to the Secretary of State without betraying that duty for their own personal advancement. The theory at the War Office was that they could not serve God and Mammon—that they could not serve the War Office without a breach of allegiance to the Horse Guards. It was true that the interests of the War Office were antagonistic to those of the Horse Guards; the sooner they were reconciled the better it would be for the country. He was certain that a man like Sir Henry Storks would never accept any office under the Secretary of State and neglect that duty for his own advancement. He could not believe that the interest of military men and those of the administration of the army were antagonistic. Sir Henry Storks had been in office for six months, and it was right the House should know what had been done in these Departments, and what the obstacles were which he had to encounter. The right hon. Gentleman had placed on the table of the House a full account of the proposed changes; but, without wearying the House with details, he might describe them as a greater concentration of responsibility, and a better division of labour, as opposed to the present system of a great concentration of labour in one office and a greater division of responsibility among various Departments. The effect of those changes out-of-doors would be to place the various Supply Departments under one responsible chief, who would be answerable to the officer in command as far as discipline was concerned, but who would be answerable to the Secretary of State for War through the Controller-in-Chief of his departmental administration. At present there were four departmental officers at Malta and Gibraltar—namely, the Surveyor General, the Purveyor of Stores, the Commissary General, and Barrack Master; but it was proposed to place one officer over these four Departments. The result of such a change would necessarily lead to economy of time and money, and be a material check upon expenditure. To prove that this would be the case he need only point to the fact that at present the correspondence of these four Departments was carried on quite independently of one another. But it was objected by the Treasury that the Control Department would interfere with the present constitutional financial control. For his own part, he did not see how the Controller-in-Chief could appropriate one farthing from one purpose to another. He certainly had no objection to the details of the Estimates being submitted to the Finance Department for the purpose of having their accuracy tested; but he objected, and objected very strongly, to any manipulation. He had no objection to a Financial Secretary arranging the figures and performing similar duties; but if he were once permitted to manipulate the details—to say that too much was being spent in this direction and too much in another, it would be utterly impossible that they could secure the services of any one who could keep these large Departments in a state of efficiency, because this could not be done unless they placed sufficient confidence in the officer they selected, and gave him an uncontrolled command. Without in any way desiring to detract from the merits of Sir Robert Napier, it was to the adoption of this principle that the success of the Abyssinian Expedition was in a great measure attributable. There, perhaps, was some danger in putting two men into the same position at the War Office, and he therefore thought that the Controller-in-Chief should be the superior. If the Financial Secretary was upon the some footing it might lead to dispute and to discussion. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department would persist in a policy to which he was strongly inclined, and that he would seize the opportunity which was now offered, and which might not speedily recur, and carry out that policy undeterred by those who sought to thwart him from motives of obstinacy or self-interest.

remarked that confusion had not always existed in the War Department; it began in 1852 and 1854, through the proceedings of the then Secretary of State for War and his successors, who pulled the whole system to pieces, and, as children over a puzzle, had pulled the Department to pieces, and had been unable to put it in any sort of shape since. He was glad to find the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) had begun to try his hand at putting this Department in order, because, if for no other reason, his action in the matter acknowledged the necessity of speedy reform; and the nearer he approached the system of the old Ordnance Department, which the Duke of Wellington and so many other high authorities had said was the best in the world, the more perfect he would make it. It was said that the framing of the Estimates and the Department to which this responsibility was to be entrusted, was now a subject of discussion, but as to the framing of the Estimates, nothing, it seemed to him, could be more plain. Whatever system was in vogue, the Cabinet must always decide on the amount of money to be spent on the army, and the heads of Departments, whatever their office, would be obliged to keep their expenditure within that limit. But when the sum was decided, the Executive should alone frame the application and be responsible for the expenditure. In his opinion it would be easy to form a Department which should work harmoniously under one or more heads. He approved the proposal to keep the Audit Department entirely separate from others, and trusted special attention would be given to surpluses of Votes and transfers in future. This year many sums had been transferred from one Department to another, but no account of them had been rendered to Parliament. For instance, the House voted a sum for the Training of the Irish Militia; the Government of that country had determined not to call them out, and the sum voted for that purpose must have been saved, but neither the amount nor the purpose to which it was transferred had been stated. He hoped this oversight would be remedied before the end of the Session. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would proceed to frame a system which would relieve the War Office from the complaints of which they heard so frequently. The Committee over which Lord Strathnairn presided had recommended a re-organization of the War Department, and it was understood that a distinguished organizer, Major General Storks, was to be placed at its head; but it was now said some unseen influence had been exerted within the Office to alter this wise determination, and it was to place the new Controller in a position which the Major General could not accept. If he was to be the head of this Department, he should have the application of whatever sums might be allotted by the Cabinet for warlike purposes without control from any subordinate, and be accountable for that application. It was clear something must be done, if we wished to decrease the expense and incompetence of former Secretaries for War.

complimented the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution for the manner in which they had introduced the subject. He was surprised at the delay of the Government. The Secretary of State had promised that the system should be tried on the 1st of April in Ireland, and it could have been tried under most advantageous circumstances under Lord Strathnairn, who was not only Chairman of the Committee, but Commander-in-Chief in Ireland as well; but it seemed as if the authorities had had their nightcaps on ever since. At length, however, we had a scheme produced by two most able men—Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour; but the whole thing seemed to be regarded by the Treasury from a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: A very important matter.] He had no doubt of that; but contended that pounds, shillings, and pence should not be allowed to interfere with the efficiency of the army and the proper administration of its Departments. The Crimean War had shown what expense was entailed by niggardliness in time of peace. He was surprised that they should expect the Controller-in-Chief to be subordinate to the Financial Secretary. Now, the Minute proposed that the new official who should advise the Secretary of State for War should be either a military man or a civilian; but, excepting Lord Dalhousie and the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), every Secretary for War had been a civilian; and what would happen if future civilian Secretaries should have civilian advisers on military matters? In his opinion, the military adviser of the Secretary of State should under no circumstances be a civilian, Then the Controller-in-Chief was to be without the rank of Under Secretary of State and have £1,500 a year. But was Sir Henry Storks to be set aside in order that somebody else might be put over him? [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear; and "No, no !" from the Treasury Bench.] Did the Secretary for War and the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose Sir Henry Storks would submit to such treatment? The Government might say there was no desire to get rid of him; but, if the Minute meant anything, it meant, "We will get anyone we can to take the post, and we will treat Sir Henry Storks as an occasional waiter." [Lord ELCHO: Hear.] Sir Robert Napier, as had been said, owed much of his success to the absoluteness of his control. What he wanted he ordered, and what he ordered he got; but the Treasury set out with two Kings of Brentford, and all ho had to say was, Heaven help them from confusion ! He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the scheme of Sir Henry Storks; that Sir Henry Storks would not be set aside in order that some other person might carry out hiss scheme.

, though under no obligation to defend the recommendations of the Treasury, was bound to say he was much obliged to the Government for the part they had taken in the matter, and consequently disagreed with every hot). Member who had as yet spoken on the subject. If the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) had correctly described the duties of the Controller, his Motion would follow as a necessary consequence. If they gave a man the control of an expenditure of £13,000,000, and decided that he should be really independent and nobody should have a right to call in question his action, in what respect would his powers differ from those of the Secretary of State, except that the latter would be responsible to that House, and the Controller would be responsible to nobody? Although he entirely disagreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich, both as to the duties and the position of the Controller-in-Chief, he was not sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised the question in that manner, because his Motion raised with tolerable distinctness a question which the House would sooner or later have to consider—namely, whether there was to be a real financial control, independently of all the spending and executive departments of the army, whether those departments were attached to the Horse Guards or to the War Office itself. It seemed to him that the official Correspondence which the Government had laid on the table was not very complete, and he understood it had been admitted earlier that evening that ft Letter containing the Royal Warrant by which that Department had been already constituted had been inadvertently omitted from the Papers presented to the House.

said, he was not conscious until that evening of that omission, and he was quite willing to supply it.

