The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 25, 1860,

intention to apply fora license to retail wine to be con-

sumed in such house or premises.

Several other new clauses, proposed by the Chancellor of
he Exchequer, were also agreed to, and the nsideration

of the amendments to the bill was concluded amidst cheer-

ing from the Ministerial side of the house.
The bill was then reported, and erderal to be read a

third time this day (Friday).

SUPPLY.
On the motion that the house go into committee of
supply,
Mr. LAING said the object of going into committee was
to obtain certain votes on account in respect of the civil ser-
vice, as the system of keeping the accounts for that depart-
ment of the public service was essentially different to the
accounts of the army and navy. The hon. gentleman having
explained the manner in which the aecounts were kept,
stated that the reason why the Government asked for these
votes on account was because no money had yet been ob-
tained on account of the civil service estimates, and conse-

quently the balances in reference to many items had be-
come exhausted, and in many others they were approaching
exhaustion. The Government preferred asking for these
votes on account of overdrawing particular accounts, and in
effect encroaching upon the provisions of the Appropriation
Act. There were several precedents for the course now

proposed, and during the past four or five years certain cir-
cumstances had arisen which made it necessary that sums
should be taken on account. In the estimates presented to
the house no vote for any new service would be introduced,

and the Government had kept the vote within the stricter
limit. All the Government now proposed to do was to ask
for a vote of £400,000, and that sum would be distributed
over nine separate heads of expenditure. He would state
what those votes were, and the house would see that no-
thing was involved in them which would give rise to any
discussion. The votes on account were for printing and
stationery, £30,000 ; county courts, £35,000 ; Irish consta-
bulary, £82,000 ; public education, £lOO,OOO ; consuls
abroard, £54,000 ; prisons and convicts, establishments at
home £20,000 ; sundry temporary commissions, £12,000 ;
the suppression of the slave trade, £17,000 ; and civil con-
tingencies, £50,000. All further explanations required
would be given when the house was in committee.
Mr. A. SMITH said he greatly objected to this
system of taking money on account. Complaints had been
made in former sessions that the estimates were de-
layed, yet it mattered not what Government was in office,
the estimates were never laid upon the table until late in
the session—perhaps this year about the middle of July,
when it would be utterly impossible to examine them care-
fully. Her Majesty's Government should recollect that
these estimates were not to be considered as a reason for
voting the money required as a matter of course. He
should feel it to be his duty to oppose the motion for going
into committee, and he should take the sense of the house
on the amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS protested against the system of taking
votes on account. The house ought not to be asked for
money without being at the same time told how it was to
be spent.
Mr. WALPOLE hoped that the house would feel it to
be its duty to give a strong expression of its opinion on the
proposition now made. Whether that opinion should be
given on the question of leaving the chair or in committee
was a matter for consideration, his impression being that it
was better to wait for the committee. He was somewhat
astonished, however, by the reason which had been given
by the Government, and thought that the p ecedents of the
Secretary for the Treasury were not at all in point. The
only cases in which votes had been given in the manner
now asked were when a dissolution was expected, or when
the house had determined upon examining into the esti-
mates, and would only give a vote on account until that
examination was completed. The house was now asked to
give a sum of £400,000 on account, and he observed that
when the Secretary of the Treasury was asking for that
sum he made out no case of pressing exigency, but hinted
at the probability of not getting into a discussion of the
estimates until August. He thought it better not to oppose
the Speaker's leaving the chair, but in committee the vote
now asked for should be criticised with groat minueeness.
If they consented to take votes in this matter, they would
be depriving the House of Commons of the right to bring
forward questions of grievance on going into committee of
supply.
Lord H. VANE was glad to hear the right hon. gentle-
man opposite declaring that he would not oppose the
Speaker leaving the chair. He (Lord H. Vane) was quite of
opinion that the estimates should be taken at an early pe-
riod of the session, but at the same time the demand of the
Secretary of the Treasury was so limited that no evil could
arise from its concession. On the understanding that these
estimates would be brought forward at an early period, he
should not feel justified in opposing the proposition of the
Secretary of the Treasury.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that the sum absolutely de-
manded by the Secretary of the Treasury (£1,000,000) was
small, but the first thing the house had to consider was the
question of principle. If they were merely asked for this
vote with the understanding that the estimates would be
taken immediately after the holidays, then the proposal was
a moderate one; but if the object was to enable the Govern-
ment to postpone the estimates until a late period of the
session, then it became not a qaestion of £lOO,OOO, nor of
Theretore, although he should with great reluctance throw
any difficulty in the way of the committee, he thought he
should be informed of the principle upon which the present
demand was made. As to the precedents, they were only
three, two the dissolutions of 1857 and of last year, and
1818, when a committee was appointed to revise the raised-
laneous expenditure, and the votes were taken on account,
in order to keep the estimates in the hands of the house.
The hon. baronet here quoted the report of the committee
on public moneys, and contended that if the house acceded
to the present motion it would place itself in one of two dif-
ficulties—either they must discuss the principle of the vote
then, in which case no time was gained, or else they would
be withdrawing from discussion votes which it might be
desirable to discuss. It was said the sum demanded was a
moderate one, but some of it was for votes in class 7, in
which a reduction had been promised to the extent of
£200,000. He should object to give any money on account
in class 7, and altogether he should object to these votes on
account unless it was distinctly understood that they were
to have the discussion on the estimates immediately after
Whitsuntide.
Lord FERMOY objected to the proposal of the Secre •
tary to the Treasury on principle, and if his hon. friend
pressed his amendment to a division he (Lord Fermoy)
must support him. He thought it was time the house made
a stand, especially as the inference to be drawn from the
Secretary of the Treasury's speech was that the estimates
might not be brought forward until August. Another ob-
jection he had was that a vote on account was a vote of
confidence in the Government. (Hear.) They were at
present in a very peculiar crisis. Important steps would
have to be taken respecting a matter then pending between
that house and the House of Lords ; and his continued
confidence in the Government would greatly depend upon
the conduct they might pursue in that matter. He thought
the present a good opportunity to test it by postponing the
vote now proposed until after Whitsuntide.
Mr. DISRAELI—I have no wish to mix the question
now before us with any other. (Hear, hear.) T will con-
fine myself, therefore, to the proposition which the Go-
vernment have submitted to us. On occasions like the pre-
sent, I confess, notwithstanding the constitutional sus-
picion with which the house ought to view all proposi-
tions of this kind, I am myself always inclined to facili-
tate the course of public business, and to give any gentle-
men who sit on the Treasury bench that fair assistance in
conducting the affairs of the country which in these diffi-
cult times they have a right to expect from Parliament. It
is impossible, however, to assent to this proposition without
some consideration. I think it of the greatest importance
that the house should clearly understand the proposition
that is made, because I cannot at all agree with the noble
lord the member for Hastings (Lord 11. Vane) in the view
he took. The noble lord seemed to entertain objections of
a very serious character to any course of this kind, provided
the demand had been a large one ; but it was, comparatively
speaking, so small, he did not see hew the house could pro-
perly refuse the application. To my mind the small amount
of the proposition would rather add to my objection to it, in
case I felt it my duty on the whole to offer no opposition to
the plan of the Government. Because, what is the view of
the public business given to us by the Secretary of the Trea-
sury ? He certainly, as has been observed by the noble lord
who spoke last, and as was generally felt by both sides of the
house, conveyed the impression that there a as no immediate
prospect of the house forming itself into a committee of sup-
ply to consider the Civil Service Estimates. (Hear.) Accord-
ing- to the noble lord the member for Hastings, this proposi-
tion, being a small one, is also a safe one, but though the
proposition may be small in amount, the precedent which it
establishes is one of considerable moment. (Hear, hear.)
And what will be the position of the house if, a fortnight
hence, when this supply is exhausted, a similar proposition
equally small, is made ? (Hear, hear.) The house may be
occupied at that time with business, supposed to be business
of great interest and importance, and an appeal may then be
equally successful if it is urged, as to-night, that surely the
house has sufficient confidence in the Government to supply
them with funds to carry on the urgent business of the coun-
try for another week or fortnight ? (Hear.) Although the
application may be small, the precedent may be very large ;
and therefore it is only as a precedent involving a principle
that the house has really to decide upon the question before
it. (Hear.) I entirely assent to the speech which has
been made by my right hon. friend the member for the Uni-
versity of Cambridge. I agree with him in all his arguments,
and the only part in which I do not agree with him is the
conclusion at which he arrives. It appeared to me that
every argument urged by my right hon. friend would have
induced him to arrive at a conclusion perfectly adverse to
that which he reached ; and, so far from thinking that this
is not the opportunity upon which the house should come to
a decision, whatever that decision may be, it is upon the
question that Mr. Speaker leave the chair that a principle
being involved, and we being called upon to establish a pre-
cedent, I think the house ought to treat the matter
frankly and fully, and arrive at their decision upon it.
(Hear.) Upon the subject of precedent I need hardly touch,
because I think the admission of the Secretary to the Trea-
sury is conclusive. All the precedents which he adduced
proved that it was a course which the house adopted only
under "tmordi.uary circumstances, suoh as dif6sollltiOLLS of

