The Sun. — London, England, 1860-07-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1860. commission. This is obviously the most prudent course to adopt. We have already two plans before us. The result of a commission may be to devise some third plan combining the advantages, while getting rid of the difficulties, of both. I am fortified in this view by the fact that I am only asking the Government to grant now in the case of the navy what has once before been granted for the navy, and what has upon several occasions been granted for the army. In 1840 the Duke of Wellington was the henoured president of a commission which sat to investigate this very question of promotion and retirement with respect to both services. I shall presently advert further to the results of that com mission, but let me also remind the house that in 1854 a commission was appointed to consider the subject of promo tion and retirement in the army. The form of that commis sion shoes how very closely analogous are the two cases ; the grounds for an inquiry are precisely the same. But I do not rest my motion upon this question of promotion and retirement. I wish, likewise, to repeat to the house what I stated on a former occasion, that at the present moment there is scarcely one class of officers in the royal navy who are not more or less in a state of discontent with their posi tion. In the report of the Wellington commission of 1840 I find the following passage : " Carefully weighing the urgent reasons that exist for a rigidly economical administration of the public revenues on the one hand, and on the other the no less imperative ne cessity of keeping the limited naval establishment em ployed in time of peace, energetic and therefore useful, con tented and therefore efficient, we have no hesitation in earnestly addressing our unanimous recommendation to your Majesty, that there should be a considerable increase in the rates of sea pay allowed .to navy lieutenants." That commission also took into consideration the pay and position of captains, and I find in the report a statement which I ventured to make the other day, that the position. of captains with respect to pay is eminently unsatisfactory and unjust to that most important class of officers. The report further alludes, as I did on a former evening, to the great charges which fall upon captains from the duties of hospitality which devolve upon them in the command of their ships, and it recommends that certain articles of outfit which captains had been compelled to provide for themselves should be provided at the public cost, the officers paying a percentage on the value. That recommendation was adopted, and hence the system which has since prevailed in this respect ; but with regard to the pay of captains, and with regard likewise to many other particulars connected with the navy, ate state of the profession twenty years ago was very different from what it is now. At that tame the pay of captains was on a footing which, in my opinion, was far more just and rational than at the present moment. Cap tains were then divided into three classes as regarded half pay, in the same way as they are now divided into three classes as regards full pay, according to seniority; but their full pay, which now turns upon seniority, then turned upon the rate of the ships which they commanded, and therefore upon the expenses which they were obliged to incur. There were then six classes of ships. A. captain in command of a sixth rate received £3OO a-year, while a captain in command of a first rate received as much as £BOO. The whole of that is now changed, and the pay of a captain no longer bears any relation to the class of his ship, and therefore to the expenses which he is obliged to incur. I consider this question of the pay of captains to be one of the branches of this subject which most imperatively requires attention. In former debate I mentioned the fact that in two instances officers of great ability refused commands because they could not afford to accept them. It is disgraceful that such a state of things should exist. Perhaps the house will permit me to read brief extracts from letters which I have received in consequence of what I then stated from officers of high distinction, and now on full pay on board her Majesty's ships. I shall not men tion the names of the writers, but shall be happy to give them to the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, or to any hon. member who may express a wish to have them. The first letter comes from an officer who is now an admi ral and on full pay. He entirely concurs in my view of the retirement question, and alluding to what I stated on a former occasion about the insufficiency of a captain's pay, he states that between his attaining the rank of commander and his attaining his flag, he had no less than seven com mands. He says : " I question if £4,000 would repay me for what all my ships cost me from the day I was made a commander until I got my flag, and I had seven different fresh commands." The writer of this letter would be regarded by the officers of the navy generally as a fortunate man; and, without refe rence to his interest or his position, I doubt whether the profession would not say he is the most brilliant and best officer we have. He had what is usually called the good luck to obtain seven commands between his commander's rank and his flag. How little do the profession suppose that these advantages, as they are termed, have been gained at a cost to his own pocket of £4,000 The next letter comes from an officer also of high distinction, now commanding one of our blockships. He writes in these terms : " I have dipped heavily into my small private means to arrive at and keep up my position, and, unless there were a naval war, when I would live on bare ship's allowance rather than not serve, I could not afford to take a more active command than that I at present hold from the feeling that I should be unable to support my position as it ought to be maintained in the service afloat, and at the same time do justice to my children; and I know of raanyofficers who are similarly circumstanced." I shall now read a letter from an officer who is not at pre sent on full pay, but who was so a very short time ago, be: cause I myself appointed him to a ship. He writes : " In the first place, as you clearly pointed out, on a cap tain commissioning a ship he cannot prepare himself for sea • to proceed to a foreign station under a sum varying from £3OO to £4OO, depending on the class of ship he is appointed to and the station he is ordered to ; and how is an officer dependant on the service to obtain this sum except by bor rowing, and what prospect has he of repaying it with in terest at the end of his commission, when his full pay is barely sufficient to provide common necessaries for himself, to say nothing of having to entertain his officers occasion ally at his table ? An officer placed in such circumstances is prevented from being as courteous as he is enjoined to be by policy, and even by the rules of the service, to foreign officers whom he is constantly meeting ; he cannot even re• turn the civilities which they show him. This distressing and undignified position I have personally experienced in the ship you gave me a commission to. . . At this time an American commodore and other foreign ships were at anchor in the bay, when, of course, the usual civilities of calling, &c., were exchanged, and I was frequently invited to dine on board one or other of these ships, when I was at once placed in the painful and perplexing position of accept ing these invitations without the means of returning them or refusing them, and feeling ashamed to state the plain reason that my country did not pay me sufficiently to en able me to return their hospitality. . . This is the posi tion every captain or commander commanding a ship is more or less subject to on receiving an appointment—a position which I feel confident the House of Commons will never permit the captains of the English navy to be placed in when it is fairly pointed out to them—and is a complete corroboration of your statement in the house." Let me read one more letter from an officer who a year ago was on full pay as a commander. He writes : " I can speak from experience as to the pay of a com mander and a lieutenant in command, having servel 41 years in the former and nearly two years in the latter rank ; and I am quite sure, unless an officer has some private in come, a command is a source of expense, and not of emolu ment." I referred on a former evening to the difference between the French service and ours in this respect. France does not allow her officers to be exposed to these painful difficulties and trials. In the same letter I have a brief statement of the rates of pay in the two services. A French lieutenant in command receives 15f. a day as table money, which is equal to 12s. 6d., and his daily pay is 7s. ; total, 19s. 6d. An English lieutenant receives, daily pay, lls. ; light money, ls. ; value of rations, 10d. ; total, 12s. 10d., as against 19s. 6d. A capitaine de frigate receives, daily pay, 9s. sd. ; table money, 16s. ; total, £1 ss. sd. An English com mander receives, daily, 16s. 6d. ; light money and rations, ls. 10d. ; total, 18s. 4d., as against £1 ss. sd. I state these facts in confirmation of what I have already mentioned, and to show the great difference which prevails between the two services, and the great hardship inflicted on the English commanders or lieutenants in command, who are called on to discharge their duties to their country at a posi tive loss to themselves. (Hear, hear.) I will next advert to the case of the masters. I remember that last. year my noble friend, soon after assuming his present office, made a charge against me on the ground that I had not dealt with the masters. Well, my answer is that my noble friend was one of those who prevented me, because I was turned out of office, and was consequently unable to go on with what I began. (Hear, hear.) Let me tell my noble friend that I presume to think that if I had not been turned out of office I should have dealt with the masters rather better than he has done. Ido not charge the present Board of