The Sun. — London, England, 1861-03-06 00:00:00

the guidance of the Government is already in our hands. But nevertheless, as it seems to be the wish of the house that the motion should be agreed to, I do not oppose it, and will not put the house to the trouble of a division. The motion was then agreed to without a division, algid some laughter. THE HOP DUTIES. Mr. DODSON and Mr. MILDMAY presented petitions in favour of the abolition of the tax upon hops. Mr. DODSON then rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the maintenance of any duties upon hops is impolitic, and that in any remission of taxation or adjustment of financial burdens provision should be made for the removal of such duties. He said that the hop duties immediately interested only a few English counties, otherwise they would long ago have been abolished. The tax operated as an ex cise duty which was ultimately borne by the consumer, who bad to pay not only the amount of the tax, but the successive accumulations of interest which it bore. Tboen, however, whose attention had been directed to this subject were aware that its consequences were much more compli cated. The hop grower expended from £22 to £3O an acre in order to raise a crop, and then had to pay from 20s. to 30s. a cwt. more for the expense of packing and bagging the hops. In the year 1849, over an as ea of 42,000 acres, there was a production of 14.5,000 cwt. In 1850 the same num ber of acres produced 420,000 cwt. In 1851 the yield on the same average was 236,000 cwt. ; in 1852 it was 447,000 cwt. In 1854 the extent of hop-growing laud hav ing increased by one-seventh, the number of cwts. fell to 86,000. In the next year the same number of acres yielded 728,000 cwt.; and in 1856, 1857, and 1868, the crops fell by 300,00 0 cwt. In the year 1859, the acreage having dimi nished to the extent of one-fifth, the crop rose to 599,000 cwt. ; and in 1860, upon the same extent of land, it fell to D 7,000 twt. Accordingly, it seemed the hop plant was the very symbol of uncertainty. No man could say when there would be a glut, scarcity, or absolute dearth. But whilst the supply was thus irregular and baffling all calculation, the demand was strictly limited. It was not like a manu factured article, where the supply could be regulated by the demand. The duty also was a duty which occasionally fell not upon consumption but upon production. It sometimes happened that the supply exceeded the demand, and the grower in such cases had to pay the excess of duty, which was highest when these was least demand, and when, con sequently, the price was at, its lowest. In the year 1855 the average duty per acre on the Sussex collection was £l4 2s. Bd.; in 1856 it was Sll 7s. Id. ; in 1857 it fell to £6 7s. 7d. ; in 1858 the average was £l2 16s. 7d. ; in 1859 it rose to £l4. In five years the average amount of duty was £ll 15s. per acre. In point of fact the duty every year exceeded the sent, the tithe, the land tax, church rate, poor rate, and highway rate, all together, two or three times over. This occurred in years of abundance, and in those years the loss did not come out of the pocket of the consumer, but was paid by the grower. Looking at the expense of the cultivation and the irregular and uncertain supply, he was satisfied that this was not a commodity which ought to be subjected to an excise duty. The article was one which required the investment of a large amount of capital in its production, and yet the Government selected such an article in order that they mighLartificially multiply the losses and risks attending. it, until the growth of the article became as it were a lottery in which there were a few prizes against an enormous number of blanks. It. might be asked what was the value of this duty to the Government. The ex else duty, as it stood last year at 20a., taken upon an average of twenty years, :had only yielded to the revenue £300,000 a year. The excise duty last year was reduced to 14s. per cwt., and that duty would now, in a succession of years, judging from past averages, produce about £200,000 a year. But owing to the uneertain and irregu lar nature of the commodity itself, the duty would yield in one year £lOO,OOO, while in another it would scarcely produce £lO,OOO. It was impossible for the Chan cellor' of the Exchequer at any time to give the widest guess as to the amount which would be de rived from the duty. Last year the Chancellor of the Ex chequer estimated the growing crop of 1860 at £300,000, but instead of receiving £300,000 the amount charged to duty had only been £69,000, and of that £69,000 the right hon. gentleman would collect but a very small portion due. , ing the financial year, having been obliged to postpone the collection. until 1861-62, in consequence of the distressed condition of the planters. This distress arose from over production. No farmer ever complained of having too much corn, or too many cattle, yet the hop grower was ruined by the success of his crops. The smaller the crop the greater the profit accruing to the grower; and this he contended was an unnatural state of things, which ought not to be allowed to continue longer. He urged that the system of long credits and postponements was unsound in principle and vicious in its operation, and that it was equally as bad for the Exchequer as for the hop grower. Last year the right hon. gentleman proposed to collect the tax in the year in which it was charged, but he found that impossible, and had to yield to the representations which were made to him and postpone the payment. (Hear.) He was surprised that the right hon. gentleman should adhere to such an unreliable duty. Ile certainly could not be afraid of deal ing with such a small amount, because he had no hesitii..- tion in dealing with taxes amounting to millions. It could not be said that the tax was absolutely necessary to revenue. Last year the right hon. gentleman boasted that he had swept 371 articles from the tariff. Surely if it was good policy to abolish small customs duties, it must be equally good policy to get rid of small excise duties, which were attended with penalties, restrictions, and annoyances which were most disagreeable. The right hon. gentleman could scarcely say, with respect to this tax, that the removal of one man's tax implied the imposition of that tax on another man. It was nut pretended that the loss of this tax would be attended with loss of revenue. Since the year 1844 the excise duties on bricks, soap, and various other articles had been reduced by £2,500,000. The additional duties im posed on spirits had been estimated at £2,000,000. And what had been the result ? Why, that whilst, in 1841, the excise yielded £17,500,000, it now yielded £22,500,000, thus showing that remission of duty was not necessarily fol lowed by a loss of revenue. (Hear.) The total abolition of the hop duty would not have any effect beyond the reduc- Von of that duty, because it was a mere accessary to the malt duty, and if the hop duty should be cut off the in creased revenue derived from malt would make up for the loss of the hop duty. In the year 1825 the beer, malt, and hop duties produced £7,000,000, of which beer yielded £3,000,000. The beer duty was abolished, and since that time malt and hops had yielded as much as all the three duties put together had formerly done. (Hear, hear.) The removal of the hop duty would be a great benefit to the consumer, fur then quassia, coculua indicus, and many other doloteri .us ingredients which were now substituted fur hops, would no longer be used. (Hear, hear.) The remo'ly for all defects was to set the trade entirely flee, and then short crops and full crops would be equalised. Then as to.the excise duty. It was small in amount, vexa tious in collection, unfair in its incidence; a blundering duty, and levied on a cornrao:lity so unsuited that it would be impossible to maintain it on a satisfactory footing. He 114 , 1 high authority for a strong condemnation of this duty. The right hon. hart. the member for Carlisle condemned it in 1852 as injurious both to the producer and the consumer, whilst the cost of collection was exci ,, ive. It was collected by a special stuff, so that if the ditty wcrc repealed the whole staff might be abolished. , (Hear.) his next authority was the hon. member for Rochdale, who stigmatised it as a tax which was fitter for the atmosphere of Turkey than that of 44 free trade England. In 1853 Lard Aberdeen said to a de putation that so great were the objections to the tax, that if it did not exist already nobody would think of putting it on. Other Chancellors of the Exchequer had condemned it, and only one had attempted to praise it, namely, the right hon. Bart, the Secretary for India. He (Mr. Dodson) bad waited on the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. gentleman had .not advanced a single argu • went in favour of the; tax. Indeed, it would be hard to de fend this excise duty. True, our expenses were great and oar financial burthens heavy ; but if the latter must be heavy, surely they ought to be made as equal and as little oppressive as possible. (Hear, hear) All he asked was that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the finances of the country info consideration he would see whether this small but unfair and unequal pressure might not be re moved. (Hear.) He knew how powerful the right hon. gentleman was to make the worse appear the better reason, but he implored the house not to be led away by the right hon. gentleman's eloquence, but to consider the question on its own merits. The hon. member in conclusion repeated Jiis motion. Sir B. BRIDGES seconded the motion. He asked the right hon. gentleman opposite whether the hop duty was not the most, troublesome, and hop growers the greatest bores he had ever met with in his official capacity ? (The Chancellor of the Hichequer nodded assent. Laughter.) Well, the right hon. gentleman norlded assent, but it was the galled jide that winced ; the hop grower was the most persecuted tax payer in the country. (Hear, hear.) The cost of collection was the same no matter what the product snd last year the duty of the collector was nearly a sine