said, he thought it very important to have the Letter, not only as showing the views of the Secretary for War, but also in order that any just criticisms might be passed upon the document. It had been the prevailing opinion out of doors—whether with or without sufficient foundation he did not know—that it had been the intention of the War Office to establish a new Department, with such powers and authority that the financial control of which he had spoken would be, if not altogether destroyed, at least very seriously weakened. If any such proposal as that made by the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich were adopted, the financial control would be entirely done away with. But, even short of the re-organization recommended by that hon. and gallant Member, a system might be adopted which, although not entirely doing away with that control, would yet very seriously impair it. Whatever fault might have attached to the War Office—and it had enjoyed the distinction of being about the best abused Office in the king—dom—there had always existed control of a civilian character perfectly independent of the military element. As Sir Charles Trevelyan's letter in The times of that day showed, there had existed a sort of outpost of the Treasury to control the expenditure of the army. The Board of Ordnance had officers whose duty it was to keep a watch over that expenditure. Ever since the constitution of the present War Office there had always been some control of that sort, which was at one time more powerful, and at another less so. Every Minister, he believed, who had filled the office of Secretary of State for War had held the opinion that there should be such a financial control as that. It was evident from his correspondence with the Treasury that the late Lord Herbert held that opinion; and it had also been shared by that noble Lord's official successors. In the contemplated re-organization of the army was there anything which made it less necessary than it had heretofore been to maintain a separate financial control over the Executive Departments? In his opinion the answer to that question should be given in the negative. He thought too much fuss—if he might be allowed the phrase—had been made about that contemplated re-organization. It had been written and. talked of as a very large affair indeed. It was, no doubt, an important matter, and, if properly carried out, would be very useful. But he did not think the projected changes were of the magnitude that had been supposed. On what was the necessity for them founded? On inquiry it was found that the supply of food to the army, the supply of hospital stores, of warlike stores, and of stores for barrack accommodation—it was found that the supply of all those articles for the army was the duty of different departments within the War Office itself, and the duly of different departments at every station and with every army. It appealed also that the local head of each of those different departments had to correspond directly with the head of his own department at home, and that although there might be great similarity in the duties of each of those departments; a great deal might be done and a saving effected for the public by a proper correspondence among themselves, and by a knowledge on the part of one department of what was going on in another, they all corresponded separately with their own chiefs at home, and there was a greater subdivision of duties than was at all necessary for the public service. It appeared, moreover, that there was no Department charged with the duty of providing transport for each of those different services. Well, the obvious remedy that occurred to the late Lord Herbert seven or eight years ago was that all those departments should be merged into one and combined under one head. That idea was approved by the Treasury, and circumstances only prevented it being carried out before. It was revived by Lord de Grey, and was subsequently matured by the Committee which was presided over by Lord Strathnairn. But although the Supply Department was n great and powerful Department there was no necessity for making it all-powerful or practically supreme in the War Office, which had many other duties to perform. The War Office had also to provide arms for the army, either by contract or through the Government manufacturing establishments. It was necessary there should be distinct Departments for that and for other duties, and although the Supply Department might possibly be the largest und most important, he did not see why it should necessarily be raised to a rank altogether superior to the other departments which likewise performed duties under the War Office, lie had admitted that the Controller-in-Chief should be a person of great power and authority at the War Office; but he saw no good reason why he should be more than the head of any of those other departments which he had mentioned, or why he should be exempted from all criticism. No one proposed that the Director of Works should be authorized to frame what Estimates he pleased, without having his acts called into question by any other authority. Nobody proposed that the Director of Ordnance should he authorized to spend in the manufacturing departments whatever sums ho might think fit for the purpose of adding to the buildings or plant of those establishments without being subject to the control of the Secretary of State. And if such propositions were not made with regard to other departments he could not conceive on what ground another department of an analogous character was to be left entirely without financial control. In the letter to which he had already referred, and which appeared in The Times of that morning, Sir Charles Trevelyan stated that it appeared to be deliberately intended to create a new dualism at the War Office. With the greatest respect, however, for the source from which that statement emanated, he must be allowed to express a doubt as to its correctness. Nothing of the sort was, so far as he could see, intended; and, in his opinion, it was the Secretary of State alone who would be the responsible Minis- ter, not only for efficiency, but also for economy. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Hear, hear !] But how was it proposed that the Secretary of State alone should be thus responsible to the House of Commons if the means were taken away from him of knowing how economy was to be obtained? The Chief Controller would advise him in reference to everything connected with the supply of stores, &c, for the army, the Director of Ordnance with respect to anything connected with the manufacturing Department and the supply of new arms, and the Director of Works as to works; but how was he to be advised as to the expediency of making reductions unless the financial head of the Department were placed in a position to know what was going on, to make his recommendations, and, if necessary, to secure that they should be acted upon? All that was proposed was that the head of the Financial Department should be made aware constantly of what was going on; that the Estimates should pass through his hands in order that he might know in what particulars it might be desirable to increase or diminish them; and that if he thought he could point out any respects in which retrenchment might easily be effected, his opinion should go before the Secretary of State with adequate power and authority. The Secretary of State would in that way have, on the one hand, the views of the person representing the question of efficiency, while, on the other hand, the economical view would be presented to him by his financial adviser. It was all very well to say that the two things must go together; but everybody was aware that the question often arose as to whether a certain expenditure would conduce to efficiency, or whether the extra efficiency which it would secure was worth the outlay which it was proposed to incur. But then it was suggested that each department might frame its own Estimate, and be responsible to the Secretary of State not only for efficiency, but economy. Now, it was very easy to make the head of a department responsible for efficiency; but how he could be made responsible for the economy of his department if all power of interference were taken away from the Financial Department, he was at a loss to understand. The Secretary of State could not, without assistance, make himself acquainted with all the details of economy, and it was only by such aid as was afforded by inquiry made by the Accountant Gene- ral's Department that it was possible to know whether his Department was conducted economically or not. The proposed regulations would, he hoped, be submitted to further revision, and if necessary be further corrected; for, as the Treasury Letter was dated the 29th, and the revised Regulations had been sent back the next day, it was possible that they might not in all respects carry out the principles which the Treasury had laid down. He must express his gratitude to the Treasury for the line they had taken, and he hoped the Secretary of State would concur in the Regulations laid down by the Treasury. In what he had said he hoped not a single word had fallen from him which might be regarded as disrespectful in the slightest degree to the present Controller-in-Chief. He was fully sensible of the high reputation which Sir Henry Storks so deservedly enjoyed, and the re-organization of the Department could not be entrusted to abler hands; but he was at the same time of opinion that it was not desirable that any Department of the War Office should be raised to that pitch of superior power over every other for which some hon. Members contended.

said, that although many questions of importance had been brought before Parliament in the present Session, the question of the proper control of our Army Department was the most important administrative question of the day, inasmuch as it dealt with an expenditure of £13,000,000. He was, afraid, however, that the good which it was hoped would arise from the appointment of a Chief Controller was in great danger of being obviated, seeing the views which were entertained on the subject by the occupants of the Treasury and the front Opposition Benches. His noble Friend the late Secretary for War (the Marquess of Hartington), for instance, had got up, and, after nearly every previous speaker had expressed himself strongly against the existing as well as against the proposed system, as laid down in the Papers which had been placed on the table, argued in favour of a check being maintained by the Treasury over the Controller—a view in which he was apparently supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Chiklers), who cheered him at the close of his speech. The House, nevertheless, would do well, he thought, to pause before it accepted the I dicta of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen I who were, or who had been in Office, and to take the matter, in a great measure, into its own hands. No doubt, to judge by the appearance of its Benches during the discussion, the subject was one in which the House of Commons seemed to take very little interest. The five Benches on the Opposition side below the Gangway, which were usually occupied by hon. Gentlemen who, when they should address their constituents, would be likely to lay the greatest stress upon the necessity of peace, retrenchment, and reform, had been left during the progress of this discussion without a single Member, though within the last half-hour the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Stuart Mill) had re-appeared; but it was a great mistake to imagine that the question would ho regarded with equal apathy out-of-doors, or that Secretaries of State in esse or in posse would be allowed to have, in dealing with it, entirely their own wav. Knowing the unsatisfactory state of things, he brought the subject before the House a short time ago, thinking that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed, and he expected to be told that a Commission was unnecessary, as the attention of the War Office and two able officers was already engaged on the matter. His right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington), however, did not give that answer, and perhaps he was right in not doing so.; for it did not seem that the organization of the War Department was proceeding with that success and harmony which would justify the hope of a good result, and it was a question whether there was any Controller at the War Office at all. Military organization meant a sufficient supply of men, with means for renewing the supply; a sufficient supply of material with ready means of renewal; and an organization in time of peace so economically conducted that those supplies of men and material could be efficiently brought to bear, in time of war, in any direction and at the shortest notice. Now, as regards men, the state of things was that 40,000 men could not be brought together in line in this country. But his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War stated that in time the country would have n Reserve of 50,000 men. The present Reserve was 15,000 men, and, according to the progress at which matters advanced, it might be thirty or forty years before this Reserve of 50,000 men was formed. Moreover, the officers of the Militia, from which source the Reserve was expected to be derived, were divided in opinion as to whether the men could be obtained from that force. In re- spect to material there were, no doubt, abundant supplies and stores. Many people thought that the supplies were over abundant, and that great waste prevailed. Only recently an hon. and gallant Member (Major Anson) brought the whole question of stores before the House, and the result was that the Secretary for War accepted a practical revolution in the mode of conducting the War Department with respect to stores, and an impression had gone forth that a most salutary change was likely to be introduced in the mode of keeping the War Office accounts with regard to stores. On a former occasion he endeavoured to show that there existed no organization for economically and efficiently working up the men and material; and no answer was given to his statement. They had not had a foreign army landing on the shores of this country; but there had been something like an insurrection in Ireland, and in. March, 1867, Lord Strathnairn wrote to the effect that the action of the military Departments under his command during the Fenian insurrection made him sensible of the want of a superior military officer to act as Controller, in order to insure the efficient execution of his orders. When it was understood that the Secretary for Wav had determined to act on the Report of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, and to appoint a Controller General, with another distinguished officer as an assistant, it was supposed that order was likely to come out of chaos, and that, instead of the military Departments of this country being the most extravagant and inefficient of any in the world, they would, by the supervision of Sir Henry Storks, assisted by that able officer, General Balfour, be brought under proper control. All these hopes, however, were fated to be dashed. Instead of a Controller, they had something like the two Kings of Brentford, and those two officers j were wholly powerless to carry out the system which they thought absolutely necessary. He could not understand how the Secretary of State, who was responsible for the efficiency of the army, could consent to submit to such a control in the matter of finances as the Treasury proposed to establish. The Treasury ought only to have the power of simply auditing j accounts, and seeing that they were properly kept and checked. The Secretary of State for War, who was responsible for the efficiency of the army, should be subject only to the control of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exche- quer, who should hare the power of saying he could not give so much money in a particular year. The Secretary of State for War would, therefore, still be responsible even if this control-in-chief were carried out. When they all hoped that everything was going on smoothly, the Controller-in-Chief was checkmated by the Treasury. The arrangement, as laid down in the last Treasury Minute, had been accepted by the right hon. Baronet; but had it been accepted by Sir Henry Storks? Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour were the very best men that could be selected to bring order out of a chaotic Department; but did they approve that arrangement? He said deliberately they did not. He believed the resignation of Sir Henry Storks was written out, and only held back at the request of the Secretary of State for War; and General Balfour, when he (Lord Elcho) saw him lately, said to him, "I do not think we can stay here, because it is impossible we can assent to the system proposed to be established." His answer to the General was that ho hoped he would resign, as it was only by such a step that they would have any hope of the plan recommended by Lord Strathnairn being adopted. But if they did resign, whatever Secretaries of State in esse or posse might say, the country, the Press, and the House of Commons would insist on a better administration. If Sir Henry Storks and General Balfour had had their will on the 1st of April last a perfect system of control would have been in active operation—nolin this country but in Ireland. To begin with he would give the House an opportunity of testing their opinions on this project in the most practical way. On the next Supply day he should move—