Admiralty with doing nothing in regard to the masters, because it has dealt with them, but in such an un satisfactory way that the complaints are not removed. Now, if I had dealt with the case of the masters at all, I think I should have dealt with it in a manner to quiet their complaints. I have here a letter from a well-known master in one of our line-of-battle ships, and he states : " One ill effect which the late circular must produce is the desire to avoid the regular line of service in men-of war, and get into small tenders, storeships, &c., —appoint ments which are much, more permanent and better paid. These large ships—especially flagships—are to be avoided in a pecuniary point of view. Could I exchange into the smallest possible vessel bearing a master, and having charge 0 , 1 stores, my pay would be greatly increased." tha;ire another letter, but I will not trouble the house with '''''acts from it. The substance of the statement is that es made by the Board of Admiralty with respect t theo the masters are not. only unsatisfactory to the masters the mselves, Vic in. tia but are very prejudicial to her Majesty's ser thera is an increased that in consequence of these changes masters, assistants, inducement to enter the service as ment to remain in ill b e nt there is no proportionate induce uservice. Thus you have a number of young menentering of the education and ni”ters' assistants, taking the benefit trainingservice, in the navy, and then leaving for the merchant they get on better than if they had remained in the ill - requited service of the navy. Another branch of the profession which the Admiralty dealt was that of the paymasters, but the Board did not the respect to deal with them in a way to all these eases Ido not commit m satisfy yself With to expression of arty opinion as to whether these complaints are well or ill f'. e f o g a nded. I only say th at, if the y ar e not we i l s l ; waded, d Jot them, after investig ation, be exposed and d Taut if they are well-founded, then let not a feeling o f just discontent be cherished in the Queen's service. With respect to the paymasters, I know very well that the high er classes are in receipt of considerable pay as compared with some other officers .ip. the navy; but the complaint they make has reference to their half-pay, and I own it appears to have some foundation. I have a statement showing the full pay and half-pay of masters, chaplains, surgeons, and paymasters. Taking the mean between the full pay and half pay, the difference in regard to masters is 55., in regard to chaplains ss. ld., in regard to surgeons and engineers ss. 2d., but the mean difference with regard to paymasters is 13s. 11. d. Consequently there appears a great discre pancy between the treatment of the paymasters and that of the other branches of the service to which I have alluded. Believing I have laid a foundation for the motion I have to submit to the house, I will not go into details with re spect to the complaints advanced by other classes—engi neers, naval instructors, &c. They are all mere or less dis contented with their position. The argument I draw from these statements is that such complaints ought to be inves tigated, for it cannot be to the interest of the service that discontent should continue. I entreat the house to bear in mind that brief but most expressive sentence in the report of the Wellington Commission—" contented, and therefore efficient." If you want efficiency, you ought to have con tentment, and you have contentment if you do justice. (Hear, hear.) Do not, however, refuse to entertain complaints when they are made. One element of national defence is that your officers, who are your instruments for defence, should be satisfied with their position; and if your officers are contented you are much more likely to have contented crews. (Hear, hear.) Why should the Government refuse the commission I ask for ? If there exist difficulties inthe service, why should they not be in vestigated in the way in which the difficulties inithe sister service were investigated ? I confess that I have only heard one objection to a commission, and that was stated by the hon. and gallant member for Southwark, who said that a commission would be appointed by the Admiralty, and there fore he would not trust it. Ido not share in any such feel ing. Ido not believe that the Admiralty would deal other wise than fairly on such a question ; and, if a commission is granted, I am confident that the Admiralty would see that it is properly and honourably constituted. I ndeed, there is a considerable guarantee that such would be the case in the circumstance that the appointment of the commission by the Admiralty would be an important pulelic act, performed under serious responsibility, and before the eyes of the pub lic and the profession. As I believe, on the one hand, that the Admiralty would not for a moment be inclined to con stitute such a commission unfairly, so I believe, on the ather that, whatever magut - tye mete ancnnatious, they- would not dare to attempt any unfair proceeding. I ask the house, then, in the name of the navy and of the country, to accede to my motion; and if the noble lord should not assent to it I shall feel it to be my duty to take the sense of the house upon my proposition, which I think essential to the welfare of the naval service. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving " than an humble address be presented tq her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to consider the present system of pro motion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and the present pay and position of the several classes of naval officers, and to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of her Majesty's naval service." Sir M. SEYMOUR, in seconding the motion, said these commissions had been appointed with great advantage to the service from the earliest periods of our history, and he hoped a similar inquiry would not be refused in this in stance. With regard to the retirement scheme of the present Admiralty he had been unable to discover the advantages of it. No doubt it would be beneficial to the junior officers, but he must lift up his voice on behalf of those whole past services, commencing with the old war, were affected by the scheme, Many of the mates who served in the old war were now on the lieutenants' list and were not 'likely to benefit—nay, might be placed at a positive disadvantage by the scheme. He was old enough to remember the time when the masters' mates came in as volunteers from the merchant navy, and at a period when there was much hard work to be done they did good service, and were foremost in any gallant expeditions which were undertaken. He re gretted, therefore, that the scheme did not allow the long services of mates to count. (Hear, hear.) The questions of seniority and promotion, and even the first entries into the service were all subjects requiring consideration, and if on these or any other points dissatisfaction was shown to exist in the service the cause for its existence should be removed. This was not a party question. (Hear, hear.) The navy was sometimes described as " the right arm" of this nation's power, and, if that were true, whatever might tend to sa tisfy the reasonable demands ef the personnel of the service ought to meet with encouragement. (Hear.) The letters which had reached him from all quarters had deeply im pressed him with the necessity of the commission now asked for, and he hoped the Government would not refuse to ac cede to the motion. Captain TALBOT wished to bear his testimony to the feeling existing in the service in favour of such an inquiry. There was a belief that justice was not done to all classes, and that a strict investigation was necessary. He was not prepared to attack the scheme of the noble lord, but at the same time he thought it did not go far enough. (Hear.) He trusted that the Government would be prepared to ap point a commission, the necessity of which had been fully .substantiated by the right hon. baronet. (Hear.) Lord C. PAGET—I am far from complaining of the tone and manner in which the right hon. baronet has alluded to the claims and has set forth the grievances of the various Officers in the navy respecting pay, promotion, and retire ment. The only thing that surprises me is that the right hon. gentleman, feeling these grievances so poignantly, did not while he was at the Admiralty redress them. He was in•office longer than the present Board have been, and all these questions musthave been just as patent to him then as they are now. Why, then, did he not take steps during the time in which he held this high position to carry into effect all these schemes for the benefit of the officers of the navy ? The right hon. gentleman certainly did deal with the ques tion, but in a very partial spirit, except with regard to one class of officers—namely, the surgeons, towards whom he acted very generously. The surgeons have very properly shown great gratitude to the right hon. gentleman, and only the other day an application was made to the Admi ralty to allow the right hon. gentleman's bust to be placed in the museum at Haslar. But why when he was dealing with the surgeons did the right hon. gentleman overlook the claims of other officers ? Why were not the claims of the masters, paymasters, engineers, and the chaplains con sidered? The right hon. gentleman professed a great and no doubt a sincere desire to improve the position of the chaplains, and he produced a scheme which was such an utter failure that the chaplains declined to avail themselves of it, and preferred to remain under the old system of pay. That is a proof that the right hon. gentleman can fail as well as his neighbours. I admit that the proposal which the house has had before it within the last few days would admit of enlargement. I never denied that if we could deal with those ,excellent old officers in a more generous spirit it would be very desirable, and would be very agree able to the Board of Admiralty. But our duty is not confined to getting as much money as we can, but we have to consider what is the best for the profession, and I say again, after a careful consideration and comparison