cure. The hop growers were subject to many vicissitudee . Even the hops themselves ' suffered from many causes— " First the flea, then the fly, Then the bug, and then they die." And be would.add—'then- the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir J SHELLEY; as a hop grower, felt bound to support the tootles. Itlr. BRIGHT said that whatever difference of opinion might be shown when the Speaker invited hon. members to proceed into- the lobby, there could be no difference of opinion as to the manner in which this question had been brought before the hou se by the honourable mover, and dis cussed by the IOU: gentleman who followed him. (Hear.) It was very agreeable fo him to find that when agriculturists had a good cause they could support their interests and talk nearly as well its gentreTlyon who were connected with other branches of industry. lie had not heard a single sentence or a single argument"with which he sh ou ld b e di spose d to find fault. • His hon. friend had said this was a tax of the very worst character. He was afraid a good many taxes might have the same character' given to the m ; b u t th e question in the•presenfinstauce was n o t w h et h er the tax was good or bad—'-they all believed it to be bad—orwhether it should be- made , a: permanent source of revenue. The house , he was surey - naust feel by this time that it never Gould be continned.as a permanent source of r evenue; but t h altiaa aou sub rtititWd , to them by the hon. gentlem an was , 001:11.t bi n , or the deopriptiou of a plOge, for he wished num sa akszAll gotta., by the resolution to declare that the duty on hops was he politic, and that in any remission of taxation or Adjustment of financial burdens provision should be made fort removal of such duty. He Concluded that what the h , r. member wanted was this—that the first £200,000, or 300,000, or £lOO,OOO which the Chancellor of the Ex ; equer could spare should be devoted by him to the a ition of the hop duty. He did not blame those Who hwi that kind of interest in the question which his honourable friend the member for Westminster and other honourable gen tlemen had—he did not complain of the course they had taken, because when they wished to get ar*thing froth the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were not to be mealy-plouthed in the mode of expressing their opinions. (A laugh.) He asked the house was it disposed to pass this resolution and make this pledge ? He was as much against the tax as anybody. He believed it was as bad a tax as it had been described, and that no Chancellor of the Exche quer of the present day would be so stupid as to attempt to propose for the first time so odious and absurd a tax; but notwithstanding it must in a very short time be abolished, yet he was not prepared, in the position in which they now stood, to give a pledge that the first money the Chancellor of the Exchequer could spare should be devoted to its re peal. The hon. member for Westminster had admitted that the hop-growers had only just now become a happy family. For several years his hon. friend the member for Rochdale and himself were beset in the lobby by gentlemen wanting something to be done in regard to the hop duty, There was, then, a protective duty on foreign hops, and that seemed to blind the eyes of every man connected with the growth of hops. Last year it blinded the eye of the paper-maker. For several years before it blinded the eye of the hop-grower. So long as the protective duty remained the hop-growers of Kent and Sussex had not the same interest, and they did not come forward as an united family ; but since last year the scales had dropped from their eyes, and they now saw the question in the same light in which free traders had seen it for many years, and they asked the house to abolish the tax: It was however not common in this country for persons when they had just found out that a tax was bad, to ask for the repeal of that tax. That was a sort of court • ship which was not very common with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (A laugh.) This was the first year they had asked for this pledge, and though he should be glad if they got the repeal of the duty, he thought they might be very well satisfied if they got it next year or the year after. The question could not stand debates like the one they had had that evening. The reading of that debate next day would necessarily convince everybody out of doors on this matter who was not already convinced, and in another ses sion in all probability the question would be forced on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a way in which he would be unable to resist it. With regard to the proposed pledge, there was one difficulty which would be experienced. It might be that gentlemc n near him and gentlemen opposite had made it all right with the House of Lords. They might have ascertained, for aught he knew,that if the question were taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a bill in troduced and passed repealing the hop duty, the House of Lords would agree with the, opinion of the House of Com mons, and consent to the tax being repealed. But the house was not certain of that. He (Mr. Bright) undertook to say on behalf of the House of Commons that, however humbled they might have been by what took place last session, they had not yet come to that point of subjugation when they should consent to send up to the other house a bill for the repeal of any other tax until they had sent up another bill for the abolition of the excise duty on paper. (Hear.) He might compare the paper duty with this tax, but that was really not his object. He did not wish to show at all that there was any tax, on its own grounds, worse than this tax ; but if his hon. ft iends had the exciseman. on their premises for a few weeks in the year during the fine weather, the paper-makers had him on their premises during 52 weeks in the year, and to the paper-maker the exciseman was as great a:nuisance as he could possibly be to the hop-grower. (Hear, hear.) Moreover, the paper-maker had for many years applied to Parliament to have the duty on paper abolished, and last year he was treated in a manner which no manufacturer in this country had heretofore been treatecY 1 by Parliament. He had therefore a right to come there first to present his claim, and the House of Commons could not pass by his case for the purpose of considering any other case, however grievous. He would not refer to the ques tion of the burdens on the press or the injuries done to education by the existence of the excise duty on paper. lie did not pretend to make it appear that those injuries were worse than the injuries done by this tax on hops. (Hear.) He would place them both exactly on the same footing; but he appealed to gentlemen in that house who were most in favour of the abolition of the duty on hops, whether under the circumstances of the paper trade and the circum stances under which the house was placed, it was not fitting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues should discuss the events of last year, and the incidence of paper excise, before they took into consideration the griev ous tax which had been brought before them that night. (Hear.) It was not necessary that he should enlarge on the serious damage done to that house of Parliament by the transactions of last year. He knew not that anything the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government, or the house could do, could set up the character of the house and place them exactly in the position in which they were last year. (Hear, hear.) This, however, he did say, that if they did what it was in their power to do—if they took the first op portunity of re-asserting the right which they recorded in the resolution last year by again passing a bill for the aboli tion of the excise duty on paper, and that bill was agreed to by the other House of Parliament, and became law, he should not have the smallest objection to vote for the strongest resolution, or for the most instantaneous action on the part of the House of Commons on behalf of the abo lition of this duty. But he should feel he was himself base as a member of the house, and that the House of Commons would be unworthy of its history, and unworthy of the slightest confidence on the part of the people of England, if they did not on the very first opportunity assert its anoient rights, and teach those who had for a moment forgotten it that there and there alone rested the power to tax the peo ple, and to determine what should be raised from them to satisfy the exigencies of the Crown and the service of the year. . Viscount HOLMESDALE charged the hon. member for Birmingham with being like the dog in a manger, he could not get the paper duty abolished and consequently he would not give relief to another suffering interest. He denied that paper and hops could be placed in the same category, be esuse the tax on paper was levied on the manufactured arti ' cle, the supply of which was fixed and certain, while the tax on hops was levied on the raw material, the supply of which was uncertain in. quality and precarious in quantity. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said'he was bound to say that in common fairness to the case of the Lop duty, it had been stated to-night both by his hon. friends behind him and by noble lords opposite with a great deal of ability. (Hear, hear.) It was impossible that greater justice could be done to the arguments in favour of the clause in their hands. And in whet he had to say he would venture to make certain reservations and qualifications, but in speaking in all sincerity upon the,various points which had been discussed he subset ibed in a great degree to what had fallen from them. (Hear, hear.) That, however, which he would endeavour to urge upon the house, and Which the house should bear in mind was that the question which they Were called upon to debate to-night was not the merits of the hop duty. He would ask no hon. member to give an opinion upon the merits of the hop duty as a tax to be continued in this country. But be would endeavour to state to the house what he thought were the conclusive grounds why they should not adopt the motion of his hon. friend. He thought the hop duty was fairly open to these jcharges—that it was unequal in its produce as a fiscal re source, and that it was unequal in its pressure upon the different classes of hops in a degree which, although it might be possible to find parallels and even stronger cases on com modities of various kinds, yet..not in regard to domestic commodities which were . fairly liable to excise. ' This duty tended to aggravate distress, and there was no trade in which reverses were so sudden. (Hear, hear.) It was also open to objection as being levied upon an article of raw produce. These were objections which might be fairly urged against the hop duty. There were other .objections taken, but which he thought were not sustainable. It was said, for example, that this was a duty which was costly be collec tion; but that was a mistake, for the money which cape into the Exchequer from the hop duty was among the cheapest so far as collection was concerned. The noble lord who spoke with such great ability, alluded to certain ex , cessive excise restrictions, but there were no such restric tions which in any appreciable degree interfered with pro duction. No doubt the tax was unfavourable in its incep tion, but not in its consummation. .On the other hand, it did not interfere with the operations. of the producer. His lion. friend the, member for East Sussex (Mr. Dodson) who had spoken of the fickleness of the hop plant, and others who called.upon the house, must not depend upon putting an-end to the distress by a repeal of the hop duty. (Hear, hear.) His honourable friend pear him (Sir J. Shelley) said he had undergonnconsiderable kisses aa a planter; but he-thought hia statement was incomplete as . an exhibition of a general" rule, because he would pot .contradict him (the_ Chancellor of the ExChequer).when he said that there was an important element In this. case..-.he meant the interest of the landlord in promoting the hop cultivation-- not only on account of the rant which it produced, but be cause of the market which ha secured =for his underwood. He would not enter into the question dale morality or im. moralityfrom the concourse of persons employed in hop picking, but he would look at this simply as a trading ques tion, and the truth was that it was unhioily distindt from every.other agricultural product, from the extraordinary reverses_which it offered to those who embraced the trade: (Hear.) In due season the hops wore not worth the pick ing:, while in another the producer might have £lOO an acre dear, after all expenses had been paid. (Hear.) The duty acted as a deduction from thd 'prized, and an aggravation of the blanks. (Hear, hear.) Bid it would be the greatest delusion'to'suppose that the main cause.of the distress was the operation of the duty. His hon. friend,said it did not amount to £200,000 a year, but in 'order to reduce it to so lbw a figure hd went back to along term to Strike his aye -Itges, and *hen hop-planting was lead than at present. ating the facts as-fairly as he (the Chancellor of the. Ex equery could, he would say, the average amount of duty Was front 1300,000 t4/350,000.ay'ear*,Buthe folly admitted t this wait an unbertain amount to the revenue. Still he net think that vu that accohlit they 'would do well to liclA td . aira - vdt "113111 U pert with it. Ite thought his hon. friend near him (Mr. 1 Dodson) was much too sanguine in his anticipations of the 1 public and general results which were to follow the abolis i tion of this ditty, And he notripated the repeal in this case 1 to the abolition of the duty upon bricks, soap, and glass, omitting the effects of the customs duty. So far as regarded the general public, he Confessed he knew of no duty in the repeal of which they had so little to do. This was one of those small amounts difficult to trace in its incidences. But this was not, in point of fact, like the cases where they had been able to remove imposts comparatively small, to give an enormous irapetus to trade, and open up new sources of employment, and which had operated to bring back the revenue, either by augmented wages or otherwise, to its original amount. The repeal of the hop duty was the producers' question. (Hear, hear.) It was the hardship to the producer they were called upon to deal with ; and in this case it was clear that if they repealed the duty it would be to make a present of it to the pro ducer. His hon. friend called him either a fearless or a reckless financier, but notwithstanding the statements which he had heard to-night, he would not bo so fearless or so reckless as to accept the resolution. There was another incidental point to which he wished to advert, and it was this—there was a certain connection between the abolition of the hop duty—what amount he could not say—and the augmentation of the malt duty—(hear)—and many gentle men had in their interviews with him alluded to it, but by some strange accident that topic had been forgotten in the debate of this question in the house, although it had been suggested within the four walls of his room. 'That was the suggestion which had been made for supplying the gap which would be required to be filled up. (Hear, hear.) In the case of the hop duty it had been endeavoured to excite compassion by stating that £lO or £l5 was levied upon an acre, when it only paid one pound rent. But in the case of barley for distillation, he would venture to assert that it paid £4O to £5O, and even £6O an acre duty upon the crop of the year. The noble lord opposite said he asked for free trade and nothing else, and he felt sure the hon. member for Birmingham would find his heart leap within him when he heard that definition of free trade accepted in such a quarter. There were important questions now as to what constituted free trade. They were now happily all agreed upon being lee traders, but he believed the original holders of the idea contended that the essence of free trade consisted in the abolition of protective duties ; but there was another school of free traders, who thought that all articles subject to an indirect tax should be aoolished, and it was in that sense that the noble lord asked for this simple boon at their hands. The hon. gentleman the mem ber for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had complained of the extra duty of Is. per cwt. for bonding foreign hops as not being an adequate counterpoise for the benefits arising from bonding; but the Is. du4 would not come into operation until next year ; and at present there was a protection of 6s. in favour of British hops. No doubt the importer of hops would be glad to give up the privilege of bonding if they would give up the difference of duty. He objected to the motion because it was an abstract re solution relating to a matter of finance, and he could not but feel that this was a serious debate. He would not go into the question whether the House of Commons w•mid be justified in accepting this resolution; but it should be re membered that there was already one resolution of the , kind in existence, viz., that relating to the paper duty. (Hear, hear.) The fate of that resolution ought to be a warning to hon. gentlemen against their adopting more of 1 that class. If it were carried, did his hon. friend suppose that nobody else would follow his example ? There were other duties pressing upon the house. The hon. member for Dudley had endeavoured to obtain from the Government a repeal of the fire insurance duty, and he would come down and move a similar resolution. In point of fact, it was not a question of ono resolution, but of a string of them, and every one would be supported and authorised by that which had gone before. He would ask whether the result of this process —condemning - four or five duties—would conduce to the credit of Parliament. On the contrary, he believed it would weaken the authority of the House of Commons. Besides, these resolutions were worthless in themselves, dangerous because they gave rise to hopes which never would be fulfilled, and certainly dangerous in leading to contrasts and criticisms unfavourable to the character of this house of Parliament. (Hear.) He had spoken of the paper duty resolution, and he confessed it appeared to him that the paper duty resolution as it stood, though he upheld all the opinions he expressed at the time—opinions which experience had confirmed—was a warning to them to pause and to hold their hands, and to consider how far they should adopt the resolutions. (Hear.) These proceedings were practically innovations. It was not the practice of the House of Commons in former times to endeavour to meet a cry out of doors, and to satisfy the permanent wishes of any class of the community by drawing these long bills upon the future, and promise to do at another time that which they were unable to do on the instant. He would add that his friend had not improved in his form upon the language used in the paper duty resolution, for they would recollect that that resolution merely stated that it was un desirable that the duty should be continued permanently to form a part of the fiscal arrangements of the country. What the hon. member claimed was, that in some manner or other they should get rid of this duty, at any rate, when any change in our fiscal arrangements took place. If the resolution were carried, it would be unlawful to remit a duty on the smallest article, however urgent the case might be, until this tax was repealed. The hon. gentle man's resolution would stand in the way, and they must I ay a fine of £300,000 or £400,000 a year to the hop grow ers in order that they might a idress themselves to the repeal of any other duty, however small. Now, it was the invariable duty of the person who held his position to remind the house when it was asked to give pledges for the repeal of any particular duty, of the position in which they stood. In the course of a few weeks the financial year would be brought to a close, a year of critical circum stances, on account of extensive changes introduced into the law, and the condition of trade, and the peculiarly disastrous