The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-07 00:00:00

LONDON, • FRIDAY E-VENING, MARCH 7,186 g.

~sa."~ F'i.~

IRt

C. Lewis) should be most happy to give him his assistance.
The vote was then agreed to,
meOnnts, engineering
gveeeterionfeD34,lsl for manufacturing es tablish-
civil establishments, barrack masters'
lodging money, rents, &c.,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he thought he shag 1d best dis-
charge his duty by offering to the committe a short state-
ment of the present condition of our manufacturing seta,-
blishments. We had at Woolwich a royal gun factory;
there was also at Woolwich a carriage factory, a laboratory,
an inspector of artillery's:LlT-artment, and a chwhital de-
partment. At Enfielft there was an tatabliShment for the
manufacturt of small arms ; at Pimlico, a small establish-
mett for the repair of arms ; and a similar establishment at
the Tower. At Birmingham we had an establishment for
the examination of contract small arms; at Waltham
Abbey, a factory of gunpowder; at Portsmouth, a small
laboratory, and another at Plymouth. The number of
small arms manufactured since 1863 was 1,093,000. Of these
there had been issued to the army, militia, navy, and volun-
teers, 501,000 ; to the Indian service. 192,000 ; to the colo-
nies, 20,000; making together, 713,000. There were in
store besides 601,000 stand of small arms ; and the number
rendered unserviceable from various causes was 22,000.
That was as to the small arras. The committee were aware
that a great change had been introduced into iron ordnance
in consequence of the improvements made by Sir W. Arm-
strong. The whole amount appropriated for the manufac-
ture of these guns during the current financial year will
have been £521,000 ; out of which sum 1,489 guns had been
constructed. Two -thirds of these were of heavy calibre,
681 being 100-pounders and 341 40 -pounders. These, with
about 900 guns previously supplied, would make up the
number of nearly 2,400 Armstrong guns. Much interest
had been expressed by the statements as to the failure of
the Armstrong guns; and he (Sir G. C. Lewis) was in a
position to say, from all the information he had obtained,
that he was able to give an entire denial to the repre-
sentations which had been made as to the failure of these
guns. (Hear, hear.) If necessary he could lay before
the committee evidence as to the particular points on which
dissatisfaction had been expressed. But he thought it
better not to trouble the committee by going into de-
tails. He might say that everything he had heard
convinced him that the statements made as to the failure of
these guns had been either erroneous or grossly exaggerated,
and that on the whole, with the exception of some small
defects which had been remedied by subsequenfexperience,
those guns had answered all that was expected of them.
There was also the case of the Whitworth ordnance. Mr.
Whitworth was a very ingenious man, and he professed to
have made certain improvements both in the larger guns
and in the regulation Enfield rifles. There was a discussion
last session on the Whitworth rifle, and the Government
then undertook that the subject should be carefully consi-
dered. A battery of six guns, complete for the field, had
been cast at Woolwich, according to Mr, Whitworth's
pattern, and had been bored by himself. That battery was
intended to be used for the field, and would then be tried by
the experience of actual service. In this manner we should
best arrive at a knowledge of the comparative merits of the
Whitworth ordnance. Then with regard to the Whitworth
rifles, 1,000 Whitworth rifles were to be made at Enfield
according to a pattern supplied by Mr. Whitworth; an in-
fantry regiment was to be armed with them experimen-
tally, and he was to manufacture 500,C00 rounds of ammu-
nition himself at the public expense. He had also permitted
Captain Boxer to manufacture shells and fuses for the
guns. In this manner we should have actual experience both
of his rifles and his heavy ordnance, He (Sir G. C. Lewis)
trusted the committee would see that the Government had
thus redeemed the promise they had given last session.
The manufactories at Woolwich were undoubtedly on a
very large scale, a scale which, although he believed it
was gainful to the public, by reason of the saving thus
made as compared with what would have to be paid to con-
tractors, could only be maintained at a large actual cost to
the country. Be might assure the committee at the same
time that the results were important, and that the reserves
at Woolwich were in a very satisfactory condition. A siege
train was in readiness there, consisting of 105 mortars and
750 rounds of ammunition a-piece, which was fitted for
operations against a fortress of the largest class, and might
be shipped in 48 hours. He believed there nevet was a
time when the country was so well prepared in this respect.
