The Sun. — London, England, 1861-03-01 00:00:00

Asia, with a mixed population; and any day Russia might get up a disturbance in Armenia. What would be the re sult ? There would be a French army in Syria and a Rus sian army in Bulgaria, and the very thing that this country went to war for would be filched from our hands. The pro per course would have been to call upon Turkey to put down the disturbances that had taken place. She said she would, and she had proved that she could, because we knew that the massacres had ended, and that there was a reconci liation between the Druses and Maronites before the French troops set foot upon the soil. Therefore the principle of this intervention was disastrous and dangerous. He was not blaming the noble lord for this. The noble lord was under a pressure which he could not resist,and he trusted to hear that the noble lord did protest most energetically against the occu pation of Syria. 'With regard to its present effects they were disastrous. One element of the population of Damascus was the idle and vagabond class, who, in the name of reli gion, but for the sake of plunder, massacred Christians and plundered the houses. Let these persons be punished to any extent. But the other parties, the Druses and Marenites, were on a very different footing. They had had a long series of feuds, which broke out last year, and ended in a horrible way. He (I'd not wish to palliate, but let him ask who was the cause of it ? 'Why, the author of the document which his hon. friend the member for Ayrshire read just now, and which was published in the newspapers. In that document the bishop called on the population to attack the Maronites, and he believed he used the phrase, " Spare not woman or child—exterminate the whole race." He knew on the best authority that when the proclamation was given to the French papers the French Government refused to allow it to be inserted. That proclamation was genuine. The massacres followed. The French Government, under the sanction of the convention, sent an army to Syria. Why ?to maintain the cause of humanity and Christianity. Was that the way to maintain that cause ? Was Christianity to be connected with the most atrocious acts of injustice ? If so, he should say shame on such Christianity. He trusted what had been said was not true, but they had heard from no less a person than the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—his words read as if it were under the sanction or with the con currence of the French army—that in ono place 120 Druses were put to death, among whom were 25 women and six children. If that were the case, if the French troops had sanctioned the destruction of these people, we should dis tinctly declare that we were no parties to this deed, and let it be clear that our Christianity was something better than such a Christianity as that. It was 22 years since he first went to Lebanon. At that time that magnificent slope was peopled by the most industrious, peaceable and happy popu lation ho ever saw. Every square inch was a garden, where there WAS no natural soil, earth was brought from a long distance by great toil. He never saw anything to be compared to Lebanon in that respect. Every traveller was astonished with the beauty of the scenery and the wealth and prosperity of the people. In other parts of Syria there were wild Arabs, and caravans wereplundered. In Lebanon the traveller was received hos➢itably by a mixed population of Druses and Maronites. There was a chief who dispensed among his people a kind of feudal justice. His orthodoxy was suspected. Ho was a Druse, but he kept in his inner apartment a Roman Catholic priest. Now there was ruin, desolation, burnt houses, destroyed villages, population scarcely existing, or existing in a famishing state, and poor Emir Pasha murdered ; and what was the cause of all this? Foreign ambition, foreign missionaries, foreign protection ; and wherever they had this system they would have the same thing over again. He hoped that the assertion that these atrocities were committed with the sanction of the French troops would be denied. Sir J. FERGUSSON was understood to explain that he did not say the French troops were present. Mr. LAYARD said—Well, he trusted that these things would be replied to by the French nation; but it was of no use denying the fact that for the last 20 years French in trigue had been going on on this subject, that the French Government had united itself with the Maronites, and that the English interest was found uniting itself with the Druses. He did not mean to say that we had identified our selves with the Druses, but no doubt we were looked upon as their supporters against the Maronites. He wished the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would lay before them the re ports that were made by a distinguished member of the diplomatic service, Mr. Alison, who on more than one occa- thou was sent to Syria. That report was made some years before this massacre, and he ventured to say would show that it was inevitable. He would now refer a moment to the conduct of the Christians. He should be glad if the ideas in England about Christians in the East were some what enlightened. They had heard that when the Mare nites were asked how many lives would satisfy them, at first they said 8,000, and then, by a kind of Dutch auction, they carne down to 1,200. And who made this demand ? Why the bishop, whom he had heard some in this country looked , upon as representing the Eastern Church. Compare the conduct of the Christians with that of the Druses. Now he was also a member of the committee for distributing support and funds to the suffering people in the East, and he was glad to take the opportunity to say that the committee was formed on a most liberal principle, and he only consented to become a member of it on the condition that the word " Christian" should be struck out of every document con nected with it, and that relief should be given to all. It was a committee for humanity and not for politics. What had been the result ? He had been informed that men of all denomina• ions would come and get blankets from the com mittee and immediately afterwards sell them, and thus make a regular traffic in their ruiserie,s. (Hear.) But how had the Druses acted under these circumstances ? It was a remark• able fact that while the Christians came down in numbers to obtain relief there was not a single Dense amongst them. Noble and single-minded men as they were, they preferred living on acorns and bread made from acorns, and to die one by one, rather than come to the fund, and confess that they were suppliants for our charity. (Hear.) The contrast be tween them and the Christians Was a striking one. The latter were destitute of the manly attributes of the other race, and they were as cowardly as they were bloodthirsty. Ho believed nothing could have exceeded the disgraceful conduct of the Christians during the trial of the Drusee. He would not justify the conduct of the Druses. They were a half-civilised set of men, among whom events like these were almost sure to occur, and they should make the best allowance for them that they could; but it would be infamy upon the part of this country if it permitted those men who had been condemned to be executed. (Hear, hear.) The effects of the convention into which we had entered with the other Powers had been most disastrous, and so would its results be hereafter. That convention was about to expire, and they were told that it was about to be renewed. He presumed that Turkey would not give her consent to its renewal, but in that case she would be made to do so. Had she, however, told them that she was able un aided to keep down Syria ? If in direct opposition to that statement the French were allowed to keep their troops there, what would be the natural and logical deduction to be drawn from that state of facts ? Why this : that the five great powers assembled in Paris could virtually dispose of any territory in Europe. That was the logical conclusion—and a most dangerous one it was—that the strong powers could dispose of the weak ones. (Hear, hear.) What power would be safe if such a principle were admitted? if the Turkish government could take care of their country they ought to do it. They had been told by the French press, that if the French troops leave Syria there will be an immediate repetition of the late events. No doubt there would be. But who would be the cause of them, and who would have paved the way for them ? Why the French themselves : who had got every bishop and priest in the country under their influ ence. The disturbances would occur again, and the French would throw the blame upon this country. That would be one effect of the convention. On the other hand, if the French troops were• to remain in Syria, how long would the occupation continue ? Did they think Syria would be better for this ? On the contrary, it would be a great deal worse, and the existing hatred and feuds would become mere embittered. The convention ought not to be renewed. That was tho principle ueon which they ought to go. England ought to demand that it should cease, and that the Turks should be allowed to govern the country themselves, and if the govern ment could not do so, then those who resided in the country should be allowed to govern themselves and fight their quarrels out. That would be the best policy, and peace between the contending parties would soon be attained. The convention appeared to him to be the most disastrous political measure which had been known in Europe for many years past. He begged to assure the noble lord that he had not made these observations in any spirit hostile to the Government or to himself. But he hoped and believed that, supported by the opinion of the house and of the country, the noble lord would put an end to this convention. (Hear, hear.) Mr. D. GRIFFITH rose to put a furthPr question to the noble lord, but being received with ci ies of " Oh, oh," and groans from all parts of the house, the hon. gentleman re sumed his seat. Lord J. RUSSELL then spoke as follows—Sir, I will endeavour, with respect to the very serious discussion wh ic h it has arisen, to be as impartial as possible, b e c ause I fe el is a very serious discussion, the importance of which cannot b e exaggerated ; but if