Parliament, changes of Ministry, references to the house

itself of the estimates ; and in the present session none of
those extraordinary circumstances exist. (Hear, hear.) I
therefore think that we may fairly throw aside all prece-

dents. We are called upon to-night to make a precedent.
(Hear, hear.) It does not appear to me that it is of the

slightest consequence whether the application of the Go-
vernment be for £500,000 or £1,500,000. As far as the Go-

vernment is concerned it is a question of confidence. I and
every gentleman sitting on these benches are perfectly pre-
pared to give them that confidence, provided there is a clear
undentanding of the terms upon which that confidence is
to be given. If the public service is in such a state that
there really are not in the Exchequer funds to carry it on

from day to day, I am disposed to come to the assistance of
the Government. I will not go out of the way to inquire
whether a great deal of time has been wasted. I will not

read the list of meetings of the house to show that, although
Parliament was called together in January, a fortnight

passed before any business was transacted, or that even on
one or two nights the Government did not take advantage
of opportunities to go into committee of supply. I Ix ill not
stop to inquire why we have not been regularly in commit-
tee of supply. (Hear.) If the service of the country abso-

Lutely requires it, I will not enter into any discussion whe•

ther the sum shall be £500,000 or £1,500,000. The condition
which I make with the Government, and which I think it

right to make, and which I think the House of Commons
ought to make, is this—if we are ready to exercise this bare
confidence, will they engage that we shall have fair oppor-
tunities and legitimate occasions of entering into that
criticism and examination of the estimates of the Govern-
ment which is our right and privilege ? (Cheers.) To ask
us to enter into an investigation of the estimates in August,
as the Secretary to the Treasury informs us, or even in the
month of July, is not a fair constitutional fulfilment of the
conditions which, I think, the house has a right to demand.
(Hear.) If the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman will
rise and tell us that it is impossible for want of supplies to
carry on the business of the country until next Thursday,
when we can meet and go into committee of supply, every
one will be perfectly willing to grant that which they re-
quire; but we ought to make a constitutional condition.
(Hear, hear.) When they ask this unusual assistance from
the house, they ought to say—When the holidays are over
we will go as early as possible into committee of supply,
continue tQ take supply, and give to the house the legiti-
mate opportunities of investigating the expenditure of the
country and of bringing before the consideration of Parlia-
ment those grievances which it is theprivilege of the House
of Commons to bring forward under those circumstances.
If the Government frankly tell us that they are prepared to
do that, which I conclude a Minister of the Crown cannot
hesitate for a moment in doing—if they will enter into a
clear engagement that when the holidays are over, next
Thursday, we shall go into committee of supply, that these
estimates shall be submitted to us, that we shall not be de-
prived of our constitutional right to examine these civil
service estimates, and to see whether in our minds they are
of the proper amount and character, and that we shall have
the opportunity on those occasions of bringing subjects under
consideration which it is usual to bring forward when esti-
mates are moved, I shall support the proposition of the Go-
vernment. But if that offer be not accepted—if we are called
on to establish a most dangerous precedent, and to risk the
loss of those privileges which are most valuable, and of
which we are most proud, then I shall feel it my duty to
support the hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) I only ask the
house to remember the position in which it is placed. Cer-
tainly two-thirds, if not more, of the ,usual session has al-
ready passed, and we have scarcely gone into committee of
supply as far as the exercise of any real control over the
expenditure of the country or of the privilege of obtaining
redress of grievances is concerned. There is also, from the
admission of the Secretary to the Treasury, a prospect that
the remaining portion of the session will also pass without
the house having the enjoyment of those advantages. I
trust that I have placed the question fairly before the house,
and treated it in a constitutional point of view. As I have
said, I shall support her Majesty's Government if they
enter into that engagement, but otherwise I shall support
the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment.
(Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—It is quite true, as the hon.
gentleman says, that there is a financial necessity for a vote
for these services,—not that the Exchequer is empty, but
that we have not yet Parliamentary authority to apply the
money, and unless Parliamentary authority is given the
services must suffer great inconvenience, and the public
interest be seriously prejudiced. (Hear, hear.) That
is the ground upon which we apply to Parliament for
these votes on account. I cannot admit that an appli-
cation to Parliament for a vote on account of estimates
presented is a matter without precedent. It is a matter of
almost annual occurrence. (Hear, hear.) Nor do I see
any great distinction between these Miscellaneous Esti-
mates and Estimates for the army and navy, except that
perhaps the latter are more important and present a greater
number of subjects upon which it is desirable opinions
should be expressed. There is nothing unparliamentary,or
unconstitutional, when the necessity arises, to ask for votes
on account of the army and navy ; and I cannot see what
Parliamentary or constitutional objection can be raised be