Great exertions also had been made towards the re-arma-
ment of the fortifications ; not only abroad, as at Gibraltar
and Malta, the old ordnance had been replaced by new and
improved guns, but there had been a great addition made to
the ordnance in various parts of the United Kingdom. The
armament of this country bad been increased from 2,247
guns to 3,472, and when the committee bore in mind the
expense of these guns, they would be aware that this change
could not be accomplished without a great outlay. It was
also necessary in this estimate to insert a large provision
for gunpowder. The consumption of gunpowder had greatly
increased, chiefly inconsequence of the extent to which expe-
rimental firing was carried on, so much as to make the ex-
pense nearly as heavy as in a year of war. Considerable
improvements had also been made in field artillery, which
in the modern system of war was of great importance. He
thought he had now placed the committee in possession of a
general outline of the vote. He wished he could impress
upon them the conviction which he felt as to the ne-
cessity of the large expenditure they were now making on
these objects ; but he could assure them he thought the
money which was now being voted by Parliament for the
war estimated was being economically applied to the pur-
poses for which it was intended. He was quite aware that
the impression on the public mind was that it was possible
to have an equally efficient,er even a more efficient military
system than the present one, at a diminished expenditure,
by an improvement of our organisation. He had endea-
voured to test the soundness of that view since he came
into his present office, and he had arrived at this conclusion,
that unless they diminished the numerical strength of the
army, or the military stores, or the provisions made for
the comfort and health of the great bulk of the army, it
would be impossible to make any material reduction in the
amount of the present estimates. Unless the progress of
invention was arrested—if they were to go on constantly
re-arming the troops with a succession of new arm,
new rifles, and new guns, to be discarded three or
four years hence, he could not hold out to the committee
any sanguine anticipation of a reduction in this large vote.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that several millions of
money had been laid out on this vote, and it was extremely
doubtful whether these millions had been wisely and pru-
dently laid out. He should like to know what was the whole
cost of these establishments. What means had the right
hon. gentleman of knowing the cost of them ? Who kept
the books and accounts, and how were they kept ? The com-
mittee on military organisation, of which the late Sir J.
Graham, the hon. member for Coventry, and the right hon.
member for Huntingdon were members, found fault with
the way in whiCh these accounts were kept, and said that
f. 40,000 per manth was paid away without any general ca-
shier of general paymaster. The money was also placed in
private banks. They recommended that various changes
should be made, and he wished to know what changes
had been made since their report. Mr, Godley, who was
examined before that committee, stated that the system had
been carried too far, and that-they did not trust sufficiently
to the efforts of private individuals. • The evidence went to
show that there was no balance-sheet in the carriage de-
partment, and he believed Sir B. Hawes had no power of
rejection. Had the right hon. gentleman any means of
knowing the amount of stores and munitions in stock ? The
witnesses were asked over and overagain if they could show
a profit and loss account, and they replied that they could
not. They did not surely want to add stores upon stores,
but having once ascertained what an article could be pro-
duced for, they should go to the private manufacturer for it.
He believed that this was one of the points in which the
House of Commons could beneficially step in to reduce ex-
penditure. He did not believe the right hon. gentleman had.
more power to stop the expense than he had.
Sir G. C. LEWIS soid the hon. baronet had referred to
the report of the committee on military organisation, but
he ought to have referred to the report of the committee on
the stores department, which was presented on the 19th of
March, 1861, which was signed by Mr. Anderson, the repre-
sentative of the Treasury, who was an exceedingly acute
accountant. All the points to which the hon. baronet re-
ferred had been rectified according to that report. The in-
quiry into Weedon and Woolwich was quite satisfactory.
Each of the Government manufactories sent in a balance-
sheet fur the year, and every other security was taken for
the purpose of seeing Ithat the Government manufactories
were remunerative, and that the system was conducted on
the principle of profit and loss, The plan on which the
Government proceeded was to manufacture one-half the
supply themselves, and to get the other half from private
manufacturers; so that the cost at which the Government
could buy the article would be a check on the Government
manufacture, and the cost at which the Government could
manufacture would be a check on the price of the private
maker. lie could only say that hitherto the facts went
to show that the manufacture by Government, as at pre-
sent conducted, was economical, and that the persons em-
ployed acted honestly. The contractors complained that the
Government did not make sufficient allowance for the cost
of plant. No doubt it was difficult to ascertain what was
the precise allowance to be made on that account, but cn
the whole they had reason to believe that the present
system was good. As to the taking of stock the heads of
departments took the most accurate accounts of the stores,
and he never found any difficulty in getting a distinct answer
to any inquiry on that point.
Mr. ELLICE (Coventry) se id that what the hon. baronet
had stated was perfectly true. The committee of which he
was a member found fault with the mode in which the ac-
counts had been kept, which were in a considerable state of
confusion. They also found that the money was kept in
different private banks in, tend of being kept in the Bank of
England and paid through that establishment. But he had
ofcsstook;
i
no doubt that an improvement had been made since then in
Dixone respects. The department at Enfield under Colonel
tain the details
were kept very regularly, but in all the Government
been sent down
departmentsjarnththeye should be so kept that you might ewer-
both
I reported that they lir:
re-
gularly and so well.
to which the hon.
of expenditure and receipt, the amount
lastest of the different manufactured articles.
to
isan id that the three gentlemen who had
into the department at Woolwich
With ver
regard
any accounts kept so
made.
tar
To
he t o
materials the depart-
meat,c.sahrrouialdgebeofthe;fberered, it was essential to
the efficiency of the artillery;thart
ages should be
well and efficiently

best quality, and every part of them should be made under
inspection.