it is right to find fault with much that has been done in Syria, on the other hand we ought not to char ge either the Government or the army of a great nation with which We are in alliance without the strongest proof or evidence that what we charge them with must be imputed to them as a fault. Now, sir, I will in the first place reply to the obseit vations of the hon. member for Horsham (Mr. Fitzgerald), end then recur to what has taken place in re ference to Syria;; The hcn, gentleman asked me a question with respect to thenote presented by the Russian Ambassa dore hon to the /Waist/me ef Affairs at C ons t an ti no pl e . Th. gentleman has referred accurately to what I said last year with respect to what took place at St. Petersburg, an d the proposal made to the Turkish Government that there should be a joint commission which should go to Syria. I was convinced that such a joint. commission would impair the authority of the Tnrkish Government, and I was con firmed in that opinion by the statement of Prince Gortseha- koff t 6 our Ambassador in answer to our objections. Ile sa id that unless European commiss ion ers were p resent in 03yria, the witnes ses who would be b rought forward to prove the abuses oh the part of Turkish officials would b e afraid to tell the truth. If that were so, and these ea rn . zurnefonera were intended to protect the evidence gi ven 111810.0 the Turkiek Governmen t, their protection would ob- viously be expected by witnesses who came forward uttering falsehoods against their own government, and who sought foreign protection with a view of weakening it. (1-1. , ar, hear.) That plan was relinquished, and a new propos t was lately made to the Turkish Government that an inq y should be instituted at Constantinople by the Grand V zier, or some high minister at the Porte at the head of i . as to whether the convention should be extended. But that proposal has been rejected by the Turkish Government, and has not been renewed. The Russian Government made another proposal that the reforms now in contemplation by the Grand Vizier should be communicated to foreign governments, and in that proposal Sir H. Bulwer, our Ambassador at Constantinople, concurred, and thought it was a desirable step to take. I agree with him that it would be a desirable step, but of course it is not intended that these foreign ambassadors should do anything more than point out in what way these proposed reforms should be effected, leaving it to the Turkish Govern ment to adopt or reject the suggestions which might be made to them. With regard to bringing the note to which the hon. gentleman referred before the conference at Paris, I may state that that note is in answer to a report of the Grand Vizier—it is a note stating that very imperfect evi dence had been laid before him, and supporting the asser tions by details and particulars. The note contains no ques tion for the conference of Paris. It is a question for the con sideration of the Government of the Porte enly, and we said at Constantinople that it was desirable the Grand Vizier or the Minister for Foreign Affairs should make an answer to the note, for the charges therein made are very grave charges and ought not to be passed over without reply. I now come to the affairs of Syria, and I am very sorry that, having to speak not entirely from 45fficial sources but likewise from reports made to me by foreigners and travellers, I have to concur in much of what the hon. and gallant member (Sir J. Fergus son) has stated. (Hear, hear.) It should be stated that by tho arrangements of 1842, confirmed and enlarged by that of 1845, there are two separate authorities set up in the Leba non, to a great degree independent of the Turkish gover nors in the provinces of Syria. One of these is called the Kaimacan, and be is a Christian. The other rules over that portion of the country inhabited by the Druses, and is a Druse. These two officers, exercising their authority in virtue of the European arrangement, and under the protec tion of the great powers, have been, it is stated, and, as I believe, objects of considerable jealousy on the part of the Turkish Government, who would have preferred, and I do not blame them, to have their own authority paramount in Syria and independent of foreign influence. The hon. and gallant gentleman. has stated in part what occurred at Da mascus, but there are other statements which I have heard, and which I am inclined to believe, and these ought to be told, because it is not desirable to conceal the difficulties of of the situation or the errors which we have to repair. The officials named by the Porte and sent as governors into the provinces are found, in some cases, excellent and honest governors, but in other cases they have endeavoured to amass wealth very rapidly by oppressing the provinces, and by those means have defrauded the Sultan. It is said the governor of Damascus had been ordered to send a body of troops for the security of Damascus, and at the same time to be disposable for other parts of the empire. This governor did not raise those troops, but he informed the Sultan that he had done so, and he drew the money for their pay, and he went on for three years stating that these troops had been raised. That governor was desired to send one of those bodies of troops to the provinces on the Da nube, where there was danger, and he had not the troops at his command—they did not in fact exist. Thereupon he cleared the prisons, and took the moat notorious robbers and murderers, and enlisted them into the troops, and sent them to the other extremities of the empire. He thus answered the sultan's demand, and ridded the provinces of some of the worst characters in the country. But unfortunately for him there arrived a notice that the provinces were likely to be disturbed, and that Damascus would require the protection of the troops about to be sent to the other parts of the country. The governor had to recall these very troops and to employ them in put ting down the revolt at home, when in fact they were even more likely to join in the disorder and plunder than to check it. They did do so, and to that was to be attributed the great loss of life and the plunder which actually occurred, and which shocked us all last year. My hon. friend who spoke last has said, and with a great deal of truth, that within the past ten years there has been a vast deal of fo reign intrigue in Syria. I should think it not unlikely that a Syrian Bishop, who was on such intimate terms with tha French consul, would boast to the Maronites of the con stancy of his visits to him, and would promise the support obtained through him of the French Government in the event of any quarrel with the Druses. I think that a pro bable story. The Maronites were able to introduce a vast quantity of arms into the provinces. The Druses on the other hand prepared themselves with arms, and I believe both parties were waiting and watching for each other— both prepared for a deadly conflict for ascendancy. It hap pened that a quarrel, of no great importance in itself, oc curred on the road between Damascus and Beyrout. I be love that a Christian was killed, and shortly afterwards three or four of the opposite party were slain. The two parties assembled in arms, and both were ready, but the Druses being superior, not in numbers, but in strength and valour, they committed those atrocities which shocked and afflicted all Europe when we heard of it last year. Now, those who are called Christians have no right to the title if they are ignorant of the doctrines and wholly fail in the principles of Christianity. (Hear, hear.) In:some:of the villages men, women, and children were put to death indis criminately, and the stench arising from the dead corpses was horrible. Nothing at that time had taken place at Damascus, but there was a great aiarm lest massacres should occur. The French ambassador stated to me, and I stated to the cabinet, the apprehensions of the French Go vernment, and their intention to propose the despatch of a body of European troops, without mentioning to what nation they should belong. It has been stated to me very recently by a gentleman that it is his belief that if these troops had not been sent to Syria, similar massacres would have been perpetrated at Bagdad and Jerusalem. The Sultan agreed to put a stop to these atrocities by a foreign intervention. Now my hon. friend says that the Turkish Government was not disposed to consent but was actually forced to do so. I should say in the first place that, unless the Turkish Government had consented, I should have thought it my duty to direct Lord Cowley not to sign any protocol on the subject. It was no doubt a reluctant consent on the part of the Sultan, but it was founded, I imagine, on this ground —which can hardly be controverted—that if these mas sacres had gone on, and had extended to Bagdad and to Jerusalem, and the success of the parties had been circu laCed through other portions of the Turkish dominions, some of the powers of Europe would have intervened, and not in Syria alone but in various other provinces where these horrible massacres had taken place. If in such a case I had come down to the house and stated these facts—that thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children —whether Christians or not—had been killed through the fanaticism of the Turks and their secret societies, and that the Turkish Government had not interfered to prevent it— that the Turkish troops had stood by and seen these things and did nothing to interrupt them, and that the European Powers had not taken steps in the matter—could I have called upon the house to defend or support the Govern ment ? Would that have been a good case to place before the house ? Would the Government stand well with the gentlemen who complain of the occupation of Syria ? Would my hon. friend have stood up to defend that course ? It does seem to me that this occupation is a calamity, but it is also a way of meeting other calamities and disasters, or at least of confining these disasters within certain limits. At the same time I think that few greater disasters can happen to any country than its occupation by foreign troops. (Hear.) This much, however, I must say for the French Government, that from the beginning of these dis cussions and