asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the annoyance that is being given to many poor persons by unadvised prosecutions under the Act 29 Charles II., he will bring in a short Act rendering it necessary that for the next year all prosecutions under the said Act shall only be by leave of the Attorney General?

Sir, the Act of Charles II. deals generally with two classes of cases. One of them is that which has lately been the special object of public interest—namely, Sunday trading; the other is the question of labour. The Act is, undoubtedly, in many respects inapplicable at the present time. It is an Act which it is simply impossible to enforce, and it was only retained on the Statute Book because of the good sense with which, on the whole, its provisions had been applied. There is, I believe, a general desire—not, perhaps, quite universal, but very general—that the Sunday should be devoutly observed throughout the country, and I do not think that either Parliament or the country is prepared to dispense altogether with legislation on the subject; but these offences, when they are committed, are offences not so much against individuals as offences against the public sense of decency and order. Therefore, I think that there should be some authority interposed between the common informer and magistrate. Whether the Attorney General is the proper person to interpose in these cases—which are cases of summary jurisdiction before a magistrate—is a matter about which I have great doubt, and it is a resource to which I should only be disposed to resort on being satisfied that there were no other means of dealing with the difficulty. Another course has suggested itself to me, and it is one that I venture to hope may meet with general acceptance by the House. I need hardly say that at this period of the Session no proposal could be brought forward with any chance of success unless it was substantially approved of by hon. Gentlemen on both sides. I have not yet worked out the details of the proposal so completely as to lay it now before the House; but I hope to be able to do so in a few days.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to a statement in the Public Journals that Her Majesty convoyed to the Pope congratulations on the event of his Jubilee, Whether he feels at liberty to inform the House of the terms of such communication?

Sir, on the 13th of June an Instruction was addressed to Mr. Jervis, at Rome, to the effect that he was to convey to the Pope, on behalf of Her Majesty, in the usual manner, Her Majesty's congratulations on the anniversary of his accession. I hardly need add that in this communication there is nothing of a political character, and that so far as regards the personal position and dignity of the Pope, who was a Sovereign, but who has been dispossessed of his dominions, which now constitute part of the Kingdom of Italy, it was the feeling of the Government, and I think it will be the feeling of the House, that the duty of expressing personal respect and regard should not only not be omitted, but should be even more sedulously observed than before.

Was the communication made under the powers of the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1848?

I am not able to say whether that was so, or whether it might not be perfectly possible to make a communication of this kind without reference to the Diplomatic Relations Act. George IV. contrived to present a portrait of himself to Pope Pius VII. before the Diplomatic Relations Act existed. If it was possible in the past it might be possible again, irrespective of the statute, to convey such a very simple message as I have stated to the House.

rose to call attention to the present unequal enforcement of the Act of 29 Charles 2, c. 7; and to move—

"That this House deprecates the recent attempts to put in force the Act 29 Charles 2, c. 7, and is of opinion that the said Act should be repealed."

The hon. Member was proceeding to speak upon his Motion, when—

A Notice has been given by an hon. Member (Mr. P. A. Taylor) of his intention to propose, on the 18th of July, the repeal of the Act the 29th of Charles II., and that Notice having been given some days ago, the hon. Member for Leitrim wishes now to move that this House deprecates the attempt to put the Act of Charles II. in force, and that it is the opinion of the House that the said Act should be repealed. Now, there is a Rule of the House that when a matter has been expressly set down for consideration, no hon. Member can anticipate it by raising a discussion on the subject. I think the course pursued by the hon. Gentleman would be an infringement of that Rule.

, in rising to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct that carriage traffic may have free access to the Houses of Parliament by way of Constitution Hill,"

said, that during the present Session that part of St. James's Park between St. James's Palace and Storey's Gate had been thrown open to carriage traffic, and he might appeal to the general sense of the House that it had been found a very great convenience. The object of his Motion was to complete the thoroughfare from Hyde Park Corner through Constitution Hill, past St. James's Palace to Storey's Gate. He had formerly asked that there might be carriage traffic through the Horse Guards also; but, at the request of hon. Gentlemen, he had postponed that part of the question. If he thought the opening of Constitution Hill to carriage traffic would be the slightest inconvenience to Her Majesty he would be the last to propose it; but the House must recollect that the traffic existed already on one side, from St. James's Palace to Buckingham Gate, and it would be almost impossible that there should be any additional inconvenience from what he proposed. Very great expense had been incurred, which somebody would have to pay, by opening the now road from Piccadilly into Park Lane. That new road would be found to be a great convenience. But one of the advantages of the course which he proposed was, that it would be attended with no additional expense whatever, while the general traffic would be relieved, and the convenience of Gentlemen both in that House and out of it would be promoted. He begged to move the Address of which he had given Notice.

said, the subject was one considerably larger than his hon. and learned Friend seemed to suppose. His hon. and learned Friend appeared to think that it was a mere question of allowing certain additional modes of traffic to pass along the road which now existed without a shilling of additional expense. That was not the view of the Government. The present road was of very moderate and limited width, and of very inadequate capacity for horse traffic and carriage traffic taken together. As this was a gravel road, it could not receive any considerable access of traffic without re-construction; and if thoroughfares here and elsewhere were to be opened through the Parks, the question was who should bear the expense? If they were to be altered for the general advantage of the Metropolis to any extent, was the nation to be at the charge of supplying the Metropolis with that portion of its roads? This was a point requiring a good deal of consideration; and as the widening of the road would require some time, it was not a practical question which concerned the convenience of Members of Parliament during the present Session. In the view of the Government the position of the Parks in reference to the Metropolis was a subject which required serious attention. On the one hand, they should not offer an undue and needless obstruction to the traffic of the Metropolis; and, on the other hand, they should be preserved for their great and primary object—the enjoyment of the mass of the people. That was a serious question; and, in the opinion of his Colleagues and himself, it required careful examination with reference to larger considerations than those embraced in the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. On that ground, and not because the Government were prepared to say there was no case for consideration, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment to a division, for, if so, it would be the duty of the Government to vote for the Speaker leaving the Chair to go into Committee.

said, he would remind the House that the question of making the Parks the medium of carriage traffic had already been referred to a Select Committee, which recommended one alteration—namely, the admission of carriages to the Park by Marlborough House; but, with that exception, were of opinion that the Parks should be jealously guarded against the admission of carriage traffic.

said, it had been found possible to make a reduction in the item of £15,000 for the drainage works at Windsor Castle. On the other hand, there would be an increased outlay upon Frogmore. The result would be that the total Vote required for Royal Palaces would be reduced from £51,032 to £42,072.

said, he believed that considerable difference of opinion existed with regard to the plan of drainage for Windsor Castle, and asked the nature of the amended plan adopted.

called attention to the expenditure of over £18,000 upon Royal Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. The House would refuse nothing that was required for the use and enjoyment of Her Majesty; but a large expenditure was incurred in keeping up Kensington and other palaces, which were not used by Her Majesty, and which might be turned to profitable account. Some of them were occupied by Royal and noble persons, but they would doubtless be better pleased with more convenient abodes; some of the palaces might, of course, be regarded as national monuments, and be devoted to national purposes. He therefore simply referred to the matter, in the hope that at some future time the opinion of Her Majesty might be consulted, and a useless expenditure saved to the country.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was not warranted in proposing, without Notice, an increase in the expenditure upon Frogmore.

said, that very serious difficulty would arise unless the Board of Works carried out a uniform system of drainage at Windsor from the Castle and the town.

said, he had found from experience that the first result of attempting land irrigation by means of sewage was a considerable expense; and the second result was an indictment for a nuisance, together with an application to the Court of Chancery for an injunction. That, at least, was the case in a vast number of towns. He (Mr. Muntz) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had taken these subjects into his consideration, and he thought that until some plan of sewage irrigation was found by experience to be unobjectionable, it would be dangerous to drain Windsor Castle with a view to irrigation. Eton College was not far from the Castle, and anything which interfered with the sanitary state of the district would be prejudicial to the health of the boys at the College.

called attention to the neglected state of some portion of the ground outside Buckingham Palace, and would suggest that the dead wall in front of Grosvenor Place should be replaced by an iron railing.

asked for an explanation of the item of £550 for contribution in lieu of rates, and other hon. Members of other items.

said, he had merely proposed a convenient mode of proceeding; but if the Committee objected to the course and required more detailed explanation, the Vote had better be postponed.

said, it would be unreasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should be called upon to withdraw the whole Vote, merely because an alteration had taken place in the views of the Department with regard to the scheme of diverting the sewage at Windsor Castle. But it would be satisfactory to have more epxlanations on the Vote.

said, as it seemed to be the opinion of the Committee that he should proceed with the Vote, he would give some further information; but he desired it to be understood that he had no wish to take the Committee by surprise. The plan for the drainage works had been provided by a gentleman outside the Board of Works; but, as it was objected to, it was revised at the Office of Works, where there were gentlemen quite as competent to deal with the question as any persons outside. The result was that it was found that the service could be performed in a more skilful and economical manner. Instead of expensive mechanical contrivances being resorted to, advantage would be taken of the natural incline of the ground, and the whole work would be done by gravitation without machinery, while the irrigation would be removed to such a distance from Windsor Park as to relieve the question from all embarrassment. It was for this reason that the Board of Works had been able to reduce the proposed expenditure. Having been a member of the Committee which investigated different projects for the utilization of sewage, he was enabled to say that the proposed scheme was well considered and could be carried out. If the town of Windsor made any proposal to him on the subject of drainage he should be prepared to consider it; but at present no such proposal had been made, and he thought Windsor Castle should rather set the example in diverting its sewage. As to the increased Vote for Frogmore House and grounds, it would be applied to necessary repairs.

observed that there were parties practically conversant with the efficient carrying out of drain- age arrangements, and if competent persons were not employed in the first instance great additional expense would be occasioned. He wished to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that persons properly qualified would be employed in carrying out these complicated arrangnements. He also desired to know whether contracts were made for such works?

said, that all works of any importance, not being mere repairs, were the subject of special contracts. There was a general contract, the result of tender by competent persons; but in cases of special work not within the limits of the running contract, regular estimates were made and put out to tender.

said, that Holyrood Palace was certainly not in a fit state to enable Her Majesty to remain in it one day on her journey to or from Balmoral, and the expenditure proposed to be laid out in necessary repairs was extremely small.

said, he must object to the item of £550, and moved that it be left out.

said, the contribution had been made in lieu of rates, reserving the rights of the Crown.

said, he must defend the item. There was a large area in Windsor which, being Royal property, could not be rated, and an additional burden was therefore thrown on the population. It was only fair that such a contribution should be made towards the rate. It was fully justified by the circumstances.

asked, why the contribution was charged in the Vote before them; whereas it seemed to belong to Vote 22?

said, he would give an explanation on the Report, and if he was unable to give an explanation they could deal with the matter then.

said, that he wished to raise the question of the stud-house at Hampton Court, when

ruled that he would be out of Order until the Amendment was disposed of.

said, such allowances as that before them should be carefully made; but he thought that in the present instance there were reasonable grounds for sanctioning such a contribution.

said, he thought Windsor had great advantages as a locality, in consequence of the Royal residence and the amount of money that was consequently spent there. But he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea to be content with the promise that the right hon. Gentleman would give an explanation on this question in the Report.

said, the item was not a new one, and that the mistake in placing it in the present Vote was made on the previous year.