Mr. MONSELL quite agreed with the hon. and gallant
officer that the carriage and also the gun department should
be under the superintendence of Government. But it ap-
peared to him that the clothing department stood upon
totally different ground. There was another vote in the
estimates to the amount of £40,000 for increasing the build-
ing of this branch at Pimlico, anti for the machinery for
army dlothillg. He believed they should have a small esta-
blishment for the purpose of checking the private trade, but
nine-tenths of the army clothing was made up not by private
traders, but by Government establishments. He believed
there was no analogy between the manufacture of guns for
the army and the making of coats and trowsers, and there-
fore when they came to the items to which he referred, he
should take the sense of the house upon it.
Sir F. SMITH thought the house and the public were
entitled to more information with regard to the Armstrong
guns. According to some authorities, a great number of
these guns would become totally useless in course of action.
He hoped the right hon. baronet would appoint a commit-
tee of competent officers, to ascertain whether the weapon
was faultless. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the
manufacturing establishments at Woolwich, and to no one
were they more indebted for their present state of perfection
than the right hon. gentleman the member for Limerick.
Re was glad to hear the right hon. baronet express his sa-
tisfaction with the Weedon establishment, because he had
entertained a different opinion with regard to it.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he had alluded to the statement of
the commissioners with respect to Woolwich.
Sir F. SMITH hoped the Government would never em-
ploy private establishments for the manufacture of gun
carriages.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the right hon. gentleman the
member for Limerick had stated that nine-tenths of the
clothing of the army were made by government establish-
ments. This extraordinary statement had taken him and
the committee by surprise, and he thought that some answer
to it ought to be given. If it were true, the house ought to
come to some direct vote on the subject. In the exceptional
cases of gun carriages and ammunition there might be some
reason for the Government becoming manufacturers, but
there could be none for their conducting a great clothing
establishment.
Mr. A. TURNER admitted that nothing could be more
disgraceful than the mode of keeping accounts at Weedon,
but at Woolwich the store accounts were almost perfect.
Nothing could be more improper than that the Government
should compete with manufacturers in regard to articles
which formed the general trade of the country.
Major PARKER believed that gun carriages might be
quite as well made in India, where the best materials for
them were to be found.
Sir H. VERNEY did not see why every article of cloth-
ing for the army should not be made in barracks as in
foreign countries. He believed that by the adoption of such
a system a great saving might accrue to the country. With
regard to rifles he thought that means ought to be adopted
to see whether the rifles of volunteers were in a perfect
state.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he was not aware of any intention
to increase the proportion of articles of clothing manufac-
tured by the Government as distinguished from those sup-
plied by contract. The vote for Pimlico was not for the
purpose of increasing the manufacture of articles but for
increasing the stores. The number of battalions of infan-
try supplied with clothing from Pimlico was 39, and the
number supplied by contractors 46.
Mr. MONSELL asked if that included the whole cloth-
ing, or only the tunics or trowsers ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS apprehended that it included the whole
clothing.
Mr. WARNER expressed a hope that a satisfactory
answer would be given to the question put by the hon.
member for Chatham (Sir E. Smith) in reference to the
charges which had been made in Captain Holstead's pam-
phlet against the Armstrong guns. The answer given by
the right hon. bart. (Sir G. C. Lewis) had been taken from
the letter written by Sir W. Armstrong in reply to Capt.
Holstead, but which had been met by the latter with coun-
ter statements. Grave doubts existed as to the danger
arising from the gun, not only to those who fired it, but to
all who were within reach of it. (Laughter.) The matter,
he considered, required further explanation than that which
had been offered.
Lord PALMERSTON—The defect of the Armstrong
projectile to which my hon. friend alludes was very much
felt in the earlier use of the gun—that is to say, that the
lead, a strip of which is put on the iron in order to make
it fit the groove, stripped off soon after the projectile quitted
the muzzle of the gun. That defect has been corrected.