down to the present time, if other Powers wished to send troops to Syria they were quite willing to have:a joint occupation. I believe them to have been quite sincere in this declaration which they have repeatedly made, and I myself have been blamed for not taking ad vantage of it. At the same time I think that serious evil might arise from the joint occupation. I received a few days since from Lord Elgin a representation to the effect that he hoped we might soon put an end to the occupation of Canton, be cause h e sa i d that the joint occupation of the city by the troops of different nations is sure to lead to dis sensions and jealousi es b e t ween the commanders, and ot h er similar consequences, which make the occupation a misfor tune to the place and inconvenient to the occupying forces. If such be the case in Canton, where neither France nor England has any sympathy w ith th e natives, what must be the case in Syria, where, as my hon. friend says, the Maronites have constantly looked up to France as a pro tector, and the Druses as confidently turn to Engla. (Hear, hear.) What unfortunate consequences, for example, might not have arisen if a French "detachment had gone into the Hauran, and that an English detachment, being also there, thought the Maronites were receiving too much protection from the French. Fearing dangers like this, I have been uawilling, although I never made a peremptory objection, to have a joint occupation, and I was further as sured that the occupation by the French should end as soon as possible. (Hear.) The Emperor of the French declared, in a letter which he published himself, that he was unwil ling to undertake this occupation, and thought it might terminate at the end of three months. Well, the conduct of the French troops has been such as to expose them to the remarks of the hon. gentleman. It is not that they have taken any part in those murders by the Maronites of the Druses, but I am sorry that all my reports from Syria —from her Majesty's commissioner, from the gentleman who went as the English agent to Fuad Pasha, from the officers who were these simply on leave—all these accounts concur in stating that the Maronites, taking advantage of the French advance into the Lebanon, were wreaking their vengeance on those whom they considered to be their ene mies, and that old men, women, and children, were being murdered in cold blood, and without even the semblance of being brought to justice. This is one of the reasons Ni hich makes me wish to see this foreign occupation at an end ; for the army is placed in this dilemma, either it sees these atro cities going on, it knows the persons who committed them, and if it does not interfere it is accused of sanctioning or al promoting such murders. On the other hand, if they send a corporal's guard or officers to take the offenders and bring them to trial, then they are liable to the charge of taking the ad m i n i stratiOn of a T urkish province into their own hands, and that no longer Turkish authority, but French THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY 'EVENING, MARCH 1, 1861. authority prevails. (Hear, hear.) That is a serious dilemma, and it is not one for continuing the occupation but for discontinuing it. I must add, however, that the French Minister for Foreign Affairs has different accounts from the Lebanon, and does not believe one word of the statements which have reached us. The Count de Flahaut, a man who had distinguished himself in the wars of the first empire, was naturally shocked at such an imputation. He could not bear that the honour of the French army should be called in question, and he was naturally and justly indignant. I can only say that I don't think that whilst the French occupation continues we can have any remedy against acts of individual vengeance, and that the only remedy for these murders of the Druses would be an aban donment of the occupation. The hon. member for Ayrshire has mentioned the case of Seyd Bey. I believe that that man is innocent of the atrocities with which he is charged. Lord Dufferin has used every exertion to secure for him a fair trial, and, I have no doubt, will continue those efforts, so that I expect that man's life will be saved. (Hear, hear.) This case discloses the peculiar defects of the Turkish mode of administering justice. They know nothing of our system of bringing the accuser and the accused face to face. Such things as cross-examination and other means used by us for eliciting the truth are unknown in Turkey. They say " a crime has been committed, a life has been taken, and a pri soner has been secured. It makes no matter whether the accused is guilty or not, we shall have a life for a life, and the public will be satisfied." (A laugh.) Let it be remem bered also that with regard to the Druses and Maronites the Turks would not willingly see either independent of the other, and therefore when the French say, " Let the Druses be punished," the Turks are quite willing ; and if on the other hand the English say, " These Maronites have com mitted /serious offences and must not be intrusted with power," the Turks are equally willing, for their opinion is that in the Lebanon the Turkish authority should over-ride both. (Hear.) Amongst all these conflicting influences, it is very hard at any time to obtain justice. (Hear.) I can say but little respecting the conference of Paris ; I can only add to what I have already stated that when the conference met the French Minister for Foreign Affairs on the autho rity of his official despatches, stated that serious apprehen sions of another outbreak were entertained in Syria—of another outbreak the moment the French troops were re moved. That statement having been laid before the confer ence, the Turkish ambassador said, on the other hand, that he believed the tranquillity of the district to have been re stored, that the Turkish power was quite sufficient to main tain it, and that he saw no reason why the occupation aliould not end at the time appointed. At a further discussion the ambassador of Austria, wishing to maintain the indepen dence of Turkey, said that some time might be fixed when the Lebanon was more tranquil, until which the French troops should remain, and suggested that the Ist of May should be fixed. The Turkish ambassador received the proposition, and was willing to transmit it to his court for consideration, and there the matter rests ; the pro posal has been transmitted, but at the Turkish court nothing has been decided. I quite agree as to all that has been said of the expediency of an early evacuation. (Hear, hear.) We must, of course, act partly for ourselves, but partly in combination with the other great Powers, more especially with Austria, which in these and all former dis • cussions has shown a sincere desire to maintain the inde pendence of Turkey. I say nothing of other Powers, but I believe that Austria is sincere in her good wish. I will certainly use my best endeavours to put an end to this oc cupation. I .believe it was useful at the beginning, not only in the places I have mentioned, but in other parts of the Turkish empire, when there was a notion that but for it massacres might have occurred which would have been attended with dreadful consequences to Turkey itself. Now, however, the danger and the occasion have passed away, and I wish to see the occupation at an end. Mr. S. FITZGERALD explained that the pacha to whom he alluded was the present, not the late Governor of Damascus. Mr. CONINGHAM said that the explanation of the noble lord opened much wider questions than the occupa tion of the Lebanon. He believed if a policy of non-inter vention had been followed in the case of Turkey as in that of Italy, the Turks would have been quite able to manage their own affairs. The real European question was which Power should have the initiation in a scheme of European policy, and the French Emperor, in seeking to obtain that initiation, was only maintaining properly the honour of his nation. He (Mr. Coningham) complained that her Ma jesty's Government pursued a timid and paltry policy, siding with liberty in one place and despotism in another, and he trusted they would change it for a bold and straightforward one, not only in Italy, but throughout the world. THE NAVY. Sir J. ELPIIINSTONE rose to move the following re solutions : " 1. That the mismanagement of naval affairs is due to the inefficiency of the present means of naval administration. " 2. That no efficient administration can be hoped for without direct personal responsibility. "3. That to obtain direct personal responsibility, it is essential to abolish the Board of Admiralty, and to sub stitute for it a Minister of Marine, with a secretary in this house. "4. That the Minister of Marine shall bo directly respon sible to this house for tho conduct and management of naval administration. "O. That he shall be assisted by a council of not lens than four naval officers, whose opinion he may consult, but to whom he is not bound to defer. "6. That the members of council be appointed for five years. _ _ _ "7. That each department of the navy shall have a known land acknowledged head, appointed also for five years. "8. That the heads of departments shall be directly re sponsible to the Minister of Marine, and that he shall be responsible to the country that efficient men fill them. "9. That all promotions and appointments be the act of the Minister of Marine in Council, submitted to him through the proper heads of departments, but for which he is per sonally responsible. " 10. That all naval commanders-in-chief be empowered to manage, and be responsible for, all questions of detail re • lating to their command. " 11. That the following departments are, in the opinion of this house, of sufficient importance to require the special superintendence of separate heads :—The discipline and training of the navy, and general superintendence of the fleet in commission, and the submission of the appointment and promotion of officers ; the manning of the fleet ; the construction of the navy ; the victualling of the navy ; the paying of the navy ; the controller of the coast guard ; the Royal Marines; the medical department; pensions and re wards ; the store department ; the department of works ; the hydrographer ; the transport service." During