The Sun. — London, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

the shoulders of the Ministers. (H ear , hear.) On them reform, but to protest against the hon. an d l earne d gentle be the consequences which may result from the dissolution man opposite robbing the printers of W a lli ng f or d b y ad of Parliament which they have a d v i se d. A s r eference has dressing his constituents through th e H ouse o f C ommons. been made to proceedings elsewhere, I cannot sit down with- (A laugh.) We had heard enough of the Ref um debate ; s. (Hear, should, battle ought to be fought out on the hustings. out expressing my astonishm en t th a t i n that place notice , hear.) He was glad the Government had dissolved, because should, in a most irregular and un p rece d e nted manner, have he thought a general election might tend to put parties been taken of proceeding s i n thi s house—(hear)---and an opinion been expressed up on th em co ntrary to that of the upon a proper footing. (Hea r , h ear .) Th e h on. gent l eman highest authority in this house. (Cheers.) We sometimes concluded by asking the Government whether it was true to the vacant judg es h i p o f th e I r i s h E ncu mbered spect ours, and by th a t means they obtain information as to of the House of Come inspect the journals of th e o th er House of Parliament, and that they I have no doubt that members of that house sometimes in- coons had appointed a m em b er Estates Court, contrary to the report of the Commissioners, what is passing within the walls of this house ; but this is and in the face of the decreasing - businees of the Court ? the-first time that I have ever heard any person holding Mr. S. ESTCOURT replied that a judge had been ape r the distinguished po s ition occupied by the noble peer who Pointed to the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland, and has been referred to openly criticise in that place the pro- that .. the person selected was a member of that house. He ceedings of this house, and take upon himself to cite autho- could say nothing about the business of the court or the rities with respect to them which this house does not in the report of the Commissioners ; but he should be glad to slightest degree recognise. (Cheers.) I am glad to hear answer the question of the hono the general question before. gentleman more fully upon the right hon. baronet say that the dissolution which has a future occasion. Turning to been advised in this case and that which took place in 1857 the house, the right hon. gentleman . said the Government stand upon exactly the same grounds. The issue in that did not complain of the course which the noble lord the iv case was a definite one. There was a vote of the House of member for T . erten had pursued since Monday last ; on Commons upon a particular question of policy upon which the contrary, they thought that his willingness to that tofacilitateatee h my noble friend advised the Crown that a di sso l u ti on m i g ht the disposal of indispensable business, in order take place with a view to an appeal to the country. That dissolution might take place as early as possible, was con appeal was distinctly answered. I on ly h o p e th a t on the be formable . with the policy which they themselves ad o pt e d i n • present occasion the issue will as clearly underst ood— (cheers and counter cheers)—and that, th e H ouse o f C orn - tone sima— of similar circumstances stances speech during' the but they cent that the re could not forget debate was one of ab mons having by an adverse vote condemned two of the main solute defiance apparently founded on the belief that it was ab solutely impossiblehenoble lord recommended th em t o pursue a for them to have rec ourse t o a d isso l u ti on. features essentially bound up w ith th e pr i nc i p l e of the bill for amending the representatio n o f th e peop l e su b m i tte d by (Hear') The the Government, we shall have the o pi n i on o f th e country course which neither he him s elf nor an y par t y i n th at and of the constituencies up on th ose parts o f t h e measure . house would have followed, and it w as no t surpr i s i ng th at (Hear, hear.) his remarks should have creat e d an unp l easan t f ee li ng. (Hear.) .. After all, however, the Government and the Op- Colonel FRENCH said that, although no one would position must fight out their battle upon the hustings end question the power of the Government to advise her Ma he, for one, did not fear the result. Ministers did not ' jety to dissolve Parliament, it was equally well understood ac that it was not justifiable for them to take that course cept the recent not eas a . defeat of their bill, which, on the unless they had some hope of a majority being returned to contrary,. o. been discussed at all. But the real ques t' n before the country was, whether the business of the support their opinions. That was now the point of dif ference. That was the point which the Government would State should continue to be conducted by the present Go have to answer immediately upon the return of the new vernment or be transferred to other hands. (Hear.) Parliament. It was strange that the First Lord of the Ad- Mr. LINDSAY said that, so far as he was able to judge, rairalty, who had accused the noble lord the member for the present Government had conducted the affairs of the Tiverton of indirect disrespect to her Majesty, should have country well and wisely. B u t th e ques ti on a t i ssue was no t overlooked the direct disrespect of which the noble lord at one of confidence in the Administration, but whether their the head of the Government had been guilty in stating else- Reform Bill was satisfactory. Re believed that it was where that he would not under any circumstances recom- erroneous in its fundamental principles and rude in its con mend that the noble lord the member for the city of London struction, and therefore he had voted against it, though should be charged with the formation of a Ministry, and with reluctance and regret. (Hear, hear.) that there was a member of that house representing the Sir A. AGNEW referred to a statement made the other people with whom, under no circumst ances , wou ld h er M a- night by the Minister for War—that in Malta Lord Hill's j esty have anything to do. circular would be strictly adhered to, and that, therefore, Mr. MALINS saw with great satisfaction the extraor- the Host would not in future be saluted by the English dinary uneasiness with which hon. gentlemen opposite re- troops. The fact was, that it was under Lord Hill's circu garded the impending dissolution. (Cheers.) During the lar that such salutes were now given. He hoped the hon. last week they had been exceedingly bold, declaring that and gallant general would reconsider the matter, The hon. they were quite indifferent to a dissolution and would not baronet then asked the Lord - Advocate when the Royal com be coerced by it. The ho use m i g ht now judge what that mission for inquiring into the working of the Forbes Mac indifference meant. Why were they so uneasy ? Was the kenzie Act would be issued. dissolution unconstitutional; was it improper? (" Very.") Sir H. WILLOUGHBY asked the First Lord of the Had her Majesty's advisers done anything which was not Admiralty to explain an excess of £790,000 in the expendi in consonance with the best principles of the constitution ? ture of 18.57-8. (Hear, hear.) Theelang - uage of the noble lord the other Lord NAAS, referring to the question of the hon. mem night was so strong that it was on ly compre h ens ibl e t h at h e ber for Dover relative to the Irish Encumb e red Estates intended to follow it up, and that he and his party wou ld Court, stated that the vacant judgeship had been filled up take care that th ere s h ou ld b e no dissolution, because the in conformity with the provisions of the Act passed last supplies which were required should not be forthcoming. year, and that the business of the Court was amply suffi (Hear, hear.) Was the noble lord in earnest in that threaf; cient to employ three judges. and, if so, why had he not followed it up by action ? Was Mr. MELLOR said that when the Aet was under discus it that the majority on which he counted had melted down sion last year the house was told that the Court would not require more than two judges ; but it was thought that as to too small dimensi o n s ? H av i ng l ong b eenaccustome d to look upon the nobl e l or d as a man w h o m i g ht i n an emergency Mr. Hargreaves was about to be pensioned off at hi s f u ll be relied upon to uphold and support the principles of the salary, the country might as well have the advantage of his English constitution, he was greatly disappointed to find services. In the event, however, of his transference to him now disposed to adopt such extreme principles. England, where it was proposed to establish an Estates Sir S. TRELAWNY rose to order. A number of gentle- Court, the understanding was that the vacancy in Dublin men had given notice of their intention to make motions would not be filled up. on going into committee of supply, and it was not fair that Sir F. BARING did not wish to refer to the topic on other questions should take precedence of them. (Cries of which the present discussion commenc e d, b u t h e un d ers t oo d " Go on.") Mr. MALINS sa id h e s h ou ld lik e to k now what was the that it was an order of the house that anything passi ng i n the House of Lords should not be referred to in the House of issue now tendered to the country. (Hear, hear.) Was it Commons. (Hear, hear.) He concurred in the wisdo m o f the issue tender e d by th e no bl e l or d t h e member for the that order, thinking it desirable that they should not amuse city of London, who had told them what his Reform Bill themselves or embitter their proceedings by reference to was to be ? And was the noble lord the member for Tiverton what occurred in another place. But he should like some inclined to adopt it ? (A cry of "He has said so.") Had the reciprocity to be displayed—(cheers)—or circumstances noble lord said so ? He had not the good fortune to hear might arise which would necessitate the alteration of that the noble lord, but he understood that he had said that he order. If accusations and attacks were to be made personally was not for that bill—(" He did not say anything of the on members of the House of Commons, and they were pre kind ")—and unless the reports which had reached him vented answering those attacks by an order of the house, he greatly deceived him, the noble lord had expressed himself conceived that then such an order would stand in the way to the effect that whenever the bill sketched by the noble of fairness and justice, and ought no longer to be continued. lord the member for the city was brought in he should be (Cheers.) He would now advert to another point. It was found among its most strenuous supporters—he meant the old practice that all expenses with respect to the man opponents. (A laugh.) Were hon. gentlemen opposite agement of the revenue should be paid out of the gross re agreed among themselves ? The great majority of them ex- venue. This was bad as a system of account, a great sum pressed anxiety that the present Government should remain o f mon e y being thus withdrawn from the supervision of in office. (No, no, and hear, hear.) H e repeated it, that Parliament ; and in 1854 an act was passed pr o hibiti ng unless the noble lord was surrounded by a body of gentle- expenditure for the management of the revenue from be men upon whose word no reliance was to be placed, which