character of the harvest last year. But, with out insisting too strongly on these circumstances, he put it to the house, that it was their duty not to consider claims for the remission of taxation one by one, separating the one from the other as one might be pressed with greater eagerness or greater skill by the advocate of the particular interest, but to wait till the time came when they knew as a whole the financial condition of the country, when they saw what was to be its expenditure, and what would be their means. And in dealing with the claims for remission, if they had an opportunity for remission they should deal with them en a fair comparison of their respective merits. The hon. member had forgotten that they were levying a. duty on tea at a rate imposed during the war, that the duty on sugar was in a similar condition, that the duty on paper which they passed a bill to repeal last session was still levied ; and he had forgotten that the income tax was at tenpence in the pound. lie might go on enumerating more cases of the same kind. The hon. member had also forgotten the case of many other taxes which thehouse had been called,upon to take into its serious consideration. Now he did not want to take an advantage over his hon. friend, unless it were such as by the form of his motion ho could take. lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not ask 'the house to allirm that the duty on hops was a popular duty, or that it ought to be permanently retained ; nay more, he did not ask the house to declare that there were more serious claims upon it; but he entreated the house not to prejudge those questions that would come be fore tncm when the estimates of the year were fully pre pared, and when by the best means in their power they had arrived at an estimate of what their revende would be. That was the time when his hon. friend would have the opportu nity, with others, of making his proposition, but he must say that it was tho essential and invariable nature of a mo tion of this kind to point to the particular subject, and it was an unfair and surreptitious advantage over other claims which might be as well entitled to consideration. lie asked his hon. friend to be content with equality of dealing, and by equality of dealing he would be placed in the same position as the advocates of other interests. He would be in a position to urge his claim at the proper time, when the house c nld enter into a searching inquiry of it with other claims. Those were the grounds on which he felt persuaded that the house would not accede tO the refittest of the hon. gentle man. It would be the grossest dereliction of duty it; from the popular character of the hon. gentleman's motion, and from the knowledge of a phalanx who supported him, if they were to refrain from entreating the house to hold this question over till the financial statement of the year had been made, which must of necessity in a few weeks be brought before them; but above all, he called upon the house to avoid the repetition of resolutions of this description with regard to the abstract merits or demerits of taxes, which resolutions were valueless of themselves and injurious from the expectations they excited, and which were a departure from the practice of former times, when they were not accus tomed to give pledges with regard to the repeal of taxes, which pledges they could not always fulfil. Lord HARRY VANE said the Chancellor of the Exche quer opposed the resolution mainly on the ground of its being an abstract resolution. Now, he was ready to admit that objections were to be raised to abstract resolutions, but he must say that those who succeeded in their objects gene-. rally succeeded by abstract resolutions. He believed that this year this duty would yield hardly any revenue at all, and the next crop must be a bad one. If the duty were repealed the deficiency would soon be made up by the in• creased quantity of malt that would be used. Mr. DISRA.ELI hoped the house would well consider the step they took before they agreed to the motion.. He was not at all insensible to the strength of the claim which had been brought before them that evening.. It had been his lot on several occasiens to .have the case of the hop growers placed before him with great ability, and with great fulness of detail, and on no occasion had it been put for ward with more efficiency than it had been to .night by the hon. member for Kent, whom he hoped to see taking amore active part in their debates. His hon.. friend the member from Cambridgeshire did not establish a case for the repeal of the tax when he said the tax was a grievance. Whether a tax were a grievance was a secondary matter. They must look to the state of the revenue. There was nothing that was not a grievance and , which was not a restriction to enterprise. The hon. gentleman and his friends might justify this motion by. the resolution to which the house agreed paper ctuticy; ; but really there was no simi larity It was the, office of the House of between o n the thew. C tamps, if it bad A otr9pg opiAion in reforeace tv Oily par- , ticular tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some surplus at his disposal, it was the highest duty of the House of Commons preliminal•ily to expiesk it fipiriiqf as to the tax which it believed to be a prominent grieVance. That was the condition with regard to the paper duties when the house came to that resolution; but the Government an nounced in no unequivocal language that it was accepted by them as a resolution that would not affect their conduct. But was that the position of the member for Sussex ? The resolution with respect to the paper duties did not at all touch the impending budget. The present was a resolution which must affect the budget, and it was impossible if it was carried that it should not affect the financial arrangements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to recom mend to the house. Was thst fair ? He was aware of all the arguments that could be urged against the hop duty ; he had tried to relieve that interest, but he could not sub scribe to the doctrine that this was a tax that as a griev ance took the highest rank of those which could injure her Majesty's subjects. He thought there were many others which they must consider before, in the remission of taxation, they came to that; and be thought nothing could be more unwise, in the present condition of the country, than that we should enter into those fanciful and partial schemes of remission of taxation, when they ought to pre pare their minds for real and severe toil, for really under standing the difficulties of their position, and bringing to bear on it all the resources of the country, and what was the most important of all national resources, that spirit of the community which was ready to bear great burdens when they felt they were required by the necessities of the coun try. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DODSON, in reply, disclaimed all intention of in terfering with the financial arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The house divided— Ayes llO Noes Majority ..-92 The motion was therefore lost. NAVY (PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.) Sir J. ELI' HINSI ONE moved for a select committee to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and tne present'part and position of the several classes of naval officers, and to report what changes 1 therein were desirable, with a view to the increased effici ency of the naval service. The hon. member said the officers complained that their pay was deficient, and the command money which had been granted them by the Admiralty was accompanied by conditions which left them in some cases worse off than before. This allowance had been given them in order to enable them to entertain those persons who perio dically became their guests, but the Admiralty before mak ing the addition had reduced their ordinary pay. Forty-nine captains would receive from £36 10s. to £133165. Bd. addi tional, but only two would have the highest amount ; 45 were to receive £6ls. Bd. per annum, or 4d. per day. What portion of a gentleman's dinner was represented by 4d. he was at a loss to imagine. (Laughter.) Nineteen would re ceive sums varying from £l3 7s. 6d. to £B5 3s. 4d. Cora mend ers would receive 25.6 d. per day as command money,and out of that they would have at times to entertain persons of the rank of ambassadors. The way that lieutenants in corn wand had been treated was worthy of the Admiralty. They were to receive 2s. a day; but their ordinary pay was first reduced from lls. to 10s. (Laughter.) Only two captains would receive the highest allowance, and between 40 and 50, or half the entire number, would receive only £456 ss. 6d. a year, instead of their present pay of £7OO a year. In the full pay of captains of the highest grade there was a difference of 140 per cent. in favour of the American service, and one of 227 per cent. in the half-pay. The French full-pay was 46 per cent., and the Prussian 22 per cent. above the Eng lish. The highest commanders received 117 per cent. more in the American service on full pay, and 157 on half pay. In Prussia the advantage was 42 per cent. An American lieutenant in command was better paid by 143 per cent., and a Prussian by from 47 to 20 per cent. The difference be tween the highest American and English lieutenant was 134 per cent. on full pay and 75 on half pay. The lowest grade had an advantage of 71 per cent., and the highest 242 per cent. Nor was this the whole difference. The English naval officer was liable to income tax. (Hear.) The paint and brooms allowed by the Admiralty were insufficient, and the captain or first lieutenant who desired to keep his ship clean was obliged to find what more was requisite out of his pay. The half-year's paint till of the commander of the Royal Albert was £67. Then there was the difference in the cost of living, which was something like 30 per cent. in favour of France. Russian officers who were sent by their Government to this country were allowed a guinea a day, whereas, when they were in France they only received 14s. Another grievance was that