the last 20 years they spent an enormous sum of money in the construction of shipping, and an opinion had been gradually gaining with every class that the govern ment of naval affairs had not been commensurate with the exigencies of the occasion. The mode in which the affairs of the Admiralty had been carried on was so clumsy that it rendered it impossible there should be either economy or effi ciency in the department. This was not a question involv ing the character of any of those eminent men who held the positions they now occupied in the Admiralty, but it was a question of system. In former discussions upon this sub ject, the question had always arisen, by what means were they to reconstruct the departments—how were they to re pair the machinery ? He owned that that was a difficulty which had always met him when he had ventured to discuss the subject in that house. He had, however, consulted some of the highest authorities in the naval service, and found them entirely agreed, not only as to the necessity of a change of system, but as to the main features by which such change should be brought about. On the present oc casion he would confine himself to pressing upon the atten tion of the house some preliminary points which, he be lieved, if carried into effect, would go very far to relieve many of our difficulties. It could not be denied that the dis cipline of the navy at this moment was in a most woful con dition, and he felt confident they would never have proper discipline until they were able to discharge the various crews of vessels into comfortable barracks, where they could be visited by their wives and families. Tinder the existing •rder of things a ship might have been commissioned is 1855 and sent to sea with a crew of growing lads, able sea men, and good landsmen, and after a four or five years' cruise that ship would come home in a most perfect state of discipline, every man knowing to a pound what hisneigh bour could do. 'Well, they took that perfect machine and stripped it and turned those men adrift into a gulf of iniquity where they were destroyed and ruined, and those who sub sequently returned to the service came back in a state of dis ease and misery. This was disgraceful to the country and to civilisation. There was a large extent of Government land at Portsmouth, where they might erect barracks and have a practising ground and all things necessary for the welfare of the seamen, and docks might also be provided instead of the basin at Portsmouth, which was so small that most of her Majesty's ships were obliged to be stripped in the stream, and the crews at once sent adrift. Without proper docks our fleets would be wanting in one of the main things which a merchant would first look to. (Hear.) He believed that a great many of our ships which were or would be useless for the direct purposes of war might be applied very effectively for the transport service, and form a very important auxi liary to the marine of the country. Although some excep tions might be taken to the resolutions he had brought for ward, he maintained they contained the germ of a plan which would in all probability be the mode in which the Govern ment would eventually get out of their present difficulty. He did not intend to press them to a division. He had merely laid them before the house that they might be discussed and considered, and that they might become the guiding element of the committee, which, he believed, was about to be granted. There could be no doubt that there was now a crisis in our naval affairs. We could not go on constructing aad reconstructing, and spending enormous sums of moneywith out any direct responsibility much longer. The Admiralty broke down in the Baltic during the war with Russia. Ad miral Berkeley then admitted that he was at the end of his tether, and that he could do no more for the fleet in the Baltic. The ships were constructed in such a manner as to be unfit for the purposes for which they were designed. We were now going to re-construct the navy again, and having no confidence whatever in the Board of Admiralty, he took that opportunity of chalking out some way of getting out of the present difficulties, and of placing able and distinguished naval men in a position ix which their services would be beneficial to the country. He had heard the late Sir C. Napier, who was an ornament to his profession, and whose loss he deeply deplored, frequently find fault with the con struction of ships, and although the organ of the Govern ment used to get up and defend the Admiralty, one could never find out who drew the lines of the vessels, or placed the engines in them, or how we became possessed of so many ships perfectly inefficient for the purpose required. They were told the drawings came out of the surveyor's office, but if it were said that they came out of the mouth of Mount Etna he would not be more puzzled. That the drawings were obtained from the surveyor's office did not give any clue to the person who was responsible for them. He heard that the Government intended to grant an in quiry into the affairs of the Admiralty, but there was one witness who ought to be examined before it—Sir B. Walker —who was now under sailing orders to proceed to the Cape lof Good Hope on Saturday next. He asked the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could not coun termand his orders ? (Hear.) Don't let them be deprived of the services of Sir B. Walker, because nothing he had done during his illustrious and useful career would be of greater service to the public than the revelations he would be able to make before the committee as to the mismanagement of his office—a mismanagement totally beyond his control. Having some little knowledge of seafaring life, he (Sir J. Elphinstone) could not resist the opportunity now afforded to him to lay his resolutions on the table for the purpose of raising a discussion, and showing that there was a plan by which they might administer the Admiralty with some chance of securing efficiency in its various departments, but it was not his intention to press these resolutions to a divi sion. (Hear, hear ) Mr. BAILLIE, in seeonding the motion, adverted to the committee of inquiry about to be appointed, and ob served that under most circumstances a committee of in quiry was a species of obstruction which frequently brought any proposal for a reform in any department to a stand-still. He had no doubt that the committee would be impartially selected ; they would probably sit during the whole of the present and next session of Parliament, and then produce a ponderous blue book, and in the year after the question would remain where it was, and with as little chance of reform. If her Majesty's Ministers thought that advantageous changes might be made in the naval department, it was their duty to propose such reforms without delay and carry them out on their own responsi bility. (Hear. hear.) In answer to a question put the other day, as to whether a comptroller of the navy was to be appointed, it was stated that an officer had been ap pointed to that situation for five years. He wished to point out what should be the duties of surveyor, or comptroller of the navy. The senior surveyor was to prepare drawings of ships and vessels to be built, to fix Lake. to be allowed to workmen, to correspond with officers of the dockyard on all necessary matters. The senior surveyor's duty was to super intend the dockyards. Some years ago it was pro posed to abolish the board, and a single naval officer was appointed to perform the whole of their duties. Captain Symonds, a distinguished naval officer and amateur ship builder, received the appointment. In a debate in the House of Commons, the appointment was condemned by the most distinguished men of all parties in the house. Sir G. Cockburne and Sir B. Martin condemned the ap pointment. Mr. Hume also condemned it, and it was on that occasion he said he would vote that black was white. Sir B. Martin then stated that Captain Symonds knew nothing of the construction of a ship, nor could he make the calculations of expenditure, &c. Captain Symonds was an able officer but unacquainted with shipbuilding, and he thought a master shipbuilder would have been pre ferable to fill the situation. Sir G. Cockburn made a similar statement. Mr. Samuel Pepys, in the time of Charles 11., pointed out the evils of not having a practical shipbuilder filling the office of Surveyor of the Navy; and his opinions exactly coincided with those of Sir B. Martin. For fifteen years Captain Symonds went on constructing 106 ships of war on erroneous principles, of which 64 were actually launched. He quoted from a pamphlet by a naval officer, published at the time of Capt. Symonds' retirement, a number of facts bearing upon the subject, showing that the ships would never swim upon the lines on which they were laid down. The case of the Retribution of 1,600 tons was particularly noticed. It cost the country £lOO,OOO, had engines consuming 80 tons of coal a day, at 15s. per ton, and yet could only carry six of its guns, owing to erroneous principles of construction. A ship carrying that number of guns might havebeen built for £15,000 instead of £lOO,OOO. In 1844, 1845 and 1846 certain trial experiments were made, the result of which was that orders were given to arrest the progress of five first-rate ships in progress on the lines of the Queen, and of six 90-gun ships on the lines of the Al bion, and to build new ships on fresh lines. A committee on construction was appointed consisting of scientific and practical shipbuilders. They declared, in an official report, that a large number of our ships were defective, and in fails unfit for the public:service. Sir,W. Symonds left the Admis ralty in 1847. He was not dismissed on account of any of these blunders, but left of his own account, as he disap proved of screw ships. Sir B. Walker was appointed to suc ceed him, although for what reason he was selected no one could ever discover. He openly confessed to the Admiralty his ignorance of naval architecture, but they appointed him nevertheless, and told him it did not matter. Now Sir Baldwin was a man of sense, and instead of copying Capt. Symonds and appointing as assistant a personas ignorant on the subject as himself,he selected from the School of Naval