with the respective officers in the sister service, that the scheme Proposed by the Board of Admiralty is a fair one. It is a curious fact that my hon. and gallant friend who seconded this motion admits that this scheme does offer advantages to the junior branches of the service. It was exactly in favour of the junior branches of the service that this scheme was proposed. No doubt, there are men who were mates before I entered the service, and remain still in the junior branches of the navy. Those are things which relate to other days, and I wish to say as little about them as I can. I admit that we who—as my hon. and gallant friend ex pressed it the other night—have been born with silver spoons in our mouths, have had great advantages over many gallant and meritorious officers—(hear)—but there are cases of comparison between very fortunate individuals on the one hand, and very unfortunate individuals on the other hand, which hardly bear upon the question before the house. The object of the Government is to produce such a scheme as at the least cost will insure a proper flow of pro motion in the navy. As far as regards the retirement of officers, I believe the scheme will fulfil its object. With regard to mates, it is not now for the first time I have to consider the claims ef these officers. All I can say is that the Board-of Admiralty has at this moment under consi deration the question of mates and their time. (Hear.) There is no doubt that any additional consideration that can be given to that subject will be of advantage, and, if anything Can be done which will not involve any verylarge expense, the Board will at least take it into their serious consideration. My impression is that it would not be any great increase of expense if some small allowance for mates' sea-time were granted to those officers who have served many years. These are points of detail which can be better dealt with by the Board of Admiralty than by any Royal commission. There can be no doubt that a commission appointed as my right hon. friend suggests would propose an increase of pay and im provement in the position of officers ; but when I show how the cases of all these officers have been dealt with in former times, how their positions have been improved by succes sive Boards of Admiralty, I think it will be seen that it would be much better that the department under which these officers serve should be charged from time to time with the duty of making the requisite improvements in their position, and of making such proposals as may gradually conduce to the advantage of the service rathe r than to un settle the whole navy by appointing a commission which cannot fail to excite hopes which must be infallibly blighted. If you appoint a Royal commission, it will be taken throughout the navy that you are going to adopt a grand scheme to improve the position and increase the pry of all officers in. the service. I hold that that would be an un wholesome proceeding. I maintain that, upon a compari son of the navy with the army, as a general rule, officers in the navy are as fairly paid as officers in the sister service. I will just refer to the case which my right hon. friend has brought before the house, by which he sought to show that the pay of captains in the navy is not commensurate with their position, and that they aro compelled to incur great expenses in showing hospitality as incidents of their posi tion. But supposing that the right hon. gentleman has this strong feeling for captains, any one woul d believe, that when such cases came before hi (when he was in office he would immediately have taken up the matter and have adopted steps to remedy those grievances. When he alluded to this case the other night I went back to the Admiralty, expecting that I should find he had taken some steps while he was at th e B oar d . I d i d f i nd a very respec tful memorial drawn up by a captain cf a due-of-battle ship, setting forth his expenses, and urging that his pay was inadequate to his expeJaditure. I looked to see what the right hon. gentle man had done. I found that all the other members of the then. Board of Admiralty expressed strong opinions that the pay should be increased, but when the memorial reached the right hon. baronet I only found the word " read." That was all the notice he then took of a very re spectful memorial which was laid before him. I only want to show that my right hon. friend when out of office, and with full leisure to think over these matters, is bringing forward cases withwhich heshould have dealt himself when he was at the Admiralty. As to this very memorial, what has the present board done ? It was unfortunately laid be•. fore them after the estimates had been prepared, but the Board made a minute that in the next estimates the case of the captains should be dealt with, and at the beginning of next year we shall be prepared to propose some allowance for officers in command of ships. The right hon. gentleman made a comparison between the pay of officers in the French and English navies respectively. But again my right hon. friend tells the house what is certainly interesting, butwhat is not complete. The captains in the English navy get al lowances of plate, linen, &c., which are not granted in the French navy, and those allowances must be taken into con sideration in instituting a comparison between the pay of those respective services. The hon. member for Devonport alluded to the time passed in the Coastguard service being by the Admiralty proposal allowed to count as one year in three. I would ask my hon. and gallant friend, a distin guished officer who had been all his life at sea, whether he thinks that officers serving in the Coastguard are entitled to count their time as respects superannuation exactly as if _ . . s ..... _ they were serving on distant foreign stations, many o them unhealthy and very expensive ? I say the idea is perfectly monstrous. It would be unjust to the officers on active service ; it would hold out a premium to every mar • rued officer, who would, no doubt, be very glad to live with his family. to say, " I will enter the Coastguard, where I have equal hopes of promotion, superannuation, and in creased half-pay. Why should I go and serve in the West Indies, or on the coast of Africa ?" It would be im possible to carry out any such scheme as that. With re gard to harbour and guardship service, I think it may very well be arranged that the time during which officers are employed in the harbour guardships should net count alto gether in the same ratio as the time passed in real sea ser vice. An hon. member proposed to put a question to me to-day se to the actual position. of the reserved captains. The position of these officers, according to the Admiralty scheme, is this :—Reserved captains who have served less than nine years will continue to receive the half-pay which they may be receiving at the time of retirement. Officers who have served over nine years and under 12 will receive 108 6d per day ; those who have served over 12 and under 15 years, 12s 6d per day ; those who have served over 15 and under 20 years, 14s 6d per day; and those who have served more than 20 years, 16s 6d per day. I beg the hon. member for Portsmouth's attention to this. Every reserved cap'ain who has served at sea above 20 years will receive an addi tion of 6s a-day to his half-pay. The hon. gentleman seemed disposed to claim for those officers the same position in the Navy List as those have who are liable to go upon active service. It would, I maintain, be very unjust to officers on the active list if men nominally having the same commission but never liable to , be called on to serve were allowed to rise with them on the Navy List, and so to strug gle upwards with them for their flags. The right hon. baro net the member for Portsmouth, when as First Lord he esiablished this scheme, distinctly stated over and over again that he could not put this class of officers in the same posi tion as the active list ; and successive Boards of Admiralty have always acted on the same principle. With regard to the motion of my right hon. friend, I think it far better that these cases should be dealt with by the Government as they arise. A reference to what has been done of late years will, I believe, show that it is unnecessary to have a commis sion appointed to examine this question. [The noble lord then enumerated the various changes made between Feb., 1855, and the present time by different Boards of Admiralty in the pay and retirement of masters, commanders, cap -1 tains, engineers, marines, medical officers, chaplains, and . other grades and branches of the service.] He continued —I quote this to show that this subject has been constantly before the Admiralty, and that as it becomes manifest that the pay or position of any class of officers requires revision their case is taken into consideration, and year after year Parliament is asked to grant considerable sums for their benefit. I think, therefore, it would be wiser to trust to the responsible department of the State to suggest such altera tions as may from time to time be required to improve the position of those officers who may appear to be insuffici ently paid, rather than by calling together a commission to open the whole subject, and thereby, in my opinion, to ren • der the officers of every branch of the navy unsettled in their minds. Each grade thinking that it has a grievance would naturally lering it forward, availing itself of the op portunity thus afforded toit, as we should all of us do in the same case if we knew that a body of men were about to sit for the improvement of our condition. For that reason I believe it is most undesirable that such a commission should be appointed. With due respect for my right hon. friend, and for the great zeal and talent he brought to 'sear on the discharge of his heavy and important duties while at the head of the Admiralty, I say it is most injurious to the public service, when the luau who may fill such an office comes down and tells the House of Commons that every class in the navy is discontented. I say that is holding out a positive premium to discontent. (Hear.) I beg leave to deny that this wide-spread dissatisfaction