(Hear.) The lead is now fastened in such a manner that it
cannot slip off until the shot strikes the ground, ricochets,
or enters the object against which it is directed. It is there-
fore satisfactory to know that a defect which was attended
with great danger, has ceased to exist. With respect to the
splitting of the vent piece, that has been pretty well cor-
rected by an improvement of the metal of which the vent
piece is made. As to the blowing out, that arises almost
invariably from the improper placing of it in the gun, not
allowing it to drop freely into the place for which it is in-
tended ; by which means, when the screw forces it upagainst
the breech, it is forced into a position by which a vacuum is
created between it and the bottom of the bore. The conse-
quence was that gas got into that space, and closed the vent
up. But if the vent-piece is dropped freely into its position
and then screwed up, and the screw is allowed to act freely,
the vent piece cannot be forced up. There were two causes
which frequently prevented the vent piece from being pro-
perly screwed up. One was in the marine guns, which is
elevated by quoins, and not by screw, as is the case in field-
pieces. The quoin frequently stopped the handle of the screw
by which the vent piece is closed up, and left a vacuum be-
tween it and the part which it ought to join. An arrange.
ment is now being made to remedy that inconvenience, and
whenever that vent piece is properly screwed up it is quite
impossible that any accident can happen. (Hear, hear.)
Major PARKER thought the charge of £6,000 for
sweeping chimneys—(a laugh)—was a monstrous one. The
produce of the chimneys being a valuable fertiliser, ought
to repay the expense of its removal.
Sir G. C. LEWIS was under the impression that private
individuals incurred expense for sweeping chimneys—
(laughter)—and that the soot was not a source of profit to
them, but the contrary. There was an item which had been
passed over without observation, but which, had he been in
a position to criticise the estimates—(a laugh)—he would
have taken some notice of. He alluded to the sum of
£12,600 charged for emptying cesspools. (Laughter.) So
long as the buildings were under the control of the War
Office sums like those alluded to would require to be voted.
The vote was then agreed to, as was also the vote for
£766,091 for wages, &c.
On the vote of £597,264 for clothing, &c.,
Mr. B. OSBORNE inquired what object the War-office
had in changing four regiments of Light Dragoons—viz.,
the 3d, 4th, 13th, and 14th—into Huzzars. The regiments
were proud of being called Light Dragoons, and had done
good service to the country—on many a field. The change
did not promote economy ; oh the contrary, it increased
expense ; and he considered tho change bad in principle, and
calculated to have a bad effect upon the newly created
huzzars.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the measure alluded to did not
in any way originate with the Executive Government. It
was a matter which they considered mainly belonged to the
discipline. The Military Commission had recommended
the change, and also further alterations, which were agreed
to. The alterations were in the names of the regiments,
and a slight change in the dress, which was almost nominal,
Mr. B. OSBORNE observed that the alteration made a
difference of £l5O in the cost of the officers' dress.
Colonel NORTH considered that the change referred to
was a step in the wrong direction. The troops looked with
great disgust at the alteration. Last year it was proposed,
in compliment to a foreign neighbour, to take from his
(Colonel North's) own regiment the eagle button which they
had won upon the field. He hoped that the proposition
would never be carried out.
Colonel SYKES also expressed an opinion adverse to the
change of the light dragoon regiments to hussars.
Lord PALMERSTON—I can quite understand objections
to unnecessary changes, but really the objections taken in
the course of this discussion if followed out would go to this
estent—that our cavalry ought now, as in the olden time, to
wear pigtails, plastered heads, and cocked hats. (Laughter.)
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of £1,634,317 for provisions, forage, fuel,
light, barrack furniture, bedding, &c.,
Sir G. C. LEWIS explained that the increase in the vote
of this year over the sum required for the same purposes
last year was in consequence of extra fuel and light being
required for the troops sent to Canada and those serving in
China.
Mr. W. W ILLIAMS complained of the great increase
in this vote, being nearly £200,000. After referring to the
charge of £5,004 for table allowances, &c., to officers serv-
ing at St. James's Palace, the hon. member moved that that
sum be struck out of the vote.
Sir H. VERNEY denied that the Guards had any pe-
culiar privileges. It was true they were exempt from colo-
nial service, but then were they not always the first sent to
the post of danger ? (Hear.) He could also testify that
there was no jealousy of the Gitartls in the line.
Colonel BARTTELOT said that the dinner was not for
the Guards specially, but for any regiment that might be
doing duty at the Palace. It was the same at the Castle of
Dublin and at the Banks of England and Ireland.
Colonel NORTH remembered the 6th (Royal) doing
duty at the Palace and getting the allowance.
After some further conversation,
Mr. WILLIAMS withdrew his amendment.
Mr. WILD wished to call attention to the state of the
canteens throughout the country. These establishments
were now all in the hands of great contractors, and some
individuals were making £B,OOO or £lO,OOO a year out of
them. He trusted that before bringing on the estimates
next year the matter would be attended to.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the matter was under con-
sideration.
Tho vote was agreed to.
£2,060,276 warlike stores for land and sea services.