Architecture one of the very ablest men, Mr. Isaac Watts. How far Sir Baldwin interfered with Mr. Watts it was impossible to say, and therefore it was impossible to de termine how far either of them were responsible for the blunders which hsd been committed under Sir Baldwin Walker's management. For what he knew Sir Baldwin might lay the blame on Mr. Watts, but then Mr. Watts might perhaps retort that Sir Baldwin altered the lines. Whose fault was it that the iron-cased ships built during the Crimean war were so ineffective that they could neither be propelled nor steered ? The French vessels on the con trary were successful, and took part in the siege at Kin. burn. Those of our officers who went on board of them after the engagement made up their minds that the iron cased ship difficulty had met with its solution. The French went on building them, but Sir Baldwin Walker resigned, either from disgust with his failure or from some other cause. At any rate, we were still far behind the French in this respect; and it was asserted that we should not complete 10 before they had 20 ready. It was odd that just as screw-ships were coming in, Captain Symonds should resign because he disapproved of them ; and that, just as iron-cased ships were adopted, Sir Baldwin Walker resigned. (Hear, hear.) Admiral Robinson was ap pointed to succeed Sir Baldwin, and for what reason ? Because of his " intimate knowledge of steam machinery" —a knowledge, by the way, not required in the posi tion, since all the steam machinery was constructed in private establishments, and there were only workships for the purpose of repairs in our dockyards. Such was the system. It was the system he complained of, and not any member of the present Board of Admiralty, which he con sidered the best we had had for many years. If we had heard of a man being selected at Constantinople to sur er intend the dockyards who confessed that he knew nothing of the business, and of a man being appointed to succeed him on account of his knowledge of steam machinery, which was not essential to the position, we should not be surprised perhaps; but we should feel convinced that the a sick man's" career was drawing rapidly to a close. Yet these things were done in England, and England's navy was thus mismanaged—that navy on which her greatness, her very existence depended. (Hear.) Mr. LINDSAY said that the subject introduced by the hon. gentleman who brought forward this question involved two others questions, namely, the expense of the navy, and, next, did the result justify the expenditure. He wished his noble friend the Secretary of the Admiralty would lay before the house the total of the naval estimates for the last ten years. Secondly, the number of ships added to the navy list during that period, and the number of ships in commission on the Ist of January in each year. If this statement were laid before the house they would then un derstand the question whether we had value for our money. The expense of the navy for the four last years was as fol lows :—For the first of the four the expense was £9,500,000; the next year, £9,800,000; 1860-01, it was .012,900,000; and three years it was £12,029,000. For this expence they ought to have an effective and efficient navy. He con tended that much of what they had to complain in re spect to the navy arose from the want of fixity of sys tem at the Admiralty. They had no responsible person connected with the Admiralty in that house. It was true they had a Secretary of the Admiralty in that house, but they could not make him responsible in respect to the construction of a ship. There wore therefore changes required at the Admiralty. The proposition of his hon. friend was therefore a step in. the right direction. He was favourable to several of the resolutions proposed, but he objected to the Minister of Marine being guided by a council of naval officers. The system would be, in fact, the same as that now in existence. There were, however, other causes operating to prevent them from getting proper value for the money expended by us upon our navy. Under the existing system a naval captain was a mere machine on board his ship. Whatever his orders were, there was a feeling in the ship that " My Lords" would order them to be altered, and thus discipline was destroyed. With respect to the plans for manning the navy which had been proposed by a commission by means of the volunteer system—he had objected to it. It was, however, tried, and failed. He did not think that they would be able to get one .half ofthe men they expected. At present they had not one-tenth of their number. He now proceeded to consider the question, whether they had kept pace with the progress of time in the nature of the vessels built by us. In 1855 it was stated by competent persons that steam vessels would change the whole system of warfare, that shells would have a different , effect from shat upon wooden vessels ; indeed, that the action of shells would so injure wooden built vessels that they would inevitably sink. Since then, France had not laid down one wooden vessel of war. All her new vessels of war from that time was constructed of iron. Now, ho contended that the Admiralty ought to know what France was doing in this respect, and that at all hazards we ought to take care that we kept pace with her in the nature and in the construction of our ships of war. It was the first duty of the Minister of the day to provide a navy which should equal that of France, and of any Power combined with her against us. When ho was in France, a statement came to his knowledge from this country which certainly alarmed him. It was stated that last year France had 448 ships of war, of which 327 were steam ships, and 121 were sailing ships. Altogether she had 75 steam and sailing effective 'vessels of war, He was still more alarmed vflaen he found by another statement, that there were now build ing 15 iron-plated vessels, independent of the five floating batteries built during the Russian war. Those 15 vessels were to mount 318 guns, throwing a total weight of 22,2601b5. of metal, and to be moved by a total of 3,360 horse-power. When he saw further that those 15 iron plated frigates were to be ready by Midsummer, and that we had not as yet a single iron-plated vessel ready for sea, he owned he did feel some what uncomfortable at the prospect of a possible hostile encounter with France upon the ocean. Full of that thought, having occasion to see M. Michel Chevallier on other busi ness, he mentioned the subject to him, and he said at once the figures must be wrong, that the votes would not admit of it, and he referred him straight to the Minister of Marine. The Minister received him in the most frank and courteous manner possible, and he then directed his attention to the statement in question, begging to know how it could be that France could enter with us into a treaty of commerce, and yet engage in such vast naval preparations as could only betoken warlike designs. He told him, too, that if France built 15 iron-cased frigates it would oblige England to have 30, or 100 if necessary, and asked what in the meanwhile was being done by both Powers except saddling the two countries with a vast and oppressive expenditure. (Hear, hear.) In answer to him the Minister gave him a statement of the strength of the French navy. It was written on the piece of paper he held in his hand, and he had his permission to communicate it to the house. That statement showed that of that fleet of 15 iron-cased fri gates but one was ready, the La Gloire, and that another would be ready - this year. The Magenta and Solferino would not be ready for another year, and the whole could not possibly be ready for two years. The Emperor of the French was, it could not be disputed, entitled to have a navy of sufficient strength to protect the empire, and he was only right in directing the con struction of such vessels as his men of science recom mended. The Minister; told him, accordingly, that he did not mean to say that iu time they would not have the ten more, but that it was the intention of his Government to adhere to the policy of the reign of Louis Philippe, build ing every year, and keeping up to the improvements of the age. The Minister then gave him the number of French ships of war, and it was a very different ono to that which he had referred to, and which in this country was generally supposed to be true. The only men-of-war worthy of the name were the new steamers, and with that limitation the French navy was re luced to 88 ships. There were 12 new ships of the line and 23 mixed, 1 iron-plated frigate, 11 ordinary frigates, and 6 mixed frigates, with 7 corvettes and 8 despatch-boats. (Hear.) The total number of ships afloat and equipped was 88. The Minister then put into his hands a small book, containing the names, rank, qualities, and present condition of every vessel in the French navy. He (Mr. Lindsay) had carefully analysed that book, and he found from it that France had 35 steam ships afloat, with 2 building, making a total of 37. Now by a return laid on the table the other day, he found that we had 53 screw steamers afloat, and 14 building or converting, making a total of 67, besides 9 block-ships. Thus we had 76 steamships of the line as against 37 of France. In ships of the line, therefore, we need be under no apprehension from France, nor need we any more in frigates. France had 17 screw frigates, and 8 building or converting, making a total of 25, of which only 11 were effective. We had 31 effective screw frigates, with 12 building, making a total of 43, as against 25 of France. In paddle-wheel frigates France was certainly ahead of us, having 17 to 8 of ours ; but that was a useless superiority, as the machinery of pad dle frigates was peculiarly liable to injury from shot. The iron-plated ship Warrior was to be ready for sea in August, and he thought the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich was especially entitled to the gratitude of the country for having taken an initiative which his predecessors in office ought to have assumed long ago. IA reference to his interview with the French Minister of Marine, he must say that he most courteously offered to send an officer round with him to the several dockyards, who would show him everything, and convince him that