exists. Naval men, no doubt, like all other Englishmen, have the privi lege of grumbling, and a blessed privilege it is —(a laugh) —and that sometimes they have a good cause for their grumbling lam quite ready to admit. But Boards of Ad miralty—whether that presided over by my right hon. friend or the present one—have had these very questions relating to the pay of captains and other ranks continually before them, and wherever the Board sees any class of officers whose position requires improvement, I can only say they will not fail to give the matter due attention. Under these circumstances I trust the house will not agree to the corn • mission for which my hon. friend has moved. (Hear.) Sir J. ELPHINSTONE could not regard the speech of the noble lord as having satisfactorily proved that the pro posed commission ought not to be appointed. The noble lord said that post capping on the reserved list would re ceive great advantages under his plan. He would state to the house the services of ono of those officers, and the effect of the noble lord's plan upon his position, as the case was a very fair sample of many. The officer in question had served 16 years as a midshipman and mate, 17 years as a lieutenant in the Coastguard and Coast Blockade, and seven years as an inspecting commander of the Coastguard. For that aggregate service of 40 years he won* receive only seven years and nine months' consideration under the noble lord's scheme. Yet this officer had been in six different en counters with smugglers, had been three times left for dead, and had an arm broken. He had served as midshipman and mate for nearly as long a period as gentlemen born with a silver spoon in their mouth took to attain the rank of post captain. In his opinion, the time had come when a com mittee ought to be appointed to inquire into the position of the navy, because there was in that service very general and well-founded discontent. Such a commission ought to be of very wide and comprehensive character, and the inquiry held under it ought to commence with the warrant officers, who, from the paucity of efficient midshipmen, very frequently had to perform the duties of officers of that rank. Boys were at present admitted into the navy too early and almost without any education, and, in consequence, much time elapsed before they were of any use as officers. Such a commission as that now asked for might properly inquire into this part of the subject and recommend such alterations as would remofe the evils which attended the present state of things. Lieutenants did not occupy so good a position as officers of the same rank in the army. They were allowed no servants, and gotno leave of absence tovisit their friends, and when appointed to the command of gunboats, although they had to prepare returns similar in proportion to those made out for the Royal Albert, they received an addition of only ls. 6d. or 2s. to their pay. The noble lord said that he intended to look into the case of the-post captains. It was high time that he should do. There were now many cap tains and commanders who were carrying on the business of the country out of their own funds ; and he did not believe there was a single captain in our magnificent fleet who had not a private fortune who would not be glad to escape from his position if he could do so with honour. The expense of entertaining not only their own officers, but those of other squadrons, and of foreign navies, and strangers of dis tinction, was so great that it . must seriously diminish the private fortunes of all captains of line-of-battle ships and frigates. He could never see why a captain in the navy should dine by himself, and believed that the system of messing adopted in the army might with advantage be in troduced into the sister service. The right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich had stated what were the rates of pay in the French navy. With the permission of the house he would mention those of the American marine. In the American service a senior captain received £1,177 per an num ; a captain in charge of a squadron, £1,041; all other captains, £9ll 9s. 2d. ; commanders who had served five years, £650 ss. ; those who had commanded less, £5BB 10s. 10d. ; lieutenants after 13 years, £468 16s. 11d. ; after 11 years, £ll6 13s. 4d. ; aft er 9 years , £395 10 s . fid. ; a ft er 7 years, £354 3s. 4d. ; under 7 y ears , £312 10s. ; mates, £172 18s. 4d. Lieutenants after 13 years' service got £lB a year more than post captains in the British navy ; junior lieute nants more than commanders ; and mates within a few pounds as much as commanders. I,Lord C. Paget—Read the half-pay.] Captains on leave or waiting for orders, which answered to our half-pay, got for the first five years 1,900 dollars, and for the second, 2,016 dollars ; lieutenants received from 1,200 dollars to 1,450 dollars. He suppzrted the motion of the right hon. baronet, and hoped that the commission, if agreed to, would receive wide powers to investigate the question of pay and promotion. Sir C. NAPIER said he came down to the house with the firm determination of opposing the right hon. baronet. (A laugh.) Since hearing his statement, however, he had changed his mind. lie bad never before heard any First Lord of the Admiralty support the claims of the officers of the navy as the right hon. baronet had done, nor had he ever listened to a fairer and more accurate statement of their case. It was of the utmost importance that the cap tains should be properly remunerated. He knew from ex perience how prejudicial it was to the discipline of the navy when their pay was inadequate to maintain the dignity of their position by receiving their officers at table and living in proper style. It lowered diem ill Lll9 eyes bot 4 of officers and men. When the captain was forced, from the smallness of his means, to order a chop and potato for dinner, there was a great quizzing at the galley, and he was called " a poor, miserable, shabby devil." (A laugh.) It was impossi ble for a captain to furnish his quarters on board ship, even in the most economical manner, for less than £3OO. It was quite true that the Admiralty supplied officers with linen and plate, but they charged more than a Jew's price for them. - He would certainly vote for the commission with his right hon. friend, and he hoped it would inquire not only into the :position of the higher class of officers, but also into that of the warrant and petty officers and sea men, whose condition undoubtedly required amelioration. He trusted also that the commission would not neglect to inquire into the provision made for warrant offi . cers' widows, which was quite disgraceful. (Hear, hear.) It was absurd to hope that political interest would ever cease under any administration to have its effect on the disposal, of patronage, but surely merit and seniority ought not to be entirely overlooked. In France so many officers were promoted by seniority, and so many by what was called " selection." That was a question the commission would do well to consider. The noble and gallantlord (Lord C.Paget) had told the house that they had better leave the matter to he Admiralty, and that he was going to do a great deal next year. But the Admiralty was a moveable body, and perhaps the noble snd gallant lord might not be in office next year to fulfil his promise. (A laugh.) Besides, experi ence warned them that very antiquated notions prevailed at the Admiralty, and that a question of this kind could not be left entirely to its discretion. The noble lord had asked why, if the right hon. gentleman complained of so little having been done, he did not do more when he was at the Admiralty. It was only fair, however, to remember that the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) effected mach, and, if he had remained in office, would have done a great des' more. He did not think that the right hon. gentlemanwas open to the charge brought against him by the noble lord, of causing discontent among the officers of the navy. He had, on the contrary, endeavoured to ameliorate their position, and had left a bright exempla for his successors to follow, which he was sorry to say they had not done. The noble lord's attack upon the right hon. gentleman was both unjust and ungenerous. If the noble lord could show that the present Board of Admiralty had been more successful in its administration than the last there would be some reason why the noble lord should find fault with the naval administration of the right hon. gentleman. Before the noble lord came into office he made many most severe accusations against the late Boards. He accused them of spending £5,000,000 in 11 years, either improperly or without accounting for it. The noble lord was not able to justify that accusation before the committee, but he had never withdrawn the charge. The noble lord was mistaken in asserting that his speeches had caused dis content in the navy, and that he had gone about among the sailors to excite discontent. He had, on the contrary, kept away from the men, for the express purpose of avert ing such a charge. When the noble lord said that corporal punishment should be done away with, he did more harm to the service than he would ever be able to do good. He should support the motion for a commission, and he trusted it would be composed of men who really knew the service, and who were not afraid to speak their minds to the Admi ralty. If, however, the recommendations of such a com mission were only to be partially attended to, like those of the Manning Commission and the Greenwich Hospital Commission, then it would be better not to appoint a com mission at all. if the rules of fairness and justice were observed there would be no difficulty in manning the navy. With regard to the officers, if the discontent which was said to exist really did prevail, the sooner the Admiralty set to work to ameliorate their condition the better. Sir F. T. BARING would not enter upon the numerous topics which had occupied the attention of the last two speakers, but would address himself to the actual question before the house. The motion of the right hon. gentleman was for an inquiry upon two grounds. The first, which stood at the head of