, in withdrawing the Motion, expressed his regret that the mistake had been repeated.

asked for some explanation as to the expense of the stud-house and paddocks at Hampton Court. They were supported by a Vote on the Exchequer, and he wished to know to what account the produce of the sale of yearlings was carried?

said, that under the Civil List Act the external service required for the honour and dignity of the Crown was appointed to be carried on by the Office of Works by Votes in Supply. This particular service was necessary for the establishment of the Sovereign. Her Majesty had a Master of the Horse and a stud of horses. There was also a breeding stud, and an establishment of buildings was necessary for that state of things, and that being so, it was his (Mr. Ayrton's) duty only to see it carried out economically. The subject was one that concerned the Civil List only, for the expenses of Her Majesty's stud being paid out of that fund, the profits, if any, which accrued from the establishment in question must be placed to the credit of that fund. The Office of Works was merely concerned in the repairs of the buildings.

said, he could not see why the country should pay for the ex- penses of breeding racehorses and hunters for Her Majesty.

said, he thought that if Her Majesty paid the expenses of her breeding stud herself, that House had no right to tell her that she had no business to keep up such an establishment, nor any claim to have anything to do with the profits that might accrue.

said, he must object to palaces which were not used by Her Majesty being kept up at the public expense for the sole use of persons in good circumstances. Hampton Court Palace, which was never used by Her Majesty, cost the country £6,475, in addition to £2,800 for improving the drainage, and £840 for water. That House ought not to be called upon to vote large sums in order to provide handsome houses for the members of the aristocracy.

said, that, in his view, the trade of breeding racehorses had nothing to do with the privileges of Royalty, and therefore he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £728.

said, he hoped no "screws" would get into the brood stud, though that was more than he could say in regard to that House. He was surprised at this wrangle, which had been raised by hon. Members from north of the Tweed, where Her Majesty was accustomed to spend very large sums.

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would withdraw his Motion. Whether the balance arising from the breeding and sale of these horses was in favour of or against the Civil List, the matter did not concern the public in the slightest degree, as it was part of a general arrangement which could not be disturbed. Ho, however, understood that generally no gain resulted from these transactions.

said, he must protest against any hon. Members in that House being alluded to as "Scotch Members." They were all Members of the Imperial Parliament, and had a perfect right to object to any item in the Estimates.

said, that, whether Her Majesty chose to make use of the premises in question for breeding racehorses or not, the building itself would have to be kept up at the public expense, and therefore it mattered but little to what purpose it was put. Her Majesty had shown that she was anxious to improve the breed of horses in the country.

could not understand why the item appeared in the Votes at all, and why it was not provided for in the Civil List.

said, he had to call the attention of the House to the question of the communication, through St. James's Park, between Marlborough House and Storey's Gate. He had brought this question before the House during two or three Sessions, and he had endeavoured to persuade Her Majesty's Government that it would be to the advantage, not only of themselves but of the country, to establish a communication extending across the Ornamental Water. He had good reason to believe that this idea had made considerable progress with the public. He had brought this question before the right hon. Gentleman last year, together with the proposition that a carriage-way-should be made from Marlborough House to Storey's Gate. Unfortunately, by a most extraordinary coincidence, the remarks of his right hon. Friend on that occasion did not appear in the authorized version of the debates in that House. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, after opposing a proposition for the construction of a carriage-way across the Ornamental Water, referred to the prospect of having to shut up King Street while the Home and Colonial Offices were being built, and said, that in order to relieve the narrow part of Parliament Street from the traffic which would be thrown upon it, and with a view to public convenience, the road from St. James's Street, round the end of the Park to Storey's Gate, would be kept open for private and hired carriages and equestrians. But he (Mr. Bentinck) had found, with considerable surprise, that the use of that road was limited to Members of Parliament, and that even Her Majesty's Judges were not allowed to pass along it in their carriages. The engagement which the right hon. Gentleman made last year had, therefore, not been complied with, and he now wished to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some account of the reasons which had induced him to change his intention, and to ask, whether the road would be left open to the use of Members of Parliament during the Recess?

said, that what he stated last year was, that Her Majesty was anxious that hon. Members should have every facility of coming to the House for the performance of their duties. If he was understood to have said that the use of this road would be allowed to the public as well as to Members of Parliament that was a misunderstanding. As it was, the relief to the public was considerable, because the public road was not now inundated with traffic at particular hours of the day. If the general traffic were allowed to use the road by way of Storey's Gate, the purpose for which the arrangement was made would be defeated, as an obstruction would be created, which would prevent Members of Parliament from getting to and from the House with the least possible delay. When the Session was at an end there would be no obstruction in Whitehall or Parliament Street, and therefore there would be no necessity for keeping this road open to Members of Parliament during the Recess.

said, his recollection of what had occurred entirely bore out what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Bentinck), whom he had congratulated at the time upon having succeeded in his object. He hoped the road to Storey's Gate would not be closed, but, on the contrary, that it would be thrown open to the public at large, in the same way as the road from St. James's Palace to Buckingham Gate. He had voted in the minority with respect to Constitution Hill; but he trusted that, at a future time, Constitution Hill would be thrown open. He would like that the expense of making the new road to Storey's Gate should be given, as the Prime Minister stated that if Constitution Hill were thrown open the cost would be a great deal.

observed that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner must have forgotten what had occurred on the occasion referred to. In order to freshen the right hon. Gentleman's memory, he would read the Notice which he had given. It was to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any steps had been taken with a view to establishing a communication for public carriages between St. James's Street and Storey's Gate, through St. James's Park? At the same time, he commenced his observations by suggesting that a public carriage-way should be made across the Ornamental Water in St, James's Park, which he pointed out would effect a saving of 500 yards between St. James's Palace and Storey's Gate.

said, he had always objected, and always would object, against special privileges being given to Members of that House. He did not believe that any hon. Member wished for any special privileges for himself which were withheld from the public. That the road in question should be assigned exclusively to Members of Parliament would be highly objectionable.

said, he quite agreed with hon. Members who, having found this road such a convenience to themselves, wished to extend the benefit to the public. When they saw that the carriage traffic ran so easily and smoothly between Pall Mall and Buckingham Gate, there could not be the slightest reason why it should not run as easily over Constitution Hill to Storey's Gate. He believed there was no other city in Europe where the public Parks were so closed to the public as here.

recommended that a carriage-way should be opened over the bridge in the ornamental part of St. James's Park. He did not know with whom it would interfere, and it would be really the proper way of adding to the convenience of the public.

remarked that one part of the road to Storey's Gate was extremely narrow, and would not suffice for the traffic, if opened generally to the public. The public, however, had a right to be considered in the matter, for the streets of London were too narrow for the traffic which, owing to the great ex- tension of the Metropolis, was daily increasing. Anyone who went into Piccadilly or Bond Street in the afternoon would find this to be the case. It would be the greatest possible convenience if the road from Pall Mall were continued over the Ornamental Water in St. James's Park, and it was only by that means that the public could have the convenience to which they were entitled, and which the hon. Member for Whitehaven had asked for.

said, he remembered the late Lord Llanover stating, at the time the bridge was built, that he was so deeply impressed with the necessity of having such a thoroughfare that the bridge was made of a strength sufficient to allow of the additional traffic.

maintained that if they opened a road over the bridge they would very much damage the appearance of the Park, and would cut up one of the prettiest portions of it. No expense, beyond a trifling sum of £150 or so, would be incurred by allowing the public to make use of the road to Storey's Gate. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider whether it would not be possible to leave the road open all the year round.

said, he should be sorry if the Government came to a conclusion all at once on the questions that had now been raised; but he must earnestly press on the right hon. Gentleman not to lose a single day in pulling down the houses in King Street and widening Parliament Street.

said, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire that it would be extremely unwise to come to a hasty conclusion as to the questions which had been raised. He rose merely for the purpose of pointing out that his right hon. Friend had undertaken, on the part of the Government, to give the whole of those matters the most earnest consideration. At present, the questions were quite immature.

said, that one of the great advantages of opening a road over the Ornamental Water was that it would lead directly to one of the principal stations of the Metropolitan Railway. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) that it would be a great injury to the beauty of the Park.

said, the cost of the road from Storey's Gate to St. James's Palace was not put in the Estimates because the road was made after the Estimates were prepared, but the cost of draining and repairing it was £1,250.