there was no ground for apprehension on the score of dockyard activity in France. He accordingly, when at Toulon, went to the dockyard, and he certainly saw very little doing there. He had com municated those circumstances to the Secretary of the Ad miralty, urging him to come and see things for himself, but he regretted to say that he merely expressed his doubts of the accuracy of the figures, pleading previous engagements for not acceding to a suggestion which might have been at tended with much good. The French Government made professions of friendship, but it was of no avail. The hon. gentleman here read a letter from M. Chevallier, showing what great expenditure the English people were incurring to avert that which the French did not contemplate—viz., French invasion. He (Mr. Lindsay) had often warned the house on this subject. Why, who would think of invading 30,000,000 of free people ? (Hear, hear.) But he must at the same time say if tie French went on building ships the English must also continue to incur the expense of building them, for he would never consent, upon the ground of eco nomy or otherwise, that the English navy should lose the supremacy of the sea. He found, on looking over the ex penditure of the French navy in the year 1858-1859—he would take 1858, because it was a year of peace, and he would take it also in justice to themselves. He found, then, that the whole vote for 1858 was, in round numbers, for the French navy, only £40,000, while at the same time he found the expenditure by the Government of England for the British navy was £141,600. He also found that while the scientific branch of the French navy cost France only £lB,OOO, that of the English navy cost the country £150,000 and he found, looking at the 17 votes which were taken in 1858 for the navy of England, that while the votes for the French navy amounted altogether to £5,500,000, those for the British navy amounted to £9,000,000, and is the last year to £12,000,000. Thus, there was a great differ ence between five millions and a half on the one hand, and nine millions on the other—between five millions and. a half and twelve millions. (Hear, hear.) They were, he found, to have an inquiry to-morrow night into the state of the Admiralty. Now, they had already had evidence sufficient on that subject. They had books upon books ; but depend upon it, if this question was referred to a committee up stairs, they would never have an end of it. (Hear, hear.) They would, on the contrary, have as the result nothing but large blue books which no one would go through. He thought the house ought to deal with this question itself; and, considering that a com mission of inquiry had already been appointed on the ques tion of the navy estimates, he thought they ought to wait for the report of that commission before they took any step, and certainly that they ought not to refer the matter to a committee in the absence of that report. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member concluded by thanking the house for the kindness with which they had listened to him. Sir J. PAKINGTON—I think the debate has afforded ample proof how very extensive and complicated this ques tion of naval administration is, and how desirable it is, if we wish to effect any practical good, that we should endea vour as far as possible to confine our attention to ore part of it at a time. The motion of my hon. friend the member for Portsmouth proposes certain very great reforms ; but his speech consisted almost entirely of remarks, I am afraid only too well founded, on the present defective state of the crews and discipline of our men-of-war. In seconding the motion my hon. friend the member for Inverness-shire ad verted chiefly to the question whether the building depart ment of the Admiralty should be presided over by a naval officer or a professional builder. Again, the speech of my hon. friend the member for Sunderland was not addressed to the question immediately before us, but to naval affairs in general, and the superiority of armour-plated over wooden ships in particular. These are subjects pressing for a decision, and upon which we have a right to receive a full explanation of the views of the Government. I doubt, indeed, whether we ought not to defer the discussion of these matters until after we have heard the noble lord's ex planation of the intentions of the Government. We could then consider what policy we ought to adopt. I dissent from the honourable gentleman the member for Sunder land in thinking that it would be wise to affirm these resolutions which my honourable friend (Sir J. Elphin stone) said lie would not to-night press to a division, and that the House of Commons could thereafter de• cido what should be the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. Such a course would be without precedent, and I think it would be most inconvenient to settle these de tails of a great department of the State by a debate in the House of Commons. We have, however, to thank my hon. friend for having drawn up a series of resolutions embody: in; his views on this important and interesting question. Without approving all the details contained in the resolu tions of my lion. friend, I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) in thinking that they are a step in the right direction, and will commend themselves to almost everyone who has given his serious consideration to the subject. I will go further, and say that one main object at which we ought to aim is expressed in the second resolution, — namely, the necessity that exists for increased responsi bility in every part of the government and management of the Royal Navy. (Cheers.) I concur with my hon. friend (Mr. Baillie) in his doubts whether a committee of the House of Commons is a good machine for investigating this subject. I certainly gave notice of a motion for a select committee, which I waived in favour of my hon. and gallant friend, for reasons that I have already stated to the house. To-morrow I intend to give my support to the motion of my hon. and gallant friend, for this reason, that the Government leave us no alternative. I still think that the right mode of dealing with this subject is for the Government to undertake it. I think that the interests of the public require that the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty should be investigated and improved, but I have much more confidence in an inves tigation by the Government than in one conducted by a committee upstairs, which must of necessity be a laborious and prolonged inquiry, occupying more than one session, and thus making it a long time before we arrive at that reform which is necessary. If the Government is not dis posed to enter upon this inquiry itself, I should prefer an inquiry by a Royal Commission to an inquiry by a select committee. The Government, however, have decided not to do this reform themselves, or to grant a Royal commis sion, and therefore there only remains to support the mo tion for a committee of this house. I will assume that it is the intention of the Government to accede to the motion to be made to-morrow for the appointment of a committee of this house, and I will therefore say no more on that sub ject. I wish before I sit down to put a question to the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, of which I gave him notice this morning. My question is whether it is the in tention of the Admiralty that Sir B. Walker should leave England before he gives evidence to this committee. I have heard with great surprise a report that Sir B. Walker is to sail for the Cape on Saturday next, although the com mittee is to be moved for to-morrow. Now, Sir B. Walker, after his long experience in the building department, is, if not the most important witness who can be examined be fore that committee, at least one of the most important wit,- nesses whose evidence they will take. (Cheers.) I will suggest to my noble friend, whether, if Sir B. Walker is allowed to leave England the very day after the committee is appointed, an impression will not be created in the public mind that the Admiralty do not desire to have him exa mined before that committee. (Cheers.) The noble lord shakes his head, and I do not say that is the feeling of the Admiralty ; but there is an obvious danger that such will be the impression on the public mind. I adverted to this subject in my place a few days ago, and I had hoped that the intention to allow Sir Baldwin Walker to leave England before he gave his evidence would be abandoned. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure the house that evidence so important as that which Sir B. Walker can give will not be lost by a few days' delay in taking his departure. (Hear, hear.) Lord C. PAGET said that when the right hon. gentle man alluded to Sir B. Walker's departure a few days ago he consulted the hon. and gallant admiral who had given notice of his intention to move for a committee to ascertain whether he and the other gentlemen of the committee de sired the attendance of Sir B. Walker to give evidence before them. He added that if it were the desire of the committee that Sir B. Walker should remain, the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty would offer no objection, although very important duties called Sir Baldwin to his station. After consulting with the committee, the hon. and gallant admiral stated that it was not necessary for Sir B. Walker to remain and give evidence, because he had already given his evidence at large before a Royal Commission on the constitution of the Admiralty so far as related to the department of shipbuilding. That was all the evidence he could give on that subject, and if he remained he could add nothing to that evidence. Even now, if it were the wish of the House of Commons that Sir B. Walker should remain a few days to give evidence before the comtnittee,the noble duke would not put himself in opposition to its wishes. (Cheers.) The motion of the hon. member (Sir J. Elphinstone) was couched in rather strong terms. It was like hanging a man first and trying him afterwards—(a laugh)—and was not altogether consonant with the English love of fair play and of giving every man a fair trial before he was hanged. No doubt the hon. gentleman's sole object was to discover the best way of remedying