is calculating the time of offi cers for flag rank, commanders' time was entirely ignored. There were cases in which officers had been prevented from completing the remaining few weeks or months which they had still to serve. His late friend Admiral Trotter when his time had only three months to run, and when he was cruis ing on the South Coast of Africa, was surprised off Simon's Bay by a brother-in-law of the First Lord, and sent home, where he died a rear-admiral. One might be employed for years in surveying, and in other capacities of the highest possible importance, but he was not allowed to count a day of it ; while another in a flag-ship might not go beyond the breakwater in Plymouth harbour and yet be entitled to reckon the whole. (Hear, hear.) There was another class of officers, the reserved captains, who, being liable to be called upon in an emergency, were considered as still on the active list. A deliberate bargain was made with these gentlemen in 1852. That bargain was much puffed at the time in the newspapers. Writers were employed to extol the services of those officers, who were incite I a hundred of the most meri torious in the service. There was hardly a general engage ment in which they had not fought. Their commissions were made out in exactly the same form as those of other officers, and they were even nailed to a ship, generally the Valorous or the Royal William. They were, in fact, led to believe that they were in exactly the same position. Those gentlemen believed they stood in the same position as other officers in the service, but when their time came to be promoted to the 14s. list they were told by the Admiralty that the list was drawn up fsr a different purpose than what it bore on the face of it, and were thus cheated out of their just rights. (Hear, hear.) The reason why ho said this was because they took the opinion of Mr. Lush on the matter, and he told them that if it was a case between A and B the agreement would be binding, but as it was an agreement with the Board of Admiralty it stood upon different grounds. The full pay and the half pay of commanders was insuffi cient. They also claimed and justly claimed that their time as mates should be counted. The coastguard's time now counted as sea time, but all the officers who had heretofore served in the coastguard were cut off from two-thirds of their time. In the civil service every day that a man served counted for him, but in the navy two-thirds of the coast guard's time and the whole of the mate's time was cut off. They asked for a graduated increase of pay according to the period for which they served, rising every year or two years till it became an income on which they could keep their families from poverty. He could assure the house that many men who spent their lives in the service of the coun try were half starving. .(Hear, hear.) Within the last 20 years there had been an increase of something like 20 or 30 per cent. in provisions ; whilst in the pay of these men there had been no increase. It was only right that, the senior lieutenants should receive extra pay. A post-captain was now obliged to spend £5OO of his own money in fitting up his ship, and a senior lieutenant had often to spend £lOO. But when a ship came home the mess plate and fittings were sold for what they would fetch, and when they were sent out again they had to meet the same expenses. It appeared only fair that the Government should supply the ship with mess plate, linen, and beds. (Hear.) The allowance to the artillery instructors in the army was 9s. 6d., but in the navy it was only ls. He wished to call the attention of his noble friend to the state of the Naval Col lege at Portsmouth. The public rooms, such as the library, hall, and dining room, were good enough, but he could as sure him that the sleeping rooms were perfect dog-holes ; the bedding was most indifferent, and the state of things there was on the whole most disgraceful. (Hear, hear.) The matter of leave was most important. In the army the officers had nothing to complain of in that respect ; every facility was afforded them for visiting their families even from distant pia,,ets ; but it was with the tircateet difficulty that officers in the navy got a month's leave after a four years' commission. This had a most detrimental effect, especially in the case of young men. In the coast guard, transport, and contract service the officers should be al lowed full time and pay wherever they were serving. It was well known that the first lieutenant was the coun sellor and adviser in all cases of emergency, yet he was often allowed to languish without promotion till the end of his life. These were just matters of complaint, and should be fully known to the house. Ho thought at all events that they should have an early chance of retirement when it was not intended to promote them. They should be allowed to leave the service whilst they had still energy enough left to follow some other occupation. They also looked for a fixed rate of half-pay after a certain number of years in the service, and that the amount should be such as would enable them to live. Then they considered the title of mate an anomalous title. He thought they might be called second lieutenants, or receive some more dignified appellation. They were also justly entitled to some addition to their pay of £66 18s. 6d. a year. There was not a more valuable class of men in the service than the mates, and there was great difficulty in finding men willing to undertake their duties. They might perhaps, under im proved circumstances, be able to control the present reckless expenditure of the midshi?caen's mess. The first thing the midshipmen did at the present day when they were paid off, v. as to break every article of furniture in the mess-room. He also thought that milshipmen were allowed to enter the service at too early an age. Temptations were thus offered to idle boys to run away from school and go to sea at an age when they were physically unable to perform the duties required of theta. Then there was the case of the warrant officers. They had presented a petition to the Admiralty, some portions of which they had been told were reasonable and others not. He thought the greater number of these complaints were highly reasonable. There ought to be a corps of petty officers appointed with the view and expecta tion of being able to take warrants. Now there was great difficulty in getting men to come forward. By so doing they forfeited their pensionsand badge money, were obliged to get an expensive outfit awl were liable to be dismissed the service without trial. The• complained that their widows' peneiorte were ealy fr9Dl £26 to ko, varying With lOnlitU of service. These pensions were taken away in 1830, and re stored in 1860, and those who became widows in the mean time could not Obtain pensions from the Treasury, the ex cuse being that the officers had higher pay in order to pro vide for life insurance. Many of these poor women were now, he was sorry to say, in the workhouse. But what in surance office would insure the life of a warrant officer going to tha_East or West Indies ? (Hear, hear.) They also asked to be allowed to have admission for their sons to the Naval School at Greenwich, and to be allowed them selves to have the benefits of Greenwich Hospital. Above all, they prayed not to be liable to be dismissed the ser vice without a court-martial. These were some of the spe cial grievances. Among the more general ones he would mention that the returns of commissions fell far short of the requirements of the service. Only 19 flag officers were em ployed out of 99 ; under 200 captains out of 347 ; and 219 commanders out of 438. He would lastly observe that un dertaking the duties of a Chancellor of the Exchequer was beyond the duty of a Secretary of the Navy. It was the duty of that Minister, he thought, to come down to the house and let them know what was required for an efficient fleet—what was required efficiently to man the fleet— (hear, hear)—and what was required to obtain a class of contented, skilful, and trustworthy officers, commanding contented, skilful, and trustworthy men. As to the cost he was sure they would not grudge the necessary expenditure. His noble friend was an officer who would be an acquisi tion to the administration of the service under any circum stances ; and when they had cleaned out the Augean stable of the Admiralty, he was sure reductions of expenditure might be brought about to an extent which no one who heard him was able to calculate. If the house granted him the committee, he pledged himself to prove every word that he had said, and more too. (Hear, hear.) Mr. B. COCHRANE, in seconding the motion, begged to call the attention of the Government to the case of the reserved captains, who had been treated in a most unjust manner. By a bargain in 1851, they had been induced to place their names on a reserved, not upon a retired list ; and then in 1856, there was another order in council which placed them in the position of retired officers. This was a question of only £3,000 a year, and he thought it was a point well worthy of the attention of her Majesty's Govern ment. The question having been put from the chair, Sir H. STRACEY said it had been his intention to have seconded the motion of his hon. and gallant friend the mem ber for Portsmouth. He believed it had been once re marked by the hon. baronet that naval officers were re markable for being discontented and for always complaining. But was the dissatisfaction which existed complained of without reason ? He did not believe that to be the case. There were three causes of complaint—pay, promotion, and retirement. The deficiency of the first and last, and the want of a well-regulated system of the second, were the chief causes of the discontent which prevailed. The pay in our navy was less than in either the French or American navies ; and the inequality of pay in our service was per fectly irreconcileable with justice. The captains on the re serve and retired list had not realised the increase of rank and pay, and the other advantages which had been held out to them, and when they complained