"That it is the opinion of this House that the system of control and army supply proposed to be introduced into Ireland on the 1st of April last, at set forth in the letter of the 6th of March, 1868, addressed to the Treasury, be forthwith put into operation."

That would afford a clear test whether the House would stand by the Controller General as regarded the new system which it was proposed to establish, and he hoped the House would back him in bringing the Motion forward.

agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) in regretting that the attendance in the House should be sc thin on an occasion when a question of such great importance to the interest of the country was being discussed. He attributed the non-attendance of hon. Members at that period of the evening to the fact that most of them were under the impression that the subject would not come on for discussion until Vote 18 was proposed in Committee of Supply, and he himself was rather surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) should have brought the matter on unexpectedly. He further expressed his regret that hon. Members should come down to that House and make speeches on subjects of this importance, and then run away without stopping to hear the answer which the Minister had to make to their remarks. He begged the House to consider the position in which he stood at that moment. With the exception of his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire, not a single Member who had addressed the House on this subject that evening was present to hear what he had to say in answer to the statements that had been made. The hon. and gallant Member for Harwich commenced the discussion by finding fault with Her Majesty's Government for the course they had taken upon this subject, and he now looked round I in vain for that hon. Member. He had listened to the various speeches that had been delivered with an interest proportionate to the question before them, and he had observed with pleasure that the great characteristic of the debate had been an entire absence of party feeling. It was not a party subject, but one affecting their finances and defences, and which every one ought to regard with anxiety as being connected with the best interests of the country. Another characteristic of the debate was the extraordinary amount of misrepresentation that had distinguished the majority of the speeches, and none more remarkably so than the speech of his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire; and he (Sir John Pakington) hoped before he concluded his observations that he should be able to show him that his alarms had really no foundation. Another speech singularly remarkable for its misapprehension was the speech of the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Harwich who opened the debate. As the subject had been discussed without party feeling, he wished it to be considered without prejudice or misunderstanding; and therefore the best course he could adopt was to take seriatim the remarks that had been made by the various speakers, and to offer such observations in reply as they seemed to him to require. In the first place the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich had stated that he (Sir John Pakington) had asked Sir Henry Storks to accept the office of Controller-in-Chief as a financial and not as a military man. Sir Henry Storks was asked to undertake this important office partly because he had discharged with honour to himself his military duties wherever he had been engaged, but also, and to a great extent, no doubt, because of the very great change which it was hoped he would introduce into the expenditure of the country. For his own part he believed that he had been most fortunate in the selection of Sir Henry Storks, and he hoped and fully anticipitated that he would have the good fortune to see him for a long time to come in the office he now held. The next extraordinary misapprehension and mis-statement of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich who, he regretted had not returned to his seat, was that having selected Sir Henry Storks on account of his high character and distinguished abilities, and a confidence that he more than almost any other man was the man to discharge those difficult duties, he had now turned round upon him and declared that the Government did not want him any more. He could not understand how any hon. Gentleman having such long experience of Parliament as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harwich could use such wild, unfounded, and unjustifiable language. There was not a shadow or pretence of a foundation for it, and he was only sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not now present the he might tell him so to his face. He had not the slightest complaint to make of the calm and dispassionate manner in which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) had spoken, though he leant somewhat heavily upon the War Office, which he imagined to be a mass of confusion, extravagance, and blundering. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) stated with great truth that whatever the merits or demerits of that Department, it was undoubtedly the best abused under Her Majesty's Government. That there had been difficulties since its first establishment everybody must know, and no one better than the noble Lord who had been first Under Secretary and then Secretary of State for War. His own personal experience led him to believe that, on the whole perhaps, it was not the most parsimonious Office he had ever acted in; but great alterations and improvements had been effected, and he was simple enough to believe that it would hereafter work much more harmoniously. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro seemed to apprehend that they would not fulfil their promise of reform with reference to that Department; but he must tell his hon. and gallant Friend that his belief was that they would effect the reform which they had held out, and his confident belief was that if the House would only take a fair, dispassionate, and unprejudiced view of "what had been done, they would find in them at least the germ of great reforms for the better working and administration of the army. His hon. and gallant Friend then adverted to Sir Henry Storks being a military man and the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) also made some remarks in that direction, and complained of the military element being so strong as it now was at the Board. He was aware that the subject had attracted attention out of doors, and that some very unfair comments had been made upon it. But with regard to Sir Henry Storks being a military man he ventured to remind the House that one of the reasons for his appointment was that he was a military man. His selection was further made in deference to the recommendation of Lord Strathnairn's Committee, which, rightly or wrongly, laid it down that, whatever course might be taken afterwards, the first Controller-in-Chief ought to be a military man. The Committee thought, and rightly thought, that a military man would be the most competent person to start that great change. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro said the Controller ought to be absolute; but he ventured to think that was a doctrine wholly at variance with constitutional principle. If any one were to be absolute in a Department, it must be the responsible Secretary of State, and to him all the officers in their several stations ought be subordinate. He never could agree that the Secretary of State was not absolute. In their system of government he must work in harmony with the Cabinet, and although he ought to be supreme in his own Department, he must, of course, be subjected to those checks and limits which the Constitution imposed on the whole of their system of government. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) spoke in terms he was sorry to hear him use, and which he hardly expected to hear from him, but against which he entirely protested from its utter extravagance, that Sir Henry Storks had been reduced to a subordinate. The noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had approached the subject, he was glad to say,' in a singularly calm and temperate manner, and in the greater part of the speech of the noble Lord lie most thoroughly concurred. With regard to the Letter, the omission of which had been commented upon, the occurrence was purely accidental, and there was no objection whatever to its production. As regarded the dates of the Regulations these almost spoke for themselves; for; evidently they had been the subject of very careful revision long before the day upon which they bore date. The noble Lord the Member for Hadditigtonshire laid great stress upon the improved management of stores, and referred to the adoption by the Government of the greater portion of the plan proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson). He might add that it was after conference with Sir Henry Storks that lie had accepted this portion of the plan; and, even if the hon. and gallant Member had not brought forward his proposals, they would have been carried out in substance by the authorities. He would ask the House to consider the nature of the objections which had been urged in the course of this debate to the proposals of the Government—chiefly by the lion, and gallant Member for Harwich, whom he was glad now to see in his place. Hon. Members seemed to think that the great objects for which the Controller-in-Chief was appointed had been abandoned; that he had been deprived of all the power which he ought to possess, and that an element of financial control had been introduced into the Administration. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire complained of the extravagance of the present system. But that was precisely one of the reasons why the Government had adopted this great change, in the hope of introducing economy. The noble Lord went on to say that the hopes which had boon entertained and the prospects which had been held out were all dashed to the ground by the Papers which had been laid upon the table, and that instead of the Controller-in-Chief performing the functions for which he was appointed the Controller was himself to be controlled. He challenged his noble Friend, who bad laid down these opinions without the slightest argument or proof in their support, to point out to him in what part of these Papers there was anything to show that Sir Henry Storks had been interfered with or subjected to undue control. Now, in answer to what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Harwich and Oxfordshire, he might say that Sir Henry Storks was strongly of opinion that the Controller-in-Chief ought not to be an Under Secretary of State. Sir Henry Storks also fully admitted that constitutionally whoever held the office of Controller-in-Chief must be and ought to be subjected to financial control and check. Now, a great deal had been said about the Estimates, and the hon. and gallant Member for Truro had alluded to the impolicy of taking out of the hands of the Controller-in-Chief the preparation of the Estimates of his Department. But no such proposal had been made. The word employed in these Estimates was not to "prepare" but to "compile" the Estimates, as the following passage would show:—

"Their Lordships think it should be the duty of the Finance Department to compile the Estimates of all army expenditure, as hitherto."