the defects in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and some of his resolu tions contained suggestions that were extremely valuable. Ha was not prepared to agree in all the matters mentioned, and there was one most important omission, for the ac • countant's branch was not adverted to. He wished to correct a statement which had been greatly misunderstood with respect to the Volunteer Marine Artillery. He could assure the house that, as he stated the other night, the Ad miralty would do anything in the world to forward this great national movement. He was instructed by the Ad miralty to state to the house that if they could see their way to some practical plan of giving the Marine Artillery proper practice with great guns they would be glad to do so. Far from having thrown overboard or offered resistance to this great national movement, they had long had under consi deration by what means they could give their aid to the movement in a practical and not very expensive mode. (Hear, hear.) It must be obvious that if ships were to be found all along the coast of England for the purpose, it would be necessary to add largely to the crews, and to supply barracks and other requisites, so that it would be come a very expensive matter. In practically considering such a project it must always be borne in mind that a ship might be caught in a gale of wind, and the men might then be kept on board for several days. It was the general wish of the Government that the greatest facilities should be given to the Volunteers, and he was em powered to state that the Admiralty were considering a proposition for erecting batteries with ship guns and all the necessary gear at various places on the coast, with the view of affording facilities for exercise to the Volunteer Marine Artillery, to the Coast Volunteers and others. (Hear.) He was not prepared to say that means might not be found for giving greater assistance to these Volunteers, but all that he now stated was that the Admiralty were deliberat ing on the erection of batteries, as far as possible, along the coast. He was anxious to correct by this explanation an erroneous impression which seemed to have been entertained to the effect that the Admiralty were setting their faces against this great and glorious national movement. (Hear.) The hon. member for Sunderland in talking of these Volun teers had referred to the appointment of officers. That question of officers had been dealt with at the Admiralty, ' and after a plan had been prepared in connexion with the Board of Trade it was found that an act of Parliament was required. His intention, therefore, was to bring in a bill to enable the Admiralty to enrol merchant officers as Volun teers. (Hear, hear.) He thought this plan would be very popular among merchant crews. The hon. member for In verness••shire had called attention to the appointment of the controller of the navy ; and, beginning with Mr. Pepys, gave an interesting history connected with the matter ; but, Mr. Pepys, clever and honest as he was, had great prejudice against naval men— (a laugh)—and was not a very fair judge as to propriety or impropriety of appointing a naval man to the situation. It must be borne in mind that the building of ships in former days required tws branches of knowledge —shipbuilding and, practical seamanship. In the present days a knowledge of engineering also was required. The question, then, was which of these branches should be deemed the first. It had always been held that the practi cal naval officer had on the whole the most important duty to perform, as he had to see to the arming, rigging, and fitment of the vessel, and therefore it had always been wisely held that at the head of the ship building department there should be a naval officer, for he was best able to judge upon a ship coming into dock whether it wanted repairs. It had been asked whether it was respectful, when the commission was just about to report, to appoint a naval man to the office for five years permanently. His answer was that a naval officer never could be said to be appointed perma nently to such a post, as he might be got rid of to-morrow by his services being required in another way. Therefore he held that the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty had done wisely in filling up the office, and had chosen, on the whole, the best man for it. He would now make a few remarks in answer to the statement of the hon. member for Sunderland. The hon. member had been in Paris, and had been received by all the most important persons there ; and he was very grateful to the hon. gen tleman for the information he had given the house respect • ing the French navy. Ihe hon. member said that the Frer ch navy was composed of very few ships, and that, in fact, there were only 88 screw ships afloat. Well, a return slight be made of the English navy showing not a greater number. (Hear, hear.) If all vessels were excluded, such as the French excluded, from calculation, a return might be made in this country similar to that made in France. (Hear, hear.) He had looked to the French re turn of 88 ships with a considerable amount of interest, and he found that it excluded all ships in reserve, all paddle ships, and all transports ; and let the house remark that the French transports were magnificent vessels. (Hear.) He had no doubt that the return was a perfectly honest return in its way, but it was not, according to the English view, a return of the navy. With regard to the British navy he had laid on the table a return showing every ship building and afloat. The hon. member talked about people being alarmed. There was no alarm, for there was nothing to be alarmed at, as the British fleet was in a very satisfac tory state. However, though there was no cause for alarm, there was cause for making progress in the construction of iron-cased vessels. The hon. member had told the house I that France had 15 of these ships, but that only La Gloire was launched, and that the rest were in their infancy, and would not be ready under two years. This was all a mat ter of opinion, and he had reason to believe that those ships were very nearly ready. He believed that every one of those ships, if the French desired it, could be afloat this summer. (Hear.) He had had curiosity like other men, and had seen them. A sister ship of La Gloire was ready to be launched, and he believed that the others were in a fair state of prepa ration. Let the house remember that the French had 15 iron eased ships ; two were vessels of 52 guns, of a very largo class. There were four others, sister ships of La Gloire, and four more of a very formidable character, which they (sailed floating batteries. That made 10, and five ironcased gun boats gave a total of 15. We had only seven under con struction. It was true they were much finer ships. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with his right hon. friend that they were finer ships—much finer ships. He thought they were very superior ; but he said this, that if they found much more progress made over the water in building these ships it would be the bounden duty of the Government to come down to the house and state frankly and fairly what was going on, with a view, if necessary, to extend the number of our iron cased vessels. (Cheers,) With regard to other questions to which reference had been made he would postpone his remarks until he was making his general statement in com mittee. Mr. BENTINCK urged the Government to reconsider its determination with regard to the volunteer marine force, and to promote that important and most useful move ment, by affording those volunteers the fullest oppor tunity for practical training, by providing them with ships, batteries, and experienced officers for that purpose, As a member of the committee appointed to inquire into the condition of the gunboats, he had moved a resolution which would, in his opinion, have brought out the facts as to who were really responsible for the building of these boats, and the condition in which they were. He was opposed by the right hon. baronet then the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir C. Wood), and the committee did not adopt his motion, on which he told them respectfully that he thought the very object for which they were appointed had been frus trated, and that he should take no further part in its pro•. ceedings. He trusted that if any future committees were appointed they would probe the matter to .the, bottom, for until they got at the persons who were really responsible in these matters they had done nothing to prevent misma nagement. Sir C. WOOD merely rose to explain. He thought the question as to the responsibility of building the gunboats had been set at rest once for all. The late Sir C. Napier had repeatedly alleged that the Fit* Lord 9f the Admiralty had ordered the building of these gunboats without coun selling the naval lords of his board. Now, the fact was, that Sir Maurice Berkeley, the first naval lord of that board, was examined by the committee, and he .distinctly proved not cnly that the naval lords had been consulted, but that in all that was done with respect to these gunboats he acted with their entire concurrence. Indeed, he might say that, during the three years he was at the Admiralty he invaria bly consulted the naval lords, and he might add that be acted in almost if not in every case with their entire concur rence. Mr. BENTINCK said he had been misunderstood. Ha did not speak as to the responsibility of the order for build ing the gunboats, but who were responsible for the condi tion they were found to be in. Captain TALBOT, as an officer in her Majesty's navy,. wished to say that he believed the statement of the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would cause great dis appointment. He deeply regretted to learn that the navy of England was not in the state of preparation it should be, especially with respect to its manning. He hoped that ere, long something would be done to place it in a state of effi ciency in this respect, so as to be equal to any emergency. Sir M. SEYMOUR concurred with those hon. members who had urged that immediate changes should be made in the constitution of the beard. He did not think the exist ing Admiralty were influenced by political feelings, though