said, he would assume that the discussion about Storey's Gate had been brought to a close, and before the Vote about the Parks was put from the Chair, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner about the cost of the police employed in the Royal Gardens? He found the total cost put down at £17,702, but turning to another page of the Estimates, he found the total cost of the establishment of the Royal Parks, including the police, was £26,835. These police, he observed, on looking into the details, came under four heads—first, the superintendents and constables; second, the ranger's establishment, and his constables and keepers; third, the metropolitan police, representing a sum of £8,882; and fourth, night watchmen, £2,765. The other day he had made the modest proposal to the House to restore to the Park some land which he believed belonged to it, and one of the arguments used by his light hon. Friend the First Commissioner was that it would necessitate extra police. Another argument used against him was the cost of taking down the rails and adapting it to the other portions. On turning to another page of the Estimates he found that the cost of re-arranging the boundary of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens figured in the last year's Estimates for £5,760. He wished to be informed of the details of this enormous Vote; what proportion of the metropolitan police was bonâ fide detailed off for the conservancy of the Parks; whether the Parks had the sole control of their services, or whether they were mixed up with the police in the neighbourhood of the Parks; and what was the proportion of the night constables, as it would be a satisfaction and consolation to the people out-of-doors to know, when the argument was brought forward that the present area of the Park could not be added to because of the expense of keeping the police, that the police es- tablishment was already on a large and liberal scale.

complained that the north side of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, used chiefly by poor people, was neglected, while large sums were spent on the south side, which was frequented almost exclusively by the upper classes.

asked what progress had been made in putting up the fence in Regent's Park?

congratulated the First Commissioner of Works on a reduction of £19,087 in the Vote as compared with that of last year; but he feared that, from economical motives, the Parks had been lately neglected.

called attention to the grazing of cattle in Hampton Court Park, at the instance of the Master of the Horse. These cattle gnawed the bark of the trees, and some splendid lime trees had been greatly injured. He had brought this subject under the notice of former First Commissioners, and hoped his right hon. Friend, who was formed of somewhat sterner stuff than they, would take steps to preserve the trees which still remained uninjured.

said, the diversion of the Broad Walk in Kensington Gardens had exposed them to the ridicule of every foreigner of taste. That walk was a fine feature in the Park, and formed part of the original design; but it had now been diverted, not in a straight, but in an oblique line, to the Albert Monument, and was a standing-disgrace to their national taste. He did not blame the Chief Commissioner, who could not be responsible for all details. But whoever was really responsible ought, if in the public employ, to be dismissed from the service. He might be told that eminent persons had been consulted. If so, who were they? Let their names be made known, so that they might go down in history along with this most miserable blunder. The thing was done, and some beautiful trees had been sacrificed to make that opening; but it must not be allowed to remain a standing reproach to good taste, and he wished for an assurance that during the winter, when the proper time came for transplanting trees, the blunder would be remedied. [Mr. AYRTON said, he must call the hon. Gentleman to Order, for the matter in question was not contained in the Estimates.] To put himself in Order, then, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £448, which was the amount set down for two new footpaths.

, in rising to answer the various questions, said, those paths had no connection with the change alluded to by the hon. Member for St. Andrews. The charge for police in Hyde Park was £6,124, besides the gatekeepers and constables; and the whole expense of the establishment, from the ranger downwards, was £26,835. That was a very large establishment, and he should be glad if it could be reduced; but the largeness of the outlay was no reason why it should be added to still further. One reason for that large cost was, that while every municipal authority charged with the control of such places had the power of making and enforcing rules for good order, no such power existed there, and a numerous force of police was, therefore, necessary. As to the alleged neglect of the north side of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, suggestions for the adornment of portions of the Park were frequently made to him by persons who appeared to be enthusiastic in the public interest; but, on further inquiry, he generally found that they lived near these particular parts, and in this particular instance the south side of the Park was much nearer to people living on the north side of the Park than it was to nine-tenths of those who came to enjoy it from other parts of London. The object was not to make this side or that side of the Park particularly beautiful, but to keep the Parks generally in a good condition. With regard to Regent's Park, arrangements had been made for changing the wooden fence for an iron railing; but it was now intended to restore the wooden paling, which would cost only £7,000, as against £35,000 for the iron railing, and would be considered preferable by the inhabitants of Regent's Park. The grounds at Hampton Court, which were mentioned as being injured by cattle being allowed to graze in them, were under the charge of the Master of the Horse, who would, no doubt, pay attention to any reasonable complaint. He now came to the question of taste, and he had often remarked that, while they spoke with some amount of diffidence on all other subjects, there was this peculiarity with regard to a matter of taste, that every hon. Gentleman thought that anyone who differed from him was profoundly ignorant of the whole subject. This arose from the fact that taste was often confounded with the impulses of the feelings, and those who were carried away by emotions did not allow themselves to believe that anybody could have emotions different from their own. He was bound to say that he accepted the entire responsibility of everything done with respect to Kensington Gardens, and, therefore, he was content that all the observations, however caustic, made on the matter of taste should be applied to himself. At the same time, the difficulties which had arisen in this case were not of his creation. He took office under unfortunate circumstances in reference to the Albert Memorial, because his predecessors in office had consented and advised that it should be placed in the place where it stood, but did not at the same time accept the responsibility of the advice they gave. When he came into office he found the Memorial, which was a wonderful work of art, absolutely growing up right in the midst of a jungle, and close to that work of art it had been decided that there should be a huge structure in a different style. The principle on which the Board of Works had to proceed, in conformity with the wishes of the House, was to destroy as little as possible of the plantations in Hyde Park, and to harmonize what was left with the Memorial without entailing any considerable expense. The Prime Minister having given a pledge that no further money would be expended than the grant voted to Her Majesty, the House would have a right to complain if any greater expenditure had been incurred. The question then arose as to what was to be done with the trees which intercepted the view of the great work of art, and the result was that many trees had been cut down; but all that would bear removal had been removed. As the Park was originally laid out, there was a number of radiating alleys, and one of them came down near the Memorial, producing a grotesque effect, and making the Memorial appear like something put on one side without regard to general harmony. In re-arranging the paths, it was impossible to prevent something from being oblique, and in reference to the path which had been alluded to some persons took a different view from the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Andrews, and objected to it as not being oblique enough. However, if they entered upon these matters of taste, they might discuss them not for one day, but for several days. The matter was one of difficulty, and had not been decided inconsiderately.

said, he was sorry to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman; but he would not persevere with his Motion for reducing the Vote. Some day or other, no doubt, the defect to which he had drawn attention would be removed.

said, he could not help regarding what the right hon. Gentleman called obstructions as the real attractions of the Parks. The cutting down of trees was decidedly in bad taste. There was a large sum disbursed by the Secretary to the Board of Works, and he should like to know who he was.

expressed a hope that some practical advantage would be derived by the metropolis of Scotland from the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the first Commissioner of Works. There was not a city in this country, or, indeed, in Europe, whose scenery possessed such noble and commanding features as Arthur's Seat and Salisbury Craigs, with Ben Lomond in the distance, yet Holyrood Park had not a footpath or carriage drive. He thought some portion of the Vote might be applied there with advantage.

called attention to the expenditure of £421, put down for widening the horse-ride between Alexandra and Albert Gates. Considerable inconvenience was suffered by pedestrians. The great nuisance was the barracks, which still remained, although a hope had been held out that they were about to be removed; the footpath passing by them was in a disgraceful condition.

said, with reference to Holyrood Parle, that directions would be given to plant a belt of trees so as to screen off the houses on the town side of the Park. That was all it required.

called attention to the necessity of securing an entrance to Richmond Park by Roehampton Gate, and recommended that the property of the lady with whom the Government had been some time since in treaty on the subject should be purchased by them. The land not required for the road could be turned to other uses.

said, he could give the assurance that the gate would be made and maintained, but the difficulty was about one mile of road through the Wandsworth district. If the local boards of the Metropolis neglected their duty in applying the proper expenditure for the improvement of their roads, the Government could not undertake to make or maintain them at the public expense. He would take that opportunity of saying, in reply to the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. C. Denison), that the Returns for which he had asked in reference to the employment of the police should be supplied.

said, he hoped something would be done to remove the inconvenience, which was especially complained of by residents at Richmond.

called attention to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absent during the debates on the Estimates, and that his place was occupied by no Member of the Government who was able to enter into the details of the Votes.

explained, with reference to these items, that in order to carry into effect the determination of that House that public appointments should henceforward be distributed by public competition, instead of by private patronage, it had become essential that the new rooms in question should be erected; that the business of the Paymaster General's Office was carried on in the most miserable and inconvenient building, which imperatively required alteration; and that the Admiralty Register Office was connected with the Court of Admiralty. With regard to the item for cleansing the tombs in Westminster Abbey, he had to state that it was a special question, that the tombs in question were objects of national interest, and that in consequence of Westminster Abbey having been granted by the Crown in the reign of Henry VIII. to the Dean and Chapter, without any stipulation being exacted that the latter should keep the tombs in repair, that duty had fallen upon the country. The tombs in question had become very dilapidated and unsightly, and such steps were being taken as were necessary for their preservation.

said, he would endeavour to explain the precise state of the ease. He apprehended that the tombs to which the Vote particularly applied were those of King Henry VII. and Margaret Countess of Richmond. They were, he believed, the finest tombs in the world, having been executed by a celebrated Italian, a pupil of Michael Angelo, in the 16th century. Not long ago a process was discovered by a man of great ability for restoring the monuments to their original grandeur, and that process was successfully applied to the tomb of Margaret, the Countess of Richmond, and another in Westminster Abbey. Those monuments were in King Henry VII.'s Chapel, and not in Westminster Abbey proper. They were, therefore, not properly in the custody of the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey, but rather under the dominion of the Crown. It was only reasonable that this small sum of £255 should be granted for the restoration of objects of such national interest.

drew attention to the extravagant sum that was paid for the hire of buildings for public purposes—the principal sum of which equalled £1,500,000, which, if capitalized, would suffice to buy the fee-simple of the buildings in question.

asked why the profits derived from showing the tombs were not devoted towards their repair?

replied that these profits formed part of the income of the Dean and Chapter, who were not bound in return to keep the tombs in order.

said, he would be glad to know why the Vote for erection and maintenance of Buildings in Scotland, and Probate Court and Registries, had so materially increased over that of last year's Estimate?

said, he must explain that the Government, in consequence of strong recommendations from Edinburgh, had consented to expend £2,780 in providing a new Equatorial for the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh. These Votes were also increased by the sum necessary for fitting up part of Somerset House for carrying on business connected with the Probate Court, but more than that amount would be realized by the sale of buildings in Doctor's Commons. As to the item for £1,500 for King's College, Aberdeen, that sum was required for a new class room for the Professor of Moral Philosophy.

