past indiscriminating and irrational treat- | Gentleman stated that he had done his ment of the indifferent and deserving sea- best to obtain an efficient Channel squadron, men alike, we are suffering under a languid and that it would consist of a certain numsupply. And there is another cause you ber of ships. Now, it would have been must retrace your old policy; you must much more satisfactory if the right hon. not with time, toil, and cost, convert the Baronet had been able to tell the Committee landsman into a good seaman and gunner, that it really did consist of that number. and then dismiss him on the quay of Ports- The only remedy for the deficiencies in our mouth, Plymouth, and Chatham, unbe- naval defences was to commission those friended and uncared for, to carry his ships which could be got first ready. Men energy, vigour and proficiency to another enough could be found to man them, and country, and a kindlier flag. I fear no money was not wanting for such a purpose. panic or ignoble fear, but I cannot allow During the whole of the debate that evena blind or false confidence, an alarming ing they had been beating about the bush, supineness to continue. I wish to see and had never come to the root of the evil. the feverish agitation on the public mind He contended that so long as the present calmed; time to mature our preparations, constitution of the Board of Admiralty antecedent to the pressure of an emergency. continued it was impossible that there I ask the capacity of our resistance to could be an efficient and economical system any enemy should cease to be matter of of administration of the naval affairs of debate; it presses itself irresistibly on the this country. In so saying, he did not for minds of all; it is superior in magnitude a moment mean to reflect on either his to any other object of public attention; it right hon. Friend the present First Lord, involves the interests and destinies of all or the head of the department under any Europe. In former days, not a fleet issued former Government; but still he held that from a hostile port that did not supply the very constitution of the Board rendered fresh laurels to the British navy when she it impossible to have an efficient departfought single-handed. We must be pre- ment so long as they placed a civilian at pared in a similar way. I am quite sure the head of it, and that civilian a Member that the attitude of preparation will con- of a Government, subject, as all Governvert apprehension of danger into a solid ments were, to political vicissitudes. The peace. Under the vigilant eyes of the argument against the appointment of a House, the means which it places in the naval First Lord was that professional men hands of the Government will be employed were prejudiced and bigoted, and that they in a manner deserving the cordial support would be attached too strongly to petty which Parliament affords, and the enthusi- details. Now he did not believe that the astic unanimity of all classes of the people, prejudices of professional men were likely which is its sanction. to be stronger than those of a political First Lord. It was said, however, that a civilian First Lord was assisted by the naval Lords under him; but that was a most objectionable system, for it gave the naval Lords the power without the responsibility which ought to attach to their conduct. Some of these observations applied to a civilian Secretary, though he was glad to have an opportunity of stating that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Corry) the present Secretary, who had held that office, and also that of a Lord of the Admiralty in former years, was an honourable exception, and that his zeal, ability, and intelligence in that department of the public service were appreciated in the highest manner both in that House and in the dockyards. The object in having a naval First Lord would be that he would have a practical knowledge of the subjects with which he would have to deal ; but under the existing system they chose one to fill the office who MR. H. BERKELEY said, he would beg to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the expediency of fitting out our ships with an adequate equipment of the most improved small arms, to enable them to cope with the American and other foreign navies. He understood that the breech-loading rifles, which were so universally adopted in the American navy, had been rejected at the Admiralty. He contended that this rifle would be of in valuable assistance in boat service. MR. BENTINCK said, he could not but join in the eulogium that had been passed on the extreme frankness which had characterized the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The full and fair manner in which he had pointed out existing deficiencies was the best step that could be taken towards providing a remedy for them. His statement was not satisfactory, however, in one particular. The right hon. was not a naval man, and as soon as he began to learn his business they turned him out. The enormous expenditure during the last few years, with so little to show for it, was, to a considerable extent, referable to the system of perpetual change in the department. He considered also that the arrangement under which all the patronage of the Admiralty was left at the disposal of a Member of the Cabinet was objectionable. Could there, he asked, be a stronger condemnation of the existing constitution of the Admiralty than that they should be compelled to resort to a Royal Commission to tell them how the navy of England ought to be manned? It was a complete admission of their incompetency to deal with the subject. He repeated he was not blaming the present or any other