ing paid out of that revenue, and providing that it should was the last suggestion he should make, the great ma- only be paid out of money voted by Parliament. He ob jority of them did not desire the retirement of the present served, however, that a contract had been entered into by Goverment. They were not agreed upon the provisions which the Postmaster-General engaged to pay the contractors of a Reform Bill. Were noble lords and right honourable for the conveyance of mails between England and Ireland gentlemen opposite, when they came into office, prepared the sum of £105,000 out of the revenue of the Post-office, to accept the ballot ? Upon no other condition would contraryto the provisions of the Act of 17th and 18th Vic., honourable gentlemen below the gangw a y gi ve them their cap. 94. This was entirely against the Act of Parliament, support. He presumed that neither the noble lord the and was wrong both in principle and law. He presumed member for Tiverton nor the noble lord the member for that this course had not been intentionally pursued, but the city would undertake to conduct the government originated in some blunder in copying an old form of con of the country upon such terms ; but, if so, what was tract ; and he hoped he should be given to understand that to be the principle of their union in office ? The dis- it was not the intention of the Government to go back to solution of Parliament had been forced upon Ministers, the old practice. not for the public goo d, b u t f or par t y purposes, and in that Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the error in question had light it would be regarded by the country. (Hear, hear.) originated from oversight in copying an old form of con- Sir C. LEWlS.—There has been throughout our recent tract ; but it would not have the effect of withdrawing the debates a constant, unfair, and wholly unsuccessful attempt money from the control of Parliament, for the sum would to fix upon this side of the house the responsibility of the have to be voted. Nothing was further from the intention present state of affairs. Th e rema rks of the Government than to depart f rom th e s pi r it o f t h e which have just been Act of 1854. made by the hon. and learned member for Wallingford Mr. W. WILLIAMS was glad to hear that explanation, would almost lead the house to suppose that it was my as in his mind the violation of the Act would be most un noble friend the member for Tiverton and the gentlemen pardonable. sitting on this side who h ave a d v i se d th e di sso l ut i on of Mr. WILSON observed that though the cont rac t might Parliament, and who were responsible for that important be made by the Post-office in perfect conformity with the existing system, yet no money could be paid until after it step. (Hear.) But observe what has been the course was voted by that house. If that were not the case it would of the Government upon this subject. On acceding to be quite clear that the whole control of the house would be power last year they took th e G overnmen t, accor di ng t o gone in this respect. (Hear, hear.) The LORD-ADVOCATE in answer to e question put b y the expression of my noble fri en d, with it s engagements. Sir A. AGNEW, stated that the terms of the c omm i ss i on I must be permitted to rema r k, h owever , th a t it i s a per- and the na'nes of the commissioners for inquiring into the fectly new doctrine that an Opposition, when it comes into publichouse question in Scotland were settled, and that office, abandons its own engagements and adopts those of only the formal part of the issue of the commission remained its antagonists. (Hear, hear.) However, without dwelling to be done. upon that part of the subject, I shall only say that Ministers Sir A. AGNEW inquired whether the commission would voluntarily undertook the engagement of bringing in a Re- be issued before Easter. form Bill. They promised to do so on various occcasions by The LORD-ADVOCATE did not know how long the declarations of individual members of the Government formal part of the business would occupy. during the recess, and they announced in the Speech from General PEEL, in answer to a question put by Sir A. the Throne their intention of introducing a measure of AGNEW, said that the orders given by Lord BM would not reform. After mature deliberation that bill was brought be altered. forward ;it was made the subject of a long and able debate, Sir D. NORREYS expressed a hope that the noble lord, and by the solemn jeidpaent of _the house it was con- the member for Tiverton, would be mare precise in reference demned as unsatisfactory. In consequence of the adverse to his agreement with the noble lord the member for Lon decision of this house they abandoned their bill ; but they don as to what he proposed to do in his Reform Bill with do not announce that they will bring in any other measure small boroughs. (hear hear) '• on the contrary, they state that in the present The house then resolved itself into a co mm itt ee o f year it is not their intention to propose any other measure SUPPLY. of reform, and they appeal to the country against the deci- On the vote of £2,000,000 to pay off Exchequer Bonds, sion of this house. Now, is not that a distinct appeal upon payable in May, 1859, the measure of the Government ? (Hear, hear.) Upon Mr. WILSON complained that they were called upon to what possible question can it be an appeal if not upon their vote, almost as a matter of form, to renew the debt, instead reform policy, upon their recent bill, and against the ad- of paying it off out of the ways and means of the ye ar . verse decision of the house i n connec ti on th erew ith . Si r S. NORTHCOTE said the object of the vote was to (Hear.) They do not substitute any other measure, and still give authority to the Government to pay off a debt which less do they state what that measure is to be • they simply would fall due when the house would not be sitti ng . appeal against the decision of the house, a n d that decision After some further discussion the vote was agreed to. was pronounced upon their existing Reform Bill. (Cries £13,277,400 for Exchequer Bills, charged u p on th e re of "Pip, no," and cheers.) venue of 1e59, £1,125,000 on account, for payments con Sir J. PAKINGTON—It was a refusal to entertain the nected with the revenue department, were also voted. question. On the vote of £1,856,000 on account for civil service Sir C. LEWIS—The decision of the house was pro- charges, nounced upon the two important characteristics of the bill. Mr. LINDSAY proposed to reduce the amount by (Hear.) Those two points were selected for the decision of £lO,OOO, the amount proposed for Kingstown Harbour. the house, and upon those two main points, which included Lord NAAS having explained that this sum was for the most essential principles of the bill, the house decided works already in progress, against the Government. (Hear.) Observe what was the The amendment was withdrawn. conduct of Lord Grey's Government in 1831, when they ap- Mr. E. JAMES drew attention to the large arrears in pealed to the country upon the subject of their Reform Bill. the Probate and Divorce Court. That is the case which is most exactly in point. Lord Grey's The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the only remedy Government brought in a bill that was condemned by the was to appoint more judges. The arrangement for the House of Commons by a considerable majority. The assistance of the common law judges having failed, he course pursued then was very similar to that which has could hold out no hope that a remedy could be provided in been taken in the present instance. Upon going into corn- the present session. mittee a resolution was moved, condemning one of the After a few words from Mr. MALINS, most important parts of the bill, and it was carried, as I The vote was agreed to. have said, by a considerable majority. The Government THE NAVY ESTIMATES. never for a moment pretended to say that that was not a Sir T. PAK INGTON—This is the last vote connected condemnation of their bill. They stood by the bill ; they went to the country upon the well-known cry, " The bill, with the Civil Service, and it now becomes my duty to pro the whole bill, and nothing but the bill." No other issue pose certain votes on account of the navy estimates. It was raised ; the country pronounced in their favour, and its may be remembered that I recently announced to the house representatives came to this house, knowing what they had my intention to lay upon the table the reports of certain promised to vote upon. (Hear.) A dissolution is now about to take place. I want to know upon what it is to committees. Among these were the report of a committee take place. (Hear.) Up to the present moment no issue which I had appointed on the machinery of the navy ; and has been raised either here or elsewhere beyond this—that I also proposed to introduce the report of the committee on the country is asked to express its confidence in the Go- our dockyard expenditure, and the report of a confidential vernment, in consequence of the policy which they have c adopted on th e su bj ec t o f re f orm. C an they put any other committee appointed by the Government to investigate th e c issue before th e country ? C an they say that they ask the causes of the great increase which has taken pl ace i n th e confidence of the people in respect of a policy which they naval expenditure of the country. At the same time I in are about to pursue upon the subject of reform ? No such timated my intention to lay on the table a statement on the thing. (Cheers.) Here is their bill ; it was condemned part of the Surveyor of the Navy with reference to the elle more or less by every member who spoke in the recent de- gations of the noble lord the member for Sandwich (Lord bate, whether on this or the other aide of the house, and upon its merits ministers appeal to the country. (Hear, C. Paget). In consequence, however, of the sudden change hear.) Surely they do not go to the country simply upon of affairs I wish to intimate to the house the course I pro the question whether they shall retain their offices. That pose to take in reference to these four important documents. is not a question upon which an appeal can be made to the I am sorry to say that it will not be in my power to corn- constituencies. Some principle—something beyond a mere municate to the present Parliament the report of the Com vague expression of confidence—must be implied in an ap peal. (Hear, hear.) Gentlemen on this side are not re- mittee on Dockyard Expenditure, as they have not yet sponsibie f o r the step about to be taken. A bill was sub- completed their labours; but the three other reports I laid witted for our consideration, and we rejected it. We have upon the table three or four evenings since. I wish to take been told.ehat in doing so we showed a want of respect to this opportunity of stating that which I ought to have the Crown. Observe what hon. gentlemen opposite did last year with respect to t h e I n di a Bill. Arecoramendationfrom mentioned on an earlier day—namely, th a t Si r B a ld w i n the CroVen was made to this house to consider the question Walker has repeatedly expressed to me his anxious desire of India. The Goverrtment prepared a bill carrying that to face, in the most candid and open, and, as far as he is recommendation. into effect, and what was the course pnr- concerned, the most prompt manner the statements made sued by. hon. gentlemen pposite ? Why, they would not by the noble and gallant officer. So far as Sir