in principle to a vote on accountof consular establishments,
education. nr any nf these_ differ9nt heads of _eatimatess
miscellaneous estimates does not often occur, and why ?
Because these estimates—and hero I may appeal to the re-
collection of hon. members to bear me out—come on
late in the session, and are frequently not finished till late
in July, and the house has usually found nothing in that
advanced period of the session to prevent it giving the
necessary attention to the details of these votes. Hear.)
We are accused of negl:gence in not having brought these
estimates sooner before the attention of the house,
but I beg to recall the recollection of hon. gentlemen
that we called Parliament together ten days earlier
than usual. (Cheers and counter cheers.) We showed no
disclination to meet Parliament at an early period—in fact
we were somewhat blamed for having anticipated the usual
period for its assembling. Have we during the period which
has elapsed from that time to this abstained from submit-
ting to Parliament measures of importance and deserving
of their consideration. (Hear.) Parliament, in fact, has
been uninterruptedly occupied by measures of the greatest
importance. (Hear.) I am not at all disposed to cavil at the
length of time which the house has thought fit to devote to
the consideration of the measures submitted to them—the
French Treaty, the Reform Bill, the Budget, and the finan-
cial measures springing out of it. They were perfectly jus-
tified in discussing them at length, but a great deal of time
has, in fact, been occupied by these discussions, and they
have se far interfered with the ordinary course of public
business in regard to the estimates that at this moment we
have not been able to give to the army and navy estimates,
which generally take precedence of the miscellaneous esti-
mates, sufficient time to complete them. (Hear.) If the
miscellaneous estimates, therefore, have been postponed to
the present time, it is not our fault, but the result of that
course which the House of Commons in the performance of
its duty has thought fit to adopt with regard to the mea-
sures of first-rate importance which were submitted to it,
and which deserved all the attention bestowed on them.
(Hear, hear.) Blame ought not to be thrown on us for a
result which is no fault of ours, but which has arisen from
the length of time the house has thought fit to give to im-
portant business. The right hon. gentleman opposite made
very light of the observation of my noble friend, that the
objection to this course is diminished in prop ortion to the
diminution of the sum asked for; but I think, even in
his own view of the case, that observation had great
force. The amount of money to be voted is equivalent
in meaning to a certain portion of time—(hear,
hear)—and those who object to these votes on account to
carry on a certain service, on the ground that they place the
remainder of the vote in a certain degree out of the control
of Parliament, ought to feel that the diminution of the
sum voted on account, as it involves the necessity of an
earlier recurrence to Parliament for the remainder of the
services, very much removes the objection to this course.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says he is quite
willing to agree to this vote provided the Government will
undertake that the details of these estimates shall be sub-
mitted to the house in a manner which shall enable it to
give to them the full and fair consideration which is neces-
sary for the due discharge of its constitutional functions.
Undoubtedly that is an undertaking which we are perfectly
ready to enter into. Indeed, it seems to me to follow as a
matter of course from that power which the House of Com-
mons has over the Government. It is an engagement to
which wo can scarcely be said to be parties, because the
house has the matter entirely in its own hands. These
votes will enable the Government to carry on the services
till about the middle of June, and beyond that time nothing
can be done without the sanction of the house. When the
right hon. gentleman, therefore, asks us to enter into such
an arrangement he is rather derogating from the power of
the house, because we are in the hands of the house. No
further money can be issued without the authority of the
house, and that authority, of' course, the house will not
continue to give, unless it has an opportunity of entering
fully and fairly into a discussion of the details for which
the money is'required, (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK—It would be more satisfactory if the
noble lord would state in what manner he understands the
engagement into which he professes his readiness to enter.
When does he propose that we should go into committee of
supply ? (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—It is perfectly impossible to fix
a day. (A laugh.)
Sir F. BARING—The hon. baronet opposite referred to
some suggestion of mine in reference to the Public Moneys
Committee, but that committee has in reality nothing what-
ever to do with the point before us. (Hear, hear.) The real
question is this :—The Government state to the house that
they require certain sums for the public service, and I con-
fess I am surprised to hear from hon. gentlemen opposite
that their principles are such that they refuse to go into
committee to ascertain whether those moneys are actually
required by the Government or not. (Hear.) If the Govern-
ment were prepared to ask sums which would throw off the
consideration of the estimates to an unreasonable extent, I
can understand that sum being cut down in committee to a
proper amount, but when the Government have stated that
the public service requires certain sums to be granted, I
would ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether they will take
on themselves the responsibility of refusing to go into com-
mittee for the consideration of the votes asked for. (Hear.)
Sir J, PAZINGION—The right hon. baronet has rais.