Mr. W. MARTIN deprecated the enormous and continu-
ous accumulation of warlike stores, in the face of the new
inventions which were coming out every day both in arms
and projectiles. Wo had made, and were making, immense
stocks of weapons, which would most probably in five years

become obsolete. Re had, a few days since, seen Ivo) very
fine small-bore carbines, which had been bought at Os. the
couple. Here must have been an enormous loss to the pub-
lic. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the stook of rifles in store
did not exceed 301,000, which could not be called too much.

Mr. DILLWYN was rather sorry to hear that a whole
regiment was to be armed with the Whitworth rifle. He
thought the long t deld was a good enough atm for any
service. He deprecated having different arms with diffe-
rent gauges, which was likely to create confusion on the
field of battle.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said many persons thought the Whit-
worth rifle a superior arm to the Enfield, and that the En-
field should be discarded and the Whitworth substituted.
Government were not prepared to go that length, but they
had determined to arm one regiment with the Whitworth.
This measure had been taken in deference to the opinion of
the house, and of scientific persons out of the house. The
Government was not in any way pledged to any general

measure.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said the house had a great many stria
to answer for, but he was not aware that the house, in its
corporate capacity, had expressed an opinion in favour of
the Whitworth rifle. He believed that they would be ob-
liged to come, as continental armies had done, to the breech-
loading principle.
Sir G. C. LEWIS was not aware that any continental
army had a'. opted a breech, loading arm. The French army
had not. The American army was armed with a rifle
closely resembling the Enfield rifle.
The vote was then agreed.
The next vote was £163,491 for fortifications at home and
abroad.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said £30,000 of this sum was for forti-
fications for the defence of commercial harbours. Of this,
£6,000 was for the fortification of the Mersey ; £3,000 for
the Severn, which would defend Gloucester and Cardiff;
£5,000 for the Frith of Forth, and £2,500 for Belfast.
Mr. DILLWYN said he was going to move that the vote
for the Severn be omitted, but first he would ask what was
doing with regard to Alderney.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said £2,000 was to be applied in com •
pleting the purchase of land.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Why is Alderney called Guernsey?
(Laughter.)
Sir G. C. LEWIS said if the hon. member would look to
the top of the page he would find the word " district."
Captain JERVIS thought it was most important to de-
fend Harwich, which was a very open harbour, and was
opposite Antwerp. It was a matter of just complaint that
votes were taken every year for fortifications which were
never erected. In the case of Hull money was granted for
many consecutive years before it was actually spent.
Sir G. LEWIS said the votes in committee of supply
were in the nature of a maximum, and there was no com-
pulsion upon the Government to lay out the money
granted. It was the opinion of military authorities that
the three points refer red to would be very proper sites for
defensive works. He could not Undertake to say whether
the sum !proposed would be expended this year, but he
thought it was probable that it would.
Viscount PALMERSTON observed that till the esti-
mates were voted neither drawings could be made nor cou•
tracts entered into, both of which operations often took a
great deal of time. The winter would come on, and the
works would be interrupted, so that it was often impracti-
cable to spend the money within the financial year.
Mr. DILLWYN was of opinion that neither the British
Channel stood in need of land defences, nor that the pro-
posed defences were judicious. He begged to move that
the vote be reduced by £3,000.
Sir F. SMITH thought the Government had come to a
wise decision. In the last French war a French frigate
actually entered the Severn and caused a great deal of
alarm. Besides our gunboats would need apoint d'appui to
retire upon in case they encountered a too formidable force.
Major KNOX, felt bound to expostulate with the Go-
vernment on the shabby sum of £2,000 appropriated to the
Irish harbours out of £163,000. (Hear, hear.)
Lord FERMOY suggested that, instead of setting up
on isolated rocks batteries that could either be captured by
the enemy or avoided by him altogether, they should take
all the prominent parts of the coast and erect on them tele..
graph stations communicating by a submarine wire to our
naval stations, where a fleet of gunboats might always be
kept ready to start a moment's notice.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the suggestion of the noble
lord were worthy of attention ; but it could not be consi •
dered an economical mode of defence. It would obviously
be cheaper to have batteries, which could be manned by the
volunteers of the neighbourhood; and he was sure the vote
would not be grudged by the commercial communities, to
whose protection it was intended to contribute.
Sir G. LEWIS would ask the noble lord how much sub-
marine telegraph he thought could be laid down for £3,000?
He (the right hon. baronet) knew from recent experience
what alarm the commercial ports felt at the state of their
defences. If he had paid attention to a tithe of the applica-
tions which had been made to him, orally and in writing,
by many extremely frightened people, the proposed vote
would have to be very much larger. (Laughter.)