Baldwin allow us . even to read the e lsill a first time, and they met us by a resolution precisely similar to that to which so much Walker is able to meet those statements in writing he has object ion has been lately taken. The only distinction, in done so. In his reply, which will be in the hands of members fact, between the two cases is, that in the one they in a few days, the Surveyor of the Navy has gone fully into even refused to allow th e Government to lay their bill on the allegations of the noble lord that £5,000,000 of public the table, while in the o th er we reserved our opposition to money have been wasted i n rec kl ess ex p en dit ure d ur i ng th e the second reading, the proper time for it. (Hear, hear.) To say; after a debate of seven nights, which was virtually last 11 years, and that with respect to certain ships therehas a debate upon the second readi ng of the bill, that we have been a reckless and unnecessaryexpenditme in altering them been gmity of disrespect to the Crown, is one of the most f ro m time to time while in course of construction. On the monstrous attemp Parliamen t mosing upon the credulity of the country which myary experienc e can furnish. part of Sir B. Walker and the shipbuilding department, and I s going to say of the Admiralty, though the present (Cheers.) We have merely exercised our constitutional . . right to - consider and reject a measure proposed, not by the Board have had so little to do with the matter that it would Crown, but by the Government, whose a c t s we are at liberty be more correct to say on the part of our predecessors in to canvass and criticise in every possible way. Upon them office, I regret that the sudden dissolution o f th e presen t lies the responsibility of the bill itself and o f th e dissolution it out of my power to p ursue th e course which they have recommended, and the real i ssue which Parliament has put the country has to decide is—does the Reform policy of the which I certainly should otherwise have taken—namely, to Governirient, as expressed in that bill, entitle them to the move the appointment of a committee, constituted in the confidence of the public ? (Cheers.) faire s t manner ossible, to inquire into the truth o f th e a ll e- Sir J. PAKINGTON—The right hon, gentleman a p- p pears to be labouring under a misapprehension as to what gallons made by the noble and gallant lord, and to ascertain fell from me upon a former occasion I never said anything how far they were borne out by the facts. I fear that, in so absurd as, that any want of respect was shown to the the present state of public affairs, I have no alternative. It Crown in not entertaining the Reform Bill, but I did say is indi s p ensably necessary to await the assembling of a new that the language of the noble lord the member for Tiver- Parliame n t e ton, on the subject of a dissolution, trenched:upon the Royal gated bya copernanfor'ettteheeosef serious statements house,state man I must thereforeents can be investi d prerogative, and was wanting in respect t o th e Crown. limit myself to Sir C. LEWIS-1 did not refer to the remark of the right the expression of a hope that the written hon. baronet, that the language held by my noble friend on reply made by Sir Baldwin Walker will have the effect of the subject of a dissolution was disrespectful to the Crown. removing the erroneous impressions which the speech of the What I alluded to was an expression used both here and noble and gallant officer created. lam quite sure that it elsewhere, to the effect that we showed a want of respect to will induce the public and the Crown in not entertaining the measure of reform pro-the house to suspend their judg ment until an inquiry ca n t a k e Posed by the Government. Such an expression was used, place ; but I hope the in and I repeat it is entirely erroneous. (Hear, hear.) formation furnished is so full as entirely to dispel these 1121- 'l*. OSBORNE did not rise to discuss the question of pressions. gy lion, friend Mr IL Willoughby) asks for an THE SUN, LONDON , THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 1, 1859, explanation as to the difference between the sums voted in the year ending March 31, 1858, and the actual expenditure, which shows an excess of £790,249. This amount is made up of two large items on account of the Russian and Chinese wars. The sum of £264,924 was incurred on account of claims which arose during the Russian war, for which no vote was taken in the navy estimates ; and a second sum of £391,943 was taken out of the £400,000 which was voted for the war with China. These two amounts, with £133,382, which was an excess upon the estimates for that year, toge ther make up the total of £790,249. [Sir H. Willoughby —" Are there any outstanding votes ?"] lam not aware of any outstanding vote in connection with the naval depart ment. The right hon. baronet concluded by proposing a vote of £20,000 on account of the scientific branch. Lord C. PAGET denied that he had ever made a charge of any description against any gentleman connected with the Admiralty or the naval department. (Hear, hear.) He had only, to the best of his ability as a naval officer, calculated what he thought was the expenditure upon the navy, guarding himself at the time by saying that he should be very much obliged to his right hon. friend if he could contradict the figures laid before the house. By the courtesy of his friend, Sir Baldwin Walker, he had during the last half-hour been furnished with a copy of the paper written by the Surveyor of the Navy. Of course he could not be expected now to enter into details, but he was bound to say that in that document he saw no sub stantial contradiction to the statements he had made re specting the alteration of certain ships. Be that as it might, he hoped that in the new Parliament a committee would be appointed which would go very seriously into this expendi ture in shipbuilding. Meanwhile he would suggest to his right hon. friend that he should come prepared to lay the estimates before the new House of Commons in a more satis factory form. In making the statement he addressed to the house the other night, he (Lord C. Paget) had a vague idea that he was not asking for anything unprecedented, that in former days the naval estimates were prepared exactly in the form which he wished to see adopted, and that it was only within the last 40 years that they had assumed their present unsatisfactory shape. Now, he had consulted old navy estimates, and taking those from 1811 to 1819, he found the ships' names given in a tabular form, as he wished now to see, with the number of their guns, whether building or what was the nature of their repairs, the time when they were taken in hand, and when they would be completed, the charge for the hulls, masts, yards, rigging and stores, while the total charge was given in an other column. The name of every ship in the navy was thus set forth, and the most detailed information was fur nished to the house, at a time, too, when it w as of import ance that the French should not be acquainted with our resources. He would now explain how it was that the House of Commons came to be mystified. The lesson was instructive, and he hoped his right hon. friend would profit by it.. He had received a letter from Admiral Tucker, who had sent him a pamphlet published in 1849, addressed to the right hon. member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) who was then at the head of the Admiralty. It was at the time when a committee was sitting on our naval expenditure, and this gentleman, who was thoroughly acquainted with naval affairs, recommended certain reforms, particularly advo cating among other things that there should be a detailed estimate of ships building and in course of alteration, as had been the case in former years : " Formerly," he says, " and until the year 1819, the navy estimates used to contain, for each ship in course of building or repair, the following colums of information:-1. N ame of the yard,' royal or merchant, at home or abroad. 2 That of each ship. 3. Whether building, or nature of the repairs, and whether contracted for, or not • and whether Government did or did not supply any.part of materials. 1 and 5. The time when each ship was taken in hand, and when to be completed. 6 and 7. Charge for that year of hull, masts, yards, stores, &c., of that ship. 8. Total cost of the identical ship for that year. With such annual in formation it was very easy to watch some of the conduct of the Board of Admiralty." The reason for adopting the present form of estimates was thus stated : " At the end of 1818 terminated some communications which my father, who had been Lord St. Vincent's secre tary, and second secretary to the Board of Admiralty, and who all his life attended to naval affairs, had, by Lord St. Vincent's command, with Lord Melville, respecting the pro gress of work in our dockyards ; when some of my father's statements were ascertained to be so very accurate that he was supposed to have obtained sight of an official document which ought to have been considered confidential. To re move that impression he attended at the Board of Admi ralty, and he did so to the ' entire conviction' of Lord Mel ville and of the Board. A part of the conversation (of every word of which I retain a memorandum) is to the present point. You have stated, Mr. Tucker,' said Lord Melville, that eight sail of the line is the average annual produce of the yards. How did you get at that information ?" From the navy estimates.' How so ?' asked a sea lord ?" How ? why thus :—The navy estimates show every line-of-battle ship building and repairing, and when she is expected to be finished, and by comparing the estimates of one year with another it will be seen when any ship had been launched or put out of dock.' The members of the board looked at each other and said nothing, but the very next navy estimates assumed the very unintelligible form in which, as regards ships, they have ever since appeared ; while upon every other head they have ever since, year after year, given clearer and clearer information." In a letter accompanying the pamphlet, Admiral Tucker said the old system was put a stop to by Sir G. Cockburn, who, on learning that his father got his figures from the navy estimates, said " I will take care you don't get them for the future." Here, then, was the mystery solved, and he hoped his right hon. friend, perceiving that what was asked for was no new thing, would be disposed to grant that which in itself was but a reasonable demand. (Hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON assured the noble and gallant lord that he was always happy to receive a lesson when it was a good one. He thought he might venture to say that he had afforded proof to the house of his desire that nothing should be concealed which it was consistent with the public inte rests to disclose. (Hear.) For the present he could only promise his noble friend that he would turn his attention to this matter in the recess, and would consider how far he could submit the estimates in a fuller shape than at present. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY saw from the newspapers that tenders had been invited for steam machinery, the supply of which used formerly to be confined to two or three firms. He should like to hear from the right hon. baronet the prise at which the engines were obiained by open competition, as compared with that given when a practical monopoly ex isted. Another point to which he asked attention was as to the anchors supplied to the Admiralty. Some seven or eight years ago he served on a committee which condemned the Admiralty anchor as the worst of several which were exa mined, but this condemned anchor had, nevertheless, con tinued in use on board her Majesty's ships ever since, while the supply remained a monopoly in the hands of the same individual, and the country had continued to pay the monopoly price. He should be glad to hear from the First Lord an explanation on this point. Sir G. PE CHE L asked the right hon. gentleman whether his attention had been drawn to Capt. Kynaston's plan for lowering ships' boats at sea, which was described as parti • cularly effective ? Sir C. NAPIER hoped that any committee which might be appointed in the new Parliament would begin at the beginning, and inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. With regard to the Channel squadron he wanted to know what had been the use of the six, or seven, or nine sail-of-the line which composed it ? The ships had been lying idle in harbour, and the officers and men were gaining no experience whatever. When the present state of Europe was taken into consideration he did not thick the navy ought to be allowed to remain idle, and he should therefore express a hope that the First Lord of the Admi ralty would issue orders to the effect that the Chanel squa dron should move about from place to place, so that a more perfect practical knowledge of its duties might be ensured. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the hon. and gallant ad miral was too ready to depreciate the service to which he belonged. (Cries of " Hear, hear," and « No, no.") The gallant officer had commexced his observations by stating that the Channel squadron consisted of six or seven sail of the line, but he had subsequently set it down at nine, so that he had absolutely contradicted that which he himself had asserted. (Hear, hear.) The fact of the matter, how ever, was that the line of battle ships connected with the Channel squadron amounted at the present moment to 10, and that there were also in connection with it six of the most powerful frigates which had ever been seen in this country ; but the gallant admiral, not content with making contradictory statements, had proceeded to lecture the Board of Admiralty with respect to the places in which the Chan nel squadron was kept. In his opinion, however, the Ad miralty and the officers in command of the Channel squa dron must be allowed to be the best judges as to when it should proceed to sea or remain in harbour. (Hear, hear.) He could assure the hon. and gallant officer that he was fully alive to the importance of improving the discipline of the squadron, and that nothing would be left undone to promote that object. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the question of the hon. member for Tynemouth, in reference to the extension of the area within which tenders for steam engines might be received, he could only say that the mo nopoly which formerly existed—if it were a monopoly—had been destroyed, and that several houses had been invited to send in such tenders. He trusted, however, that he should be excused if he did not enter further into detail on the sub ject on the present occasion. His hon. friend had next pro ceeded to advert to the costliness and inferiority of the an chor used by the Admiralty as contrasted with that which might be obtained in other quarters ; but the committee would, he trusted, suspend their judgment on that point until certain returns which he had moved for had been laid on the table. When the information which might be ga thered from those returns was supplied it would, he thought, be found that the Admiralty anchor was neither so inferior nor so costly as his hon. friend seemed to suppose. He should next say one word in reply to the question of the hon. and gallant member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) in reference to the invention of Capt. Kynaston for the lower ing of boats. The public was, he admitted, very much in debted to the author of that invention. The experiments with respect to it were still in progress, and no final decision as to its adoption had as yet been made. (Hear, hear.) Sir C. NAPIEIt defended the justice of the observations which he had made, contending that there were two sail of the line at Gibraltar which the right hon. baronet numbered among the Channel squadron,but which might more properly be included in the Mediterranean fleet. He did not think it was fair of the right hon. gentleman to endeavour to blind the committee on so important a subject, while he adhered to the statement that the Channel squadron had been kept for a period of four or five months doing nothing at all. Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the vessels which the gallant admiral alluded to as having gone to Gibraltar might in a few days returns that they had never been attached to the Mediterranean fleet, and might justly be numbered among the Channel squadron. Admiral WALCOT complimented the right hon. baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the manner in which he had, since his accession to office, discharged the duties which it had fallen to his lot to perform. (Hear.) With regard to the Channel squadron being kept in an effi cient state, he would only say that he believed no officer could be better fitted to secure that end than Sir C. Fre mantle, by whom the squadron was commanded. He might also observe that, from all he could learn, the Channel squadron was in a high state of efficiency, and that when occasion arose it would be found prepared to uphold the honour of the country and the distinguished character of the service. (Hear, hear.) Mr. LINDSAY, referring to the observations made by Sir J. Pakington with respect to the Admiralty anchor, said he had taken his statement in reference to it from the report of a committee of that house, in which it was set forth that the Admiralty anchor was the worst of seven descrip tions of anchors, which had been brought under their notice. It appeared that the Admiralty, in accordance with their contract, paid at the rate of £44 10s. to £73 10s. a ton for their anchors, whereas they could be supplied by other firms at the rate of from £2O to £3O a ton. The result was an unnecessary outlay of 120 per cent. (Hear, hear.) General CODRINOTON urged 1 1 1 3 eh the Government the o xpediency of causing the Channel squadron to ma nceu vre, with the view of promoting its efficiency. If two ships , however, were sent to Gibraltar, and another to the West Indies, he did not exactly know how the small num ber o' f vessels which remained behind could manoeuvre with advantage. Le.rd LOVAINE said it must not be supposed that be calm( two or three ships were detached from the squadron for a time, they must not be regarded as portions of it for all imp) rtant purposes. The vote was then agreed to, as were also a vote of £5O, I )00 to defray the salaries of the officers of her Majesty's nava 1 force at home, and one of £B,OOO to defray the salaries of fix e officers of her Majesty's naval establishments abroad. A vote of £150,000 for the wages of the artificers and labor irers in her Majesty's dockyards and naval establish ments at home being put, Sir C. WOOD rose and said,—lf the present vote had been proposed in the regular course of the estimates I should have thought it my duty to make some comments upon it. As this is, however, merely a vote on account, and as it will bezecessary that the question should again be brought under cons ideration when the new Parliament assembles, I shall abstain from adverting to it further on this occasion. I may, nevertheless, be permitted to take this opportunity to throw myself on the indulgence of the committee while I reply to some observations which fell from the first Lord of the Ad dty in his statement in introducing the estimates a few weeks ago, and in which he impugned the conduct of the Board of Admiralty with which I was connected, in not building a sufficient number of larger line-of-battle ships, and in not paying sufficient attention to the relative infe riority of our naval force as compared with that of the French. This statement when made was so contrary to any thing which I could be supposed to have anticipated that I was not, at the moment, provided with the necessary docu ments to enable me to controvert it. I have, however, anxiously waited for this opportunity to reply to it, and, as I hope, successfully, to vindicate the course pursued in this respect by the Government of which I was a member. The right hon. baronet said that the increase in the number of larger line-of-battle ships had not proceeded so rapidly as the requirements of the public service demanded, and, had he confined himself to that assertion, I should have no reason to complain. But the right hon. gentleman went on to say that he considered it to be his duty to ask the House of Commons to assent to a large additional sum for the build ing of ships, because he was bound to state that, when he succeeded to office, he had not found the navy of the coun try in a condition adequate to the defence of our coasts. The right hon. gentleman added that he did not mean to impute any blame in this respect to his predecessors, but I appeal to the committee to say whether a more serious charge than that which I have just mentioned could have been made against us. My noble and gallant friend the mem ber for Sandwich, referring to the observations which fell from the right hen, baronet on that occasion, remarked that the first object which he seemed to have in view was to make an attack upon those who had preceded him in office; the next, to vindicate his claim to the large sum of money which he asked the House of Commons to vote ; and I would now ask the right hon. gentleman whether he could have been so ignorant of the actual state of our navy as the ac cusation which he made against us would seem to imply ? That accusation was one of a most serious character; one, indeed, so serious as, if true, to render our conduct open to impeachment. I trust, however, I shall be able to demon strate to the committee that the charge is devoid of founda tion, and to vindicate the characters of the gallant officers who were associated with me at the Admiralty Board, as well as my own conduct, from the aspersion which has been thus cast upon them. The accusation which the right hon. baronet has made against us resolves itself in point of fact into three heads—that we neglected to ascertain the state of the French navy ; that we did not build an adequate number of ships of the line ; and that we left the coasts of this country unprotected so far as its safety depended upon the existence of an efficient naval force. I shall now pro ceed to deal with those three charges. I went to the Ad miralty during the progress of the Russian war. The right hon. baronet who preceded me there had made great exer tions to strengthen our navy, and it became my duty to act still more vigorously in the same direction towards the close of the year 1855, and in the early part of 18.56. The result of those efforts was the magnificent fleet which in the latter year assembled at Spithead, which WAS alluded to in terms of high praise by the hen, member for Norfolk, and which I have reason to know excited upon both sides of the Atlantic the greatest admiration of the naval resources of England. (Hear.) It is of course perfectly just to say that our atten tion was then directed, to a great extent, to the building of vessels which were required for the purposes of the