The Estimates had always been prepared by the different Departments to which they related, and it was not now intended to alter the present system in that respect. Unless, therefore, it was laid down—a principle that the noble Lord distinctly avoided—that the Controller-in-Chief was to be, as the hon. and gallant Member for Truro said, absolute in the War Office, unless he was to have higher authority than even the Secretary of State himself—["No, no!'']—it was impossible to allow him to prepare Estimates which were to be subject to no financial examination whatever, because it was clearly laid down in these Papers that the financial officer should not upon his own authority be at liberty to veto any proposal. The whole power, beyond preparing the Estimates of his own Department, would be in the hands of the Secretary of State alone, and the financial officer would have no more than the power which the financial officer ought to have of examining the financial results and the financial effects of the plans brought forward in the particular department. In following the speeches of hon. Members he had been struck with their declamatory nature—["No, no !"]—with the sort of general objections urged against these Papers, those objections being unsupported by anything like argument. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), for instance, had compared the position of Sir Henry Storks to that of a waiter.

said, he had not stated that the position of Sir Henry Storks was like that of a waiter. What he had said was that his position resembled that in which the two kings of Brentford found themselves—that there was another on an equality with himself, and that it was utterly impossible that such distinguished officers as Sir Henry Storks could he induced to submit to such a position.

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman maintained that the Controller-in-Chief was in that position, all he could say was that that was not his opinion. His hon. and gallant Friend laboured under a great misapprehension, and he, for one, would not have been a party to those Regulations if he had thought for one moment that they would have affected the high, distinguished, and powerful position which the Controller-in-Chief, whether that Controller-in-Chief were Sir Henry Storks or any one else, did and ought to occupy to enable him to carry out the important duties intrusted to him; but he could not help feeling that the view taken by his hon. Friend behind him was one which tended unduly to exaggerate the position in which the Controller-in-Chief ought constantly to be placed. When, however, ho was asked if Sir Henry Storks had not written out his resignation, and whether that resignation had only been withdrawn at his earnest request, nil he could say was that this was the first he had heard of it, and he did not believe that Sir Henry Storks would at this moment abandon the very important duty which he had undertaken, and which now appeared likely to be soon brought to a successful completion. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had remarked that it had been intended to introduce this system into Ireland on the 1st of April, and that that had not yet been done. That was so, but it arose from the fact that before they could attempt to introduce and bring into actual operation this great and mighty change it was necessary to consult the Treasury. There had been a good deal of correspondence on the subject, and he could not think that it was a matter for great surprise that in so great and important a change as this the Departments of the State interested should have time for con-6ideration. When, however, his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) said that on the Army Estimates again coming before the House he should move that this introduction should be made forthwith, he could only tell him that on the previous day Sir Henry Storks had said to him, "I suppose when the debates in the House of Commons are over it will be introduced immediately." It would, he could assure his noble Friend, be introduced as soon as it was constitutionally possible to do so. He would, in conclusion, ask the House calmly to consider whether they ought not rather to look at the great magnitude of the change they were now seeking to introduce, than be too apt, as some of his hon. Friends had been, to find fault with comparatively minute and petty details of the scheme. It had been no easy matter to take five different departments, hitherto under five separate heads, and place them under one person; and though such a change would, he fully believed, tend to greater efficiency and economy, it was impossible to carry out such a scheme without some of the details being exposed, with more or less justice, to the criticisms of these who felt an interest in the subject. The great object, however, was to start the scheme, and if the House would now give it their sanction, as he trusted they would, a great improvement would in his belief have been effected in our system of administration.

said, it was disheartening to one who, like himself, thought the proposed change would be conducive to good administration, to find that speeches on the subject had been delivered to an audience consisting at one time of only thirteen Members, nine of whom were soldiers, two officials, and two independent civilians. But however disheartening this might be, he would venture to offer a few words on the subject. And in doing so he was speaking under considerable disadvantage, because, in one sense, this was essentially a question of detail, and some of the most important Papers were really not placed before the House. The Royal Warrant of the 28th of April was the subject of a long Paper by the Treasury, and that important Letter was by accident omitted to be published. The other Papers did not touch some of the questions raised by the Treasury; and it was very embarrassing not to have the real facts before them, but to have to dig them out from letters which only answered the express proposal and to go back to Lord Strathnairn's Committee, and by that process to know what was the real controversy. One part of the omission had been amusingly made up by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), who told the House of a conversation he had had with Members of the Government, in which lie informed them the best thing they could do was to resign. This was like his noble Friend's story in the Reform debates of 1866, when ho described his own proposal to resign with the right hon. Member for Calne on Lord Aberdeen's Reform Bill. His noble Friend appeared very fond of these harmless resigning conspiracies. Having, however, a sincere respect for the two gentlemen, he trusted that they would persevere, in which case they could not fail to render the country very important service. In this case he did not look forward to the disastrous consequences apprehended by the noble Lord. He had a right to take some interest in this subject, because the original appointment of Lord Strathnairn's Committee was made on the recommendation of the Treasury when he was Secretary. A proposal of the War Office of a limited kind came before the Treasury; but, instead of carrying out the inquiry in detail in a particular part of the country, the Treasury, feeling the deep importance of going to the root of the matter, saw that the application of the principle in question must go a great deal further, and bring up the whole question of there-organization of the army. Accordingly, on the 6th of January, 1866, he wrote a letter to the War Office, the result of which was the appointment of Lord Strathnairn's Committee. But the Instructions to that Committee, dated the 29th of June, 1866, distinctly referred only to the arrangements in regard to stores, military train, and transport. The great object of the Committee was to inquire to what extent a combination of the non-combatant Departments in regard to the matters referred to them could be carried out. But the proposal to swallow up, in the new Controller's Department, all the financial check now exercised by an office, subordinate to the Secretary of State for that purpose, was made by the eminent military officers on the Commission, unasked. With regard to the details of the financial control system as now suggested by the Treasury he confessed he could not understand the precise difference between the two parties. Of course he did not treat as party to the controversy his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) whose ideas of financial regulation were probably shared by no one, in or out of the House. It was impossible to argue with with anyone who imagined seriously that the Treasury was simply an Office for auditing the Public Accounts. As to the noble Lord's scheme, if they wanted to have financial confusion, extravagance, and bankruptcy, the best way of securing it was to leave everything to the Departments, and say that the Treasury should have no control over the expenditure. No one who had any knowledge of the administration of our finances would deny that it was absolutely necessary that the expenditure of the various Departments should be checked by financial officers independent of administrative officers. The House would entirely throw away its power over its public Departments if it acceded to the views of the noble Lord. As to the control over the military expenditure, and to the confusion being due to the existence of too many checks, he would remind the House that during the Peninsular War there was a greater civilian check over the War Office expenditure than there had been since, and that the Minister who exercised that check, Lord Palmerston, was a civilian, not a Secretary of State, or even a Member of the Cabinet. Whatever faults existed in our army administration at that period, the check on the expenditure was certainly satisfactory, and nobody would then have thought of laying down the doctrine of undivided control of the military expenditure which had been advanced to-night. As to the arrangements of France and India, they pointed in a direction quite opposite to the conclusions of those who resisted a proper check on military expenditure. In France the War Office was divided into several Departments, and the Department of Finance was perfectly distinct from that of Administration, and embraced almost exactly the duties which were proposed to be assigned to the Financial Under Secretary. With regard to India, he had before him the valuable evidence given before Lord Strathnairn's Committee by General Balfour, to whom, with General Jameson, the present efficient organization of the Indian army was so largely owing. At first there was a Military Finance Commission, and this resulted in a Military Financial Department; General Balfour being at the head of it. Its functions were to examine into all sources of military expenditure, and control all permanent and contingent military expenses; while at the same time it was not to interfere with the functions of the local governments, of the established military authorities, or the executive heads of the several branches of the service. The Military Finance Commission and Military Finance Department were expressly founded on the principle that they were not to have executive or administrative functions, their sole duty being to examine, check, and control the expenditure and the arrangements made by the responsible military officers. If India, therefore, was an example, and General Balfour an authority, we ought to follow the system which had there succeeded so admirably, und have a control exercised over the expenditure entirely distinct from the executive control. He did not wish to enter into the important question whether the proposal now made by the War Office and the Treasury could be deemed a final one, and whether it would set at rest all the disadvantages under which the War Office laboured. He was inclined to think that the War Office would require further and gradual improvements before it was brought into an efficient stale. He entirely agreed with Sir Charles Trevelyan that the financial duties of the War Office were too great to be entrusted to an Assistant Under Secretary; and that as now proposed the nominal Under Secretaries would soon have nothing to do. All this pointed to questions as to the Horse Guards, which lie should not now touch. As to the question of audit, he would warn hon. Members against supposing that an external audit was a very simple matter. It was quite impossible that everything could be audited by a department outside the Military Department. There must be a certain amount of detailed audit inside as well as an independent audit outside, and our policy ought to be to draw the line between the two at the proper point. He believed it was not so drawn now, for the simple appropriation audit to which the Controller and Auditor General was now confined was not sufficient, and it must be carried much further with respect to voucher and authority. Still he was sure that the entire audit of military accounts could not be carried out efficiently and cheaply by a department outside the War Office, and he trusted, therefore, that the House would pause before adopting such a Resolution. On the whole he would repeat that the relations between the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief were of a very delicate nature, and if the present organization1 of the former was too violently interfered with without dealing with the Horse Guards we might bring upon ourselves much greater difficulties than those now confronting us. Many people looked forward to the time when we might have a simple and uniform system, under which all the executive functions of the War Office and the Horse Guards would be concentrated, and, those functions being so concentrated, there would be no difficulty in organizing a simple financial check upon them. The decision come to by the War Office and Treasury was, on the whole, the best that could be come to under the circumstances, having regard to its being beyond doubt only a make-shift, in view of far more important changes.