having put the Question,

said, if it were the wish of the House he would withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!]

ruled that the Motion could not then be put.

observed that there was an item of £2,586 for maintaining, watering, cleansing, and light- ing Westminster Bridge, being an increase this year of £197 on that item. He wished to know why that House was called upon to maintain, water, cleanse, and light Westminster Bridge?

said, this bridge was built by the nation. Certain estates belonging to the bridge were vested in the Commissioners of Works. The arrangement was one which resulted from the carrying out of a scheme undertaken many years ago for the improvement of the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament. The duties of the Commissioners were transferred to the Office of Works, and the duty of keeping up the bridge thus devolved upon the Government.

asked, whether there was any agreement between the Office of Works and the Metropolitan District Railway Company, under which that company could be compelled, within a reasonable time, to erect suitable buildings in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament in place of their present unsightly buildings?

said, that property belonging to the Westminster Bridge estate was sold to the company; and he believed the only obligation imposed upon them by the purchase deed was, that the elevation of any building they might erect should be sanctioned by the Office of Works, so that nothing unsightly should be built in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament.

said, he thought that as the respective Motions of the hon. Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor) and Preston (Mr. Hermon) were dissimilar, it was competent for the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who objected to the item of £255 for cleansing and repairing the Royal tombs in Westminster Abbey, to move a reduction of the Vote by that amount. It appeared that the authorities of the Abbey took fees for the inspection of these tombs, but refused to pay anything for keeping them in repair.

disclaimed any intention of moving to reduce the charge for the repair of the monuments.

said, he did not propose this Vote until he had satisfied himself that he could not compel the Bean and Chapter to undertake the service. They were not responsible for the Royal monuments.

thought there was a misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Warrington on this as on many other subjects. The Bean and Chapter were making arrangements to abolish the "tomb money," and last year they commenced this reform by throwing open the Abbey to the public every Monday.

said, he was glad to observe that the right hon. Gentleman had effected so considerable a reduction in the charges for gas and fuel for the Houses of Parliament—namely, from £9,033 to £8,261. He should like to know why the vote for the official residence of the Clerk of the Parliaments was this year more than twice as much as last year, and also whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any arrangements for exhibiting the electric light during the sitting of the House?

said, he had to complain of an act of gross extravagance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who had come into office as par excellence the economical Minister. When he acceded to office he was possessed with the idea that the most economical method of carrying out the works in the Houses of Parliament would be to employ persons who knew very little about them. He proceeded to dismiss the eminent architect who had previously been engaged on them—an act that had been condemned by the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman in office, and by everybody in that House. ["No, no!] Well, by everybody who had given artistic consideration to the subject. Mr. Barry had for a number of years acted as surveyor of the House, looking upon the office as an honorary occupation, for which he received merely a nominal remuneration. After he was dismissed, however, and his plans appropriated and mangled by the Office of Works, Mr. Barry sent in his little bill, which was to be found on page 15 of the Correspondence, in a letter dated December 9, 1870, and which amounted to £2,287 5s. The Assistant Secretary of the First Commissioner wrote an answer on the 20th of December, stating that he was desired by the First Commissioner to forward a check for £119 odd. The balance, however, was paid to Mr. Barry on the 30th of March, 1871; so that it appeared that the result of the action of this economical Minister was that the country was a loser by upwards of £2,100. He maintained that no buildings of this elaborate character could be economically and satisfactorily managed without a competent architect. If Mr. Barry had been insubordinate or inefficient, it was still the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint a skilled architect as the surveyor of the building. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that the building should remain under the officers of the Department, and whether the £2,300 due to Mr. Barry was included in the present Estimate?

suggested that something should be done to preserve the stone-work, which in some places was manifestly wasting away.

thought they ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works for so much diminishing the cost of maintaining the building, and for reducing the Vote by £13,179.

said, he felt with many other Members that Mr. Barry had been very harshly treated. After his and his father's long connection with the Houses of Parliament his removal was very painful, and the right hon. Gentleman had not shown the kindness and consideration which were due to the son of Sir Charles Barry.

said, he wished the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would show a little of the suaviter in modo as well as the fortiter in re. The correspondence with Mr. Barry was, on the part of the Department, most uncour- teous and uncivil, and in future, when a public Department had to communicate with an architect or a man of science, he hoped language would be used more becoming an English gentleman.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had discharged the duties of his office with great advantage to the public. In dealing with officials it was necessary that Ministers should express themselves in such a way that there could be no mistake as to their meaning.

said, the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. C. Bentinck), who had been so severe upon him in respect of his method of conducting Public Business, would form a different opinion on the subject if he had had more experience. He did not, however, attach much importance to the hon. Member's opinion, because he was probably not aware of the circumstances under which Mr. Barry had been dealt with. What had been written to Mr. Barry had been written advisedly, and with a due regard to the public interest. When anyone desired to get a statement of reasons from a Minister for any course he might pursue, it was not desirable to fall into his trap; but he could say—and a perusal of the correspondence show it—there was not a word in any of the letters to justify a single remark made by the hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh!] He defied the hon. Member to point out a single remark; but, as he had said before, the hon. Member's estimate of what had been written did not appear to be of the least importance. Passing to the position of Mr. Barry, he would remark that his services were by no means disinterested. He had been employed to do certain work, for which he had been paid, and he had ceased to be employed, because the continuance of his services would have been inconsistent with the public interest. It was not merely the question of what was paid to Mr. Barry, but a question of the thousands—the hundreds of thousands of pounds which the House was called upon to supply to meet the cost of carrying out his suggestions. There were now no more of these suggestions, and, consequently, expenditure was less. He regretted to say that he was unable to proceed with his reply, because the time allotted to Opposed Business had come to an end.

rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of the proposed plan of connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the head of the Persian Gulf by means of a Railway along the Valley of the Euphrates, and the great advantages offered by that line in the enormous saving of both time and distance, and expense for the conveyance of Her Majesty's Mails and Troops, as well as of Passengers, &c. between England and India, thus showing of what vital importance it is to this Country to secure that additional route to or from our Eastern Possessions; and to move for a Select Committee to examine and report upon the whole subject of Railway communication between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. In bringing the subject under discussion before the notice of the House, the hon. Baronet said, he had no interest whatever in, or connection with, any of the commercial enterprises mixed up in this subject. On the contrary, he brought it forward entirely on public grounds, believing it to be of national and European, nay, of world-wide importance. About a year and a-half ago he had the honour to have at his house the company of the Turkish Ambassador, His Excellency Musurus Pacha, who brought before him the subject of a railway from the Mediterranean along the Valley of the Euphrates to the Persian Gulf, and a considerable amount of correspondence subsequently ensued between them, resulting in a letter in which the Turkish Ambassador gave him assurance of considerable advantages which would accrue to England from joining in the scheme. One of the principal conditions was that the Turkish Government should carry Her Majesty's mails between England and the East entirely free so long as the railway should remain in her possession. Exactly 14 years ago Mr. Sotheron Estcourt, who was then Member of Parliament for the place which he (Sir George Jenkinson) now represented, brought forward the subject. That was in 1857, the year of the Indian Mutiny; and he would point out how vastly important the possession of such a line would then have been to England in the saving of human life, to say nothing of the amount of expense we should have saved if we had had the means of pouring our troops at once into India, with the rapidity which this line would have enabled us to do. In the Crimean War they sacrificed something like £90,000,000; in the Indian Mutiny about £40,000,000; and the expense of the railway would not have been more than £8,000,000 or, at most, £10,000,000. He did not, however, ask the Government to vote money for the purpose of constructing the line, as his hon. Predecessor had done; but all that he asked for was an inquiry into the subject before a Select Committee. The great point for England was to have an alternative route to their Indian possessions. In the event of any complication with a foreign Power the possession of a second route would be most important. Twelve months ago a morning paper stated that, even so long ago as the last century, the Marquess of Wellesley endeavoured to utilize the very route that he (Sir George Jenkinson) was now bringing before the House. In 1834 the question was taken up by the Government, and £20,000 was voted by Parliament for the purpose of exploring the route; and the East India Company voted an additional £5,000, to be applied to the same purpose. Captain Chesney was employed to command the Expedition, which was fitted out to make a survey of that route, and the evidence of that gallant officer was one of the points that he wished to bring before the Select Committee. In 1857 the late Lord Palmerston, speaking of the then projected Canal of Suez, said he considered the scheme to be physically chimerical; that he thought it would not be remunerative commercially; but he added that the main point to which his opposition was directed was that the Canal would be the first step in the separation, of Egypt from Turkey, and therefore the first step in the disintegration of the latter country—a point of very serious importance, and to prevent which European Powers had on more than one occasion gone to war, and especially so lately in 1854. If a man of so great acumen as Lord Palmerston was so misled as to describe as physically chimerical a scheme which had since been perfected and was now in full operation, it was exceedingly likely that other persons might be misled in the present day, when they spoke of the difficulty of carrying out the railway—a proposal for which he now placed before the House. He believed that there were no engineering difficulties in the railway, at least none comparable with those surmounted in the case of the Suez Canal, and that circumstance, he thought, afforded a strong reason why England should endeavour to neutralize an evil—a political evil—which Lord Palmerston anticipated 14 years ago. The line would not be in the least degree antagonistic to or in competition with the Suez Canal. The Canal would still benefit the communication with the southern parts of India, and it would still, probably, monopolize all the heavy traffic. But the now line would be of the greatest importance to the North-west frontier of India, the line of the Indus, and the North-west Provinces, which in the case of an attack from without would stand in most need of a quick communication from this country. He understood that the Government would not oppose the Motion for an Inquiry, and that relieved him from the necessity of going at great length into the details and figures and facts on which he grounded his application, and therefore he would proceed as rapidly as possible with only the general heads of the scheme. This line would save, in round numbers, a week in time between England and the North-western parts of India; it would save at least 1,000 miles in distance; it would avoid the pestilential heat of the passage through the Red Sea; would substitute for it the comparatively easy and smooth navigation of the Persian Gulf; and it would expedite the communication between this country and India by a fortnight for the outward and the home journey, which for passengers, and the conveyance of letters to and fro, was a most important consideration. It had been urged against this railway that it would not be all in land under the control of the Turkish dominions, as part of it would go through laud belonging to independent Arab Chiefs; but the evidence he could bring before the Committee would show that the Arab tribes, if they were fairly treated and subsidized, always performed honourably their engagements, and only acted in an unpleasant manner towards those who tried to pass through their country in defiance of them. If this line were made, both the termini would be on the open sea—a fact which, so far as England was concerned, was of immense importance, because both would be able to be easily protected by England. Were the line established, he estimated that a great saving would be effected, and one transport out of three now plying between Aden and Bombay would be saved, as two passing to and fro from Bussorah to Bombay or Kurrachee would do the work more efficiently, and at a great deal less cost. That would represent a gain of no less than £46,868; and he was informed that, even if the advantageous arrangement with the Turkish Government to which he had alluded should not be carried out as was expected, the transmission of Her Majesty's mails by the railway between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf might be effected at a saving of £60,000 a-year as compared with the present cost by the Red Sea route. Eleven days were allowed to the steamers passing between Bombay and Aden, and they were not always regular. But the fleet of steamers now subsidized by the Indian Government on the Persian Gulf, between Kurrachee and Bussorah, would render the same service in five days, would do it with much more regularity, and the comparative danger of accidents might be estimated by the fact that this fleet never had been the subject of one, while, he believed, it was well known that the Peninsular and Oriental Company had sustained great losses, chiefly from the dangerous navigation of the Red Sea. Not only was the distance of 1,000 miles saved, but, as all persons acquainted with those seas knew, during the south-west monsoons, ships on the course of the Peninsular and Oriental, between Aden and Bombay, had to make a detour of 500 or 600 miles, and therefore there was a much greater economy of distance than even the straight line measurement of the respective courses gave. He did not base his argument on the trade and commercial point of view only, although there could be no doubt that the payment or non-payment of the line, regarded as a commercial speculation, would be far indeed from problematical. In 1869 there was imported to this country from British India 481,000,000 lbs of raw cotton, being more than a third of the whole import, and considerably more than was imported from the United States in the same period. The imports also included 80,750,000 lbs of wool, 10,500,000 lbs of tea; and, from India and Ceylon, 70,000 tons of coffee, these last two being articles which it was advantageous to have conveyed as rapidly as possible, and which therefore furnished an additional reason why the line should be made, if it could be done without risk or injury to the State. The value of the imports from British India last year was over £33,000,000, of which £18,500,000 worth was cotton for the looms of Lancashire; the exports to India in the same period being £17,500,000, of which £10,800,000 represented cotton goods from the same mills. The National Debt of India was £100,000,000, not a third of which was held by Natives; there were other £100,000,000 invested in railways and other public works in India, of which barely £1,000,000 was Indian capital; and this was leaving out of account the large amount of British capital invested in private enterprise connected with the trade transacted by this country in Eastern seas. The trade of India, with England alone, amounted in 1852 to £ 17,500,000; it had risen in 1862 to nearly £49,500,000; and during the next three years—1863–4–5—it averaged upwards of £66,000,000. Everyone who considered the paramount interests involved in these figures must see the extreme importance of accelerating by a fortnight the passage of mails and travellers between this country and India. Indeed, there could be no doubt that the distance saved would be about 1,000 miles and a week in time each way. The construction of the line, too, was perfectly practicable, according to the testimony of competent men, who had gone carefully over the survey, the only difficulties to be surmounted lying in the first 90 miles from the Mediterranean to Aleppo, from which last place almost the entire route would lie through a flat country, presenting no obstacles whatever. He wished to express beforehand his acknowledgments to the Government, who had agreed to accept his Motion, and to add that he had no other motive in bringing forward the question than to uphold the honour and safety and prosperity of this great country. He begged leave to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had, in his able statement, glanced at all the arguments which could be adduced in favour of the Euphrates Valley Railway, and as he anticipated that the Government would entertain the proposal of his hon. Friend, it was hardly necessary for him to enter upon any further exposition of the merits of the scheme. His hon. Friend had referred to many authorities who had expressed opinions in favour of this railway. If he (Mr. T. Brassey) might refer to one additional authority of great weight, he would quote the Report recently presented to that House by Captain Tyler on the best route for the transmission of mails from this country to India. Although that Report was not made with special reference to that particular railway, yet allusion was made to it in the most favourable terms. His hon. Friend had referred to the high estimates of traffic which had been made by those best acquainted with the country through which the Euphrates Valley Railway would pass. For his own part, he must express his belief that those estimates were not in the least degree exaggerated. The total net traffic which had been estimated represented a dividend of 5½ per cent on the capital, which it was expected the railway would require. The estimate of the cost of the line, however, was framed on the assumption that the gauge must necessarily be the same as was usually adopted for European railways; but it would be possible to reduce the cost by means of the system which had been successfully applied to mountain railways in Norway, and by adopting the Fell system on those parts of the line which presented the greatest natural obstacles. He should be sorry to see this country committed to a subsidy or unconditional payment in support of this railway, as the experience of the Red Sea Telegraph and other enterprises of that kind tended to prove that it was not wise policy for the Government to undertake a fixed payment, irrespective of the performance of certain valuable services. However, if it were proved that the postal and political advantages of the scheme would be very great, he hoped it might be possible to entertain a proposal for sending the mails by this route, on condition, of course, that the service should be efficiently performed. Irrespective of the advantages arising from shortening the period of time expended in communicating with India, and the facilities offered for the transmission of troops, it could not be doubted that it would augment our influence in the East, and enable us to fulfil in a more satisfactory manner than hitherto the task of introducing western civilization into the vast Asiatic Continent.

said, he should save the time of the House if he rose thus early in the discussion to state that the Government had no objection to accede to the Motion if such were the general wish of the House. Indeed, it was the opinion, of the Government that as this question of communication by one or other of several proposed railway routes between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf had been so long discussed, both in England and India, and as many opinions had been expressed, especially in the latter country, in favour of such means of communication being established, it was high time that the whole question should be investigated, with all the powers of inquiry which that House possessed. At the same time it must be distinctly understood that Her Majesty's Government did not commit themselves even to the proposition that any means of communication by railway between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf was in any way feasible; still less did they commit themselves to the opinion that any one of the proposed routes was either feasible or desirable. They wished to go into the inquiry with their minds absolutely unbiased. Of course, no one who had given the slightest consideration to this question could doubt that the physical difficulties were very considerable, that the political difficulties were even more considerable, and that the financial difficulties were perhaps more considerable than the others. Still, so many persons of weight had expressed opinions in favour of one or other of these routes that it was at least fair that they should have an opportunity of going before a Select Committee of the House, and of trying to prove that the physical, political, and financial difficulties might be overcome; for most certainly if they could be overcome great advantage would accrue both to England and India.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had done good service by bringing this question forward, for it was quite time that a subject so frequently discussed out-of-doors should be considered in the House of Commons. He was glad the Government had granted the Inquiry for which his hon. Friend had asked. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India had stated that the Government would not be bound to any particular scheme. His hon. Friend confined his proposal to a route between the Mediterranean and India; but it was well known that alternative routes had been proposed, and that the Mediterranean was not the only sea on the shores of which the head of a railway might be placed. By many very competent authorities it was considered that the best place for the head of a railway would be Trebizonde, on the Black Sea, and certainly some port which might be reached from this country with- out a long sea voyage would be preferable to a port in the Mediterranean. The ordinary route by the Danube across the Black Sea to Trebizonde would be a much better route, especially as they had lately spent large sums in connection with the St. George's mouth of the Danube, and guaranteed large sums to be paid by other countries. The Committee would have to contrast the proposed route with the Brindisi route and the Marseilles route. The Marseilles route had been obstructed or in danger of being obstructed, and he should think that both that and the Brindisi route were more liable to be closed than that by the Danube and the Black Sea. If a Committee entered upon an inquiry at all, its inquiry ought to embrace every route from Europe to India. It was of consequence that we should, if possible, secure this alternative route, for we had already learnt how much we were at the mercy of the Peninsular and Oriental Company with regard to the carrying of mails. Some time ago an attempt was made to re-open the contract with the Company, and to obtain a better one, but the Company know they were masters of the situation. They refused the proposed terms, and there was no alternative but to accept their terms. On that ground, therefore, it would be an immense advantage to have this alternative route. Another reason for inquiry was that the advice of the English Government had already been asked by that of Turkey, which had been applied to by a company for a concession with regard to this very route. Upon many grounds it was important that such an inquiry as was proposed should be undertaken. It was premature to pronounce an opinion with regard to the feasibility of the suggested route; but a glance at the map would show that it was the most direct route between England and India, and when the Government of India had completed the Indus Valley Railway and the Moultan, and there was continuous railway communication between Kurrachee and the Punjaub and Delhi, it would be the most direct route to the most important points of India. He believed that Mr. Layard, a most competent authority, considered that there would be no difficulty in making terms with the Arab tribes for the protection of the line. Upon all grounds an inquiry could not fail to be of great utility. The Government had acted very wisely in complying with the request made, and his hon. Friend had done good service in calling attention to the matter.