war in which we were engaged, but it is not correct to state that the building of line-of-battle ships was neglected during the years 1854, 1855, and 1856. It may, under the circum stances be matter of interest to know what was actually ac complished in that direction during this period. I may inform the committee then that the number of steam ves sels which was added to our navy during the three years I have just mentioned was : —Line-of-battle ships, 14 ; frigates, 6 ; block ships, 5 ; mortar ships, 3 ; corvettes and sloops, 18 ; floating batteries, 8 ; gun vessels, 28 ; gun boats, 156 ; troop and store, 10 ; tenders, &c., 36 ; making altogether 284 steam vessels ; added to which there were 106 mortar vessels constructed. (Hear.) Such was the addition which was made to the steam force of our navy during the last three years of the war. In 18,56 came peace, and it of course became necessary to reduce our naval force from the war establishment. No reduction, however, in the rate of building in our dockyards took place for nine months after, and they were not reduced fully to a peace expenditure until the Ist of April, 1857. Now, it became my duty in 1856 to consider the state of our navy with respect to the question of what our peace establishment should be, but I had not an opportunity of making a statement upon the subject until the month of May, 1857. I then entered into a very full explanation with re spect to it. I went at considerable length into a compari son between the state of our own and that of the French navy at the time. I adverted to the comparative strength of both at various periods of our history, and I referred to the additional cost of a steam as compared with a sailing fleet. I gave, in short, to the house all the information which I could procure on the subject, and I shall now, with the permission of the committee, quote one or two passages from the speech which I then made. I said on that occa sion : " The French are building large and more powerful line of-battle ships than ourselves. We ought not to be without the means of meeting such vessels." I then proceeded to state that the number of the French screw line-of-battle ships was 40, while our own was 42, and added that in this list I omitted our block ships, which, though very efficient for certain purposes, could not keep their place in a cruising or blokading squadron. I was fol lowed in the discussiou which ensued by the noble lord the member for Sandwich. Did he think I had overrated the force of the English navy and underrated that of the French ? Far from it. bl y noble friend said— " The First Lord has stated that we had 42 line-of-battle ships. The fact was that we had 51, for the nine screw block ships, which he had excluded from his enumeration of ships of the line, were amongst the most efficient of our line-of-battle ships." He then referred to the French naval force, and observed: "As reference had been made to the French navy, he might state that he held in his hand a list of their screw line of-battle ships with which he had been favoured by the French Minister. They amounted to 31, so that the number of our steam line-of-battle ships was nearly double that of our allies. He was of opinion, therefore, that the First Lord might with great propriety rest upon his oars, and take the opportunity of consulting members of the naval service before he proceeded to add to the number of these vessels. Instead of increasing our line of-battle ships he should appoint a committee to consider what descriptien of vessels ought to be built." I did not take the advice of my noble friend. I proceeded in building ships, and in doing so maintained a supply of men in our dockyards, the number of which was con demned by no less an authority than my right hon. friend the member for Carlisle. We did not reduce our dockyards to the peace establishment of the year preceding the war. We reduced it to the war establishment which my right hon. friend had sanctioned in 1854, and which was 1,200 men stronger than the peace establishment in ordinary times. What did the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) tell us ? He said 10,800 artificers was too great a number to keep up in time of peace. Now, in the ffrst year after the Russian war we continued to build line of-battle ships, and kept up a larger establishment for that purpose than the right hon. baronet thought was actually necessary. In the course of tkat year I authorised the hiring of additional men, and the excess of wages w as £17,000. The a moun t o f building done in 1857 was 50 per cent. greater than it was inthe year preceding the outbreak of the Russian war. It must be recollected that the launching of ships depends mainly upon the amount of building done in the preceding year. In 1857 there were added to the Royal navy 15 steamships, of which only two were line-of-battle ships; while in 1858 there were also 15 ships launched, in cluding eight line-of -battle ships. T admit that I did think in 1857 that building was proceeding as rapidly as could be desired ; and I went to Portsmouth myself, and I also sent Sir A. Milne, the Surveyor of the Navy, who reported to me upon the subject. Upon that report I prepared the estimates for 1858-9, containing a very considerable increase in the building force of the dockyards. As I have said, the amount of building depends upon the surplus number of men left disposable after providing for the fitting and repair of vessels. The average number of men employed in building in 1856 was 1,600, and we proposed an addition of 1,340 men, or about 83 per cent. It was not my fate to bring on those estimates, but those figures appeared upon the face of them as prepared by me. I had, too, then a statement of the comparative strength of the English and. French navies, in respect of steam line-of-battle ships. At that time the French had 22 line -of-battle ships, and we had 25, in ad dition to nine block ships, making a total of 34 vessels fit to take part in any action in the Channel. I have in my hand a nominal list of the French navy and a nominal list of the English navy, made out before I quitted office, and there fore I speak without fear of contradiction. My gallant friend (Sir C. Napier) made a similar statement, only that he stated we had 29 vessels and the French 23, but I be- I lieve he included in both instances vessels which were being fitted with engines. I have quoted the words of the right hon baronet opposite in my own vindication, and I again refer to his own stateme n t s as proving my case. He had the task of introducing the estimates last year, and lat that time told him I thought he was taking an injudicious step, and one prejudicial to the public service by diminishing the estimates that I had prepared in respect to the outlay for the building of steam line-of-battle ships. The right hon. baronet upon that occasion said---" The right hon. member for Halifax had complained that we had not line-of-battle ships enongh, and that we had only two more than the French. That was true, if only th e li ne - o f - b a ttl e s hi ps actually afloat were meant, and the block ships were ex cluded. He admitted that those block ships should be superseded by line. of-battle ships as soon as possible, but four or five of these ships were in good con diti on , an d it was not fair to exclude them." The right hon, baronet also went on to say that if ships building and converting were included, the superiority of England would be still more manifest, and the same observations applied to large frigates. Now, I submit I cannot have a more complete testimony of the condition in which I left the navy. I had no reason to believe that there were any additional exertions being made in the French yards, and, in fact, we know at that time there were none. Having quoted the right hon. baronet's words, I now adduc e hi s ac t s as comp l etely exculpating me from he charge which he has made. The efficiency of the navy in this respect depends upon three votes—the one we are now consideringfor works to be done in the dockyards, the one for stores, and the vote for improvements, &c. The right hon. gentleman reduced every one of those votes—not hastily, but after having very properly taken a month to consider the estimates, and then he came down here and spoke of the " prodigious expense" of the system that had prevailed, and of the "unprecedented force" in the dockyards. He stated that the reductions he proposed had been very carefully considered, and he was of opinion that the sums originally intended were not actually required for the efficiency of the public service. I had proposed to increase the number of men in the dockyards in order to'go on with the building of line-of-battle ships, but the right hon. gentleman reduced that vote, arguing against me upon our superiority over the French navy. We are aware of things now which were unknown to us at that time, and it now appears that before then the right hon. gentleman had received a submission from the Surveyor of the Navy that the building of line-of-battle ships was insufficient for the wants of the country. I should like, too, to know how the right hon. gentleman dealt with those two officers who formed a portion of his board as they did of mine. They, I know, concurred in my views, but how he managed to convert them or to overcome their opposition I can't tell. The right hon. baronet must either have converted them to his views, or he has overruled the opinions of those officers who had the best means of judging of what was right to be done. (Hear.) I have had no communication with those gentlemen upon the subject, but I draw the inference that the convictions of the right hon. gentleman must have been very strong when they enabled him to convert or overrule the opinions of such competent judges. Well, then, if he, after ample consideration and with the fullest information, thought it right to reduce my estimates because of our superiority over the French navy, I put it to any candid man in this house whether I am fairly liable to the imputation that has been cast upon me by the right hon. gentleman that I was ignorant or negligent of the state of the French navy. (Hear.) I think I have pretty well disposed of that charge, but there is just one other point to which I will advert, with respect to those block ships which the right hon. gentleman last year held in such high esteem, and which he now utterly condemns. Sir J. PAKINGTON.—As sea-going ships. Sir C. WOOD.—I said in 1857 that I did not consider them as sea-going ships, but the right hon. gentleman con demned that view, and expressed a much higher opinion of them then. He has since told us, " I have no hesitation in saying that the block s hip s are t o t a ll y use l ess. " Sir J. PAKINGTON.—That is not correct. It is not in my speech, which I have here. Sir C. WOOD.