Mr. MONSELL said that if an effectual defence could be
provided against privateers by the vote, there could be no
doubt that the money would be well laid out. The plan
suggested by the noble lord would be costly, but it would
be effectual, and he did not think we should be long at war
of
of we
he 1.,
twithout
ntrth et
hceo mGmo
reericni am
el t
no
tw no sf
fw:rtchingantyhemaadrioptitmione
the day, whether the defences now proposed were executed
or not. (Hear, hear.) He would therefore venture to pro-
pose that the vote be postponed.
Viscount PALMERSTON observed that mere floating
defences could never be so applicable at a moment's notice,
or so effectual as defences on shore. During the Uanish war
the Duke of Coburg, by means of an earthwork battery
which he had erected on the land, and armed with field
pieces, succeeded in destroying a frigate and a man-of-war,
and certainly he did not think that the people of Bristol
would feel very comfortable if they reflected that their de-
fences were in Cork Harbour or Milford Haven, cr at Ply-
mouth. (A laugh.) A fleet of gunboats stationed at a dis-
tance might be delayed in the hour of peril, and when it
came it might prove less powerful than the force against
which it had been summoned. (Hear.) If in the opinion
of military men an efficient defence could be provided by
the vote, it was not reasonable to take exception to the small-
ness of the amount. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE and Colonel
STITES,
The committee divided—
For the amendment 36
Against it
Majority for the original vote —6o
Mr. ADDERLhY said the house passed a very import-
ant vote two da3 s ago, and he wished to know whether the
Government were practically going to act on those resolu-
tions, and if so, how they could reconcile asking that even-
ing for a vote which seemed to be in contradiction of a vote
made the day before yesterday. Tho most objectionable
item in' this vote was that of £15,000 for the continuation
of a work which had already cost £140,000, he meant the
fortification of the island of Mauritius. He might also
glance at the vote of fortifications for St. Helena. He called
upon tho Government to defend these votes, or he would
support the hon. member for Montrose if he fulfilled his
intention of taking the sen,e of the house on the second part
of the resolution be moved the day before yesterday.
Mr. MONSELL wished to call attention to another vote,
that for the lonian Islands. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had given most important evidence on this subject.
He said that at the time of his visit he had made a point of
inquiring p.rticularly into the state of defence of the lonian
Islands, and his deliberate opinion was, that they were
worse than useless; that they would require an immense
body of men to defend them, and that they were within only
30 hours of Malta, from whence, if we had the command of
the sea, they might,bo defended by our navy. He wished
to ask whether this vote ought to be inserted,
Mr. COX said that the same question might be extended
to Newfoundland, for which there was a vote of £1,000;
and to New Brunswick and Neva Scotia, for which there
was a vote of £lO,OOO.
Sir G. C. LEWIS wished to relieve the Government
from any imputation of unfairness. The resolution of the
4th March was to the effect that whilst the house fully recog-
nised the right of the colonies to receive aid from the
mother-country, it was of opinion that the colonies, having
the right of self-government, ought to furnish the means
of providing for their own security. But as to the latter part
of the resolution, the Government distinctly said they could
not agree to it. With regard to the Mauritius, he wished to
say that it was not the intention of the Government to ask
the house to vote the sum of £49,000, included in the sth
column as the sum required for the further defence of the
island. That was inserted merely that the history of the
transaction might be complete, and the vote would not be
asked for. With respect to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
those defences were agreed upon at a time when there was
an alarm of hostilities with the United States. It was re-
presented to the Government that these places were very
inadequately defended. The immediate urgency had no
doubt passed away, but the Government still intended to
ask for those votes, unless any hon. member expressed any
good reason to the contrary.
Sir S. M. PETO moved the reductien of the vote by
£5,500, the amount proposed to be voted for the lonian
Islands.
Sir G. C. LEWIS explained that there had been a re •
armament of the fortifications at Corfu ; that larger guns
had been brought into use, and had necessitated larger ma-
gazine accommodation.
Sir S. M. PETO withdrew his amendment, and the vote
was agreed to.
Upon the next vote of £158,118 to defray the charges of
civil buildings,
Mr. NEWDEGATE remarked that there was a great
desire on the part of the manufacturers of arms in Birming-
ham that their manufactures should be inspected by a per-
son independent of the Enfield establisbment.
of SthireGE.
as inspector of Birmingham manufactured arms, but would
nefi.e
ILd LEWISf
aheat do
ry no reexaesrocni s
et od baenl eveiy untdhuaet
itnhfieuhe
ne acde
bear in mind the remark of the hon. gentleman, ;and take
care that the matter received proper consideration.
The vote was then agreed to.