understood the feeling which prevails on this side of the I
house. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend made it per-
fectly clear that we have no desire to cause any public in-
convenience. (Hear.) The speech of the noble lord was
directed entirely to an attempt to draw the house from the
fact that the proposal of the Government is intended to esta-
blish a precedent, and that one of a very objectionable and
dangerous character, and in guarding against that precedent
the language of my right hon. friend and the general feeling

on this side of the house showed that we had no desire to

cause any public inconvenience, (Hear, hear.) We have

asked the Government to state distinctly whether there will
be any injury to the public service by delaying this grant to
Thursday evening next, and if the Government will give us

hat assurance we are ready to go into committee at once ;

tut they ought not to call on us to go into committee with-
out some assurance of that scrt. (Hear.) If there is any

necessity for the grant being made immediately, it is the

Government who are to blame for bringing us into that

condition. (Hear.) Parliament certainly did meet earlier
than usual this year, but for the first fortnight nothing was
done. (Hear.) We rose every night at Bor 9 o'clock for
the first fortnight, and therefore we have a right to blame

the Government for making this vote on account necessary,
if necessary it be. Without some assurance of that sort, I
should object to setting a precedent, for I deny that one al-
ready exists. The only way in which we can guard against
that precedent being established is by voting now against

:he motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, unless the

Govemment;will promise that theywill bring these estimates
before us on Thursday next. (Hear, hear.)

THE CONFERENCE.

Mr. KINGLAKE asked the Foreign Secretary whether
the Swiss Confederation still persisted in asking for the
Conferencawhich had been suggested with reference to the
neutralization of North Savoy, and whether her Majesty's
Government supported the Swiss Confederation in making
that demand ? (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.—Up to the present time—and I had
a despatch from our Minister in Switzerland this morning
—the Swiss Confederation continues to ask for the meeting
of a Conference on the subject of the neutralization of part
of Savoy. Her Majesty's Government supported that pro-
posal from the first, and unless the Swiss Government were
to abandon or withdraw that demand we shall continue to
support it. (Hear, hear.)
LORD CLARENCE PAGET AND THE MESSRS.
GREEN.