—AII I can say is, that I copied these words from the Times report. The right hon. baronet may, in correcting his speech for publication—and I see he has a copy in his hand—have struck out those words, but they were reported in the Times as I have quoted them. 1 would, however, remind the house that they must not sup pose that all the French ships are as fine sea-going ships as our new line-of-battle ships are. There is one of them I know, the Montebello, which has only 140-horse power, while the weakest of our block ships has 200-horse power. I say that for the defence of our coasts, at least, these block ships are good and efficient, and with regard to our force in line-of-battle ships we were stronger in that respect than France up to the time when I left office. I have a state ment of the force in each navy in January, 1858, and I found that at that time we had 25 screw line-of-battle ships and the French had 22. We had also nine block ships and 15 large screw frigates ; the French 11 screw frigates. Thus, including the block ships, we out numbered the French li ne - o f-b a ttl e s hi ps b y 34' to 22, and including heavy frigates our superiority was 16 vessels. Taking steam-vesssels of all other descriptions, large and small, in both countries, I find we had a total of 368, and the French had 144, leaving us a superiority of 224. Whether with that amount of force our coasts were in any danger, or whether any old woman had reason to fear being disturbed at night by a French invasion, is a point upon which the house can determine for themselves. The question that has been raised applied only to the build ing of line-of-battle ships, and I have confined my re marks solely to that point, and I think the house will agree that I was justified in making, and that I have succeeded in making, a complete exculpation from the charge that has been levelled at me and the Board of Admiralty with which I was connected, that we were ne gligent and that we left the coasts of this country in a de fenceless condition. (Hear, hear.) Whether the state of things whiCh existed when I left office has been altered since, I am not able to say, but I do know this, that the right hon. baronet reduced the power of building ships in April, having previously received a submission from the Surveyor of the Navy recommending a different course. He received another submission in July, and he also then obtained information of what was doing in the French dockyards, which caused him such considerable alarm asks described to us a few weeks since. He then found that we had 29 ships-of-the-line, and the French had the same number, and that at the rate of progress then going on in each country the number would be before the end of this year 40 French to 36 English ships. lam not responsible for the rate of working in 1858, but if the right hon. gentle man thought the progress in launching and conversion was insufficient, may I ask why did he reduce my estimates ? (Hear, hear.) I have here a statement issuing from the Surveyor's department, dated Christmas, 1857, showing the state of shipbuilding at that time, and the probable time of their completion. It was of course impossible to state pre cisely what would have been the case, but we anticipated launching before the end of the financial year 1859 a larger number of ships than the right hon. baronet proposes now to launch, with the exception of the eight vessels about to be converted. Now, let the house remember that in July last the right hon. baronet became acquainted with the pro ceedings in the French dockyards which hays-been alluded to. My belief is, that up to the winter of 1857-8 no great exertions were made in the French dockyards, but perhaps since then great exertions were made; nothing else can ac count for the line-of battle ships increasing from 22 in January to 29 in July. In that country they have the power of compelling workmen to leave :private yards to work in the Imperial dockyards, and I have seen lately that a very large supple mental credit is asked for on account of money expended in 1858 for the transformation of the navy. But surely it was the duty of the right hon. gentleman opposite, know ing these things in July, when Parliament was sitting, to have come down to this house and ask for a supplemental vote to enable him to carry on the work in our dockyards pari passu with the French. To be sure, he told us there were obvious reasons why he should not do so, and he spoke of the alarm that would have been created ; but the alarm would not have been greater in July last than it was in February. The Government were not pledged to their esti mates, because the right hon. baronet, in April, when moving them, said,— "If the present pressure continues at the close of the session,—if, in point of fact, we find that the late Govern ment was right, and that they did not exaggerate the re- I quirements of the country, I shall have no hesitation in coming down to the house before Parliament is prorogued." Surely, he knew in July all the facts which he knows now and he ought then to have done what he had said he should do if necessary. But what did he really do ? He took the men off job and task work and thus reduced the amount of the work done. I think the right hon. baronet assumed a very grave responsibility when he omitted to do as he said he would—come to this house for additional means to enable him to increase the building powers of the country. If he had done so he would not have lost, as he now has lost, nine valuable months. (Hear.) Even if he did not choose to do that he should have employed additional men, and it was his duty to have incurred the risk of exceeding the esti mates sanctioned by Parliament. If he had done so, and had made a statement of his reasons in the following Feb ruary, the house would, I am sure, not only have sanc tioned his proceedings, but they would have applauded them. In my own case, in 1854. after Parliament was prorogued, and we had ordered the construction of a certain number of gun vessels, we found that the Russians were buildin g a t a faster rate than ourselves, and I then consulted my noble friend then at the head of the Government, and he agreed with me as to the course I should take, which was to order the con struction of a large number of additional gunboats, which cost somewhere about half-a million sterling. It was my duty to do so, and if I had not done so I should have merited impeachment. I cannot but think the right hon. baronet has incurred grave responsibility by the loss of those nine months, for, although, of course, no one will object to the vote now asked for, yet money is not time, an d th e l a tt er cannot be recovered. I will not longer trespass upon the patience of the committee, but I think that I have shown that I was not negligent or ignorant of the state of the French navy—that I did take means which the right hon. gentleman himself thought were proper to increase the power of our dockyards—that when I quitted the Admi ralty our shores were in an adequate state of defence —and that, if from any unforeseen circumstances there should be at the end of the year 1859 any inadequacy of line-of-battle ships to meet any force that France could bring against us, such inadequacy is not faialy to be attributed to any neg lect on my part in the spring of 1858. I trust the com mittee will be of opinion that I have exculpated myself from the charge of having neglected the interests of the country, which has been imputed to me by the right hon. gentleman opposite. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON—Of all the questions which come under the consideration of the house none are so painful and none are so distasteful to the house as allusions of a personal character, Ido not blame the right hon. baronet, if he thinks my speech bore hardly upon him, for entering upon a defence; but I think he has imputed to me charges which I never made; and, next, I think, he has failed in his endeavour to vindicate his own administration of the navy. The right hon. gentleman has extended his obser vations to such a length that, at this hour (a quarter past five), I fear I shall scarcely be able to reply to them so fully as I could desire. He complains of this passage in my statement on introducing these estimates : " I may state at'once that we ask for this great addition to the cost of ship-building, because I am bound to say that when I succeeded to office I did not find the navy of this country in a proper and adequate state for the defence of our coasts and the protection of our commerce." These phrases were intended to cover all ;the various func tions which the navy of England has to perform—(hear)— and, taking that free and extended view of them, I beg to say I adhere literally to that statement. (Hear, hear.) I said— " I cheerfully do justice to former Governments, and espe cially to that which immediately preceded us, to which, in regard to many points, great credit is due ; and while they left many things still to be done, it is but fair to say that there were strong and obvious reasons connected with the Russian war why certain reforms should not then have been adopted." Surely there was no want of courtesy in that. ladded " It will be seen that during the time that right hon. gentleman was at the board of Admiralty considerable addi tions of the smaller vessels mere made, such as corvettes, sloops, and, above all, gunboats. I am not sure whether the addition of gunboats had not commenced in the time of the right hon. baronet the memberfor Carlisle; but our present gunboats were chiefly added ty the right hon. baronet the member for Halifax, and I do not think a more valuable addition has ever been made to the navy than those gun_ boats." Was that an attack on the right hon. gentleman ? I will trouble the house with one more extract. I said,— " Those additions were chiegy made in 1856 ; they had reference to the war then goiig on with Russia; and th e right hon. gentleman very naturally added vessels of a class suited to the emergency of the moment; but while a consi derable force of those gunboats and sloops were added to the n avy, the line-of-battle ships and frigates did not increase in the ratio which the interests of the public service de- Eluded, Ou the oontrarY, the reoult of the war was ttotu- ally to check the progress which ought to have been made in augmenting the number of line-of. hattle ships." Now, Sir, I ask, after reading those extracts—and there aro no others bearing on the point in question—is the right hon. gentleman justified in saying that I brought those three charges against him ? (Hear, hear.) If I erred at all, it was surely on the side of courtesy, and I am prepared to say that I do think the right hon. gentleman, partly from the causes to which I have adverted and partly from other causes, did not take those steps which were incumbent on him, in the position he occupied, with the view to strengthen our navy, and to make up the deficiency in our line-of battle ships 'which had resulted from the introduction of steam. In justification of that statement I would refer to a speech of the right hon. gentleman made in May, 1857, on bringing forward the new navy estimates. He said on that occasion,— " Nevertheless, it would be unwise not to continue build ing a certain number of ships of a large size. We must 100 to what other nations are doing in this respect. It is plain that no great naval engagement could be maintained in the middle of the Atlantic between line-of-battle ships and gunboats. The French are building large and more powerful line-of-battle ships than ourselves ; the United States also are building ships and frigates larger than any we have." Then he added a little on,— " He had never said, as had been supposed, that we must bring the numerical proportion of our ships to those of the French up to what it had been during the last war. All he said was, that when our line-of-battle ships only exceeded the French by two that was not the proportion that our fleet should bear." Here I find in May, 1857, a distinct acknowledgment on the part of the right hon. gentleman that our line-of-battle ships were not what they ought to be when compared with the French force ingthat respect. Why, I ask, did he not take steps to redress that inferiority, and