&c being put,
On the vote of £677,955 for barracks,
Mr, SELWYN moved the reducti93l ci estimate by
~

the slim of £10,787, the araoturt proposed to be expended
on the enlargement of the college at Sandhlitst.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that last year a sum of '16,6'00
had been voted for the purpose of providing accommodation
at Sandhurst. Of that sum £953 hadbeen actually expended,
so that the sum now asked and the sum already laid ott
would not in fact atoonnt to the vote agreed to last year.
Mr. BRUCE observed that the. rote of last year was
carried by a very narrow majority. He was also of opinion
that the system of compulsory education adopted was bad
in principle.
Mr. WALPOLE thought that the education of young
men at the various universities ought not to be interfered
with, as it would be if the system condemned by those Who
had preceded him were carried out. It was calculated to be
eminently useful to young men intended for one profession
tO mix with those who were intended for their calling.
After a few words from Sir H. VERNEY and Sir M.
Ritittf,
For the amendment.. . Bl
53-28
Against it ................. 4• • •
The vote as reduced by the above decision Was agreed to,
and the Chairman was ordered to report progress, the eon-
sideration of the army estimates to be resumed on Monday
, next.

NEW ROAD THROUGH HYDE-VARIC-.
Mr. COQ nut moved the estimate for £2,000 for iii§
construction of a temporary road through Hyde-park. The
road, which he said would use as little Of the park as was
absolutely necessary, would enter the park at the Vittoria-
gate, and cross the bridge over the Serpentine. The road
would proceed down Rotten-roW, from whence it would
pass into Prince Albert's-road, and thence to the Exhibi-
tion. It would be 35 feet a ide, eicept oil the bridge,
where it would be 30, and the expense of metalling, &c,,
would be 3s. 3d. a yard. Taking the length of the road at
1,100 yards and the width at 35 feet, 3s. 3d. the yard would
make exactly £2,000. When the temporary necessity for
it had ceased, it would be taken up, and the
materials would sell for a considerable amount. It was
proposed that all carriages, including cabs and omnibuses,
should have free transit, but not waggons laden with gocds.
Me plan he proposed had the merit of not interfering with
any existing roads or boundaries or with the grass of the
park. The surface of Rotten-row would be merely hardened
at the part crossed by the road, in order to adapt it for car-
riage traffic. The right hon. gentleman concluded by mov-
ing a vote of £2,000.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said of all the plans suggested for
getting over a difficulty of making a communication between
Bayswater and Kensington, the one now proposed by the
right hon. gentleman was the most absurd. (Oh, oh.) Well,
that was his own opinion. If the narrow bridge across the
Serpentine were open to carriage traffic, riders in Rotten-
row would clearly be cut off from all communication with
the other side of the park, A better, simpler, and more eco-
nomical plan would be to convert the broad walk across
Kensington-gardens into a carriage road. This could be
done at an expense of about £3OO, and without causing any
inconvenience to the public. (Hear-)
Lord FERMOY said that as he was the feather weight
which on a late occasion broke the camel's back, he might
be allowed to say a few words in favour of the right hon,,
gentleman's scheme. (Laughter.) It could not be expected
that the interests of the few would be sacrificed for that of
the many. He thought the line proposed by the right hon.
gentleman was in the right direction, but he would suggest
that the whole of the bridge should be open for carriage
traffic, and a small pontoon bridge thrown across the water
for foot passengers.
Sir M. PETO said the other night he suggested to the
right hon. gentleman the plan he had adopted, and he
thought it was the best under the circumstances. He did
not agree in the proposal for a pontoon bridge, but a sub-
stitute could be :found by Captain Fowke, who bad sig-
nally succeeded in the Exhibition building. (Oh.) He (Sir
M. Pete) spoke with regard to the construction of the build-
ing, and not in reference to it in an arehitectu6l sense.
(A laugh.) Captain Fowke could easily make a footway of
timber 14 or 15 feet wide at the side of the bridge at a
trifling cost. No practical inconvenience would arise to
riders in Rotten-row from the road crossing it in the way
suggested. (Oh, oh, and laughter.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON did not think that the right hon.
gentleman's plan was either the best or the worst. His
worst plan was that which he had wisely abandoned, for
making a subway across Kensington-gardens. (Hear.) He
agreed with the hon. member for Honiton, that the least
costly, the most direct, and the most convenient mode of
meeting the requirements of the Exhibition, was to allow
public carriages to use the broad walk across Kensington-
gardens. (Hear.)
Mr. PEACOCKE was in favour of the road across Ken-
sington-gardens. The right hon. gentleman's plan was, in
his opinion, the worst that could be devised, as it would
spoil both Kensington-gardens and Hyde-park. (Hear.)
If he received any support, he should certainly move that
the vote be postponed, to enable the committee to take the
subject into consideration. (Hear.)