Lord C. PAGET.—I am unwilling to interpose between
the house and a divison, but having received a letter from
an hon. gentleman opposite informing me that he intended
to make a statement affecting me on going into Committee
of Supply, I think I may claim from him that he should
make the statement with which he has threatened me on
the occasion on which he said he desira to make it. I re-
ceived the following letter this morning :
" Mr. Lygon presents his compliments to Lord Clarence
Paget, and has the honour to inform him that it is his in-
tention, on going into Committee of Supply this evening,
to call the attention of the house to the reports which are
current respecting his connexion with Messrs. Green and
Co. of Blackwall."
I trust the hon. gentleman will now fulfil his intention.
Mr. F. LYGON—I can assure the noble lord that it is
not my intention to bring forward this question in a hos-
tile spirit. I have not mentioned the matter to any beyond
my very intimate friends, and after the debate which has
just taken place, I am quite prepared either to bring forward
the subject on the motion for adjournment to-morrow, or
to proceed with it at once, as may be most convenientto the
noble lord by whom it has just been opened. (Cries of "Go
on," in which Lord C. Paget joined.) The question is not
one with regard to which it will be necessary for me to de-
tain the house at any length ; and, in common with every
other member of the house, I shall rejoice if the noble lord,
as no doubt will be the case, should be enabled to give a
satisfactory explanation. I entirely disclaim all hostile feel-
ing towards the noble lord, and I can assure him he entirely
mistakes my object if he supposes that my inquiry is made
with any such purpose. But everybody, lam sure, will
agree that under the circumstances which have taken place,
when contractors have publicly acknowledged that they
were the builders of certain gunboats which have suffered
very severely from decay, and when it is reported in com-
mercial circles that the Secretary to the Admiralty was a
partner in the firm at the period when the gunboats were
built—every member of this house will see that it is for
the advantage of the service, of the House of Commons, of
the Board of Admiralty and of the noble lord himself that
these circumstances should be explained. (Hear.) I for
one have no doubt that they are capable of a satisfactory
elucidation; and so far from the motion being received by
the noble lord in a manner implying that he regards it as
one which is brought forward in an unfriendly spirit, it
ought, I think, to be matter of gratification to him to have
the opportunity of meeting the reports which are current as
to his being largely connected with Messrs. Green and
Company. Such a report has gained notoriety, and must,
it is evident, be most prejudical to the public service. (Hear,
hear.) It is needless for me to enter into the question of
the gunboats or the culpability of contractors. I have sim-
ply discharged a public duty of a very painful character.
But,the importance cannot be overrate I of clearing up and
setting at rest all misapprehensions which may exist on a
matter so vitally affecting the credit of all public servants.
flistra 1107eAGET—I must ask the indulgence of the
house, having already spoken on this question (cheers), and
very few words, I think, will suffice for the purpose I have
in view, which is to clear my character from any imputa-
tions which may have been made upon it. The hon. gentle-
man opposite I understand to state that he has heard I am
a partner with Messrs. Green of Blackwall ?
Mr. F. LYGON—That you were connected with them
at the period when the gunboats were built.
Lord C. PAGET—That I was a partner with them
when the gunboats were building. . I do not make any
complaint of the honourable gentleman for having called
the attention of the house to this subject ; on the contrary,
I think that he—having been a member of the depart-
ment with which I have also the honour of being assooi-
ated—it' he heard any reports of a nature which he con-
sidered derogatory to my honour, both as an officer and
a member of this house, was quite right in bringing them for-
ward. if I were disposed to make any complaint it would
be that he had not placed the matter on the notice paper, in
order that every member, if he had desired, might have
come down to the house and delivered his opinion upon it.
(Hear, hear.) I might answer the accusation very much in
the same vague way in which it has been made, because the
right hon. gentleman brings no proofs, but merely states
that he has heard certain reports, and I think I might sa-
tisfy the the house by giving my word of honour that those
reports are utterly without foundation. (Loud cheers.) But
I think it is always best to be perfectly frank and fair in all
matters where the personal honour of individsals is con-
cerned, (Hear, hear.) All thoroughly ingenious stories have
some sort of foundation, by which a great deal more may be
made of them than they are really worth, and, therefore, in
, order that there may be no misunderstanding—although I
really scrupple to take up the time of the house with a mat-
ter of this sort—l still think it my duty, holding as Ido a
very high and honourable position in h er Majesty's Govern-
ment, to state exactly the circumstances of the case. (Hear,
hear.) It is perfectly true that for many years past I have
been—alas I a very small, but still a shareholder to some
extent in certain ships in the Australian trade. In 1857 my
right hon. friend, now the Secretary of State for India, did
me the honour to invite me to take a seat at the Board of
Admiralty. I will not quote his letter, because it was in
terms rather complimentary to myself, and I wish to con-
fine my observations exactly to the point in issue ; but if I
read my answer to that communication, at least that part
of it which relates to these transactions, it will, I think,
be quite sufficient to show the house the mo-
tives by which I was actuated. I should state
that in that same year my right hon. friend,
through his private secretary, Captain Drummond,
an intimate friend of my own, expressed his desire that in
the event of a vacancy taking place I should hold myself in
readiness tofill a seat at the Board of Admiralty. I told my
friend Captain Drummond that I had great scruples of
conscience in the matter; for although I had nothing what •
ever to do with shipbuilding, or with any vessels likely to
be taken up by contract for the Government, yet, neverthe-
less, to hold a seat at the Board of Admiralty, and at the
same time to retain a connexion with shipping concerns,
wets what I thought would not be fair or proper. This,
therefore, was the reply which I wrote to the very flatter
ing letter of my right hon. friend :
" Plas Lanfair, Oct. 22, 1857.
" Dear Sir Charles,—l hasten to express my obligations
for the flattering and friendly communication I have this
day received from you, dated the 21st. When during the
last session the subject of my going to the Admiralty was
talked over between my friend Captain Drummond and.
myself, I, from a sense of honour, stated for your informa-
tion that Iciould not conscientiously undertake the contract
branch, which I believe falls to the Junior Lord, because I
have for several years been, and still am, a shareholder in
some ships belonging to Messrs. Green, and it would ill be-
come me to open tenders in which they might be offered for
Government service. As to building, I have no connexion
with him or anybody else, but I should be very loth to dis-
continue soy connexion, small as it is, with that eminent
man."
And I concluded by saying, " I have no alternative but to
decline you; oflisr." (Cheers) I was altogether independent
of the Board of Admiralty until the present Government
was formed, when my noble friend the First Lord of the
Treasury did me the honour to invite me to join that de-
partment. I stated to him exactly as I had stated to my
right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, that I
had been de owner of shares in a few ships, with which,
however, I had nothing further to do, any more than one
would have by holding shares in a railway—(hear, hear)—
and that as long as I retained them I felt it incumbent on
me to decline all connexion with' the Admiralty. "Nell,"
said the noble lord, " have you still those shares in the
ships ?" To which I replied, "No ;" because cn the occa-
sion of my bringing forward during the last session circus's-
stances connected with the building of ships for the navy,
to which, as an officer, I felt it my duty conscientiously to
call attention, there were—l will not say open accusations
—but there were inferences drawn to the effect that as I
was personally connected with a shipbuilding yard, I was
therefore desirous of having ships built by contract there,
instead of in the dockyards, and was consequently desirous
of running down the dockyards. From that moment I de-
termined that it was impossible for a public man, and par-
ticularly for a naval man, who wished to take a part in this
house which would be beneficial to the service, to con-

tinue longer exposed to such suspicions, and the sooner I got
rid of these shares the better. (Hear, hear.) There and
then—and I am bound to add at considerable loss to myself,

for everybody knows that last year there were no dividends
on ships—l sold my shares. (Loud cheers.) The letter

which I wrote to the noble lord was as follows :

" 2, Ennismore-place, S.W., June 16, 1859.
" My dear Lord Palmerston,—ln accepting the post of
Secretary to the Admiralty, I feel it due, no less to your
lordship than myself, that I should advert to the reasons

which Principally deterred me from joining your lordship's
Government in 1857. I was then, and have been till lately
a shipowner in the- Indian and Australian trade, and while
so employed I felt I could not conscientiously fill a post
whera questions of personal interest to myself might possi-
bly have to be decided ; such as contracts for troopships,
transports, &c. Vari, us circumstances having induced me
to dispose of my shipping property, I am now perfectly free
to accept without scruples of conscience the office your lord-
ship has been good enough to offer me."
(Loud and continued cheering.) Let me entirely acquit the

hon. gentleman who has introduced this subject of any in-
tention to lower my character in this house ; I believe that
was not his wish—(hear, hear)—and I am glad to have had
the opportunity of making the statement which I have now
done. (Loud and general cheering from both sides of the
house.) •!