said, he had heard with surprise that officers returning home from Abyssinia had been deprived of their travelling allowance. He had given Notice to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient that officers returning home on account of wounds or diseases contracted in Her Majesty's service shall be deprived of the usual travelling allowance."

He did not wish to trouble the House with a formal Motion; but he hoped he should have from the Secretary for War an assurance that officers returning home should no longer be deprived of this allowance.

Before the Secretary for War replies to the hon. Baronet who has just sat down, I should like to introduce one other subject to the notice of the Committee, as this may be the last appropriate opportunity of doing so this Session. Two months ago the Secretary for War made some observations regarding the expenditure of the present Government, and accompanied them by an attack upon the administration of the late Government. The right hon. Baronet referred principally to the increases in the Votes for Men and for Armaments, and the effect of his observa- tions was to give currency to an impression that the increase which the present Government found it necessary to propose had been brought about, at least to some extent, by the negligence and parsimony of the late Government. Respecting the first item the right hon. Baronet said, "Look at the state in which you left the ranks and look at their state now." But I deny the late Government was negligent in this matter. In the first place the House will remember that the two or three years before the late Government left Office were most trying to the recruiting staff. Many of the men who enlisted at the time of the Crimean War were claiming their discharge, so that a great want of troops suddenly arose, and this unfortunately occurred at a time when employment was plentiful, and when men were consequently scarce. The Government considered its position in the light of this extraordinary combination of circumstances, and concluded it would not be wise to take immediate steps to meet the difficulty; they were especially unwilling to resort to offers of increased pay or larger bounty, and thinking the whole subject of sufficient importance, they referred it to a Royal Commission. These being the facts of the case, I do not see that the increased expenditure which has been incurred by the Government on account of the men can fairly be attributed to the negligence or parsimony of the late Government. Now, respecting the armament, the right hon. Baronet has said on one or two occasions—and he has been supported by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel)—that the late Government did next to nothing in the shape of armaments. I have explained the policy of the late Government on this head already; I have asserted the late Government provided fortifications only for those forts it was absolutely necessary to arm, and I maintain the late Government acted wisely in this respect; indeed, the right hon. Gentleman confesses as much himself in the speech to which I allude. He said he could not give the late Government credit for knowing' what was likely to occur, and he held that the fortunate result was perfectly accidental and could not be put down to prescience. But is it possible that at the time when the controversy between Sir William Armstrong and Mr. Whitworth was going on, when the 7-inch gun was being tried against the 9-inch, and when the best method of rifling was as yet un- decided—is it possible those who were superintending those inquiries could have been unaware that we were still far from perfection in the construction of heavy armaments? We all knew in those days that while we could make an efficient and expensive gun it was probable that in the next year we should be able to make a better gun at less cost, and that in the following year greater perfection and greater economy would most probably be secured. We have been told it would be necessary to spend £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 oil that item. I should be very glad to hear what are the details of that Estimate; but, taking the calculations made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is impossible to discover how that estimate has been arrived at. He says it will be necessary to provide 1,000 heavy guns, and about 3,000 guns of lighter construction. Assuming that it would be necessary to arm the forts with 1,000 large guns, I think that estimate was made when guns were made smaller than they are now, and that a fewer number of our present large guns would suffice. I presume the right hon. Gentleman would say that it would not be necessary for those large guns to be on an average of a larger calibre than nine inches. I suppose that some other guns, 7-inch or 8-inch, will be necessary; but I think we shall not be wrong in taking the average as 9-inch. Nine-inch guns could be made for about £800 each, and 1,000 of them would therefore cost £800,000; and doubling that sum for carriages and ammunition the total cost would be £1,600,000. A furthersum of £1,200,000 for the smaller guns would raise that total to £2,800,000, and he was curious to know how the right hon. Gentleman had doubled that already sufficiently large Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman has said, "Look at the state in which you left the breech-loaders. The late Government have done nothing with regard to breech-loaders." I think that assertion hardly justified. I will remind the House very briefly what has been done. Two years before the accession of the present Government to Office the late Government appointed a Committee which decided in the first place that breechloaders ought to be introduced into the army. That may not seem much but at that time there was great difference of opinion on the subject among military men. That Committee having decided in favour of breech-loaders, the late Government instituted an inquiry as to the best mode of converting muzzle-loaders into breechloaders. The result was that no system was presented to them which was entirely satisfactory. But experiments were conducted under the orders of the late Government which resulted in the adoption of Mr. Snider's method, and in the perfection of the cartridge which bears the name of Colonel Boxer. In moving the Estimates of 1866 I was able to state that 40,000 muzzle-loaders would be converted that year. Now, what is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? He has said, if reported correctly, which I can hardly believe, that we had only converted eighteen or nineteen, but had ordered 40,000 to be converted, whereas my successor undertook to convert 200,000 by machinery, at the cost of a £1 apiece. Now, when the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that circumstances had made it necessary in his opinion that conversion should go on faster than we had intended, he stated that there was nothing in the conduct of the late Government which he could find fault with. Now, the eighteen or nineteen muzzle-loaders that were converted were only intended as samples; we had resolved to convert 40,000, and all that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon did was to increase the number that was to be converted in the Small Arms Factory and also to be made by the trade. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) had shown that it cost £1,300 to test a 9-inch gun but that was a process which was seldom resorted to, and then only to test the endurance of any new gun which might be adopted. The Estimates which I had the honour of moving in 1866 amounted to £14,095,000; the Estimates of this year amount to £15.455,000, showing an increase of £1,360,000. Vote 1, which is the Vote for Pay of the Men, has been increased 'within these two years by £387,000; Votes 12 and 13, which bear the whole expenditure of the Manufacturing Departments have been increased by £98,000; making an increase under these heads of £485,000. Therefore, on a total increase of £1,360,000. only £485,000 are duo to the increase under both these heads; and therefore the total expenditure on the army in two years has been increased at the rate of 9 per cent, while on these two Votes the increase has been only 7 per cent. Now, it is impossible for me, or for any independent Member of Parliament, to go through the Votes and say what Votes have been unduly increased. On the contrary, I think that, when there is not one Vote in the Army Estimates which has not been increased, it is for the right hon. Gentleman to come down and show the House what the necessity was for that increase. I say it is impossible for independent Members to criticize the Votes in detail, or to say where reductions might be made, because we have not got the information. There is only one Vote in which I could say that there has been a perfectly unnecessary increase and that is the Militia Vote. There is one thing about which no complaint has been made, and that is as to the number of men in the Militia and Volunteers, and yet there has been a very large increase in the Militia Vote. That increase has been due to these two circumstances—the pay of the Militia has been raised 2d. a day, in my opinion a perfectly unnecessary and wasteful increase; and in the next place the right hon. Gentleman has raised the Militia establishment from two-thirds, at which a great many of the regiments stood for some years, to the full establishment. I think, and a great many Militia officers agree with me, that 1,000 men is a greater number than it is possible to train within a period of eight weeks. If they were in garrison it would be a different thing. It may be said that this increase of the Militia establishment is part of the Reserve plan; but it is no part of the plan of the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon. I have reason to believe that whenever an emergency arose it would be easy to get as many men as would be required; and therefore I say that this increase of the Militia establishment is perfectly unnecessary. As I have said before, it is impossible for independent Members to go through every Vote in detail; but I have made these few remarks because the statement of the right hon. Gentlemen has led to the impression that the increase in the expenditure was due to parsimony of the late Government.