members of the Board; but he, nevertheless, contended that that Royal Commission was a proof that when a great emergency arose the department was compelled to have recourse to extraneous assistance, and he thought there was something fundamentally wrong and un sound in it. port he understood that it was the unanimous wish of the noble Chairman and of the other members of the Commission that he should send in the reasons of his dissent as speedily as possible, in order that they might be laid upon the table of the House at the same time as the Report. At great personal inconvenience he prepared a statement of those reasons in three days, and addressed them, in the form of a letter, to the Chairman. On the following day he received a proof copy, which he returned corrected the day afterwards. It was now eight days since he had handed it complete to the noble Chairman. It followed, therefore, that if his reasons for dissent had not been laid on the table, and if the House was ignorant of its contents, he thought it only due to himself to say, that the fault did not lie with him. SIR FRANCIS BARING said, he must decline to enter into a discussion as to the manning of the navy until the evidence taken before the Commission and the letter referred to by the hon. Member who spoke last was before the House; nor would he enter into the vexed question as to whether MR. LINDSAY said, he had intended to or not it was desirable to have a naval make a few observations on this important First Lord, which might more appropriately subject, but in consequence of the lateness be raised when they came to the Vote for of the hour (twelve o'clock) he must defer the Admiralty; but he would remind the what he had to say to another opportunity. hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. BenBut, allusion having been made to the tinck) that when the Russian war broke Commission for manning the Navy, he out the navy, under the management of thought it necessary in justice to himself that very inefficient Board, was in as good to trouble the House with a word or two condition and as ready to meet the enemy in explanation. He was informed that a as was either the army or the ordnance. question had been asked on a previous The hon. Member had expressed an opinion evening with regard to the dissent which that the Admiralty were incapable of perhe had thought it necessary to express to forming their duty because they had rethe opinions of his colleagues on the Com-ferred the manning of the navy to a Committee. He noticed also that a similar question had been asked in "another place,' and that the answer was that his dissent would be laid on the table as soon as it was ready. Now it was on that point that he wished to offer a few words of explanation. The House might think that the fault lay with him, but he begged to state that it was then twelve days since he had considered it his duty to dissent from the opinion of his colleagues. He had not dissented from that Report without great regret, nor had he declined to sign it until he had fortified himself with the opinions of able men of various political parties, and different orders of mind, who had concurred in the soundness of the principles which he wished to see laid down. When he declined to sign the Re mission. Commissions were at the present moment sitting to consider matters connected with the army, and yet he would express his opinion that that did not at all prove that the gallant General the Secretary for War and the noble Duke the Commander-in-Chief were incapable of directing military affairs. The Vote now under consideration was that of the number of men, and both that and the number of ships were matters of which the Government were so much the best judges, from possessing greater information as to our relations with other countries than was enjoyed by other hon. Members, that even had the numbers asked for been greater than they were, he should not have been disposed to refuse them. He was quite of opinion that it was our duty to keep ahead Admiral opposite (Sir C. Napier) as to the Channel being in the possession of our neighbours. It was not from any feeling of alarm, but from a wish to render the navy efficient, that an increased Vote was demanded. He believed that seamen were not unwilling to enter, but they would not enter a lare experimental ship, where they had no rest. If the hon. Baronet carried out the recommendations of the Commission, with some few exceptions, as regarded the Naval Coast Volunteers, he believed that there would be no difficulty in manning the navy. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he wished to say a few words in explanation; and, first, he begged to thank the Committee for the manner in which the discussion had been conducted; but he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) of all foreign navies; and, although it was possible that the great steel ships might not answer all the expectations which were entertained with regard to them, still we ought not to lose the advantage of any possible success by which their construction might be attended. All this would cost a great deal of money, and he was afraid that the expense would not be temporary, but would have to be continued over more years than the present. He did not say that as a reason for refusing the money which was asked for, but extravagance was not efficiency any more than stinginess was economy, and he thought that they were bound to a certain extent to inquire into the expenditure which was going on. The proposition which was sought to be made by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) to suspend these Votes until a Committee had made its report was open to grave objections; had thought proper to deviate from the but he thought it would be a great advantage if our naval expenditure were referred to a Committee up stairs. The subject was too large and complicated to be adequately discussed in a Committee of the whole House, but might be properly dealt with by such a Select Committee. The Report of that Committee which sat in 1848 was extremely valuable, and had been of great service, not only to the First Lord, who they were informed knew nothing, but also to the naval members of the Board and to the officers of the Admiralty themselves. Since then, however, everything had been changed, and there was now a necessity for renewed investigation. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the confusion and difficulty which he said existed in the present Navy Lists. The confusion had, he thought, been greatly exaggerated, and might be removed by the consolidation of the orders; but he admitted that there was the greatest difficulty in dealing with the different lists of officers. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would reconsider his plan as to the compulsory retirement of officers at a certain age, which he thought would not conduce to economy, and must cause much unnecessary pain to deserving men. ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE said, he would say one word in favour of paying greater attention to the training-ships for boys, as he believed that on them we would ultimately have to rely for manning the navy. SIR GEORGE PECHELL said, he must deprecate the alarm sought to be created by an honourable and gallant tone which had distinguished the general discussion, and thrown into it that party spirit which was extremely out of place in a discussion which so deeply affected the whole country. It was quite true that no increase in the Coast-guard was proposed, but the number serving afloat was increased 4,000 men. He (Sir John Pakington) had never said that the Estimates of the late Government were extravagant, but had said they were large, and that he required time to consider them. The right hon. Baronet had harped upon the word "reconstruction," but surely that was the proper term for a change which commenced with the introduction of the screw propeller into our war navy. The Government were not open to this sort of minute and not very worthy criticism, and he maintained they were at liberty to use the word " reconstruction" when, by proposing in one year to add twenty-six men-of-war to the navy, they were making such a step in reconstruction as had not been attempted by any former Administration. The hon and gallant Member for Southwark had attributed to him words to the effect that the French had command of the Channel. He disclaimed any such idea, and he should be sorry, indeed, as a Minister of the Crown, to be reduced to the necessity of making a statement so inconsistent not only with the reputation of England, but with what he believed to be the fact. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had said that there were nine sail-of-the-line ready to be fitted out from Toulon at any moment. How did that prove that France had the SIR CHARLES NAPIER said, he wished to add a few words in vindication of his statement that France had command of the Channel and the Mediterranean. The fact was that the right hon. Baronet had included in his available naval force a ship which was at present many miles away. The right hon. Baronet had forgotten to mention the time that it would take to man the ships that were not manned at present. The two ships in commission were not manned yet, and he estimated that it would take six weeks or two months before they were manned. When he said that France had the command of the Channel he meant that the reason was, that by their system of conscription and inscription they could man their ships so much sooner than we could. When the right hon. Baronet showed him that he could man his ships as speedily as the French ones were manned, then he would withdraw the observations he had made, but not till then. France had twenty sail-of-the-line at Brest and Cherbourg, and those ships could be manned in a day or two. So in the case of the Mediterranean. We had four sailof-the-line there, but the French had ten at Toulon, and, therefore, he contended they had command of the Mediterranean as well as the Channel. command of the Channel when he could of the Government, he had submitted for state as a fact that we had a force ready their consideration. and at hand of a very superior character? We had seven line-of-battle ships in commission; we had four frigates, and there would soon be six, and we had in our harbours three steam guard-ships fully rigged and equipped, and only wanting men to be able to put to sea. Besides, we had four lineof-battle ships of the first class in reserve, and the theory, and he believed the practice was, that vessels in that condition could be made ready for sea in forty-eight hours. With such a force actually available at the present moment, he thought it was too bad for hon. Gentlemen to rise in their places and say that France had command of the Channel. The right hon. Member for South Wilts (Mr. S. Herbert) had asked a question relative to the China force. Although, in stating the proposals of the Government to the House, he had truly said that forty-seven vessels with 4,700 men remained in China, he never stated that that was to be the permanent force on that station. It was the whole force for the East Indian station, which included India, China, and Australia; and although there were forty-seven vessels remaining in China, it should be remembered that nineteen were gun-boats, the