said, that the promoters of this scheme had repeatedly asked for the support of the Government, and on one occasion waited on the late Lord Palmerston to seek pecuniary assistance. [Sir GEORGE JENKINSON said, he was not speaking on behalf of any company.] He (Sir Charles Wingfield) considered that it was right to refer to the parties who were bringing this scheme before the public. Lord Palmerston declined to give pecuniary assistance; and in 1857 the promoters asked the Under Secretary of State for India to give a guarantee. Again, so late as 1870, they had requested the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War to undertake to use the line for the transport of troops. He believed it would be a failure, even if it received that assistance; and, moreover, he must maintain it could never compete with the route through Egypt for the conveyance of merchandise, because it was an accepted fact that through traffic on a long line of railway could never pay, and heavy goods could not bear transhipments. Before the Suez Canal was open only goods of small bulk and great value were sent across the Isthmus by the railway, although the voyage by the Cape occupied 90 days. To show that any expectations of local traffic in the countries which the line would traverse would be disappointed, he would quote the Report upon the tenure of land in Turkey, from the recently published collection of official Reports on that subject, collected for the purposes of the Irish Laud Act of last Session. The Report represented that such was the depreciation of land that no creditor would accept a mortgage on his debtor's estate, and that agriculture was waning on every hand. To support a through, railway it was necessary not only that a country should be fertile, but that it should be densely populated, and, further, that it should have good roads to facilitate internal communications; but in this instance the country was absolutely destitute of communications, and therefore the enterprise must be financially a failure. He admitted that such a railway, constructed by Eng- lish capital and managed by Englishmen, would extend our fame and reputation, but, in case of an invasion of India, he did not see what could be effected by means of the Euphrates Valley route. The line through Egypt was quite as much to be relied upon, even if the Canal were not kept open, which it Mould be; and then there was the alternative route by the Cape, by which we sent out our reinforcements for India in 1857 and 1858, when the Mutiny was suppressed before a single soldier could reach India by the Overland Route. He had the strongest objection to any guarantee or promise being given by our Government, and to our Government allowing its influence to be used in any way to obtain a concession from the Turkish Government. Such assistance led the promoters of enterprises to imagine they had a right to call for interference and help whenever they thought their interests were affected. He knew that European companies in Turkey were engaged in constant altercation with the Government, which they accused of breach of engagement. Further, any official intervention on our part might lead the Turkish Government to imagine that, by granting a concession, they had established a claim to support in case of differences with foreign Powers. The Government had agreed to the appointment of a Committee, but he hoped the inquiry would be limited to the political bearings of the question, to the feasibility of the scheme, and to what advantages would accrue to this country from it. It was not desirable, nor was it competent, for a Committee of that House to enter into the financial prospects of such an enterprise, because as a speculation it should come before the public on its own merits, and not be floated by means of a favourable Report presented to Parliament.

said, he was glad that the Government had granted a Committee, for it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the question, which had been too long waiting for the opinion of this House. There were physical, political, and financial difficulties, but they could be overcome, and all who took an interest in the matter should have an opportunity of explaining their views before a Committee. He was opposed to the Government giving a guarantee to such a line, although he must admit there was not a single proposition of the nature of the one under discussion, but had for its basis something of the kind; but he would enter upon the inquiry on other points without prejudice.

said, he approved the appointment of a Committee, and was glad to observe that the Motion was wider than the notice by which it was prefaced. The inquiry ought not to be limited to the Euphrates Valley. The impression he had derived from travel was that the Tigris Valley would afford the best route of communication between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Along the Euphrates Valley there would be but little local trade, because, after leaving Aleppo, the railway would for 700 miles pass through a country in which there was scarcely a town of any importance, whereas by the Tigris Valley route it would first pass some considerable towns, and, on the whole, go through a better district, and one that was inhabited by comparatively peaceable tribes engaged in pasture or in agriculture. Then, again, by selecting the cast side of the Tigris it would, to a certain extent, be accessible to the roads from Persia, and, therefore, to the travellers who wished to go to the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf. Anyone who had travelled, as he had, in Asia Minor must admit that it was a country not favourable to the construction of railways, owing to the difficulty of finding passes through the mountains; but the practicability of such a route was a matter into which the Committee should inquire. He suggested that the Motion might be so altered that the Committee should examine and report not only upon the subject of railway communication between the Mediterranean, but also between the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf. He agreed with the remarks that had been made as to the desirability of having a second line of communication to India, but he hoped the Government would not consent to any proposal of guarantee.

said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had guarded himself against making any proposal for a guarantee, or suggesting any preconceived scheme; all he asked for being a Committee of Inquiry. He (Mr. Kinnaird) hoped the hon. Baronet would consent to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dodson). It would strike a forigner as very strange that the Government in acceding to the Motion for a Committee should have thrown so much cold water upon it by doubting the probability of any good arising from the inquiry. The same course was pursued when it was proposed to construct a railway through, our own Canadian dominions to Vancouver's Island; but the railway to San Francisco, which had taken its place, was now a prosperous undertaking: and had the Government given the Canadian project any encouragement, Canada might have been greatly benefitted by it. The construction of this railway was a matter that affected the working classes of this country, because England was the workshop of the world; and by encouraging enterprises of this kind, calculated to bring wealth into the country, the Government would do better than by merely offering a guarantee. They ought to take a large view of the interests of this country, as Lord Palmerston would have done. Now, however, only discouragement was offered, a course that he deeply regretted on account of the honour as well as the interests of the country, and yet more on account of the importance of the scheme itself, which he thought no one who had listened to the debate would be disposed to deny.

said, there were many points in favour of the Tigris route, from which there would be obtained a much larger traffic than along the Euphrates Valley. He, however, desired to point out that the route proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) had been thoroughly surveyed; but it was not known what difficulties there might be in the Tigris route, and not only that, but it was 300 miles longer than the alternative route. The flatness of a country was not a thing that was a great recommendation in many cases, but in regard to railways it was a most sovereign advantage. Now, the Valley of the Euphrates was perfectly flat, and there was nothing better that could be desired in the matter of levels than those of that route. Having visited various parts of that route, he could state that great facilities existed there for making a good road, and, moreover, one very important point was, that as soon as one arrived in the neighbourhood of Baghdad the roads were crowded with people flocking to or from the great places of pilgrimage, and he could assure the House that the local traffic from Baghdad to Bussorah would pay. He thought it would be quite impracticable, even in these days, to carry a railway from Trebizonde, because of the difficulties presented by impassable mountains. He regretted extremely that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Charles Wingfield) should have taken so very disparaging a view of this great national enterprise; and he hoped that the proposed inquiry would not be limited to the political aspect of the question, but would extend to all its other bearings. He tendered his acknowledgments to the Government for assenting to the appointment of the Committee; and as the Suez Canal must for ever remain as a stupendous monument of French energy and successful engineering science, so he trusted that the wastes of the Euphrates Valley would not long continue to be a memorial of the lack of corresponding qualities on our part.

said, he must contradict, from facts within his own knowledge, the statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson), as to the large number of losses that had occurred in the conveyance of the mails from Suez to India by the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company. Taking a calculation of their amount of tonnage, the number of passengers and of mails which they carried, and the distance that their vessels ran, he maintained that the ships of no company had met with so low an average of losses as those sustained since its establishment by the Peninsular and Oriental Company; and after the remarks which had been made that evening, he thought it was only fair and just that that fact should be stated. The Peninsular and Oriental Company, moreover, insured their own ships, and the profit upon their insurance account was far larger than that of any ordinary insurance company. The losses of that company had been attributable to the extraordinary perils of the navigation of the Red Sea; but now the navigation of the Red Sea had been greatly improved, by the more perfect surveys which had recently been carried out.

regretted that the Government had acceded to that Motion, because he thought that the consequences might be serious to the country. The fact that Asiatic Turkey contained only 15,000,000 of inhabitants, as stated by Mr. Palgrave, did not afford any promising prospect to the shareholders in the company. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India said that the Government held themselves perfectly free, but he only understood that to apply to their not committing themselves to any particular line, and he did not say that the Government would not give any money guarantee nor any political support to the company. The truth was, that the company did not wish for a Committee in order to obtain information, and their object, no doubt, was to commit the country to a guarantee of some kind. He should object to any money guarantee, but what he feared most was the political complications which we might be involved in. If the Government encouraged the construction of the line, they would then be told that they must use their political influence to support the route. It was said that they could keep open the line through the Arab territory by paying the tribes, but that would be the worst kind of security; and sooner or later they would be led into hostilities with these tribes. Again, there was the danger of the Turkish Empire falling to pieces, and a pretext would be afforded for involving this country in war to support that decaying Power. The safety of their Indian Empire would be better provided for by their looking to the internal defence of that country. When the Mutiny broke out they had on their hands an expedtion to Persia, and another to China which left India denuded of troops; and if that line should be constructed their forces would be employed in keeping open the route. He hoped that some Member of the Government would state that the company should not be led to expect any Imperial guarantee or any political support.

, in explanation, said, that he had not intended to cast any imputation on the Peninsular and Oriental Company; he had simply stated that they had lost vessels, without intending to make any imputation of any kind.

said, that out of courtesy to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot), whose Motion stood next upon the Paper, he proposed moving again the Order for going into Committee of Supply, that the hon. and gallant Member might proceed with his Motion. But he wished it to be understood that this was not a practice to be regarded as a matter of course, and that it was no part of the arrangement contained in the recommendation made by the Committee, that Supply should be moved on every Friday night. He would again move "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

, in rising to call attention to the state of the Regular Artillery Forces of Her Majesty's Army, both as regards organization and efficiency, and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that a complete and searching inquiry be at once instituted into the same by means of a Royal Commission, or such other court of inquiry, as Her Majesty's Government may see fit to appoint,"