I came down here with great curiosity to know how my noble Friend) the Marquess of Hartington) was to justify that address which he has made to his constituents—in which he has said that the present Government have greatly raised the Army Estimates without securing increased efficiency—while ho is prepared to maintain that the Government to which he belonged maintained the army in efficiency with an expenditure much less than that which is now incurred. Now, there can be no graver accusation brought against a Government than an increase of Estimates without a corresponding increase of efficiency. As I am responsible for much that has been done, I wish to say a few words. If the Army was in that state of efficiency which my noble Friend wishes us to believe, why was it necessary in 1866, before any of those events occurred on the Continent, which made nations look to their defences, that my noble Friend should appoint a Royal Commission—to do what? Why, to ascertain how it was that they could not get the men they wanted. If the army was in the state of efficiency he describes, why was the late Government called upon to appoint a Commission? Of whom did that Commission consist? There were five politicians upon it. Among the Members were Lord Dalhousie, Viscount Eversley, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), and the hon. Member for Longford (Major O'Reilly) sitting on the other side of the House, and the subject of recruiting was not the only point on which they reported. Another question referred to them was how we were to obtain an Army of Reserve. Then, again, will my noble Friend say that the army was in a state of efficiency when it had not enough men, when it had no Army of Reserve, and when it was armed with muzzle-loaders? Does he imagine that he could provide the army with breech-loaders without an increase of expenditure? As to the additional 2d. a day which was given to the troops, I do not believe there is a man in or out of this House who grudges this addition. The House will bear in mind that in 1867, in addition to the ordinary casualties amounting to more than 50,000, there were 22,000 men entitled to their discharge—not, as my noble Friend supposes, on account of the recruiting which went on during the Crimean War, but of the second battalions raised during the Indian Mutiny. I can tell you that these men were waiting to know what you would do for them; and if you had not added then to the pay of the army, every one of them would have taken his discharge. Do not therefore let it go forth, just before a General Election, that the present Government were extravagant in increasing the Estimates, whereas the late Government reduced their Estimates, at the same time maintaining the efficiency of the army. But then my noble Friend says, "Were not your Estimates in- creased?" No doubt they were, and why? Because you made wrong calculations from beginning to end. There was a deficiency in the first seven of your Votes to the amount of no less than £300,000. Then, says my noble Friend, "Why increase the number of the Militia?" Because this arose out of the recommendation of your own Royal Commission. Instead of 40,000 breech-loaders, as you proposed, the supply to the troops was raised to 200,000. If this had not been done, not only would you not have been able to send them to Canada, but I doubt whether your troops in Abyssinia would have been supplied with them. If the Government are accused of extravagance on account of this extra expenditure, I question whether the country will find fault with it. I have no personal interest in this matter. It is not my intention to go into Parliament again; but I warn the noble Lord that, so far from finding fault with increased Estimates, if he comes into Office again he will probably have to increase them still further. With regard to the fortifications and their armaments, the noble Lord says that under the late Administration these were proceeding gradually. Yes, they certainly were—very gradually. The Fortification Vote is not one for which the present Government is responsible. You had planned the fortifications, and you did not provide a single gun for them. Surely, my noble Friend does not pretend to say that all this can be done without an increased expenditure? At any rate, when he declares that the late Government were excessively economical, and the present Government excessively extravagant, I agree with him, that the country must judge between us.

I am sorry to have to add anything to the not very long, but very effective speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel). But the noble Marquess referred so directly to me, especially in connection with a speech made by me in this House, that I must be allowed a few words in reply. In addressing his constituents the noble Lord says that under the present Administration the Army Estimates have been largely increased, and he is prepared to maintain that, while under their predecessors the military expenditure gradually decreased, the efficiency of the army was in no degree diminished. Now, I do not wish to make any unfair imputations; but it is difficult to read this extract without coming to the conclusion with my right hon. and gallant Friend that there seems to be some desire to impress the country with the idea that, while the late Government was extremely careful, the present Government was extremely extravagant, In justice to the present Government I must state distinctly that I do not think the noble Lord has it in his power to justify that address. There has been no extravagance on the part of the present Government, and, moreover, I maintain there has been no increase of Estimates which the noble Lord himself would not have been obliged to adopt if he had remained in Office, and a change of Government had not occurred. He says to his constituents that under the late Government the efficiency of the array was in no degree diminished. Well, but our object was that the efficiency of the army should be increased, and that efficiency could not be increased until, in some way or another, breech-loaders were supplied to the army. That is, in fact, the question of the hour. With regard to the speech which the noble Lord criticized, he was unable to establish anything like inaccuracy in it; and lie admitted the truth of my statement that when he went out of I Office there were only 20,000 or 30,000 breech-loaders, made by hand, at a large expense. I do not mean to say that he was going to provide the whole army with them at that rate of expenditure. But that was the state of things which compelled my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) to increase our expenditure upon that item. The noble Lord says that I accused the late Government of negligence and undue parsimony. I made no such charge. The speech to which he refers was not made as an attack upon the late Government. It was made because the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), without any notice, assailed the Estimates of the present Government, using harsh language, and declaring that our conduct respecting the Estimates was a subject of discredit and dispraise. Surely, the House will admit that, although I had no notice whatever of that attack, it was my duty to vindicate the Government as far as I could, and in doing so I referred to the fact which the noble Lord has entirely admitted, that it is to the present Government and the administration of my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) that the credit was due of providing the army with those breech-loaders, which were indispensable to their efficiency, and which of course could not be provided without an increased charge. But let me deal with the statements of the noble Lord a little more closely; and as the noble Lord gave me private notice of his intention to mention the subject I am able to do so. Let us see the amount of the Army Estimates for the last five years. In 1863–4 they had risen to the large sum of £15,000,000. The noble Lord boasts that the late Government gradually decreased them. Well, in 1864–5 they were decreased by £200,000—I give the round numbers. In 1865–6 there was a further decrease of £500,000. 1866–7 was the last year in which the noble Lord prepared the Estimates, and they were then £14,340,000. In the summer of that year there was a change of Government, and what was the first act of my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel)? It was to ask the House to assent to an increased expenditure of £245,000 in order to effect that great object of providing the army with breech-loaders. Including that expenditure, the Estimates stood at £14,340,000. In 1867–8 the Estimates were prepared by my right hon. and gallant Friend; but it devolved upon me early in the year to undertake the administration of this Department. Well, that is the only year in which there was an increase of Estimates. And what was it? It amounted to £912,000, and I can account to within Is. for that increase, so as to show that the present Government are not open to the charge of extravagance. The main cause of the increase was the addition of 2d. to the pay of the Army, wisely proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend. He adopted this plan in deference to the Report of the Royal Commission, which, under the pressure of absolute necessity, from want of men and difficulty in recruiting, was appointed by the noble Lord opposite. The Commission advised certain modes of improving the condition of the soldier. It was thought advisable to improve their rations, to give them certain articles of clothing, and in various ways improve their condition. But my right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) said, "If you want to improve the condition of the soldier, and tempt a better class of men into the Army, give more money;" and he decided on giving the soldier an extra 2d. a day. What would have been the financial result if the plan of the Commission had been carried out? Would there have been any economy? No, Sir; I believe that if my right hon. and gallant Friend, instead of taking the course he did, had carried-out the recommendations of the Commission, the financial result would have been an expenditure far larger than that occasioned by adding 2d. a day to the pay of the soldier. This addition of 2d. accounts for nearly one-half of the £912,000 increase in the Estimates of that year, and I have a statement of the items which constitute the other half. They are as follows:—Furlough pay, £20,600; increased pay to medical officers under the Medical Warrant, £18,000; unavoidable expenses caused by the extent to which recruiting was resorted to on account of the number of "expired" men which fell within the year, £69,500; increased cost of provisions and forage, £92,700; the taking over of the Straits' Settlements, £76,000; additional charges in connection with Ceylon, £32,000; additional charges for Australia, £20.000; biennial extra issues of clothing, £67,000; and headdresses of Cavalry and Artillery issued quadriennially, £11,300, making a total for clothing of £79,100; leap year, £24,700; miscellaneous charges (including £14,800 for rewards to inventors, £19,600 on account of contagious diseases, and £13,000 for the hospital ship at Hong Kong), £47,400; capitation grant to Volunteers, £15,800; retired full pay of non-effective infantry, artillery, and engineers, £12,040; and out pensions (higher pensions being on an average granted to men on discharge), £9,000; all these items making a grand total of £516,240. These items and the extra 2d. give an inconsiderable amount beyond the difference between the Estimates of the two years. I hope the statement will satisfy the House that the noble Lord has no right, either in Lancashire or here, to accuse the present Government of having indulged in extravagant Estimates, I have shown that the Estimates must have been submitted by himself if he had remained in Office, and that there is really no ground for the charge he has made. Referring to the Estimates of the probable expenditure to which the country sooner or later must be put in order to arm our fortifications with proper guns, the noble Lord alluded to this passage in my speech—

"According to the calculation of scientific men competent to give an opinion on the subject, it will be necessary, in order to arm the fortifications which are being constructed, to provide 1,044 additional guns of largo calibre—12-inch, 9-inch, and 7-inch guns—and also 2,600 guns of a lighter character. The right hon. Gentleman, says that if a change of Government occurs the future Government must effect a large reduction of expenditure. Now any future Government must and ought to endeavour to effect every economy consistent with the efficiency of the public service; but I presume that the right hon. Gentleman will not be prepared to contend that we are to leave the fortifications of this country without guns in them. It is the duty of the Government to arm these fortifications; and this aggregate number of 3,500 guns of large and small calibre, indispensable as they are for the safety and protection of the country, cannot be manufactured under an expenditure of from £4,000,000 to £5,000,000."—[3 Hansard, exci. 1753.]