very smallest class of ships. It was true, as stated by the hon. Member for Bedford, that the Government received a remonstrance from the Surveyor of the Navy that they should exert themselves to place our line-of-battle ships on a more satisfactory footing than that in which they found them. That remonstrance was received immediately after the change of Ministry A second was received in May, and instead of doing nothing, as stated by the hon. Member for Bedford, the Government immediately afterwards proceeded to provide a proper Channel squadron. It was in July that they ascertained the state of the French navy-why it had not been ascertained by the former Government had not yet been explained-and in August they took steps to provide a remedy by ordering the conversion of four line-ofbattle ships. He might state, in answer to the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) that the Admiralty had given orders for a supply of breech-loading rifles, for it was their determination to put into the hands of our (seamen the most efficient arm that could be found. In conclusion, he must again thank the House for the favourable reception they had accorded to the proposals which, on the part last year. SIR CHARLES WOOD said, he must adhere to his statement, after having examined the Estimates for the present year, that the number of seamen employed on the Coast-guard had been increased by twenty and no more. MR. W. WILLIAMS said, he wished to ask when it was proposed to bring on the Navy Estimates again? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that he could not, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a decided answer to the question. He might, however, state that they would certainly not come on before Friday next. Vote agreed to; as was also (2.) £2,487,062 Wages, to defray the expenses of the Wages of Seamen and Marines. Resolutions to be Reported on Monday next. Committee to sit again on Monday next. POOR LAW BOARDS (PAYMENT OF DEBTS) BILL.-SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND said, he would move that it be read a second time HOUSE OF LORDS, territories by the armies of Austria and "I have satisfaction in informing the noble Lord that we have received communications which give us reasons to hope that ere long the Roman States will be evacuated by the French and Austrian troops, and that with the concurrence of the Papal Government." and deliberate view in the situation of the affairs of Europe. I rejoice to find that Her Majesty's tion. But we have heard from the right hon. Government have taken that view of their posiGentleman not only that declaration, but that advantages have already flowed from the interposition which has taken place, and that it is the intention of those great Powers to evacuate the Roman territory." That was the impression made on the House of Commons, and as the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer took no means to contradict or to modify the view which Lord John Russell took of his statement, that impression remains. But a short time after the discussion had closed in the House of Commons my noble Friend opposite, on being asked a Question in this House, stated as follows: "I have no objection to state that Her Majesty's Government have received communications which give them reason to believe that, within no distant period of time, the armies of France and Austria will be withdrawn from the Papal States and at the request of the Pontifical Government." The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the armies will be withdrawn with the " concurrence" of the Papal Government; but drawn at the "request" of the Papal Gomy noble Friend says they will be withvernment. The discrepancy is quite clear, and may be of very great importance; because, if the French and Austrian Governand if that is approved by the Papal Goments have agreed to withdraw their troops, vernment, there is an end of the question; nothing remains to be done, except, perhaps, as to the time within which the Papal territories are to be evacuated. But, if no communication whatever has taken place between the French and Austrian Governments on this matter, or between either of the Governments, and the Pope simply desires that their troops should be withdrawn, the case may assume a very differThe fair inference-indeed, the only pos-ent aspect. I should, of course, hope, as sible inference-for that statement is that France and Austria have determined to evacuate the Papal territory, and that the Papal Government approved their doing so. That such was the impression produced on the House was shown by the speech of Lord John Russell, who immediately followed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who said: "It was a matter of great anxiety to know, in the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government took that view of their position namely, that they are in a favourable situation to use their influence, and to give advice to those Powers with whom these differences have arisen to tell both France and Austria what is their calm it would universally be desired, that those two Powers would not persist in continuing to protect a State which declares it is able and desirous to protect itself and that henceforward does not want them. But it is easy to see that contingencies may arise; that France and Austria may not agree as to the mode in which the evacuation is to be carried out; or that one or other may impose conditions on the Pope which he may think not consistent with his dignity to grant, and that this question may still linger in that state of uncertainty and suspense which has already become so dangerous to Europe. Therefore, if my noble |