to restore the strength of the navy to what it ought to be ? (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says he did. I join issue with him, and say he did not. The statement I have just quoted was made in 1847 by the right hon. gentleman on moving the estimates ; but in that year he took no steps whatever to correct the deficiency the existence of which he had avowed. He did nothing to remedy it, and we have had it from his own lips that in the financial year 1857-8 two line of-battle ships were launched, which is one less than the maintaining rate of three per annum. (Hear, hear.) So much for the year 1857. I come now to the year 1858, when I succeeded to office. What had the right hon. gen tleman done then ? I understood him to say that eight line-of-battle-ships were launched in 1858. Sir C. WOOD—What I said was that eight line-of-battle ships were added to the navy in 1858, as appears by a return which I hold in my hand. Sir 3. PAKINGTON (resuming)—l hold in my hand a return from which it appears that, instead of eight, the number is only four. (A laugh.) Sir C. WOOD—Here is a return, signed by Sir Baldwin Walker, surveyor of the navy, showing that of steamvessels added to the navy in 1858 there were eight ships of the line —namely, four built and four converted, (A laugh.) That is the statement contained in paper 65 of the present ses sion, for which I moved on the 16th of February. Sir J. PAKINGTON (continuing)—Well, I hold in my hand a printed return, showing that there were only four added--(a laugh)—viz., the Donegal, the Windsor Castle, the Hero, and the Edgar. I can only reconcile the differ ence by assuming that there were four built and four con verted. But that does not affect the argument I was pur suing, which is, that the right hon. gentleman, having ac knowledged that he was then aware of the deficiency, did not take the necessary steps to correct it. The mode in which I prove this is by referring to the course taken by the right hon. gentleman on the estimates of last year. What was that course ? The right hon. gentleman added £lOO,OOO to the estimates of the preceding year for shipbuilding. Well, we all know that £lOO,OOO, even if that sum had been available for the purpose, would do very little towards re dressing the deficiencies in the navy, having regard to what ought to be its proper strength. But the proposal of the right hon. gentleman to add £lOO,OOO was not really an addition to that amount, for he had taken £30,000 too little in the previous year, 1857, so that the actual addition to the estimates of last year was only £7o,ooo—(hear, hear) I leave it to the house to determine whether an addition of £70,000 to our naval estimates wassufficient to bring up our force to the position in which it ought to be, considering the state in which it was at that moment. (Hear, hear.) But I have a still more serious question to ask the right hon. gentleman. I find in his speech of 1857 a statement to which he has adverted to-day, but without giving the figures, showing the comparative strength of the English and French navies. That statement was made on the 18th of May, 1857. The right hon. gentleman stated the comparative naval force of England and France in 1793, 1817, 1840, and 1857. He was then speaking of ships-of-the-line. His statement was that on that day, the 18th of May, 1857, the English screw line-of-battle ships were 42, and the French screw line-of battle ships 40. "In this," the right hen, gentlemen said, " I omit our blockships, which, though very efficient for certain pm-poses, could not keep their places in a cruising or blockading squadron." I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman where those 42 line-of-battle ships are ? (Hear.) He stated on the 18th of May, 1857, that we had 42 screw line-of-battle ships, exclusive of blockships. In January, 1858, we had only 25 screw line-of-battle ships. (Hear.) Sir C. WOOD—that statement the right hon. gentleman will find includes the screw line-of-battle ships which were building and converting, as well as those which were afloat. Of those there were 42 English and 40 French. Sir J. PAKINGTON (resuming)—Now that the right hon. gentleman has made that explanation I must say I think he was not dealing candidly with the house, seeing that in his statement on the 18th of May, 1857, he was in cluding ships which at this moment are not launched. (Hear.) I should have had no objection to the right hon. gentleman making that statement if he had plainly told the house what he actually meant ; but he did no such thing. I told the house the other night how many ships we were building and converting, and what the state of those ships was ; but the right hon. gentleman was not so explicit on the 18th of May, 1857, for he merely said we had then 42 screw ships of the line, and the French 40. I think every man who heard that statement of the right hon. gentleman, or read it, would be led to the belief that that was the effective force at that moment, and nobody could ever suppose that the right hon. gentleman was practically, though not intentionally, misleading the house and the country by stating the number of ships which the country could only suppose were effective, but including, in reality, the ships which now, two years after, are still on the stocks and yet unlaunched. (Hear, hear.) I think the house and the country have a right to complain of the right hon. gentleman's statement as wanting in candour and in - nuousness. If the f orce was th en i n the state which he I.as now explained, it was his duty as First Lord of the Admi ralty to have said so frankly to the house. (Hear, hear.) I confess I cannot understand, if that was his meaning, how he could have been so wanting in ingenuousness as not to tell the house that, instead of having 42 ships afloat, we had on his own showing I know not how many ; for, in the fol lowing month of January we had only 25 effective line-of battle ships. (Hear.) When I succeeded to office I found a fleet with only 25 or 26 line-of-battle ships, and that the right hon. gentleman had proposed an addition of £lOO,OOO to increase the force. What had he done to correct that state of things? Next to nothing. He did add £70,000 to the. estimates when we had only 25 line-of-battle ships. I say the right hon. gentleman neglected his duty. To come down to this house, as the Naval Minister, and propose an increase of only £70,000 to the estimates, at a time when we had only 25 line-of-battle ships, I say was to fall greatly short of the duty which he owed to his country. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says that ono of my charges was that ho did not know the state of the French navy at that time. I did not make that charge. I said, from the information I received when I came to the Admi ralty, I did not believe they were apprised of the state of affairs in France with that accuracy with which they ought to have been informed. Again, the right hon. gentleman says I overruled the members of the Board. I beg leave to tell him I did no such thing. We had no difference at that Board, and I am happy to say we never had. The right hon. gentleman complains that I cut down his estimates. But, how much ? Upon the matter of dockyard ahe l dOw wished , sOaho added dd. thee d IS that error ro owrsßaldwin a baod;udst xst W thheo a ow e o r h labour I took off £20,000. I first proposed to take off o remonstrated, and said e £30,000n1 It d om i d wa sdhoei my Iy; statement then tvee dis covered to the house in April the real difference between the ri nirt ih nd i hon. gentleman's estimates and mine was only £20,000. But f l e r w e n o ul e e n f o h h a a d v e k n m o w a de t t h h e a n t d w i h ff a e r t e c I k e n , o o w r i n n o d w e e of d a t n h y e d i f in efficient state in which the navy was left by the right hon. gentleman. He talks of my speech of the 12th of April. How long had I th en b een i n off i ce ? Why not a month. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman says, that after full deliberation I did so and so. Why the truth is, I had not then had a full opportunity of ascertaining the state of the English, much less that of the French navy. (Hear.) I only said then that I was unwilling to adopt large estimates without first satisfying myself of their necessity; but, un doubtedly, if I found that necessity I would ask for an increased vote. The right hon. gentleman says I did so in spite of the remonstrances of Sir Baldwin Walker. No such thing. The right hon. gentleman has misunderstood what I said on a former evening. I corrected the estimate after I took office, previously to receiving, so far as I re member, that " submission" from Sir Baldwin Walker which came into the Admiralty either at the extreme end of March or the beginning of April. [Sir C. WOOD. —March.] But why was it that we received that " submission ?" If the right hon. gentleman had done his duty to the Board of Admiralty, if he had 'put the navy of England on the footing on which it ought to be, or even proposed to put it on the footing on which it ought to be, why was it, I ask, that the Surveyor of the Davy felt obliged to come to me, immediately on my taking office, and make a remonstrance as to the defective state of the navy, and implore that I would forth with proceed to add to the number ofline-oft-hbeatrtilgehsthihposn.? (Cheers.) Why, the very fact of that "submission" h av i ng been made is the most conclusive evidence o f that neglect of the navy of . this country which gentleman has denied. If he had put the navy o n an effec tive footing, Sir Baldwin Walker would have had no occa sion to come to the Admiralty with such a "submission" on our immediately taking office. The remonstrance was made in April, and I immediately added £50,000 t,, what I had proposed. In the following month of May there was another "submission" from Si r B . Walker ; and what did do then? Why, we imm e di ately put our whole dock yard force on task and job work, and it was owing to the exertions we then made that we were enabled to have It h C e h a a r nn .) el T F h l e ee ri t ogfhstixholn gentleman shi sa p y s a i t n .twas August. (Hear, m y duty to have come down to the house in July and ask for an In creased estimat e . B ut, sir, it was only at the ex treme end of July , j ust towards the close of the session, that we discovered that which the right hon. gentleman ought before to have discovered—namely, the rapid strides which the French navy (Hear, hear.) Why did not the right honge w neman find that out ? Why was it reserved for us in the month of July, in consequence of in quiries prosecuted during the summer ? We then learnt the state of the French navy and the rapid advance which i t was making ; b u t when those discoveries were mad e Parliament was on tho point of breaking up, and we could not then have come before the house with a supplemental estimate ewihthaodubt e t e a n ki o n n g a th c e ou e r v s e e wofhiwcharwwaes w unusual, and unless should no t h a ve been justified in creating the alarm which such a step would have produced .d the country. (Hear, d ? D hear.) What did we o neglect the occasion ? No. We immediately took the most active and effective a dapt our position to it ; we proceed e d t o conver t our atep line-of-battle to ships, which are now practically added to our iv y,and so endeavoured to restore t o it th at e ffi c i ency w hi c h we found did not exist when I cam e t o th e Ad m i ra lt y. p/ ear .) And now that we have co me t o a new session of ar liament, and have had to frame our own