Sir H. VERNEY thought there could not be a more
direct road than that for which the vote was asked, but saw
no objection to opening a much larger portion of Hyde-park
for public vehicles during the Exhibition. Why should not
the whole road from the Marble-arch to Apsley-house and
to Queen's-gate be thrown open to omnibuses and cabs ?
Why also should not equestrians be allowed to ride on the
grass as they had done formerly ? (Hear.) He would fur-
ther suggest that Hamilton-place should be opened to Park-
lane, to obviate the dangers attending the traffic at the cor-
ner of the latter thoroughfare in Piccadilly. (Hear.)
Sir J. FERGUSSON, as the representative of a provin-
cial constituency, objected to the vote on the broad ground
that its object was not of a national character. Ho saw no
more reason why a road for the improvement of access to
the Exhibition in London should be paid for out of the pub-
lic purse, than that the cost of improvements of access to
the Manchester Exhibition should have been so defrayed.
Mr. J. LOCKE Gould understand the noble lord the
member for Marylebone favouring this measure, because:his
constituents lived on the North side of the park. But he
thought Marylebone could get as well to the Exhibition of
1862 without this road as they got to the Exhibition of
1851. There was no necessity whatever for a temporary
road for the accommodation of visitors to the Exhibition.
If they threw open the carriage ways in Hyde-park for
general traffic, that would afford all the accommodation
that was required ; and for a twelvemonth at least they
might try here the experiment of following the example of
France, and discontinue to regard cabs with horror.
Lord C. LENNOX objected to the temporary road,'be-
cause he was sure that after the constituents of his noble
friend (Lord Fermoy) opposite bad found out the conve-
nience of the arrangement, they would come down next
session for a rattling sum to make the road permanent.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman SALOMONS,
Lord ELCHO said he sympathised with the people who
lived in Tyburnia, and who would have to go to the Exhibi-
tion round Hyde-park either by Park-lane or by Kensing-
ton. This was not a temporary question. (Hear.) He
thought a permanent arrangement ought now to be seriously
considered. But he objected to a gentleman who had turned
out so remarkable an architect as Mr. Fowke fitting out
outriggers in one of the few pretty things they bad in Lon-
don, the bridge over the Serpentine. (Hear, hear.) Of all
the plans proposed he should support that of his hon. friend
the member for Honiton.
Mr. STANHOPE thought that under no circumstances
should a permanent road be permitted through Kensington
Gardens.
Mr. PEACOCKE moved that the chairman should re-
port progress.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 3O
Against 7B-48
The motion was then negatived.
Sir J. FERGUSSON thought that this was merely a
metropolitan improvement; it was only a temporary im-
provement, and he thought the expense ought to be borne
by the receipts at the door. He begged to move the rejec-
tion of the vote.
Mr. COWPER said he had not thought it necessary to
reply at length to the proposal of the hon. member for
Honiton (Mr. Cochrane), because it was obvious that the
road he proposed would be quite unsuited for the traffic of
cabs and omnibuses, it would be quite a quagmire. It was
also a much longer road than that proposed by himself (Mr.
Cowper), and would cost a great deal more than £2,000.
Everybody, he thought, must feel that a carriage road on
the level through Kensington-gardens was not a thing to
be desired. All he wished to propose was that carriages
should go where horses went now ; and it must be remem-
bered that this was a royal park, and no metropolitan funds
could be devoted to the construction of a road through the
park.
Mr. B. COCHRANE wanted to know how it was pro-
posed that pedestrians should reach Kensington-gardens at
all when there was a stream of carriages blocking the way ?
Mr. COWPER reminded the hon. member that there
were pathways for foot passengers under the arches of the
bridge on either side of the Serpentine, by which Kensing-
ton-gardens might be reached without any interference
whatever from the carriage traffic.
The committee divided :
For the vote
28-50
Against
The vote was then agreed to.
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
'1 his bill was read a third time and passed.
COPYRIGHT (WORKS OF ART) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS ACTS.
On the motion of Sir G. GREY leave was given to bring in
a bill for the purpose of extending the operation of orders
made under the Industrial Schools Acts of 1861.
The bill was afterwards read a first time.
TRANSFER OF STOCKS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of Mr. PEEL, leave was given to bring in a
bill to amend the law relating to the transfer of stocks and
annuities transferable at the Bank of Ireland.
The bill was read a first time.
The house adjourned at a quarter past one.

•
MALT BONDED.—A return to the House of
Commons shows that in the year ending the 30th of Sep-
tember, 1861, the number of bushels of malt made in bond
for distillation was 3,600,449; made in bond for exporta-
tion, 214,438 ; allowed a drawback of duty for exportation,
147,110. There is no drawback of duty allowed on malt
nod fur distillation.