said he should be most ungrateful if he did not, at the outset, acknowledge the courteous treatment he had received at the hands of the Prime Minister, which enabled him to proceed with the Motion standing in his name on the Paper. He would observe that while he did not think it necessary to vindicate himself, in anticipation, from even the suspicion of being animated by feelings inimical to that branch of the service to which he was proud to say he belonged, and the members of which entirely approved of his course of action in asking for this inquiry, he, once for all, disclaimed any wish to make that Motion the basis of an attack upon the Secretary of State for War, for though he might have to criticize the policy of that right hon. Gentleman in a hostile spirit in some respects, the subject with which he had to deal was of far higher and wider interest than the mere success or failure of any individual Minister. He therefore trusted that hon. Gentlemen would approach the question in no party spirit, but that they would decide according to the validity, or otherwise, of the arguments which he might adduce He had said that the members of the artillery service approved of this Motion, and he might inform the House that within a fortnight of his having given Notice of it, he received more than 130 letters from artillery officers of high rank, nearly all of whom expressed similar views to those which he held himself. Everyone, he believed, except those hon. Members who were in favour of total disarmament, must desire to see England in possession of a formidable, expansive, well-organized and efficient artillery service, especially after what had happened in the course of the late France-Prussian War. The capitulation at Sedan was necessitated by the fact that the French Army were surrounded and hemmed in by a formidable circle of field guns, through which, as admitted by their own generals, it would have been impossible for them to have forced their way without the loss of half their men. And what saved Metz from any capitulation, save that enforced by the pressure of starvation, was the number and dispo- sition of its heavy guns. But it might be said that we have a force of artillery fulfilling all these conditions. It was because he denied that assertion, because he impugned the efficiency of our artillery, that he stood there to ask for an inquiry. They had heard much during the present Session in praise of the way in which both artillery officers and artillerymen performed their duties. He was quite prepared to endorse all that praise. He would go further. Having seen the artillery of nearly every country in Europe, he did not hesitate to say that both as to personnel and matériel, we were in advance of any. But there our superiority ended; we were deficient in that without which the most enduring personnel, the best constructed matériel, were useless—we had no organization; or, what was worse, what organization we had was of an imperfect or faulty description. He would now give the substance of some letters he had received from highly distinguished officers, as he had before stated, which would serve to show how general was the feeling in favour of the necessity for an entire reorganization, and how deeply sensible the writers were of the deplorable state of things which now existed. One most distinguished officer in writing to him complained that nothing could be worse than their present brigade system, and that the artillery wanted, above all, a recognized and responsible head; another declared that no one but an artilleryman could realize the chaos which at present existed; while a third stated that unless something were done the nation would in time of war lose its right arm in the event of war, and that while they now had no efficient artillery organization, the brigade System was one which was galling in peace and would prove disastrous in time of war. He would not trouble the House by referring in detail to the opinions of his correspondents; but in these complaints they all concurred. In his own opinion the artillery service was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and, setting aside such minor details as the appointment and education of officers, the question of promotion, the amalgamation of the English and old Indian artillery, the question of reliefs, the desirability of having a professional head, and the harmonious blending of the Regular with the Militia artillery, all of which were subjects well worthy of inquiry, and all of which, he might say, were capable of great improvement, there were four simple and practical points connected with it, any one of which, if proved, would, he believed, amply justify him in asking, and the Government and the House in granting, a full and searching inquiry. These four points were—first, the total collapse and failure of the system of organizing by brigades; secondly, the unsatisfactory state of their garrison artillery; thirdly, the inefficiency and inexpensiveness of the field and horse artillery; and, fourthly, the non-existence of any Reserves. For the first two points the Government were not responsible; but in the others, he thought they had committed an error of judgment. The brigade system was originated in April, 1859. Previous to that time a battery, or company, was the tactical unit of the artillery, and a certain number of companies formed a battalion, the commanding officer of which performed merely administrative duties, while the maintenance of discipline was intrusted to the officer commanding at each artillery station. The object which the promoters of the brigade system had in view was, he presumed, to do away with that dual responsibility, and to place both the administration and discipline under the control of one and the same officer. With that view the regiments were re-distributed into horse batteries of five guns, and field and garrison batteries of eight guns, the horse batteries having since been increased to eight guns, and the field batteries to ten guns. At the first blush this was plausible enough; but the result proved that the conflict of responsibility and authority was only intensified, while from the very outset, owing to the size of our Army, the size of our country, and the character of our colonies, the system entirely broke down, and the intention of moving large bodies of artillery from one district to another was found to be impracticable. In 1865, the state of the 4th Brigade proved the absurdity of the system, for that brigade had its head-quarters in England, while it had batteries both in America and New Zealand. Again, in 1866, when the 8th Brigade were under orders for India, one battery was found to be in North America, so that the brigade would either have to go to India with one battery short of its complement, or the battery that was expected home from its turn of service in the piercing climate of Canada would immediately on its arrival be sent out to experience the exhaustive heat of India—a most arbitrary measure; or, if neither of those courses were taken, they would have to draft a battery from another brigade. The last course was adopted; and as the officers were drafted from the battery in question, it could scarcely be said that the plan resorted to was the one best calculated to promote the efficiency or discipline of the brigade. To show the estimation in which the brigade system was held one officer had written to him saying it was rotten throughout, and full of absurdities arising from the dispersion of the batteries composing the brigade; another, that there was no use trying to patch it up, but that it would be better to start afresh on a sound and well-considered basis; another said, whenever you have a chance, try and get the brigade system done away with; another, that he should be glad to drive a nail into its coffin; while the last he should bring under their notice said the attempt to carry on, or rather prop up, the system was the sole cause of the confusion that now existed. Having disposed of those testimonies in his favour, he should now pass on to the second point he had selected—the unsatisfactory state of the garrison artillery, which being of a somewhat technical character he should touch on very briefly. That was, in his opinion, the highest branch of the artillery arm of the service, although it was not generally so regarded, most officers preferring to use it merely as a stepping-stone or passage to the field artillery. He thought that officers entering either the field or the garrison artillery should be permitted, as far as possible, to choose the branch which they preferred to join, and that, having joined, they should be encouraged, or, if necessary, compelled to render themselves efficient, and to remain in the service. Passing on to consider the third and most important point—the question of field artillery—the hon. and gallant Gentleman said there had been for some considerable time a growing conviction in the public mind that this branch of the service ought to be maintained in a high state of efficiency. That feeling first found open expression on the occasion of the Wimbledon Review of last year, when great dissatisfaction was expressed in the Press and elsewhere at the impossibility of a battery being turned out for war service, except by breaking up a second battery, and the Government, instead of taking what would in his opinion have been the wisest course—namely, commencing to form artillery Reserves—proposed to increase the batteries of horse artillery from 172 men and 112 horses, to 218 men and 156 horses; the field batteries to be increased from 170 men and 84 horses, to 182 men and 116 horses. These figures included the depôts; but they had been reduced very shortly before. The officers were naturally delighted with this arrangement, because it enabled them to turn out their batteries in a better manner than they had ever been turned out before, and things went on well until the Franco-Prussian War again raised the question of military armaments, and the feeling of the country reached its culmination when the leading journal, in October last, contended that the Regular artillery should be calculated not merely for the requirements of the Regular Army, but should cover the requirements of both Regulars and Auxiliaries; and that, therefore, it would be no extravagant proportion to provide themselves with a sufficient number of guns to arm 200,000 men, instead of 60,000 men, as Mr. Cardwell boasted. Without going into the question as to the proportionate or aggregate number of guns it would be well to possess, he would point out that, though the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of the Ordnance stated in replying, on a former occasion, to an observation of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), that there had been a large increase in the number of guns, the increase was not likely to be very useful, for the reason that an analysis of the figures and facts proved that many of the guns in the depôt batteries were old smooth-bore arms, and that in many instances there existed great deficiencies in the matter of stores, ammunition, and even gunners, there being only those who were required absolutely to take charge of the guns. There were, to begin with, 366 guns, or 61 batteries, inclusive of 30 depôt guns, old smooth-bore 6-pounders, but without ammunition or gunners. Now, they could not be a powerful addition to the forces of the country. Of the remainder, comprising 336 guns—the actual number of guns in this country—180 guns, or 30 batteries, were old batteries, while 156 guns, or 26 batteries, were either new or converted from garrison batteries, or transferred from a brigade in India. Of these 26, five had—at the time the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General made his statement—barely left India, and the length of time which must necessarily elapse before a battery, arriving for the first time in England, became thoroughly efficient, anyone conversant with artillery matters would know. This left 21 batteries to be accounted for. Of those, 10 had no horses and 5 no guns; of the remainder, some had a few horses, but no harness; others had harness and no horses; while some had a few horses with harness, but no artificers to fit that harness, no rough rider to instruct the men in riding; so that, in point of fact, they were no better off than those batteries which had no horses. He did not quote all these facts for the purpose of discrediting the Government, but in order to show that the batteries had been raised out of elements which were of a very indifferent character, and that the Government would have done better if they had devoted their attention to produce fewer guns of a more serviceable character, and if they had acted upon a rational scheme of expansion such as might be found in a judicious amalgamation with the Militia. At the same time he could not disguise his opinion that the Government might have been candid and given the House more precise information on the subject, especially respecting the difficulty experienced in obtaining horses, of which there was, even then, a deficiency of nearly 2,000, and the protest from the colonels commanding brigades of horse artillery as to the want of sufficient strength in non-commissioned officers and men. Neither he nor any other artillery officer was in favour of large batteries being always kept up on a war strength, but it was highly desirable that their batteries should be expansive. Replying by anticipation to the argument repeated ad nauseam, and the validity of which he utterly denied, that their artillery was as well off, in regard to the number of men, as the Prussian artillery, he would point out that the organization of the latter differed in several important respects from their own, and that the men were not required to do so much work when in the field as English artillerymen. He maintained, too, with regard to another point equally persisted in with the former, and equally erroneous, that by the reductions in the number of non-commissioned officers for instruction and barrack duties; artificers, to repair damages: gunners, for the field artillery, and drivers and men in proportion to the number of horses, their artillery was deprived of that character of expansiveness and elasticity which was so desirable. Passing by the testimonies he had received, all tending to the condemnation of the existing system as utterly useless and inefficient, he now came to the fourth point, as to which he had only to say, that no attempt had been made to show that any Reserve existed at all beyond the depôt which, in fact, was no Reserve, but merely a means whereby the batteries serving abroad might be kept up on a peace establishment. Even that small requirement, they were unable to meet, for demands for volunteers were annually made on the batteries at home. In conclusion, he felt bound to dissent from some remarks made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in the speech to which he had before alluded, to the effect that all artillerymen, except horse artillerymen, were interchangeable. If those words implied the old and lamentable system of moving batteries from field to garrison duty promiscuously, he must protest against it. Then, again, it was said that field artillerymen had nothing to mount except the limbers. He would ask, whence came the non-commissioned officers, and had they not to ride? The last observation to which he took exception was, that it was, in his opinion, hardly fair that the whole credit, or the blame, of the late changes, which were certainly not popular, should be attributed to the Deputy Adjutant General of the Artillery, as it had been by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of the Ordnance. Was it not patent to all that the Deputy Adjutant General had no choice in the matter, and that that would have been the observation he would have received at the hands of the Secretary of State for War, if he had raised any difficulty, or abstained from doing his best to carry out a difficult and unpalatable task. While anxious to express his regret at having occupied the time of the House so long, he could not help stating that the difficulty he experienced had been somewhat increased by the fact, that until that evening, he (Major Arbuthnot) had been under the impression that he was to be met half-way, and that an inquiry of some sort was to be conceded, and he still hoped that the Government would consent to an Inquiry. He did not wish to infer that he had been misled by anything which had fallen from the Treasury bench; and even now, he hoped the Government would act on his suggestion. If, however, they declined to take any steps in the matter, he should feel compelled to take the sense of the House; and he would appeal especially to those hon. Members who were jealous of public expenditure, and ask them to satisfy themselves that they were getting their money's worth for their money. If it were argued that it was not the province of that House to interfere in matters of discipline and detail, he maintained that that was neither the one nor the other, but it was entirely one of organization; and hon. Members owed it to themselves and to their constituencies to leave no stone unturned which would secure the best possible organization in every branch of our forces. If it were said that inquiry would be a slur on the artillery, he had very good reason to know that such an Inquiry as he moved for would be received with satisfaction by both officers and men, who would feel that they had advanced one step towards the attainment of that efficiency of the necessity of which they were so deeply sensible, and the absence of which they so deeply and bitterly deplored. He begged to move the resolution of which he had given Notice.