there was a general feelhig to that effect. He thought the time had arrived when is would be of great public advan tage that the whole matter should be inquired into. At the close of the war in 1816, there was the greatest difficulty in manning the navy; various methods had been resorted to, to remedy this, but every attempt made in obtaining a re serve had been a failure. Several manning commissions had sat, but without producing any satisfactory result. Even the offer of an increased bounty was a failure. (Hear, hear) They had the ballot for the militia, but it was a question whether the ballot could be ever made applicable to the navy. The existing ma chinery for the ballot was cumbrous in the extreme, and was not fitted to meet an emergency. He was of opinion, however, that they were in a condition to meet an emergency with ships, and ha should regret the day the navy could not submit to publio stricture. Sir M. PETO was anxious to call the attention of the house to a matter in connection with the subject of debate. There was no doubt that the time was come when they should cease to build timber ships. France had ceased to do so, and the opinion of all scientific men was that France was right in doing so. He believed that the statements about the danger to be apprehended from France were quite erroneous, and he was of opinion that the Admiralty had abundant moans of finding out the truth of these state ments. He had himself been at Cherbourg and at Toulon when statements wore made of the activity at those places, anti he found, on the contrary, that such statements were entirely destitute of foundation. The tendencies of all per sons w.ho were connected with dockyards were in favour of timber ships, and hence the opposition to iron-sheathed ships. If he were to go over to the French Government, and make any suggestion, it would be considered, and if found to be of aziy value, would be at once acted upon; but from his experience and the knowledge he possessed, he weuld not go out of his way to offer any suggestion to the Board of Admiralty, because he was perfectly aware of the manner in which it would be treated. He had risen partly for the purpose of saying that he should give every opposi tion in the eatimates to any vote in favour of timber-built ships. Did the noble lord suppose he could send out a wooden ship into the Channel in the event of war ? It was time the house should know that every shilling henceforth expended on wooden ships was money wasted. He was at Algiers at the time when La Gloire entered that port, although the weather was very hard, and the paddle-wheel vessels in the French squadron came in many hours later. That was an evidence of speed, and although it was said she was not an easy craft in rough weather, they might rely upon it that any defect in her would be remedied in the next built. As regarded the durability of iron ships, it could not be doubted that, if only the iron were properly selected, an iron vessel would be in as good condition after fifty years' service as she was on the day she was launched. Looking at the vast expendi ture on the navy, which was still constantly increasing, it was time that we should cease an expenditure which, even in France, the only country whose maritime rivalry we need be jealous of, had been relinquished. If iron ships were adopted entirely for the navy much less dockyard accommodation would be needed, and it would only be a question of first outlay; while, looking at the number of guns and the character of the ships, a force of only one third the number of men would suffice to man them. It was true that a large sum of money might be needed in the first instance, but the ChancellOr of the Exchequer could spread the amount over a number of years, so as not to make any very heavy pressure on the public purse. He believed that the country was prepared to meet any neces sary expenditure, but it demanded in return that th • money should not be wasted. Now the hon. member for West Norfolk took occasion every now and then to express all sorts of misgivings as to the policy and designs of the Emperor of the French, and the hostile feelings of the French people towards us. Last session, too, in another place, Lord Howard de Walden stated his impressions on the same subject. That noble lord, however, mixing continually with the same circle of persons, could know actually nothing of the feelings of the great mass of the nation like those who had occasion to mingle with the lower strata of society. He (Sir S. Peto) had had abun dant opportunities of the kind, and so far from the French entertaining any hostile feeling towards the people of this country, ho could assure the house that what they did en tertain was of the most genial and cordial nature. (Hear and laughter.) When it was said, therefore, that they desired to wipe out the stain of Waterloo, that was an assertion not worthy of a moment's thought. Many of the French, in deed, believed that they gained the battle of Waterloo, but that some unfortunate accident towards its close deprived them of the full benefit of victory. (Laughter.) Of the policy of the Emperor personally, though he might be regarded as a partial exponent of it, he could speak in the same satis factory terms. He concluded by expressing his belief that the Emperor of the French was sincerely anxious for a cor dial alliance with this country, and he said that those who distrusted that alliance were guilty of injustice to an ally whom he could not help believing to be sincere, honourable, and trustworthy. (Hear, hear.) Admiral WALCOTT said that the'navy, the first arm of our power, was entrusted to an ever-varying board, the members of which, by the time they became familiar with their duties, were replaced by new members. A board so constituted, and so liable to change, was not fit to be en trusted with the safety of our shores, and he might say with the honour of the country, as was the case with the navy. Admiral DTINC OM BE thought that Admiral Sir Bald win Walker, having given his evidence, should at once pro ceed to his station, which he might almost say had been without a commander-in-chief for a considerable period. Mr. WHITBREAD said, in reference to some observa tions on the state of discipline in the fleet, that when the navy was weeded of those men who entered it merely for the sake of the bounty, the discipline would be satisfactory. Sir J. ELPHIN STONE then withdrew his resolutions, and the house having gone into committee, pro forma, resumed. ENCLOSURES BILL. This bill was read a second time. MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL. This bill was read a second time. BANK OF ENGLAND PAYMENTS BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. LAW OF FOREIGNERS BILL. The amendments on this bill were considered and agreed to, and the third reading was fixed for to-morrow. SALMON FISHERIES BILL. The LORD ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a bill for the improvement, regulation, and protection of the salmon fisheries in Scotland, and stated that its object was to carry out the recommendations of the committee of last session, and to place the control of the fisheries in the hands of the Fisheries Board at Edinburgh. Leave was given to bring in the bill. ROADS IN SCOTLAND. The LORD ADVOCATE also obtained leave to bring in a bill to enable counties in Scotland to abolish tolls and statute labour, and to maintain their public roads and bridges by assessment. The house then adjourned. [ADVERTISEMENT.] —We quote some more interesting cures without medicine by Du Barry's delicious revalenta arabica food. Cure No. 49,832.—Wortham Ling, near Dias, Norfolk—Fifty years indescribable agony from dys pepsia, nervousness, asthma, cough, constipation, flatu lency, spasms, sickness at the stomach, and vomitings, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent revalenta arabica food—Maria Joly. Cure No. 3 , 9 o6.—Thirteen years cough, indigestion, and general debility, have been removed by Du Barry's excellent revalenta arabica food—James Porter. Athol-street, Perth. Cure 47,121-- Miss Elizabeth Jacobs, of Nazing Vicarage, Waltham Cross, Herta, a cure of extreme nervousness, i n di ges ti on , gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fancies. Cure 48,314—Miss Eliza beth Yeoman, Gateacre, near Liverpool : a cure of ten years dyspepsia, and all the horrors of nervous irritability. Avoid Pills and Medicines : they invariably aggravate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, disappointment, and expense ma y b e avo id e d by us i ng D u B a rry's Fo o d which, at a few pence per day, saves 50 times its cost in other remedies, removing effectually, w.thout purging, constipation, indigestion (dyspepsia) nervous, bilious and liver complaints and all their consequences. Certificate No. 36,418. We find it the safest remedy. Andrew Ure, MD., F.R.S., Dr Harvey, Dr. Wurzer, Dr. Shorland, Dr. Campell. Let invalids avoid the fearful dangers of spu rious and injurious imitations offered under a variety of false pretences. Nevill's imitations are prohibited by the high Court of Chancery under a penalty of £5,000 against Alfred Hooper Nevill and his agents ; and the pretences that Nevill has a patent for Arahica. Food and that Du Barry's are connected with such patent are utterly fake. No canister is genuine without the name Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, in full, on th esea l an d wrapper. Shopkeepers who attempt imposition in one article must ext3c,t to be distrusted in all others. Packed in tins 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d. ; 51b. lls. ; 121 b. 225. ; 241 b. 40s. The 121 b. and 241 b. canisters aro sent carriage free on receipt of Post-office order by Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Re gent-street, London; loortnum Mason, and Co. ; Abbit, 60, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63 and 150, Ox bard-street ; 330 and 451, Strand; 49 and 60, Bishopsgate street ; Batty, 16, Finsbury Pavement ; Phillips and Ce. tea-dealers; Petty, Wood, and Co. King William-street, City ; at 127 High Holborn; and all grocers LONDON : Printed and rublished by MUItDO YOUNG, at No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE SuN Office, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, Oil 1, H6l.