to the Admiralty they obtained no redress because there was no responsi bility. (Hear, hear.) Captain:Spencer Smyth, to whom the victory of Navarino was chiefly attributable, was only receiving 6d. per day above that of a senior commander, without the chance of any other remuneration during the term of his natural life. These men were not only disap pointed but discontented—he trusted not disaffected. Many of them were not more than 50 or 60 years of age, and were just as competent for the performance of their duties as any man of 3,5, and yet they were called upon for the paltry sum of 6d. per day to give up their prospective status. Having enumerated the retired officers who felt aggrieved, the hon. member proceeded to consider what would allay the dis content. The only means were increased pay and well regulated promotion. The last point to which he should allude was the retirement which, in his opinion, should be such as to enable the retiring officer to live like a gentleman. If the committee were granted, he believed the means might be found to make the navy an efficient and a contented one. Sir F. BARING said that he would not enter upon irrele vant topics. There would be ample opportunity before the committee recently appointed to examine the subject of patronage, and he hoped that those hon. members who had been so liberal in their assertions and accusations would go before that committee, and show how far their accusations were true. (Hear.) In reference to the reserved captains, harsh language had been used, and the house had been told that those parties had been cheated. Now, the house would recol lect that that list was intended to meet the case of officers who had not the slightest chance of promotion, and if subse quently other officers had been introduced into it, that was never in contemplation at the early period cf its formation. (Hear, hear.) It was said that the contract had been broken. He wrote the contrast, for the minute was his, and the order in Council was correctly formed upon the minute. Something had been said about an after-thought, but he never had the slightest doubt about the construction of the minute, and he wrote to some gentlemen, who had applied to him to be a witness in respect to their cases, stating that it was never intended to give them what they claimed, and the Admiralty came to the same decision on a perusal of the papers, and not upon his opinion at all. With regard to the admirals on the reserved list, it was well known that great evils existed, which were corrected by the arrangement now so much ccmplained of. The benefit to the public was, that now there were really active admirals on the list. The admirals who were placed on the retired list were not in the slightest degree injured, for, though they were on the active list before, they were never employed, and before the alteration the list was in such a state that when he had to make his first appointment ho had great difficulty in selecting an officer, and was obliged to send out an admiral above 70 years after all. He believed that it would be found that from the alteration as great a benefit had accrued to the country with as little injury to indi viduals as had ever resulted from any arrangement made by the Admiralty. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had been told to look to the interest of the navy alone. Now, he did not think that those who were responsible for the naval service had only and exclusively to look to the interest of the navy. They had also to con sider to a certain extent the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and how far the country could bear the expense proposed to be imposed. When the house was told that the families of officers were in distress, and that the price of provisions was high, it should be borne in mind that there were other parties whose families were in great distress in consequence of the high price of provisions, and that if they gave to the one they took from the other. They must eon ' sider the taxpayers as well as the officers of the navy. I (Hear, hear.) His own impression was that the manner in which these cases were agitated in the House of Commons by no means tended to the benefit of the service. AdmiraIWALCOTT said, it was alleged that the officers I of the navy were always grumbling. He therefore thought I that the interests of the country would be served by an in quiry, which would show whether their complaints were well-founded or groundless. Ho thanked the hon. and gallant member for Portsmouth for the able manner in which he had brought this question beforethc house, but as I a committee had been granted to inquire into the ad- I ministration of the navy in all its departments, he could I have wished that this subject had been referred to that committee, and that the time of the house had not been oc• cupied by it on the present occasion. He challenged the observation of the right hon. baronet (Sir F. Baring), that officers placed on the retired list had no reason to complain. From his own experience he asserted that they had. In 1823 he was despatched to Cuba with special orders to put down the pirates who infested that coast, and succeeded in effecting that object. His services met with the approba tion of his superiors, and he was recommended for a Com panionship of the Bath by the Admiralty of the day. That recommendation had never been carried out. From 1823 to 1852 no one bad more urgently or frequently besought em ployment of any description ; but his applications had never been attended to. He had been treated with contemptuous indifference and neglect by successive Boards of Admiralty. Lord Ellenborough and Sir George Cockburn had alone shown him any consideration. The hon. and gallant officer denounced the conduct of the Lords of the Admiralty to wards him with much -warmth, and with especial reference to the right bon. baronet the member for Portsmouth. Sir F. BARING disclaimed any intention of referring to the hon. and gallant officer in the remark he had made. Sir M. SEYMOUR cordially approved the motion. The dissatisfaction which prevailed among various classes of offi cers rendered it necessary that the subject should be tho roughly investigated. The scheme of retirement adopted last year by tha Admiralty was of such diminutive propor tions that but little advantage had been derived from it, though he owned that it had led to the promotion of some very able and deserving officers. A Royal Commission some years back pronounced the officers of the navy more ineffi cient than those of any other service, and he feared there was still too much truth in the statement. In several recent instances a disposition had been manifested by officers to retire from active service, and an unfortunate degree of apathy and indifference pervaded the body of naval officers. It would be necessary, also, for the committee to inquire what constituted "sea-service," as it was sometimes inter preted in a manner that did great injustice to deserving officers. He acknowledged the desire which the right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth had manifested when in office to treat naval officers with due consideration, but behaved that the prospective advantages which officers on the retired list were led to expect had not been conferred on them. He should cordially support the motion for a com mit tee. (Cr =.) Sir J. PAKINGTON said—Before I touch upon the sub ject of the motion, I must be allowed to express the deep regret with which I have heard the gallant admiral the member for Christchurch, led away for the moment by-the warmth of his feelings, impute to me that while I held office —l - Admiral Walcott—" Not at all."]—l treated him with neglect and contempt. [Admiral Walcott—" So you did.l (Laughter.) I can assure the gallant admiral that I was never led for a single moment to regard his services and professional character with any feelings but those of sincere respect. (Hear, hear.) He takes great offence with me, and ho has told the house very candidly the reason—namely, that I did not recommend him for the order of Companion of the Bath. [Admiral Walcott—" Not that you did not re commend, but that you did not follow out the recommend a tioa,"] The statement of the gallant admiral to one which we should not expect to hear publicly made, and I am sure the house will feel that in justice to myself I ought to give some explanation. (Hear, hear.) The gallant admiral added, that not only did I refuse, but that I made the refusal with unkindness, and without a conciliatory word. All I can say is, that if the gallant admiral, when the warmth of his feelings has subsided, will only refer to the letters which I wrote, I am sure ho will feel that I did con vey the refusal which I was sorry to be obliged to make in the kindest and most conciliatory language which I could use. And the simple reason which occasioned the refusal was this—that his case did not come within the rules of the order. (Hear, hear.) I therefore had no option in the matter, and had no power to recom • mend.