, in rising to second the Motion, said, that he should do so from the civilian point of view, and without professing any special knowledge on the subject. It was incumbent on that House to see that they had a proper return for their expenditure; and when they were told upon such undeniable authority that there was a want of organization and efficiency in a part of the service—and an important part—their duty was to institute an inquiry into these allegations. There was, doubtless, every variety of opinion generally on military matters, but he believed that no difference of opinion on the point that a good and effective artillery service was simply indispensable to the Army. Without it, all the other branches of the service, however good they might be, were comparatively useless. Though it might well be that that House was weary of Army debates, it ought not to shirk this subject, and to consider it in no party spirit. He hoped that the Government would not refuse the Inquiry. He observed that an Amendment to the Motion had been given Notice of, under cover of which the Government might escape; but he hoped that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seely) would make his Motion an independent one. The evidence that had been adduced by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hereford had clearly shown that Inquiry was required, and he appealed to the House to take care that it should be held.

said, everyone must admit the importance of the question involved—that of the efficiency of the Royal Artillery. He did not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Arbuthnot) when he impugned the efficiency of the Royal Artillery: but, on the contrary, he believed it to be in a most efficient state as regarded discipline, men, materials, and everything belonging to it. The hon. and gallant Member had stated how the brigade system originated. Before 1859 the organization of the Royal Artillery was by battalions, and the permanent head-quarters were at Woolwich. That arrangement, however, was considered unsatisfactory; one alleged disadvantage of the system being the undue amount of the permanent Staff at Woolwich, to remedy which in 1859 what was called the "brigade system" was established; and experience had since shown that doubts might be entertained whether that system could not be considerably improved. It was sometimes doubtful whether the system had quite answered; and having personally had some experience of the brigade system, in garrison duty, he did not hesitate to say that in some respects it was defective. The next point to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred was the garrison and field batteries, and on that point it might not be amiss if he were, perhaps, to give the result of the progress made during the last few years. In 1805, when Napoleon was encamped at Boulogne with a large Army, threatening the invasion of England, we had 336 guns, horsed and equipped; and, so far as he had been able to ascertain, that was by far the greatest number that had ever been maintained in the United Kingdom. During the many years of peace which succeeded the Battle of Waterloo the field artillery was permitted to fall very low, and it was not until 1852 that it once more assumed any adequate proportions. In 1818 we had 50 guns; in 1819, 22; in 1821, 38; in 1828, 47; in 1848, 60; in 1849, 70; in 1852, 120; in 1855, 114, with 92 guns in the Crimea in addition; in 1856, 180; in 1858, 174; in 1860, 180; in 1870, 180. The late Lord Hastings and Sir Hew Ross, in 1856, at the conclusion of the Crimean War, recommended that 148 guns should be maintained in the United Kingdom, to be expanded to 222 in time of war. The Royal Artillery in the United Kingdom at the beginning of 1870 consisted of 10 batteries of horse artillery, with 60 guns, 2,046 officers and men, and 1,236 horses; 20 field batteries, with 120 guns, 3,656 officers and men, and 1,730 horses; 12 depôt garrison batteries, with 1,441 officers and men; 52 garrison batteries, with 5,200 officers and men; and the Coast Brigade, consisting of 1,542 officers and men, making a total of 94 batteries, with 180 guns, 13,885 officers and men, and 2,966 horses. The Royal Artillery in the United Kingdom, in 1871, it was proposed should be as follows:—16 batteries of horse artillery, 40 field bat- teries, 12 depôt batteries, 35 garrison batteries, and the Coast Brigade, which would give a total of 103 batteries, 366 guns, 18,392 officers and men, and 5,800 horses. Now, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the depôt guns were smooth-bore brass guns, and that no doubt was the case; but the guns were not intended for service, and were used only for purposes of instruction for the drivers; but the full equipment of these batteries, as regarded guns, harness, and every other requirement, was ready to be issued at a moment's notice. [Major ARBUTHNOT said, he had asked whether the gunners were also in store?] No, they did not keep gunners in store. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had talked of the want of expansiveness of the field batteries, but he would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in time of emergency there would be 2,627 men in the depôt batteries, a portion of whom would be available for foreign service and a portion for home service. If more field batteries were required, the men would be taken from the garrison brigades, and they would be converted into field batteries. At the same time we would have for garrison defence the Coast Brigade; 1,542 old soldiers, comprising skilled non-commissioned officers, 15,000 Militia Artillery, and 37,000 Volunteer Artillery; and the value of the two latter auxiliaries, he believed, would be acknowledged by every hon. Member. In fact, we would be able to put into the field 408 guns, exceeding the Prussian proportion to an Army of 150,000 men. Now, as regarded the peace establishment of field batteries, France had 137 officers and men, and 88 horses; Austria had 109 officers and men, and 37 horses; Prussia had 112 officers and men, and 40 horses; while we had 149 officers and men, and 88 horses, which equalled the Prussian war establishment as regarded men, and exceeded them by one more officer in each battery. Then, too, as regarded non-commissioned officers, we had 14 now to 13 we had in the Crimea, and to 12 in the Prussian batteries. With respect to horses, from inquiries he had made he was satisfied that upon emergency we could purchase 5,000 draught horses in a week or ten days—horses in every respect fit for immediate work. The garrison batteries had been augmented to 150 men, in place of 90. With regard to field guns we shall have, this year, a total of 692, and after taking 336 for field service there would remain 356 in reserve, exclusive of 80 40-pounder guns of position. He did not consider that sufficient, but there was no doubt that the productive resources of the country were such as to give the requisite number within a very short space of time. The Government could produce two batteries a-week complete, and the general trade would be able to supply as many if not more. He would conclude by saying that he was fully impressed with the importance of the artillery as a branch of our military service, and with the necessity of keeping it in a thorough state of efficiency. But he thought that the statement he had made would be satisfactory to the House, and as the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was directed to this question, it would not, he believed, conduce to the interests of the service to accede to the Inquiry demanded by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

said, he must say that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot) had called attention to a subject of great importance, and he collected from the observations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, that the Motion was not an ill-timed one, because that right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the reserve of guns was not so great as was desirable. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the brigade system in the most delicate terms, amounting to an admission that it had broken down, and it was impossible to deny that the artillery generally, and especially the field artillery, was not in that state of efficiency in which everyone would wish to see it. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend had stated fair grounds for an Inquiry, and he would vote for the Motion if his hon. and gallant Friend proceeded to a division.

said, that the artillery was very much larger in the number of men than when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich was responsible for the affairs of the Army, and the number of field guns when that right hon. Baronet was in office was 180, and it was now 336, besides 30 in depôt. Therefore the artillery was not in point of numbers in that deficient state which had been described. The Government, moreover, were this year at an expense of nearly £500,000, adding 5,234 men and 2,894 horses to the artillery. They were also taking steps to make the artillery of the Militia and Volunteers efficient, by providing them with officers of the Royal Artillery. He was anxious for the fullest inquiry on the subject, but he was not prepared to hang the matter up by referring it to a Royal Commission, or to any tribunal which would take it out of the hands of the Government. He deprecated, as a general principle, the habit of referring every executive duty to a Royal Commission, and thereby throwing off the responsibility from those to whom it properly belonged. He did not pretend to have any predilection for the brigade system. The battery was the natural unit of the artillery, and when they went beyond that they got into an artificial system. There had been 12 years' experience of the brigade system, and it was now time to re-consider it, and the Government had no desire to do anything except what was necessary for the good of the service.

said, he was glad that the Government took on themselves the responsibility of inquiry, and were not willing to shift it off to a Commission or a Committee. The artilleryman was the highest trained soldier in the service, and he wished to know what had been done to get a reserve of artillerymen?

said, he should have been glad if an explanation had been given of the number of gunners and the equipment of the different batteries. The Government had announced that the present state of the artillery was not entirely satisfactory, and that the subject was under their consideration; he therefore thought, unless they stated to the House candidly that within 10 days they would announce what their intentions were relative to the organization of the artillery, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hereford (Major Arbuthnot) should press his Motion to a division.

said, he wished to take that opportunity of stating, in answer to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Liddell) the state of the artillery reserves. After completing the whole battalions at the full war complement, there would be left 5,000 Artillerymen for the Reserves.

said, there was a question overriding all these military matters, and that was—What special grounds had we for apprehending danger? It appeared to him that the apprehension of danger arose from the agitation of a great question which at the present moment occupied the attention of most of the States of Europe—namely, the declaration on the part of the Pope of Rome—

rose to Order. He wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether the Pope of Rome had anything to do with the question of the organization of our artillery?

said, he was out of Order, and would resume his seat to rise again when that Motion was disposed of.

said, he understood that the Government acceeded to the spirit of the Motion before the House—[Mr. CARDWELL assented.]—and he therefore would advise his hon. and gallant Friend to accept the announcement of the Government, and leave them to make an inquiry into the matter.

said, he hoped the Government would consider the subject of forming an artillery reserve, and also the advisability of having a certain number of heavy guns in reserve, so that they should not have to be manufactured when an emergency arose which required their use.