The noble Lord says this is an exaggerated calculation. In his Estimate the noble Lord brought up the cost of these guns to £3,000,000. I will not enter into the question whether the noble Lord is right or I am; but I made my statement after reference to the most competent authorities. I must remind the noble Lord that not only will a number of guns be required for the new fortifications in progress, but a number of guns will be required on account of the changes in the armament of our fortresses in all parts of the world. With regard to the cost of testing guns, about which my statement was said to be inaccurate, the fact is my figures greatly understated the cost. I believe they were correct as to the 9-inch guns, to which I referred, and the testing of which cost £1,300. With guns of a large calibre the expense is much greater; and since I made my speech I have been informed that in one case the cost was between £2,000 and £3,000; but that applies not to every gun, but to new patterns as they are invented. Therefore, I think that in that speech I did not make any exaggerated statements, and the noble Lord was not justified in casting the imputation ho did on the present Government. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), I must decline to produce a copy of the censure passed by the Horse Guards upon an officer of the Grenadier Guards. We are fortunate in having at the head of the army a most efficient Commander-in-Chief, to whom no one will be inclined to attribute undue severity; and it would be a most dangerous precedent as affecting the discipline of the army to lay on the table such a document as that referred to. In answer to the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien,) who has brought forward a case of promotion in the Coldstream Guards, I have to state that it appears to me that what I have already said on that subject is correct, and that the Commander-in-Chief has exercised a sound discretion with regard to it. With reference to the Question about travelling allowances to officers on sick leave, the House will naturally suppose that there is an individual case in point of an officer who came home on sick leave; and he was not in strictness, under the warrant, entitled to the particular allowances that were refused him.

said, he had on a former occasion gone into this question at some length, and therefore he would not trouble the House farther than to say that they had no information whatever how this Vote was to be applied. Much had been said about army control; but the fact was that the House had no control whatever over the Manufacturing Departments. They had no information before them as to what would be the result of this addition to the plant of the Department. He begged, therefore, to move that the Vote be reduced by £43,442, the sum required for new machinery. He would divide the Committee upon his Amendment.

appealed to his lion, and gallant Friend not to press his Motion to a division. It was a mistake to suppose that this sum of £43,442 was required for the purpose of extending the operations of the manufacturing establishments. These operations would not be extended, and, indeed, he shared in the opinion of his hon. and gallant Friend that to a considerable extent, at all events, we ought to obtain our supplies of stores by contract with private firms. The explanation of the increase was that it was caused by such items as these—That in the Gun Carriage Department iron bad been substituted for wood in the manufac- ture of the carriages; in the Gun Factory a new forge was wanted, and there were numerous alterations in the Royal Laboratory, in the Small Arms Department, and in the Gunpowder Department. After making this explanation, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion.

inquired whether a gun of any heavy calibre had been fixed on for arming the fortifications now in course of construction; and whether any changes in the field gun now in use had been adopted for the army? The late military Government—if it could be termed a Government'—did nothing in regard to this matter; they had left the service practically unarmed, while other European nations were adopting improvements; and he wished to know whether we were still in a state of transition, or whether any definite conclusion had been at length arrived at?

said, he was not aware that any change had been made with respect to field guns. Fortification guns were of various sizes, including some very large ones. The question of small arms was still under the consideration of a Committee, which ho hoped would present its Report before the close of the year.

said, he had always been opposed to the increase of our manufacturing establishments, as he believed that they checked private enterprize, which would supply the country better than these public departments. The question he wished now to press upon his light hon. Friend was this—Had he yet come to a definite conclusion with respect to the guns that were to be adopted? If not, ho thought the hon. and gallant Member (Major Anson) would do right to press his Amendment, because they might soon be called upon to vote money for a different article than that they were now using.

said, it was clear that if this sum of £43,000 were granted for improved machinery, the result must be an extension of the manufacturing establishments, unless, indeed, a corresponding quantity of the old machinery were thrown out of use.

explained that, although the Government had no intention of extending the operations of the manufacturing establishments, yet they desired to render them as efficient as possible by the introduction of new machinery. In answer to his hon. and gallant friend (Colonel Barttelot) he had already explained that they were now manufacturing guns for fortifications of various calibres and sizes.

said, the articles manufactured in the public Departments amounted to £200,000, while those furnished by private enterprize amounted only to £10,000. This was not sufficient inducement to the private manufacturers to cause a competition. He was convinced that the only way to stop the Government making such an unaccountable expenditure as that proposed in this Vote was by taking the sense of the House by a vote on the subject.

said, he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not persevere in dividing the Committee, because if he did so he would fail in securing the object he had in view. It had been distinctly stated that the money was only required to alter and improve, and not to extend the machinery establishments of the Government. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would not persevere with his Amendment.

said, that if the Government establishments were conducted on the same principles as those on which private workshops were managed, the keeping up of existing machinery would come into the profit and loss of the year. He thought that the present discussion showed how deceptive were all the statements made respecting Government manufactures, and the sooner these establishments were dropped the better.

said, that if his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had read the Report of the Committee which on this question sat two years ago, he would have seen that a very minute investigation was made by that Committee, and that very careful calculations then showed that ordnance was manufactured at Woolwich at considerably less cost than in the works of private manufacturers, for this reason—that private manufacturers would not turn their attention to making breech-loading guns and other articles only used for military purposes without having a reasonable certainty that there would be a continued demand for them. Now, the Government could give no guarantee on the subject, because they could not anticipate what might be required at a future time.

said, he had studied the Report of the Committee referred to by the right hon. Gentleman; but all he could derive from it was the conclusion that it was utterly impossible to make out whether there was a profit or a loss, be badly were the accounts of the Manufacturing Departments kept under the existing system. With regard to what bad been said about the private trade not turning their attention to the manufacture of guns and gun-carriages, he thought that fact was to be attributed to our keeping up those establishments. Why was it that ours was the only Government which did not go to the private trade for such articles? If we went to them they would turn their attention to the manufacture of guns and gun-carriages suited for the artillery. Sir Benjamin Hawes stated, in his evidence, that the private trade of the country had never had a fair chance, in consequence of the large establishments being provided.

doubted the necessity of increasing the sum annually voted for this purpose.

wished to know how long the survey was to continue?

said, that it was so steadily going on that it would take sixteen years to complete it.

also deprecated any increase, remarking that it was a practice on the part of Governments always to increase the Votes, though, when not in power, they were fond of complaining that their opponents were not economical in their proposals.

observed, that the increase was principally for civil assistants, and preparation of maps for civil purposes.

said, that this Department, though originally established for a temporary purpose, figured year after year in the Estimates for a very large sum, and much money had been wasted in this survey, inasmuch as the results it had produced might have been attained at a much smaller outlay. It had already cost something like £2,000,000; on amount enormously exceeding what the French paid for their survey, which was as good or better. It was, perhaps, too late in the Session to propose to dwell at any length on the subject; but a new Parliament would, he trusted, see that the public money was not expended in so ill-considered and extravagant a manner as it was at present. He thought that the Estimate should not form part of the Army Votes, but should be placed to a separate account, and then proper attention would be given to it. In his opinion the increase proposed was unnecessary. The cost of engraving the survey was excessive; and if a Committee were granted to inquire into the whole conduct of the Department—though it was too late in the Session now to hope for such a thing—he believed it would be found that at least half the present cost of the Ordnance Survey could be saved. In fact, the surveying, the engraving, and the commercial parts of the business were all ill-managed, while the Director General also had the most unlimited and uncontrolled power.

vindicated the Department which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) had impugned, and also the distinguished man at its head, who, he said, was carrying out an important work in a manner which everyone Ought to approve.

said, he was glad if the advanced period of the Session had prevented the hon. Member (Mr. Wyld) from moving for another Committee, because that question of the Ordnance Survey had suffered greatly through the alternate hot and cold fits which that House had exhibited on the subject. In consequence of an objection taken some years ago to the scale of the survey by the late Mr. Ellice, a full inquiry was instituted, and the Committee came to the deliberate conclusion that the survey was both based on sound principles and was being admirably conducted. The survey was executed not only most accurately, but economically; and he was told that at the present moment a Prussian officer, a good authority on such a subject, who had come to this country, was surprised to find that so perfect a survey had been carried out so cheaply.

complained that the maps of certain counties were fallacious and untrustworthy. They ought to have a correct map which, if they wanted to lay out a road, would be of some use to them, which was not the case at present. He hoped there would be no stinginess or any undue delay in supplying that desideratum.

bore testimony to the general accuracy of the maps of Ireland produced by the Ordnance Department. He himself did not see the great advantage of the very large survey, except for the towns. It was maps on this large scale that would answer for plans for railways projected, and ordinary maps for the purposes of owners of property; but it must be recollected that for the former more accurate levels than those given on the largest Ordnance maps were requisite, and in the latter that changes of boundary and other objects were so frequent that even on the Irish maps, not many years published, great changes in the face of the country would be seen; but of course, if one part of the country was surveyed upon the large scale, they could hardly avoid executing the remainder of the work in the same uniform manner. The delay, however, had arisen very much from the adoption of the large scale.