the motion, was for a commission to consider the present system of promotion and retirement, and the pay and position of the officers. The second branch of the inquiry stood upon a different footing, and he would first take that question which in the course of his official career claimed much of his attention—namely, retirement from the service. Now, upon what ground did the right hon. gentleman ask for an inquiry into the subject of re tirement ? He must regard this as much too serious a matter to be dealt with as a party question—(hear, hear) — and he confessed he was struck with the want of any good ground for the appointment of a commission for taking the retirement of officers out of the hands of the Admiralty, and vesting it in an independent authority. Was any great evil shown to exist in regard to the present state of promo tion and retirement? When he (Sir F. Baring) was at the Admiralty the list of admirals was filled with officers in capable of going to sea, and who by their age were, however gallant their services had been, unfit to command in time of war. It was admitted that this was no longer the case, and this was an important improvement. When he came into office it was his duty to look out for an admiral for some service that was required. After doing his best he was obliged to choose an officer who was above seventy years of age. If war had broken out at that time there would only have been two admirals under sixty who could have been Bent to eca. (Hear.) He earned a great deal of unpopularity by the measures he undertook, but he had the consolation of feeling that, if a war now broke out, and it was necessary for the Admiralty to look oat for an admiral there would be plenty of admirals young and active enough to be able to do their duty and serve their country efficiently. The cap tains' list was also similarly encumbered. An officer was, however, no longer obliged to serve thirteen years as a cap tain, and the captains' list was now similarly supplied with young and efficient officers. With regard to commanders and lieutenants, a fixed number for each rank was estab lished. It must be admitted that until the specified number was reached promotion was slow, to a certain degree. If the right hon. gentleman, however, fairly compared the promotion of ten years under the new system with the pro motion of ten years when there was no limit, he would find that the promotion of captains and commanders was much more rapid now than in the old times, Promotion was then made out of 3,000 names, while it was now made out of 1,000, so that the chance of promotion was much better than it used to be. After a considerable struggle things had just been brought to this condition—that the list had been brought down to a proper number, and for the future every vacancy would be filled up. Promotion would consequently be more rapid than it had ever been before ; and at such a moment nothing could be more impolitic than to institute an inquiry. He was therefore not inclined to support the motion for a commission, the effect of which would be to raise expectations of a great change in the system of retirement. What happened at the close of the last war ? Such a mass of promotions was then poured upon the officers in the navy that the service had suffered ever since. He hoped the house would take warning by that example, and not allow their feelings of generosity to carry them too far. The right hon. Bart. the member for Droit with had alluded to his plan of promotion and retirement. Why, the right hon. gentleman had put forth three sepa rate schemes, and the house ought to be informed which of them received the approval of the late Board of Admiralty. It was rumoured that the plans of the right hon. gentleman, however acceptable to the navy, did not afford much satis faction to his own colleagues in the Admiralty ; but, whe ther that was so or not, the right hon. gen: leman was bound to show, on moving for a commission of inquiry, that there existed some evil which required a remedy. The house was asked to authorize an inquiry into the pay and position of all the officers in the navy. That was a very formidable task to undertake. The Wellington Commis sion of 1840 had been cited as a precedent. Circum stances had changed since 1840 ; but the Wellington Commission was not 'very fortunate in its recommenda tions, because when he went to the Admiralty in 1849 he found the state of the Navy List as bad as it could be. He objected to intrust to a commission a duty which properly belonged to the Government. A commission was a very expensive luxury ; it was not responsible either to Parliament or the country, whereas the Government were bound noConly to inquire into the grievances which might exist in the naval service, but to carry into effect whatever measures of redress might be necessary. He opposed the motion, moreover, because, if carried, it would produce un comfortable feelings in the navy and excite hopes which could never be realised. There was not a finer service in the world than the English navy ; but among its other privi leges, it enjoyed that of grumbling at its supposed griev ances, and he was not astonished that the right hon. baro net the member for Dioitwich had received letters from so many officers detailing cases of hardship and injustice. With regard to the old mates, he heard with great pleasure the statement of the noble lord that their case was under the consideration of the Admiralty. In like manner he wished all the other cases which had been mentioned to be inquired into ; but let the inquiry be conducted by the Ad miralty. He did not desire to see the Admiralty relieved from responsibility by the appointment of a commission. Mr. COCHRANE observed that the right hon. baronet had said a great deal on the question of retirement, but had touched very little upon the other subject involved in the motion,—the pay and position of the officers. lie believed the noble lord was most anxious to serve the navy, and if he did not do all that was desired, it was because he was trammelled by office. The noble lord had made a compari son between the navy and the army, but it must be admit ted that the navy, was not treated with the same liberality as the army. The old officers in the army had an immense advantage in appointments to colonelcies, bat nothing si milar to that was given to old admirals, and, taking the posts of governors in different parts of the world, very few were held by naval men, and a great many were held by military men. There were other instances in which the navy was not treated with the same generosity as the army, bnd with respect to officers commanding ships he could bear testimony to the accuracy of the o bservation that they were put is great expense by their appointment. He trusted that the motion for the commission would be carried. Mr. LINDSAY conceived the proposed inquiry to be ne cessary.' On referring to the active list in 1859 it would be foundthaotnolyutlo7f39w9earde employed. miralsonly 1 1, 4 4i w s e w re as e a m m pl a o t y t e e d r , w o e u ll t of 357 capt a i ns on l y 97 were e mployed, and out of 504 com mandersworthy of inquiry, for the country had no right to bring into the service men in active life unless there was some fair chance of employiaent for them. Let there be an inquiry, therefore, for the purpose of seeing if the supply could not be brought more in accordance with the demand, II ~~ was all very well to say that the matter should be left to the Admiralty, but it should be recollected that the Admiralty had brought forward a plan which had given no satisfaction. He had that morning received a letter from a distinguished naval officer, who asked him to support the present motion, and stated that he had not heard one naval officer speak of the plan of the Secretary to the Admiralty except in terms of the strongest condemnation. Reference had been made to the mates in the merchant sorvice. In periods of war the country would be obliged to depend on the assistance of active young officers from the merchant service ; but they must be dealt with liberally, and be allowed a fair chance of rising to the highest positions. He should certainly, if the house divided, vote in favour of the motion. Mr. WHITBREAD said the hon. gentleman had referred to the excess in the retired list of officers as though it were a great evil, and declared that officers had been taken into the service whom we could not employ. But it was always necessary to have in ordinary times a large margin of expe rienced captains and higher officers, because it was impos sible to create such officers when they were wanted again and again, as was the case in time of war. The main grounds urged in favour of the motion were, first, the grievance of captains of line-of-battle ships and others in command not having an adequate allowance of table money; and, secondly, the grievance of the mates on the supposi tion that their time was not to count. Now, he had ex pected from the right hon. gentleman some other grounds for the appointment of a commission which was to inquire into so many different points ; but no such statement was forthcoming. The right hon. gentleman made no attack on the system of promotion, and confined himself princi pally to broad assertions of the discontent which he said existed throughout the service, but of which the Admiralty were not aware, and of the two grievances before men tioned. His noble friend's reply was, in the first place that the question of counting the mates' time was still under consideration. With regard to the table money question, the rule now so much complained of was that captains should be paid according to their statiding, and not according to the size of their ships ; and the origin of the rule was this :—ln 1556 it was necessary to appoint officers of the highest standing to small vessels, there being then a probability that the best men would be wanted in those commands. The rule in question was therefore established, on the representation of a large number of offi cers, who said it was manifestly unfair that when appointed to a fifth-rate they should not have the pay to which by their position in the service they were entitled. Since then, however, a