Sir H. CAIRNS—As my hon. friend beside me (Mr.
Lygon) has spoke 4 already, he is not therefore at liberty
again to rise. But I hope the house and the noble lord will

allow me to exgre.ss what I am sure is the feeling at this
side of the house, and which I am glad to believe is shared
in by the house at large, that if it be the fact—of which I

confess I was not before aware—that rumours of the nature
alluded to have been current regarding the noble lord, it is
matter of satisfaction that in this place, where alone oppor-

tmaity can be given to the noble lord to meet those rumours,
the subject should have been brought forward—(hear)—and
we must all rejoice to feel, after the full and frank explana-
tion which he has given, that neither in nor out of this
house can any such rumours continue to prevail. (Cheers.)
The house then divided on the question that the Speaker
leave the chair. The numbers were :
Ayes
Noes lO9
Majority --26
SUPPLY.
The SPEAKER left the chair, and the house went into
Committee of Supply.
A vote on account of a sum not exceeding £lOO,OOO was
asked for for certain charges of the civil service, under the
following heads :
£30,000 for printing and stationery.
£35,000 for expenses of County Courts.
£82,000 for the Irish Constabulary.
£lOO,OOO for charges on account of public education.
On this vote Mr. LAING, in answer to a question, ex-
plained that the sum was required chiefly for the payment
of the salaries of schoolmasters, of which a quarter was
falling due.
Mr. BENTINCK observed that the sum was nearly a
seventh part of the whole vote fir public education ; yet it
was only asked for to carry the Government over a short
time—in fact, over the holidays. It ought to cover a longer

period.
Mr. LAING said the sum was not more than sufficient
to cover the expenses to the 10th or 12th of June.
£54,000 was tak en for the expenses of Consuls abroad.
£12,000 for the expenses of certain temporary commis-
sions.
Mr. LAING complained that commissions had been re-
cently appointed on some military matters, but their ex-
pense was chargeable on the civil contingencies ; this ren-
dered the vote necessary.
Sir W. NORTHCOTE thought the item might have
been deferred till the whole of the charges under Class 7
came before the committee. With regard to the expendi-
ture under Class 7 ; a sum of £17,000 was voted last year
for a plan and works connected with the improvement of
the Serpentine, and after that vote ha 1 been passed and the
works begun a select committee reported against that plan;
whereupon the Government not only stopped the works,
which he thought they were right in doing, but had begun
to spend money in carrying out a different plan, without
any authority from the house. Me mentioned that as a
reason why the committee ought to have the votes in Class
7 before them without delay.
Col. DUNNE wished to know whether this vote included
the enormous sum, amounting to between £7,000 and £B,OOO,
charged by the professional accountants employed by the
Weedon Commissioners to investigate the accounts of that
establishment. He characterised the expenditure as unjus •
tifiable, seeing that the commissioners might have had the
assistance of Commissary-General Adams, an officer in the
ray of the State, in investigating and arranging the ac-
counts.
Col. D ICK SON commented upon the circumstance of one
of the Weedon commissioners being a police magistrate,
and receiving an allowance for his services on that occasion,
though ho (Col. Dickson) believed his duties as a magis-
trate only occupied his attention during six months of the
year. That commission, he added, had been carried on at
an expense perfectly unjustifiable; and he was astonished,
at a time when there was an outcry by the country against
the extravagance of the public depat tments, to see members
on the Ministerial side of the house, while they were con-
titrahrfateetoihiriff moiieyin thit
Mr. TURNER, adverting to what had been stated in re-
ference to the Weedon. Commission, said when the proper
occasion arrived he should be able to defend the proceedings
of the commissioners. In the meantime, after the immense
labour which he knew the commissioners had devoted to the
invesfigation in question—(hear)—he protested against the
insinuation that they had been guilty of any unjustifiable
act.

Col. DUNNE explained that he had said the expenditure
of the commissioners was unjustifiable, and he thought he
should bo able to prove it when the subject came fairly be-
fore the house.
After a few words from Mr. CHILDEfts, the purport of
which did not reach the gallery,
Mr. LAING said, as regarded the unfortunate Weedon
Commission, he admitted it had brought an enormous charge
upon the public expenditure for, he believed, a very inade-
quate result. The present vote, however, did not include
any part of the large bill of nearly £9,000 sent in by the
professional accountants, inasmuch as the Treasury had
thought it their duty to take legal advice as to whether they
were liable to pay the whole of that sum, and the question
was still Reading. The vote did include some of the minor
expenses commission.
The vote was then agreed to, as were the following
X10,000;for the suppression cf the slave trade ;
£7,060 (:.I(;the Dublin Police ; and
£5 Ji OClfi. fox civil contingencies.

,-‘, c MALTA HARBOUR.
On the vote of £2,500 for the extension of Malta Har-
bour,
Lord C. PAGET said the present vote had become neces-
sary in consequence of an agreement with the Maltese Go.•
vernment, most advantageous both to the navy and the Isle
of Malta, but which had not been entered into when the
former estimates were prepared. Ever since Malta had be-
longed to the British Crown the limits of the merchant har-
bour and the man-of-war harbour had not been very clearly
defined. The result was that the merchant vessels had en-
croached upon the best part of the harbour, so that the
mei-of-war sometimes had great difficulty in finding a
berth. The great addition in the number of ships frequent-
ing the harbour and the increase in the size of vessels of
war made it imperative to improve the harbour of Malta,
which was in a most unsatisfactory state, although Malta
was our head-quarters for repairs, &c., in the Mediter-
ranean. An engineer on the part of the Admiralty had
surveyed the harbour in the company of an engineer selected
by the Maltese Government, and they had come to the con-
clusion that the only plan was to deepen the head of the
harbour, which was now a swamp, and to give it up to the
merchant vessels, while French Creek, which was safe for
vessels of war, would be given up for the navy. It was
necessary to bring this vote before the committee to-night,
because the work was to be done at the joint expense of the
two Governments, and the parties who owned the land
around French Creek were only under contract to wait until
the middle of June, when the agreement, unless previously
confirmed, became null and void. The total estimated ex-
pense of the work was £111,0':0, but he only proposed to ask
to .night for £2,500, in addition to the £2,500 which would
be found in the estimates already before the house.
Sir F. SMITH expressed his satisfaction at finding that
the proposed works in connexion with a harbour at Malta,
which he characterised as the key of the Mediterranean,
were to be carried out.
Admiral WALCOTT also stated his concurrence in the
expediency, of the undertaking, and, alluding to the
explanation made by Lord C. Paget, said he was extremely
happy to hear the noble lord's character so completely yin •
dicated. (Hear, hear.)
Sir S. N6RTHCOTE wished to know whether there was
any security that when the necessary property came to be
bought it could be procured for the sum of £60,000, set
down in the estimates.
Lord C. PAGET said the utmost pains had been taken
in drawing up the contract on the subject.
Mr. BENTINCK, referring to the explanation made by
the noble lord, in reply to Mr. Lygon, observed that no man
could have listened to it without feeling that it removed all
doubt—if, indeed, any such doubt existed—as to his noble
and gallant friend having been implicated in any transac-
tion in any way inconsistent with his high character.
(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SYKES asked what was to be done with the
mud which it would be necessary to remove in order to con-
struct the proposed harbour, and whether any estimate had
been framed in connection with the subject ?
Lord C. PAGET said an estimate had been framed which
was based on the probable cost of conveying the mud clear
outside the harbour.
Mr. HENLEY complained that the committee were asked
to sanction the vote, which would in all probability involve
even a more considerable outlay than was estimated on so
short a notice. The committee ought to be informed of the
exact nature of the works, in order that they might form
some idea of the ultimate cost.
Mr. AYRTON asked whether, in the event of the estimate
being exceeded, the Maltese Government or municipality
would be bound to pay any portion of the excess ?
Lord C. PAGET said that unless the local Government
of Malta undertook to pay their moiety of the whole ez-