testified to the great accuracy of the Ordnance maps of Scotland; and pointed out that the length of time occupied in completing the survey of the whole kingdom depended on the amount of money which Parliament was ready to vote for the purpose. The calculation, he believed, had been that the entire work in England and Scotland would be executed in fifteen years with a grant of £100,000 a year.

thought that if by an additional outlay the result would be attained of having the work thoroughly done it would be a great advantage to the country. He had himself known large estates to be transferred by means of those maps, the map of the district being attached to the transfer.

said, he hoped that no false economy would stand in the way of the extensive circulation of these maps. They would become a source of national wealth.

asked for some explanation as to the medical Bills mentioned in the Vote.

said, he never heard of a man denying that an Ordnance Survey was a good thing. It appeared to him that there was no question before the Committee.

said, with respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel W. Stuart), that it was scarcely matter for surprise, considering how the officers and men engaged in the survey were dispersed over the country, that they should sometimes want a doctor.

complained that at the present moment it was impossible to obtain a complete set of these maps in London, and he suggested that the publication of the maps should be transferred to the Stationery Office instead of their having to be got from Southampton.

said, it had been the practice of the War Department to reward officers for meritorious inventions. In 1856 Colonel Boxer received £5,000 for some inventions of his, and lately Mr. Fraser had received £5,000. Since 1856 Colonel Boxer had distinguished himself by seven or eight other inventions, and several of them, including the invention of a lubricator for the Armstrong gun, had been found of great service. Pie wished to know, whether it was the intention of the Government to take his case into consideration, with the view of conferring on him some additional reward?

replied that it was not his intention to give any further money reward to Colonel Boxer. He doubted the policy of conferring large money rewards on men in the Government employment for discoveries made in their own particular line, and thought they should rather look to some honorary distinction, or increased emolument in their office. When the Government selected an officer on account of his peculiar personal fitness to discharge the duties of the situation to which he was appointed, they were, he thought, entitled to the full exercise of his professional talents, although he would not go the length of saying that in no case should a grant of money be made. He thought he had taken the last course when he lately offered Colonel Boxer a greatly increased salary.

expressed his concurrence with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend as to the impolicy of giving large money rewards in these cases as a general rule, and he felt sure that he also spoke the feelings of the corps of Artillery and Engineers in saying so. They felt that when an officer of a scientific corps was employed in the arsenal or laboratory his talents and inventions were due to the service; the latter ho tried and perfected at the public expense—what could not be done by a private inventor—and the credit he was sure to receive, and such professional advancement as would follow, were the rewards a soldier should look to. The inventions of private manufacturers came under the knowledge of the Government officers, and of rival inventions they had the opportunity for pirating from the inventions they were called on to examine, and as a fact such accusations had been made, but as it was desirable that the latter should be above suspicion he thought that the Secretary for War had wisely determined to give them promotion and encouragement in the way of their profession rather than money rewards.

said, he had heard with regret the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War with reference to rewarding the inventors. The principle had never before been laid down that officers of the Government were not to be rewarded for inventions, and it was not fair that this new principle should be applied in the case of Colonel Boxer without warning. Mr. Fraser had been rewarded with the sum of £5,000. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had offered Colonel Boxer an increase of salary to the amount of £200 or £300; but as Colonel Boxer's appointment would only last two years longer, he would receive no more than £600 from his additional pay if he had accepted the offer. He thought Colonel Boxer had done right in refusing it.

said, that he had lately refused an application for another reward made by Mr. Fraser.

congratulated the right hon. Baronet on his sudden conversion, foe last year he was not able to convince the right hon. Baronet it was not right to allow officers to take out patents for inventions of a similar character to those on the merits of which they might have to decide.

asked the Secretary of State for War to postpone the Vote, in. order that he might submit a Motion to the Committee upon the subject.

complained that the salaries of the Controller General and the General in charge of the Reserve Army were not included in this Vote.

said, he hoped his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire would throw no obstacle in the way of proceeding with the Vote. The subject alluded to by his noble Friend had been very fully and ably discussed, and although the House was not very full at the time, still those who were present were the Gentlemen who were most competent to deal with the matter. He was most anxious not only that the Vote should be taken, but acted upon, in the first instance in Ireland. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Harwich (Major Jervis) that the salary of the Commander of the Reserve Army was not included in the Vote, he said it was because it would give rise to a good deal of discussion, and it was thought better to take it separately.

said, he would like to know whether the Controller General was to rank as an Under Secretary of State?

replied in the affirmative.

said, he could not understand why the system of control should be tried first in Ireland—a subordinate branch—and not at once in the Head Department in Pall Mall. The organization of the Irish Department would not serve as any test of the success of the system proposed, and if anything effectual was to be done there must be a complete and radical change in the present system, which rendered every military Department inefficient.

said, he hoped the next Parliament would take up the question of the constitution of the War Department of the country, because if such were done it would be found to be the worst administered and the most expensive part of the public service. The question, moreover, of the relationship between the Secretary at War and the Commander-in-Chief also required serious consideration.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House that at an early period of the Session the question was raised as to whether the Capitation Grant was or was not sufficient. An impression then prevailed that before the close of this Session a Commission would be appointed to decide the question. He had asked the Secretary of State whether he would appoint a Special Commission to ascertain who was right on the question.

said, he did not intend to refer the question of increasing the Capitation Grant to the Volunteers to a Commission; but the question would be considered by the Government from time to time with reference to its varying circumstances.

said, that if any trust which was in debt was not allowed to be renewed for more than one or two years, he was convinced there would be a more satisfactory state of things than at present. As long as the present system was continued they would never get rid of the Turnpike Act. He suggested that the Bill should he referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of allowing certain persons to he heard with regard to it.

doubted whether any benefit would arise from referring the Bill to a Select Committee at this period of the year; otherwise, he thought it might be advisable to do so. The practice into which the House had gradually fallen upon this subject was very objectionable. Persons had lent money for making turnpike roads, and obtained a lien over the tolls for a certain number of years. He could not conceive anything more clear in principle than that those persons were bound by their bargain for a term of years, and that that bargain affected no other persons whatever. If they had had to deal with individuals, did anyone think that an individual standing in the place of the trust who had entered into a covenant of that kind would have allowed the term to be renewed and the tolls to be continued for the benefit of the other party to the contract who had entered into a wrong bargain? But here the bargain was between an individual, on the one side, and that patient animal the public, on the other. When individual claims came into contact with public rights, they obtained a sanction to which they were not entitled, and the public went to the wall. They had thus got into a difficulty with respect to a series of facts for which the right hon. Gentleman was no more responsible than others who had gone before him; but abuses so gross derived a certain amount of authority from the long lapse of time and the repetition of the oftence. Any proceeding adopted on the impulse of the moment would probably substitute a practical injustice for what was a gross injustice in principle; but he hoped the House would be prepared, when there was time for consideration of the subject, to take some serious proceeding for the settlement of the whole question. He knew that the tolls in Lancashire, for instance, were not maintained for the benefit of the public, but simply for the purpose of reimbursing creditors who had advanced their money upon a security which had expired. If there was a case which deserved the application of such epithets as monstrous, it was a case like this. He hoped, therefore, that there would be a consensus amongst official men for the practical examination of these matters, and to consider what, on the whole, was the course that ought to be adopted; and that thus the practice into which the House had probably slidden imperceptibly would be brought to a conclusion, as soon as any fair and legitimate plan for the purpose could be devised.

said, that all who, like himself, took an interest in the state of turnpike trusts would be happy to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the explanation he had given of his views on the subject. The Turnpike Continuance Act had grown to be considered a matter of course; and at present no less a sum than £400,000 was paid annually under it. A certain indefinite time might be fixed for its termination, and a Schedule of particulars annexed, so that parties connected with the trusts would know at what time they would expire; and he hoped that a measure for this purpose would be introduced next Session.

thought that the statement of the case by the light hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire a very unjust one. He contended that a limit was fixed in the first instance, not with a view to the discontinuance of the tolls at the end of the period, but in order to give Parliament a power of revision where that might be necessary.

remarked that the invariable plea urged by turnpikes for an extension of the period allowed them was that they were in debt. In all cases where this was alleged strict inquiry ought to be made, because in several instances an investigation had shown that turnpikes which pleaded indebtedness were perfectly solvent.

reminded the House that 620,000 per annum, which was formerly expended in Private Bills for renewing turnpike trusts, was saved by the present procedure. He hoped that if a Select Committee was appointed all the trusts in the kingdom would be referred to it, and that some solution of the question other than that of throwing the roads on the parishes would be arrived at.

explained that his object in framing the present measure had been to facilitate a settlement of this controversy. He admitted the force of the objection to what was called the secret examination into the trusts at the Home Office, and he had added the Schedules to the Bill with the view of referring them next Session to a Committee, so that the real condition of the trusts might be ascertained, and inquiry might be made as to what ought to be done. There would be great hardship in throwing the maintenance of the roads on small parishes, some of which had comparatively little interest in them. He hoped the House would go into Committee, and he should then consent to reporting Progress.