memorial had been presented to the Admiralty. The right hon. gentleman was in office at the time, but he could not find that anything was done. In February, however, the present Board had decided that the subject should be taken into consideration when the next estimates were prepared, which was the earliest moment at which they could bring forward a vote. The right hon. gen tleman said the Admiralty ought to entertain all serious complaints. He believed that this had been done. The changes made in the position of the paymasters, the engi neers, and the chaplains were all preceded by memorials ; but in this case the officers who complained had not man fully set forth their grievances. The right hon. gentleman had, indeed, taken letters from his pocket and read them anonymously, but he did not call these serious complaints, and it must be remembered that the language of the right hon. gentleman on former occasions had been well calcu .lated to elicit such complaints. (Hear, hear.) It was said that if it were not from feelings of duty cfficers would not take the commands which were offered to them. But some how they did take them, and therefore the grievance was not of such a practical character as the house was led to suppose. He concurred with the right hon. baronet (Sir F. Baring) in his objections to this motion. A commission had not the fear of Parliament before its eyes, and generally ended in recommending a largo expenditure. That would be the result in the present instance, or else it would end by creating that which the right hon. gentleman so much de precated—universal discontent throughout the service. (Hear, hear.) Comparing it with the army, he de nied that the navy was underpaid, and the real test of this was that no difficulty arose in finding gentlemen to enter the service. He was not at all sure that they would be going upon a right principle if they made the navy looked upon as merely a lucrative profession; but he would ask whether even now a poor man's son found it as difficult to enter and support himself in the navy as in the army ? Be fore the right hon. gentleman made himself the organ of these frivolous complaints, as some of them were, he should have made further inquiry as to what was being done, and what was the relative position of the army and navy in re spect of pay. He hoped the house would not agree to the appointment of a commission, which, instead of remedying a small grievance, would only lead to general discontent. (Hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON said the reason why he had not referred to the question of promotion was, that promotion and retirement were, in fact, the same question, the one depending on the other ; so that in demanding an improve ment in the mode of retirement he was really dealing di rectly with the subject of promotion. The right hon. baro net (Sir F. Baring) had asked what was the great evils into which the commission was to inquire ? The Secretary to the Admiralty had told the house in plain terms what the evil was—namely, a stagnation of promotion to such an extent as to create a serious and a discouraging effect upon the whole naval service. The right hon. baronet had been First Lord of the Admiralty, and would be the last man to deny that this was a serious matter. Then the right hon. gentleman, alluding to his scheme of retirement, said the number of promotions had been as high under the present system as under the check system. But the right hon. baronet did not go on, as he should have done, to give the, reason for this. The reason was that the check system, as it was called, had been broken up by board promotions, which exceeded the restriction of promotion in other ways. The right hon. gentleman also said that we had arrived at a desirable state of things as regarded promotion. The captains' list might be reduced to the prescribed number no doubt; but the commanders' list was not. Lord C. PAGET—It will be by the retirements. Sir J. PAKINGTON continued—But how long would it remain reduced ? (Hear, hear.) It was that miserable hand to-mouth system that he objected to. No system would answer but a self-acting system, permanent in its operation, and not a mere temporary contrivance. The right hon. gentleman also said that the house could not deal with the question in a generous spirit ; but he (Sir J. Pakington) only asked for a commission of inquiry, and did not ask the house to deal with the subject at all at present. The right hon. gentleman further asked why the Admiralty could not deal with this question, and added, " What was a Govern ment for ?" But had the right hon. gentleman never before heard of commissions of inquiry? (Hear, hear.) Only the previous evening the house was engaged in considering the recommendations of a commission upon the subject of for tifications. Again, in 1854, a commission with similar ob jects was appointed for the army. When the right hon. gentleman could only find such excuses for his vote, it proved that there were no strong arguments ,to be found against the present motion. The right hon. gentleman had attempted to ridicule the letters he (Sir J. Pakington) had read, but those letters came from officers of the highest character and station, and were quoted by him as the strongest evidence he could adduce in support of his mo tion. He would notice one or two points in the speeches of his noble friend, and the Junior Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread). He regretted that the noble lord should have departed from his usual courtesy in repeating an attack upon a point which had been previously explained. The noble lord had asked why he (Sir J. Pakington) had not dealt with this question when he was at the Admiralty. The answer was, that he did so as far as he could. (Hear.) He had dealt with the surgeons and the chaplains. He ad mitted the warrant respecting chaplains had not been suc cessful, but the explanation was that it was based upon the assumption that chaplains of men-of-war, like other officers, adopted the naval service as their profession, but he found that those gentlemen after serving afloat for a few years generally desired to obtain a living or a curacy on shore. The noble lord had also referred to the captains' memorial having been, marked by him with the word "read" only. That was true ; but it was no argument against his state ment that he intended to deal with that memorial. Another reason that was urged against the appointment of a commis sion was, that improvements had been effected by successive boards, but that was a reason for a commission, because so many anomalies and inconveniences had been introduced by the action of different boarda, acting upon various and con flicting views, that a complete consideration of the whole subject was necessary. (Hear.) He could assure the house that he was contemplating while in of&:e the very step which he asked the Government to adopt now. When the change of Governnient occurred he had not made up his mind whether it would be better to deal with the subject seriatim or to appoint a commission. He made this motion from no party motive, but solely from a desire to promote the welfare and efficiency of the navy, and therefore he hoped the house would assent to his proposition. The house then divided. The numbers were : Ayes Nees Majority against the motion —33 PACKET AND TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS. Mr. DUNLOP, in rising to move resolutions with the viewof bringing packet and telegraphic contracts under the more effectual control of the house, took occasion to refer to the recommendations of the committee which had been ap pointed to inquire into the subject and to the importance of the considerations which the question involved, inasmuch as no less a sum than £1,000,000 a year was now wended under the head of packet, contracts alone. Now, it might be contended that a sufficient check for the provident expenditure of so large a sum was to be found in the fact that the various items were set down in the esti mates which annually came before the house; but then it should be borne in mind that the votes taken for contracts furnished no intimation as to their renewal in those instances in which they were renewed, while in the case of new con tracts. —which did not frequently come into active operation for a year and a-half or two years after they had been en tered into—the votes were not laid before the house until the services had begun, the eontraetors having, in the mean time, gone on building vessels and making the other neces the performance of new engagements, sary preparations for so that it was almost impossible for the house to exercise with respect to votes so submitted to its notice a fair and deliberate control. (Hear, hear.) suchas oAt e,t, in deed, was that the case N.v4a oil__y those instancea *CV t 44% go,me aiieged misconduct on the part of persons in obtaining a contract that the house hesi- sated as to whether it should or should not be carried into ef- feet, the mere question of the providence or improvidence of the contract itself being scarcely ever brought under the con sideration of Parliament with any practical result. Now, the object with which the committee to which he had already re ferred had been appointed was to provide a remedy for that. state of things, and two suggestions had been made on the subject, the one being that before any contract was entered into a vote for the proposed service should be laid before the house, and, that vote having been agreed to, the Govern • ment should then be at liberty to conclude the contract. To that suggestion, however, arose the objections, that its adop tion would lead to two distinct discussions, and that by fix ing by anticipation the sum to be voted for the performance of the contemplated service the advantage of that com petition by which the real market price of the work to be done might be ascertained would be lost. The committee had under those circumstances arrived at the conclusion that the best course to adopt was to place on the shoulders of the Government the full responsibility of making a con tract, accompanied by the condition that the terms of that should forthwith, if Parliament happened to be sitting, be