—[Admiral Walcott—" I think I have shown that it did come within the order.] (Cries of " Order.") Having made this explanation, I will turn for a few moments to the motion of the hon. member for Portsmouth. I feel some regret that the discussion should have turned so much on the particular case of the reserved captains. (Hear.) The hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth told us that when he was First Lord ho drew up the minute and orgi nated the Order in Council referring to the reserved cap tains, and, that being the case, he knew better than any one what was the object of it. I think a matter of this kind must be decided, not by the intention of the Minister, but by the wording of the order itself. I have given some attention to the wording of that order, and I think it suffi ciently ambiguous to enable the Admiralty to shelter them selves under it; but that a strict end fair construction of it is in favour of the claim of those officers, and I am sorry the present Board do not seem disposed to take a generous view of their case. (Hear, hear.) The motion is very much the same in substance as one which I made last year. The hon. member moves for a committee ; I moved for a com mission. I retain the opinion that some inquiry ought to be granted. (Hear.) I think it is a great evil, and I am sure the Secretary to the Admiralty will not deny that it is a great evil, that officers of the British navy should , I :ie dis contented. (Hear.) I know not how far the Secretary ca . the Admiralty thinks, as he once said, that naval officers alway's are discontented, and always are grumbling. I do not think that one of their characteristics—(cheers)—and I deem it a great national evil that any officer of the service should have any just cause of complaint. (Hear.) At the present moment we are particularly called upon to Lave re gard to their claims, as the condition of the navy is not what it ought to be. (Hear, hear.) I shall probably re vert on a future occasion to that subject, but of this I am satisfied—that, before we can hope to have the dis cipline of the navy in a satisfactory state, we must take care that the officers are justly dealt with, and that they have good grounds to be content with their position. (Cheers.) There are two reasons why inquiry is more called for now even than last year. The present Board of Admiralty have taken into their consideration much that was said last year with regard to the unsatisfactory pay of the navy, and especially the pay of the captains. I stated last year some painful cases which had come under my own observ ation, where captains had been compelled to refuse corn• mend of ships through being unable to afford to accept them. The Board of Admiralty have since drawn up a new scale of pay, and unfortunately the result is that it gives a small boon to some classes, and it makes other classes worse off than they were. (Cheers.) I think that is an additional ground for inquiry. The other reason is of the same nature. The present Beard have adopted a new system of promotions and appointments, and that has failed to give satisfaction to the service. (Hear, hear.) I am sure the Board of Admiralty can have no wish to have these feelings of dissatisfaction existing, and we cannot have a stronger proof that the condition of the navy is not what it ought to be, than when an officer in the position of the hon. member for Devonport, fresh from active service, comes forward to support the statement of the hon. mem ber for Portsmouth, and to pledge his important opinion in favour of inquiry. (Cheers.) I hope the Government will take these facts into their consideration. All that-is asked is to extend to the navy the same description of inquiry which has twice been given within the last few years to the army. If the causes of dissatisfaction on the part of naval officers are groundless, the Admiralty will be fortified with arguments for resisting future motions which they do not now possess. If, on the other hand, the naval officers can establish the justice of their demands, the national feeling will surely require that those demands should be conceded (Cheers.) Lord C. PAGET.—I can quite understand the hon. mem ber for Portsmouth and the hon. member for Devonport advocating the claims of every class in the navy. I can quite understand the sympathy of other hon. members when they hear appeals on behalf of that noble and gallant service But that a Minister who has known the difficulties under which the Admiralty labour with the very limited means at their disposal—who knows that if these things are taken into consideration in the way he is encouraging the house to take them into their consideration, the marines and the army cannot be left out—who is perfectly aware that it is impossible to give that higher pay which I as a naval man must feel they ought to receive—who has had an opportu nity, when First Lord of the Admiralty, to have rectified what was wrong—when such a man comes down day after day to foment discontent in the navy—(no, no)—I say dis content in every class in the service, from the officers to the ships' crews—it is a lamentable fact indeed. (Loud cheers.) The present Board of Admiralty has been constantly occu pied in endeavouring to improve the pay of every class in the navy. What have we done ? Ido not blame my hon. friend, because he has not studied what has been done. He talks of giving command money to captains, and, in truth, reducing their pay instead of increasing it, but if he had read carefully the papers on the table ho could not have fallen into that mistake. (Hear, hear.) Officers in com mand of line-of-battle ships will receive about £lOO more pay than they do at present ; officers in command of large frigates will receive an additional £7O a-year ; while com manders and lieutenants will receive command pay. I shall not ask the right hon. baronet opposite to look at the papers, because I know his object is to show that we are endeavouring to damage the navy rather than doing what we can to improve the position of its officers. Sir J. PAKINGTON —I emphatically deny that I am actuated by any such motives as those which the noble lord has imputed to me. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord is not entitled to impute motives to any hon. gentleman NI ho may choose to address the house upon a subject of great public importance. (Near.) I appeal to the Speaker whether the imputation of motives is not disorderly. (Cheers.) Lord C. PAGET—It is not my intention to impute to the right hon. baronet that he knowingly does injustice to the present Board of Admiralty, but I say that the necessary effect of his continual harangues about the wrongs of the navy is to foment discontent in every rank of the service. (Hear, hear.) Let me put a practical question to the house. The hon. and gallant member for Portsmouth in his able speech touched upon the case of every class of officer in the navy. Here, then, you are asked to deal with between 5,000 and 6,010 commissioned officers, exclusive of warrant officers. Considering the view which the hon. and gallant member takes of the proceedings of the Admiralty, he will, I think, admit that an average of £lO a year to each officer would not be too much to grant. That addition, however, would at once amount to an increase of £50,000 or £60,000 a year in our estimates. Is the house prepared to sanction so considerable an addition to the estimates for the navy ? Last year we increased the retired pay of almost all classes in the navy ; we gave increased pay to masters, paymasters, and engineers; we gave pensions to the widows of warrant of f icers; and we endeavoured in various other ways to benefit the service. I am willing to admit that we have not done all I could wish, but that is because the Admiralty, with all its desire to improve the position of every branch of the service has been obliged on the ground of expense to stay its hand. The present motion may be divided into two parts. One has reference to the question of promotion. The hon. and gallant member for Portsmouth will have an opportunity of bringing the subject of promotion before a committee which I hope will be nominated in a few days. It is unnecessary, there fore, to dwell upon that point on thepresent occasion. The other part of the motion deals with the position of the seve ral classes of officers in the navy. I want the house to consider, if we are to appoint a committee to hear pathetic stories about the wrongs of individuals— wrongs which, no doubt, exist in the navy as in other services—and to listen to the tale of every unfortunate and often ill-used officer in the navy, what will be the result? The result will inevita bly be that the committee will make a report recommending a considerable increase of pay throughout the navy. Ts the house prepared for that ? As a naval officer myself, I could not be expected to, offer much opposition to it, but I must say, occupying the position which I do, that I would hesi tate before urging such a recommendation upon the house. I have been told that I should not consider myself as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the navy ; but what would the house say to me if I did not look to the general inter ests of the country, instead of simply endeavouring to im prove the position of my brother officers? (Hear, hear.) Some remarks were made by an hon. gentleman opposite with respect to political influence. I challenge the hon gentleman to name a case in which an officer has been promoted through political influence since the Duke of Somerset became First Lord of the Admiralty. Sir H. STRACEY.—I did not apply that remark exclu sively to the present Board of Admiralty. I referred to all preceding Boards quite as much as to the present. Lord C. PAGE C.—l accept the retractation of the hon. gentleman. Sir H. STRACEY.—No, I retract nothing; I merely explain. Lord C. PAGET.-4 am glad at all events that the hon. gentleman did not apply his observation particularly to the present Board of Admiralty, because I know that political influence has really nothing to do with promotion in the navy. (Hear, hear.) The hour is s 9 late that I shall not discuss all the complaints which were made by the hon. and gallant member for Portsmouth. I shall simply say that in what we have done during the last two years, in the addition we have made to the pay of several clams 3 of officers, and in our proposal to give command pay to commanders and lieutenants, we have proved our desire to improve the position of every branch of the service. Of course, as may be supposed, I feel a deep interest in the welfare of naval officers, but I must confess that I think many of the complaints we hear are unreasonable. If you appoint a committee to examine into those com plaints great demands will be made upon you. Th appointment of a committee will be an intimation to every officer to bring forward hie olaims, alv:. the, result will be I be presentation of a r :Tort which it will be impossible to ea try into effect. The recommendations of the committee all be rejected, and you will break the hearts of many m Ulcers. Such are the reasons which induce me to entreat the house not to agree to the motion now be fore us. (Hoar, hear.) Lord J. MANZ TERS, who rose amid eries of" Divide," said that the very excited speech which the house had just he'Ard from his nol do friend rendered it necessary that some remaelcs should be made upon it. He had listened with the greatest surprise to the declaration made by his noble friend of his' views an the subject of ex-Ministerial respon sibility. Ace 'ordirv; to that declaration it would seem that any hon. gentlOnan who had ever been in office was bound in all time coming` to t: old his tongue whenever any question was brought before the' house affecting the particular de pertinent with which he I.: , ad been connected. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Rememben.tg what the conduct and lan guage of his noble friend had been before he entered upon office, he could only hope that Lis noble friend would not pies which he had laid act in his own case upon. the princ. down to-night. When his noble friend was out of office there was no man more outspoken or more severe in his comments upon the mans gginent of the Admiral::v, and he trusted the house was net to understand that if ever his noble friend should chance to be out of office his tongue was to he hermetically sealed. (Cheers and laughter.) .Nis noble friend had asked the house whether it was prepared to, sanction an increased expenditure of £50,000 or £60,040 a. year upon the navy. He thought that if the house appoinled a committee of inquiry, and if that committee found that. injustice was done to the officers of the navy, the house would not hesitate to rectify that injustice, even though it were to cost £50,000 or £60,000 a-year. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had himself acknowledged that the officers of the navy were underpaid, and that their position was in many respects undeserved. Lord C. PAGET—I said nothing about their position. I simply expressed the opinion that they were underpaid. Lord J. MANNERS accepted the language of his noble: friend that the officers of tho navy were underpaid. When a Secretary of the Admiralty made a statement of that k u 2d 1w had no right to resist inquiry. His noble friend. m i g h i ; without inconsistency, have risen in his place, and apool a t - declaration that the officers of the navy were not under-114cl, and that their claims were not well founded, have called ;ipon the house to reject the motion of the hon. and gallant no., 9mber for Portsmouth ; but since he had chosen, as a nay., 1 officer and as a responsible member of the Government, to admit all that had been said in favour of that motion, he ha , - no right to throw any obstacle in the way of its adoption. (Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON—The noble lord has totally mis represented the argumei2t of my noble friend. (Hear.) What my noble frier d said was, that he was sorry to see a distinguished member of th is house like the right hon. baronet opposite, who had °cult , ied the responsible situation of First Lord of the Admiralty- not having, when in office, carried into operation the opinion s he now proclaims—wait ing till he was out of office in order tc , express them strongly, and knowing, as he must do, that unless those opinions were shared by those who have the , power to carry them out, he was running the risk of crea tivg dissatisfaction in. the service, which it was desirable to avoid. (Hear.) My noble friend stated that in his opinion ffie officers of the navy were underpaid. I should be disposed to generalize that assertion, and I should not be going too iitr if I were to say that all the services of the country were underpaid. (Cheers.) lam convinced that if you were to measure sim ply the rewards allotted in this country to public servants by the services performed and the merits of the officers, you might go through the army and the navy and the civil service, and you would find that all had claims to an in crease of pay. You might appoint a committee and go through all the establishments of the country to see whether each officer and each clerk received as much as the generosity of tlw country would be disposed to allow him if the funds would permit it; the result would be a great increase in. the expenditure of the country in every department. This motion is confined to the navy, but you could not confine the principle to that service only. You must extend it to the army, and if you extend it to the army you must in justice extend it to the civil service. I would, therefore, warn the house against going blindfold into an inquiry of which they cannot foresee the consequences. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. El XIIINSTONE pointed out that the pay of a tidewaiter was just that of a commander in the navy. (Rear.) The house .di , vided. The numbers were— For the /motion Against it jor ity —s The committee was therefore agreed to amid loud cheers. ITALIAN AFFAIRS. Mr. B. COCHRAINE moved for copies of the despatch containing the instruct ions alluded to by Mr. Elliot, in his despatch of the 18th day of September, which commences with the following words' In consequence of your lord ship's desire it became necessary for me to consider the best manner of seeing Genera; Garibaldi;" and of the de spatches of Admiral Mundy subsequent to the departure of Mr. Elliot from Naples. Mr. CARDWELL moved the nomination of the Select Committee on Poor Relief (Ireland) :—Mr. Cardwell, Lord Naas, Mr. Herbert, Lord Claude Hamilton, Mr. Monsell, Sir Edward. Grogan, Mr. Waldron, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Cogan, Colonel Forde, Lord J. Browne, 3lr. Maguire, Mr. Gre gory, Mr. George, and Sir J. Arno tt. Mr. BUTT moved theadjournn; ent of the debate. Th 9 committee was almost exclusively a landlord's committee. Mr. CARD WELL defended the constitution of the com mittee, the nomination of which was postponed till Thurs day. The house adjourned at a quarter peat nne o'clock. Mr. COLLIER paired for Mr. Dodson's motion with Sir G. BowYER against it. - - COUNTRY MARKETS. LIVERPOOL--MARCH 5. There was a fair attendance of both the town and country trade at this morning's market, and we had a good business in wheat of all descriptions, and flour, at very full prices. Oats and oatmeal were slow of sale. Barley and peas little dealt in. •Indian corn at about the currencies of last market day, with a dull sale. Beans cheaper. LEEDS—MARcit 5. Our market to-day Avas fairly attended by millers, but the trade in wheat was in retail. Wheat must be noted at the rates of last week ; inferior sorts a perfect drug. Good barley was is lower. Beans and oats each as before. BRISTOL-MARCH 5. At our market to-day there was a moderate attendance. A fair business was done in foreign wheat, at last Tuesday's rates. No alteration to note in other articles. NEWCASTLE-UNDER LYNE—Minx 4. At this corn market there was a tolerable supply of wheat. The trade was firm, and prices were at the full rates of last week—white making 64s to 765, red. 48s to 565. The demand for barley was limited, but at no reduction in value. Oats were in fair supply, with a slow sale, from 24s to 32s per 24 stone. Beans steady, flout 40s to 508 per qr. NORWICH CATTLE. The show of store cattle to-day was very large, and as buyers were more numerous, business was animated, last week's rates being fully supported. Scots, 4s 6d to 5s Od; shorthorns, 4s to 4s 6d ; Irish, 3s 6d to 9s Od; Devons, 48 to 4s 6d (estimated weight when fat). Fat beasts a large show, and sales good, at 8s Od to 8s 6d per 141 b. Sheep—There was a better supply - of sheep in the pens. Fat sheep, 9s Od to 9s 6d per stone ; prime, 10s Od Pigs—A fair supply. Store pigs, 18s to 245; fat pork, 7s 6d to 8s Od per stone. [ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably ag glavate and perpetuate diseases ; their annoyance, dis appointment, and expense may be avoided by persons in indifferent health ' sending only their address to E. S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they will receive gratis and free by post the "INVALIDS' Own GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex p'nse, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the removal of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints. nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitation , cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarrhoea dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds, noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpi. tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, spasms, sinking. fits, bronchitis "Unouestionably the safest Gold tb health " 13 1 lt T H S. Conn.—On the 4th inst., at Radnor Cliff Villa, near Sand.. gate, the wife of Thomas Cobb, Esq., of a son. GARRETT.—On the sth inst., at Gloucester Villa, Bles sington-road, Lee, Kent, Mrs. jabez Garrett, of a son. MITCHELL.—On the sth inst., at Queen's-road, Regent's park, the wife of C. J. Mitchell, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES. POOLEY—LIGHTrom—On the lst inst., at Islington, the Rev. James Pooley, of Corsham, Wilts, to Cornelia, the eldest daughter of the late Major-General Lightfoot, C. 8., late Colonel 62d Regt. RIPLEY— SMALL.—On the 12th ult., at St. James's Ca thedral, 'Toronto, J. P. Ripley, Esq., son of the Rev. T. H. Ripley, of Wooton Basset, Wilts, to Eliza, daughter of Charles C. Small, Esq., of Berkeley House, Toronto. DEATHS. AGAIL—On the 3d inst., at 1, Dean-street, Park-lane, Anna Maria, widow of the non. Charles Agar, at an advanced age. BEAUMONT.—On thr , 4th inst., at Loudwater, near High Wycombe, Caroline, widow of Walter Beaumont, Esq., of Bridgeford Hill, county of Nottingham, aged 90. BuLLErt.—On the 3d inst., at Duxford Vicarage, near Cambridge, Herbert M. Buller, fourth son of James W. Buller, Esq., of Downes, M.P. for North Devon, aged 18. CROOME.—On the 4th inst., at Cirencester, Robert Bennett Croome, Esq., aged 85. FREEMAN. —On the Ist inst., at Bath, George Freeman, E CK S IS.O' g the 4th inst., at 3, King•street, Covent garden,sa._e d 07u4 JA . John Jackson, age d 39. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG, at No. 112, Strand, Printer, at THE Sun Office, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, WeClUeNdaY, ch t, 1861. ?~~' t ,---