estimates, we have not, like the right hon. gentleman, made a proposal to take a !Foto of 40,000, we vro dad culy 25 effective WA. of-battle ships; we have - LAI al a very different line, and I suspect that is the real cause) of the speech we have heard to-day from the right hon. g' entleman, and of the sena hive ness he has shown with r t c z !;a rd to charges which were Dever made. Instead of taking a :ote for £70,000, we have pro posed to take one for £1001),000, which will enable us to add 26 powerful men-of-wr I,r to the navy, and to redress, so far as it is possible to redre u , that positive and relative de ficiency in our naval force v ihich the late Government Al ad allowed to exist. (Cheers. ,1 Sir, under th e p ressurs o f time (it was now nearly a qu after to 6 o'clock) I have I tad to advert to the topics embri iced in the right hon. gent le man's speech, but lam not aware that I have omitted to notice any of his observatio ms. I think I have satisfied the house that the right hon.. gentleman had no reason. to complain, and that if I erred. at all it was on the side of courtesy. I hope, too, I, have satisfied the house that, c on sidering the state of thing's which I found on succeeding; to office at the Admiralty, it wits impossible, under the oir cumstances, and with every desire to discharge our du.ty, to do more than take the steps we have done, with the viuw to bring the navy to a pitch. of efficiency commensurstte with the requirements of the times in which we live. (Cheers.) Sir C. NAPIER said he did m see how the house could reconcile the statements just nto de by two First Lords of the Admiralty. He could not do so, and it was his opinion that there was blame on both sides I. (Laughter.) The gallant admiral continued his observations tup to a quarter to 6,when a. cry of time arose, at which the ga Uant admiral took up his hat and said, "I'll reserve the rest; till to-morrow." The debate was then adjourned_ MARKETS (IRELAND) BILL. The order for the committal of this bill was read and dis charged. REGISTRATION OF BIRTifiS (IRELAND) BILL. The order for the second reading of this bill was dis charged. REGISTRATION OF COUNTY VOTERS (SCOT- LANM BILL. The order for the second . ,"eatling of this bill was dis charged. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL. • On the motion of Mr. Daummo,qp, this bill was read a second time, and ordered to be comt nitted to-morrow. WESTMINSTER NEW B 1 tTGE BILL. Lord J. MANNERS brought in a bill to empower her Majesty's Commissioners of Works to acquire an additional space for the western approach to Westminster new bridge. The bill was read a first time. NAVAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND. Mr. CORRY obtained leave to bring in a bill to continue the act for the regulation of annuities and premiums of the Naval Medical Supplemental Fund Society. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned. COUNTRY MARKETS: NEWARK. -APRIL 6. A tolerable supply of wheat, but there was a d all feeling in the trade, and all good qualities realised the rates of last week. There was not much doing in oats, barley, and beans, and prices were without change. White wheat, new, 44s to 48s Barley, grinding.. 28s to 30s Red do. 3Bs to 42s Oats, old, .. 24s to 30s Old white 44s to 48s New do 26s to 30s Red do. 38s to 42s Beans.. 40s to 48s Barley, malting....36s to 44s Peas ....---6 tO,-15 MARKET HARBOROUGH—APRIL 5. There was a small show of wheat yesterday, which sold at the prices of last week—from 38s to 41s , barley firm, at 36s to 40s. per qr. ; oats, 24s to 30s per 24 stone ; beans, 40s to 48s per 38 stone. MELTON MOWBRAY—APRIL 5. At the market to-day the supply of wheat was limited ; there was less barley offering, late prices being obtained for both malting and distilling sorts. In oats, beans, or peas little doing. Wheat ... 37s to 40s Oats . .30s to 35s White do .38s to 43s Beans .. 40s to 44s Barley .36s to 42s Ditto, old 44s to 48s NEWCASTLE—APRIL 5. The show of wheat is not large, and the trade quiet, and prices can only be quoted about equal to last week. Fine barley at full rates. The demand is limited for beans. oats, and other articles, without alteration in values. —and HULL—APRIL 5. At this corn market to-day there was a small supply of wheat, which was in good condition, with a slow inquiry at about the rates of last week. Barley was in small supply, at late rates. Beans and peas dull and rather easier. Oats quiet, without change in value. Wheat.... Old white.... per qr . 40s Od to 485 Od Old red New white • . „ New red .... „ Dantzic, Konb , &c. old white 508 Od to 53s Od Dutch, Belgian, and French 458 Od to 468. Oct Baltic and Hamburg, red... 43s Od to 458. Od St. Petersburg an d Riga, old. 38s Od to 39s Od Barley.... English malting 338 Od to 378 Od Grindine , 285 Od to 30s. Oct Seal and Oderbruck Holstein and Danisk 29s Od to 31s Od Grinding Oats ...... English, old Archangel and Riga, per st Os lld to 11 id Friesland and Dutch Osllfd to 18 Od Swedish and Danish oBlld to Osajd Beans ....English, old, per qr .. 40544 o O d d t o o 4462: OctOd New pigeon New tick. 39s Od to 40a Od Egyptian Peas .. Foreign breakers ........... 40s Od to 41s Oct Grinding .................. 388 Oct to 498 Od Tares ....Winter .................... 85s Oct to 908 Od Indian Corn ........................ 30s Oct to 328 Od Linseed, feeding ...................... 50s Oct to 558 Oct crushing . ............... .. .. 448 Od to 51s , OdLinseed cakes (Hull). ............. £9 5 oto X 9 10 0 Foreign BlO oto 815 0 Rape cakes 6lO oto 615 0 Bones DUBLIN-APRIL 5. We had a dull and heavy market at our corn exchange to-day, without any alteration in the general currencies of Friday last. Indian corn only saleable in the merest ire. tail. s. d. s. d. s. d. 8. 4. Wheat, white.. 23 oto 26 0 Do., new ..... 11 6to 13 0 Do., red .. 21 6t023 6 Bere Do., new .... 23 0t026 0 Rapeseed .. • • 26 oto 29 0 Barley Oats Do., black lO 6to 11 0 Indian corn .. 28 oto3o 0 responsibility [ADVERTISEMENT.] —Holloway ' s Pills and Oi n tment...-. too freque n tl y, a l as, thoughtlessly Female Complaints.—On the moth ers o f E ngland devolve in securing to th e i r culpable bashful ness at a particularperiod of life, cur ch whchteed rsn and e allyb s:L important chan ges ta k e place in the female cons titution, and upon th e proper management of which sdmaaubroitouhsealth, hangs future happiness or misery. Neglect in assisting nature has consigned thousands to despondency, disease, and premature death. Holloway's Pills, especially if a id e d by the ointment, have the happiest effects in establishing these functions, upon the due performance of which our social position depends, and our race saved from degenera tion. Mothers and daughters may safely use these power ful deobstruent remedies without feeing the faculty. [ADVERTISEMENT.] -- SIGHT AND HEARING. SPEC.' TACLES.—POWERFUL TELESCOPES: —OPERA, RACE, AND PERSPECTIVE GLASSES. — Messrs. S. and B. Solomons, opticians, 39, Albermarle-Street, Piccadilly. Observe-- opposite the York Hotel, W.—Opera, Race-course, Field, and general Out-door Day and Night Perspective Glasses, very small, for the waistcoat p oc k e t, eac h con t a i n i ng 12 and, 18 lenses, constructed of German glass. Will show dis tinctly a person to know them at two-and-a-half and three miles, and an object from eight to ten miles distant. Her Majesty's Coast Guards are making use of them as day and night glasses in preference to all others ; they are also pre ferred for deer-stalking by sportsmen, gentlemen, and gamekeepers. Telescopes 3± inches long, by which a per son may be clearly seen and known at 3± miles' and an object at 12 to 14 miles' distance; and with an extra astray nomical eye-piece, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rings, and the double stars are distinctly seen. All the above can be had of larger and all sizes, with increasing powers, and are secured by her Majesty's Royal Letters Patent. The Royal Exhibition, 1851. A valuable, newly.. the size of a walnut, by which a person can b e see* n vented, very small, powerful Waistcoat-pocket Gla ss, and known one and a half mile distant. They answer every purpose on the Race-course and at the Opera houses. Country scenery and ships are clearly seen at four to six miles. They are invaluable for shooting, deer-stalking, yachting, to sportsmen, gentlemen, game keepers, and tourists. Price 30s.—Spectacle Lenses of the greatest transparent power. The great advantage derived from this invention is, that vision becoming impaired is preserved and strengthened, and very aged persons are enabled to employ their sight at the most minute occupation —can see with those lenses of a much less magnifying power, and they do not require the frequent changes to the dangerous effects of further powerful assistance. Persons can be suited at the most remote part of the world by send ing one of the gl asses out of their spectacles in a letter, and stating the distance from the eyes they can read small print with it, and those who have not made use of spectacles by stati ngtheirage. Deaf ness. —N ew Discovery.—Th e O rganic Vibrator, an ex t raordinarily powerful small newly-in ven t e d in strument for D ea f ness , entirely digerent from all others, surpasses anything of the kind that has been, or probably ever can be, produced. B e i ng of the same colour as the skin, is not perceptible. It enables deaf persons to hear distinctly a t c h urc h an d at public assembli es; t h e unplea sant sensation of singing noises in the ears i s entirely re. Albemarle-street, Piccadilly. Observe-- moved, and it a ff ords a the assistanc e th at possibly could desired.-39, be opposite the York Hotel, W. BIRTHS, AsHBY.—On the 6th inst., at Croydon, the wife of James Ashby, of a son. M ETHER.—On the sth i nst., at Bowden-hill, Wilts, grsl.TH. A. Merowether, of a daughter. UrcnEn.—On the 4th inst., at Sheringham Hall, Norfolk, the wife of H. R. Ifpcher, Esq., of a son. WHITE. —On the sth inst., at 16, Cadogan-place, the wife of Colonel Henry Dalrymple White, C. 8., of a daughter. MARRIAGES BARRWORTH—SMITH.—On the sth inst., at St. James's Piccadilly, J. C. Barkworth, Esq., of the Inner Temple, barrister-at-law, and of the London Stock Exchange, to Ellen Sarah, fourth surviving daughter of Chas. Smith, Esq., of Tottenham, Middlesex. JOSEPH--PHILLIPS.—On the 6th inst., Mr. Edw. Joseph, of 81, Aldersgate-street, to Kate, eldest daughter of P. S. Phillips, Esq., of 36, Finsbury-circus. DEATHS. ALBERT.—On the 2d inst., at Godden-green, near Seven oaks, Kent, Henry, second son of Lieut. and Adjutant Albert, W.K.Y.C., aged 18. BUSHNELL.—On the Ist inst., Jane, the wife of Augustus B. Bushnell, of 17, Wilton-street, Grosvenor-place. DORIA.—On the Ist inst., at Manton, Rutland, Captain A. Doria, late H.E.1.C.5., aged 42. HARDY.—On the 3d inst., at Bath, John Peter Hardy, Esq., aged 70. HILL —On the 4th inst., Mr. John Hill, of 22, Fish-street hill, aged 78. ROBESON.—On the 4th inst., at Southsea, Ann, wife of , Lieut.-Colonel Robeson. . LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, Of No, 112, St rand, Pr i nter, at The Sun Office; 'No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlele; Thursday, 4 41 7,185 y , INC DU PLA PR Intl App' aume of Gra parti, COllB l injur of bo, Th, any c Ma Shilli AND _ . Bead HER 15s. Patel Bash lus Item, Ci T form Row low Instl don. T Tl dick] Roy: lege New Oxfc un '-urea PI COP Prep Cubt trial once their 135.) T 1 Bpct Pow all c Prey 11e. 11a. sypi gym thr( spit savi disc blot 48. Lon R. a ON tom and wits tion a va R. a lane Lon