laid on the table of the house. The result of acting on that recommendation, he might add, would be, that an efficient control over the expenditure'of the public money in those cases would be established, for no Government would be disposed to incur the unpopularity to which the immediate exposure consequent upon the conclusion of a careless or improvident contract must, under these circumstances, ine vitably lead. In dealing with the subject he did not wish to allude to any special contract, but he might nevertheless be permitted to glance for a moment at the case of the Cu nard contract in support of the views he entertained. That contract, which was, ho believed, carried out in the most admirable and successful manner, had been renewed in 1858, so that instead of expiring in 1862, as it would have done if it had been allowed to run its regular course, it would not come to an end until 1867. Now, without enter ing into the question as to the expediency of renewing the contract four years before its term would have run out, he should contend that there were important circumstances overlooked in the matter, which of the contracts had in the way which he proposed been laid en the table of the house must have been taken into consideration. There was, for instance, the correspondence with Canada with reference to the postal question, in the course of which correspondence the. Government of Canada represented to our own that an injury was being done to them by the operation of the con tract, the, consequence being that an understanding was arrived at that matters should remain on the footing on which they stood at the time, until the Cunard con trast had expired, the Government of Canada look ing upon that as a pledge that their complaints should be considered before the contract was re newed. Then, again, when the question of the Galway contract was first started, it was a matter well worthy of deliberation whether, in the event of its being concluded, a part of the mails transmitted by the Cunard line might not be transferred for conveyance by the Galway line at the expiration of the contract of the former in 1862, and a por tion of the expense of the Galway service be thus met. Tt e possibility of effecting such an arrangement, had, however, become completely out of the question when the Cunard contract had been renewed. In the case of the Red Sea and Indian telegraph the agreement had been confirmed by a private bill; but the agreement itself was not recited either in the bill or in the schedule, and was not added till it reached the House of Lords; yet this was a contract in volving a charge of 41 per cent on a capital of £600,000 for a period of 50 years. The Acts of Parliament passed in the case of the Atlantic Telegraph Company contained clauses enabling the Government to enter into agreements unfettered by any limitation whatever ; and, being private bills, these unusual powers passed without attracting the attention of the house. The propositions recommended by the committee, which were embodied in the resolutions that he had now the honour to submit to the house, were calculated to secure greater care and providence in taking these large contracts, which ought not to be left to the dis cretion of the Executive Government without that control which the constitution required that Parliament should exercise. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member concluded by moving the following resolution :—" That in all contracts extending over a period of years, and creating a public charge, actual or prospective, entered into by the Govern- . ment for the conveyance of mails by sea, or for the pur pose of telegraphic communication beyond sea, there shall be inserted the condition that the contract shall not be binding until it has lain upon the table of the House of Commons for one month without disapproval, unless, pre vious to the lapse of that period, it has been approved by a resolution of the house. That every such contract when executed E hall forthwith, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if Parliament be not then sitting, within fourteen days after it assembles, be laid upon the table of the house, accompanied by a minute of the Lords of the Treasury set ting forth the grounds on which they have proceeded in au thorising it. That in cases where any such contract requires to be confirmed by act of Parliament the bill for that pur pose shall not be introduced and dealt with as a.private bill; and that power tothe Government to enter into agreements ,by which obligation at the public charge shall be under taken shall not be given in any private act." The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not detain the house more than a few moments, after the clear and dispassionate statement of his hon. friend. But it was his agreeable duty to render, on the part of her Majesty's Government, their warm acknowledgment to the committee in general, and in particular to his hon. friend—(cheers) — who during their important• and laborious sittings had ful filled the difficult and critical duties of chairman in a manner worthy of his high character. (Hear, hear.) The question of the packet and telegraphic contracts was one in which circumstances rendered it eminently desirable that the House of Commons by an organ of its own should give par ticular attention to the system on which these contracts were concluded. It was not necessary to refer to any par ticular case, nor was he speaking the sentiments exclusively of either side of the house when he declared that an excess of power had been exercised by the Executive Government, which was felt on all hands to require limitation. The com mittee in dealing with the inquiry had shown very great judgment and discretion, and the resolutions proposed were well calculated to prevent a repetition of former errors on the part of any Government, at the same time that they avoided a difficulty quite as serious and involving perhaps an equal amount of danger—nameli , , that which would be caused by the interference of the House of Commons in duties for which they were not qualified. Looking at the resolutions with a critical eye, as the house was bound to do in laying down rules for its future guidance, he thought the committee had well steered their course between op posing dangers. By the word " contracts" in the first re solution they could not have meant to confine themselves to the popular acceptation of the term, but must have in tended to include all such renewals, modifications, and alterations of conditions as substantially amounted to a new contract—(hear)—and it was well that this point should be clearly understood by the public. The resolution de claring that the sanction of Parliament should not be given to contracts by a private act he regarded as a wise one. The house had, doubtless, in its recollection the case of the Red Sea contract, which passed the House of Commons without attention being drawn to the fact that it em powered the Government largely to pledge the public.; credit to undertakings by private parties. The bill was read a third time in the House of Lords, and it was not till it came down again to the Commons that the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle called attention to its very extensive provisions. The general opinion, however, was that the matter had then proceeded too far, and that it would then be an undue exercise of discretion to alter the terms of the agreement, although there was no doubt that had the house been aware of the circumstances when they originally entertained the contract they would have taken time to consider the subject. The fact.that it was only by the accident of an amendment having been introduced in the Lords that the measure came to be narrowly examined showed how unsatisfactory and insufficient a private bill was for the purpose, and how desirable it was that such regulations as were laid down in those resolutions should be adopted. Inasmuch as the case to be dealt with was only a contract preliminary to a vote of money, and the making of such a contract was a matter entirely belonging to the Executive Government, his hon. friend and the committee had exercised a very wise discretion in seeking to limit the functions of the house to checking any abuse on the part of the Government, and not to directing by a posi tive resolution that any particular contract should be entered into. These resolutions were, he thought, well adapted for their purpose, and he again thanked his hon. friend and the committee for the valuable results of their labours. Mr. ROEBUCK was anxious that the resolutions should not be adopted by the house without one word of warning. It seemed to him that the resolutions mixed up two dis tinct offices belonging to two distinct authorities. The Government had an administrative power, for the due exer • vise of which it was responsible ; but the moment the House of Commons was called upon broadly and distinctly to give its sanction to an act of the Government a great portion of the responsibility of the Executive was taken away. Sup pose a contract wore entered into by the Government and laid upon the table for a month. After that interval the house would have approved the contract. It might, indeed, be said that the house was not asked to give its direct ap proval ; but then, by keeping back its disapproval it would practically give its approval. The house could not after wards turn round on the Executive and say, "You have entered into an improvident contract." The Executive might answer, " You have taken from us our res p onsib ility. The contract lay on the table for a month, and you never found fault with it. All .cve have to do is to make th e con tracta ppro a v nd a we su arebmit no it l t o o n y g o e u r e ; n w ew he e n reb y l o e u to h r ae given it you r it." (Hear, hear.) Nothing that had been said in that debate had caused him annoyance or displeasure. He only wished humbly to point out to the house the danger of the course they were about to take. They might depend on it, if they mixed up two distinct daises of duties, one of which belonged to the Administration and the other to the House of Commons, they would relieve the Executive of its responsibility, and thereby introduce serious mischief. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. C. LEWIS did not think the circumstance of oae of these contracts having been laid on the table would deprive the Executive Government of their motives for caution. In a vast number of cases it would be impossible to submit the ccutracta made by the Executive to Parliament. Nobody proposed, for example, that when the Admiralty bought timber, coal, or other stores for the navy, they should come down and ask the house by resolution to authorise them to enter into a contract. There was another set of contracts, fortunately of not very frequent occurrence, namely, contracts for public loans, with respect to which it ' was absolutely necessary to obtain the express sanction of that house. Yet he believed he would be borne out when he said that there was no class of contracts which were entered into with greater care on the part of the Govern ment, with greater publicity, or a greater desire evinced by the Executive to secure the most favourable terms possible for the public, than contracts for loans. (Hear, h ear.) The peculiarity of the contracts now under consideration was that they were prospective—namely, for the conveyance of the mails for a considerable term of years, and he much questioned whether the Executive would not exceed its powers if it entered into such a contract without the express sanction of Parliament. Now, it was with regard to the class of contracts intermediate between the ordinary con tracts to which he had referred and contracts for loans that the machinery at present proposed was to be introduced. They were not contracts merely for the delivery of a specific quantity of goods, but contracts which pledged the national faith to the payment of large sums of money for services to be performed for a term of years. There was no reason to believe that the publicity and the check of Parliamentary control which these resolutions suggested should in flay way diminish the caution of the Government, but, on the contrary, they appeared to him calculated to render the Executive still more circumspect in its proceedings. (Hear.) Mr. HOPE recommended that means should, be taken to guard against so important a matter as the Indian tele graph being again dealt with in a private Act of Parlia ment. After a few words from Mr. DUNLOP in reply, the reso lutions were then agreed to. PUBLIC MONEYS. On the motion of Sir S. NORTHCOTE, a copy was ordered of the Treasury minute of the 23d day of December, 1858, on the subject of public moneys. SENIOR MEMBER .OF COUNCIL (INDIA). On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON (in the absence of Sir C. Wood), leave was given to bring in a bill to remove doubts as to the authority of the Senior Member of Council' of the Governor-General of India, in the absence of the President. ' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1859) AMENDMENT. • t.ord PALMERSTON (again in place of Sir C. Wood) moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend in certain cases the provisions of the Superannuation Act, 1859. Mr. ROEBUCK asked for some explanation of these Indian Bills. • Mr. E. JAMES thought the Secretary of State for India ought to be in his place to explain to the house what the objects were of these bills, which belonged to his depart ment. (Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN asked how it was that the introduction of these bills had been delayed till the last week of July. This session kad been unusually protracted, and but the other night the noble lord at the head of the Government complained that a certain section . of the house seemed to think that it was to be eternal. After massacreing their " innocents," the Government a few nights ago introduced two fresh bills relating to India ; bra, fortunately, it being very abundantly manifest that there would be a good deal of opposition to them, they very soon withdrew them. To night,.however, there were three new billi to be introduced, and he was informed that there was yet one other intended to be introduced, more important than all, of which no no tice yet had been given. This made six bills relating to India introduced in the month of July. It certainly would but have been respectful and decorous to the house had the Secretary for India been in his place to explain these bills. (Hear, hear.) [Sir C. Wood• here made his appearance in his usual seat on the Treasury bench.] He congratulated, the house on the return of the right hon. gentleman— (laughter)—and was glad to find that he was not dining at the Travellers' Club, as he understood was the case last Thursday, when his absence was complained of. (Oh, oh!) Sir C. WOOD—I have to apologise to the house for not being in my place. I was not far from it, however. I was in the library discussing an Indian question with a supporter of the right hon. gentleman; but I should certainly have been here had I been aware that these bills were under dis cussion. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman gave me notice the other evening that he intended to put a ques tion to me in reference to what he called my " mysterious" disappearance on Thursday last, and, as he has referred to the subject to-night, I will explain how that happened. I was in my place when the house met on Thursday, and I continued in it until the house went into committee on the Bankruptcy Bill. I then went into the lobby and had• a long conversation with the hon. member for Perth. Some hon. gentleman came to me and said that Sir Richard Airey was waiting at the door to see me. I think it was the member for Carnarvonshire. I went• to the door, and found Sir •Richard Airey, who was waiting 'to see me on some military business. I walked with him along the lobby towards the House of Lords, along St. Stephen's-hall and into Westminster-hall. There was nothing myste rious ;" a score of members must have seen us. (Hear.) We walked about Westminster-hall, and after that I did go and get some dinner, having been absent from home all day. There was no mystery about it. I did not go out at the back door or the window—a crowd of members saw me go. (Hear.) The right hon. gentleman sent me a note to tell me that he meant to ask a question on the subject, and I was here at a quarter past four o'clock to answer him, but he was not here to put it. (Hear.) I was perfectly ready to meet him, as I always shall be. As to this bill, its simple object is to provide that in cases where civil servants have been transferred from the India-office to another office, say the . Admiralty or 'War-office, or from another office to the India-office, their superannuation allowance shall be charged on the Indian and home revenue, some' thing in proportion to the length of time they have served in each department. Sir S. NORTHCOTE—I suppose it will operate both ways ? Sir C. WOOD—Certainly. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. Sir C. WOOD then moved for leave to introduce a bIU to extend certain provisions for Admiralty jurisdiction in the colonies of her Majesty's territories in India. Mr. HORSMAN reiterated his complaint as to the late period at which these bills were brought in, and asked for some explanation of it. He also Wished to know whether it was not intended to bring in yet another bill relating to India. Sir C. WOOD said that such small progress had been made with the bills introduced early in the session that he had thought it more advisable to delay these bills until some clearance was made of the list. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. The Votes at Elections Bill was read a second time. The Local Government Supplemental (No. 2) Bill passed through committee. The Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill was read a third time and passed. The Lords' amendments to the Local Boards of Health, ke., Bill were agreed to. MILITIA BILL. This bill passed through committee. POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL. The house went into committee on this bill, and after 6 clause had been' added, it was reported. " METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL. On the motion for the resumption of the adjourned de' bate on the third reading of this bill, on the question that the bill be "now read," The SPEAKER put the question, and Sir J. SHELLEY rose to address the house, but wag called to order, not having risen in time. The house divided-- For the third reading 23 Against it Majority.. The bill was consequently lost. SUPPLY. The Report on Supply was b roug ht u p and agreed to. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. SHERIFF COURT HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to. FREIGHT BILL. CLEARANCE INWARDS AND LIEN FOR This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (IRELAND) BILL* This bill was read a third time and passed. CORONERS (No. 3) BILL. This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to. RIFLE VOLUNTEER CORPS BILL. On the order of the day for going into committee on WO bill, Mr. HENLEY objected to going into committee at that quarter to three o'clock). bfSetEheLentWmeroYtrinlinnesgdai(d that was the last d a y th a t the bill b a y the house, if it was to be passed Won. If any delay took place, he would not beer hourteho could ildrs of the responsibility. Mr. S. HERBERT suggested that it would be better to postpone the bill till to-morrow (this day). Mr. SELWYN agreed to this suggestion, and the order was accordingly postponed. POLICE AND TOWNS IMPROVEMENT (SCOT. LAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. SALE OF GAS ACT AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL* On the order for going into committee on this bill, Mr. CRAWFORD moved that the debate be adjourned' The house divided, — For the adjournment .. 28 Against it Majority L , Mr. SHERIDAN, however, considering the lateness the hour, postponed the farther progress of the bill till tine day. The Gas (Metropolis) Bill passed through committee. The house then adjourned at three o'clock. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Offlpe, No• 112 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, In the county 03 Middlesex, Wednesd4y, Ably 26, 1860•