pense, whatever it might amount to, the Government did
not intend to carry out the work. This project had been in
embryo for same time past, but the estimate had been re-
duced to a definite and detailed form only within a few
weeks past. That was the reason why the house had not
earlier been supplied with information on the subject.

Sir S. NO ILTHCOTE asked whether the noble lord would
ay on the table the agreement which had been made with

the Maltese Government, and the contract for the purchase
of the land that was to cost .aO,OOO.
Lord C. PAGET said that as soon as the contract was
concluded he would lay it on the table.
Lord LOVAINE stated that this subject had been under
the consideration of the lath Government, and that had
they remained longer in office they would probably have

proposed a scheme of the same nature as that now brought

forward.

Mr. J. LOCKE thought the Government ought to have
furnished the committee with a full account of the various

items of the estimate, and the name of the officer who made

it, as a guarantee of its soundness.
Mr. WHITBREAD assured the hon. member that the
civil engineer employed by the Admiralty to prepare the
estimate was a gentleman of much experience, and that the
calculations had been made with the greatest care.
Mr. HENLEY was afraid the fact that the Admiralty
were bargaining against an excess in the estimate warranted
the suspicion that they expected an excess.
Sir J. PAXTON said that very scanty information was
given to the committee. There was no account of the acre
age of the work or the amount of accommodation to the
navy. He wished to know whether there were to be any
docks for the merchant service, and whether the expense
was included.
Lord C. PAGET said they expected to get accommoda-
tion for six line-of-battle ships, but if they grew much larger
there would be room for only five. As to any new merchant
yards, in lieu of those which the Government purchased,
the Government would have nothing to do with any build-
ings on shore. Their business was to deepen the harbour.
The purchase of the French Creek and all the buildings
which surrounded it was included in the estimate of £60,000.
Mr. WHITBREAD said the Government would have
given more ample notice, but there had been many references
from the Admiralty to Malta, and they found by experience
that when it became known the Government intended to
purchase, the property trebled in value. If the estimate
were postponed to a future day, the agreement to sell the
property would become void.
Admiral IVALC 0T T asked whether there would be depth
of water sufficient for the largest line-of-battle ships.
Lord C. PAGET said there would when the harbour was
deepened, but not before.
The vote was agreed to, and the house resumed.
WAYS AND MEANS,

The house immediately resolved into a committee of ways
and means.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said hehad
to propose a resolution requiring the makers of British
wine to take out licenses for either making or selling the
same wholesale, the amount of which was fixed at half the
amount which the vendors paid. The right hon. gentle-
man moved—" That, towards raising the supply granted to
her Majesty there shall be charged and paid the following
duties .of Excise, that is to say—For a licence to be taken
out by every maker of any kind of sweets or made wines,
or of mead or metheglin, for sale or by any dealer who
shall sell the same in any quantity amountingto two gallons
or upwards, or in one dozen or more reputed quart bottles
at one time, £5 ss.
Mr AYRTON thought the right hon. gentleman was
taking effectual means to prevent the public getting good wine
at all. As far as he could discover, before dealing in wines
a trader would have to pay £l9 19s. for licences, which was
a large tax to impose on a person before he could embark in
business, The greatest chance of the public having good
wine was in the establishment of many traders who would
deal in it wholesale and retail, and he had hoped that the
right hon. gentleman would have proposed one consolidated
charge, after payment of which the dealer would be able to
sell any quantity, large or small, as long as it was in bottle.
With regard to British wine, it was much purer than a
great deal of that which came from abroad. The process of
manufacture here was, that dried grapes were placed in a vat
with water, the juice being pressed out of them and allowed
to ferment ; and the wine thus produced was consumed in
large quantities by people who were above the vulgar pre-
judice of thinking that that which came from abroad and
had a high-sounding name was better than home produc-
tions. (Laughter.) The whole tendency of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's proposals was to force the sale of wine upon
the premises. Did the right hon. gentleman, he would ask,
intend, according to promise, to bring in another bill regu-
lating the sale of British wine to be drunk on the premises ?
As the case stood Parliament was called upon to alter our
municipal law to promote the consumption of a foreign com-
modity, while it did nothing to extend the consumption of
an article made in our own country. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declined
to follow the hon. member into a discussion of the Wine
Licences Bill. It might have been supposed that the hon.
gentleman had had enough of this discussion, but he seemed
quite insatiable. (A laugh.) As to the necessity of a new
Lalvs.r,e, it.Z i-116 tAiveaqiwgatipulttlg Jird-i)i-r-e.;;;&;
to have promised the introduction of any measure on the
' subject. W ith regard to British wine, which the hon. mem-
ber seemed to think was made much more legitimately here
from raisins than by expression from the grape in the coun-
try of its birth, it was to be remembered that these raisins
were imported at a low duty, whereas the foreign wine paid
a high rate of duty. The hon. member, of course, could not
be expected to sympathise with the exchequer in such a
case ; but the two articles contributed to the revenue in very
unequal degrees, and this was an element which could not
be entirely loft out of consideration. A difference was re-
cognised in the amount paid for licences—namely, 10
guineas for a wholesale foreign wine, and five guineas for a
British wine licence; but he should have no objection to
allow persons who paid the higher amount to deal in both
kinds of wine. (Hear.)
Mr. BOVILL thought it would be difficult to interpret
the expressions " sweets" and "made wines." . Would
"sweets" include " bitters ? " Then a large proportion of
port and sherry was manufactured in and about London,
elder wine and logwood being prime ingredients in the
former concoction. Within a short distance of that house
there was a manufactory of champagne from rhubarb.
(Laughter.) Would those be "made wines" within the
meaning of the resolution ? •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the expressions objected to were certainly not to be justified
upon abstract grounds, and fell short of the standard of
purity which the hon. and learned member wished to set
up in the wording of the act. But they were in accordance
with usage, and would be, he believed, adequate for the
purpose. " Sweets," he was informed, was the legal de -
scription of British wines, and "made wines" comprised
other compounds of the same sort.
The resolution was then agreed to.
SIR JOHN BARNARD'S ACT, &c., REPEAL BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a second time,
Mr. BENTINCK moved as an amendment that the bill
be read a second time that day six months. The object of
this bill was to legalise gambling to any extent, in order, by
a penny stamp upon "time bargains," to benefit the re-

venue.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL replied that Sir J. Bar-
nard's Act was obsolete, and that the Bth and 9th Vic.; cap.
109, sufficed to meet all cases of gambling contracts,
Mr. E. JAMES said it was not known to those who
advised the repeal of Sir J. Barnard's Act as a part of the
Budget that it was to raise a revenue from stamps on trans-
actions which that act made illegal.
Mr. T. HANKEY defended the gentlemen engaged on
the Stock Exchange from the imputations that they were
were tainted with gambling, and contended that Stock Ex-
change transactions had less of a gambling character in
them than insurances, and yet no attempt was made to le-
gislate against insurance. He should support the bill now
before the house.
Mr. BOVILL contended that Sir John Barnard's Act
was necessary to keep in check the gambling tendencies of
the Stock Exchange ; and said the real reason why the Go-
vernment proposed to repeal that act was, as let out by the
hon. member for Peterborough, that the money paid for
" time bargains" could by that act be recovered back again,
because time bargains were by the act illegal. Playing
with dice was considered illegal ; but a man with dice had
a fair chance, while in Stock Exchange transactions he had
no fair chance. For those and other reasons he should
oppose the Government bill, which was an unholy contract
entered into by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the
Stock Exchange, in consideration of their consenting to
give him a penny stamp revenue.
Mr. J. LOCKE said the hon. and learned gentleman,
who was set down as a first rate lawyer, addressed the
House of Commons as if they were a common jury, and a
very common jury; but he had totally failed to show that
there was any ono thing that was useful in Sir J. Barnard's
Act.

Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY supported the bill, and
After a few words from Mr. BUTT and Mr. VINSITTART
;he house then divided.
For the second reading
Against it
Majority —l23
:Cheers and laughter.)
The bill was then read a second time.
EXCISE AND ASSESSED TAXES ACTS.

The house went into committee on this bill—adjourned
debate.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
after consulting the officers in the department, he had reso-
lutions to propose of a simple nature, which he hoped would
meet with the support of the committee. He proposed that
a game licence for the whole season should be £3, while
that for a moiety of the season would be £2. That was the
essence of the scheme, which involved no alteration in the
existing law, with one exception, viz., that it was intended
to include deer under the head of game, and a licence would
require to be taken out for killing deer also. With respect
to park deer, that would be provided for by a separate clause.
The clause having been read,
Mr. BENTINCK said the right hon. gentleman had
studied the question of revenue more than the convenience
of the parties who would have to take out these game
licences. What amount of revenue he expected from the
measure he could not tell, but the simple effect of the raw.-

sure would be to encourage a wholesale system of day

poaching.
Mr. FELLOWES 'said he hopedithe Chancellor of the
Exchequer would' dot press the committee to adopt so im-

portant a resolution at that hour of the night. It really
ought to be printed and in the hands of members beforethey
were called upon to decide upon the question. (Hear,hear.)
With that view he would move that the chairman report
progress. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would not
offer any opposition to that motion under the circumstances,
and with the view of having the resolution printed. (Hear.)
Lord FERMOY hoped the right hon. gentleman, before
the bill again came under consideration, would remove
rabbits from the list of game. It was absurd to include
them.

Mr. MTANN also opposed the classification of rabbits as
game. The farmers, in fact, looked upon them as vermin.
Lord GALWAY was glad to find that the right hon.
gentleman had abandoned that part of his original measure
which would have allowed certificates to be issued for a
short period of the season at so low a cost as Xl.

Sir J. TROLL° PE did not know in what light the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer regarded this measure, whether
with reference to revenue or public morality. If the former,
he should like to know what amount of income he expected
from it, because that might have some bearing as to the
other point. At present it was well known that frequent
encounters took place between poachers and gamekeepers ;
that country gaols were crowded with the former, and that a

frightful amount of mischief and immorality prevailed.
They ought not to deal with the question in this way. If
it was intended to touch it at all, the whole system of our
game laws should be revised.
The motion was then agreed to, and
The CHAIRMAN reported progress.
LOCOMOTIVE BILL.

Mr. GARNETT moved the second reading of this
bill, the object of which was to provide r, gulations under
which locomotive machines might be allowed to travel
on common roads, to aid in the development of the
mineral, agricultural, and other resources of the country.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH observed that the promoters of the
bill had come to an understanding with the authorities in
the metropolitan districts not to run the machine vehicles
during the night, the only period at which the project could
be worked. If such a prohibition were good for the metro-
polis, it must be good f©r large towns in the country, and
therefore, if the bill went into committee, he should move
to extend the prohibition. Without the sanction of the
Secretary of State for the project, he should new move the
adjournment of the debate.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT urged the expediency of proceeding
with the bill, and taking proper securities in committee.
Mr. CLIVE, on the part of the Government, said there
was no objection to the second reading of the bill.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the bill was
read a second time, and ordered to be committed en the Bth
of June.