MR. WARRE wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the gun-boats at present in the Chinese waters were to be ordered home; whether it was the intention of Government to provide periodical service afloat for the Coast-guard, and what steps were to be taken to reduce the navy list from its present chaotic form into order? He regretted that there should be a paucity of mates in the service, and that the difficulty of getting ships prevented many meritorious captains qualifying for active flag appointments. He only hoped the House would cheerfully vote every sum required for the efficient state of the navy, and that the Admiralty would take care to have an adequate naval force, not only to maintain our supremacy in the Channel, but also in all other parts of the world.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON did not expect these questions to be introduced now. With regard to the gun boats, the Government had no intention at present to recall them. With regard to the Coast-guard, a considerable portion of them was already employed afloat. In respect to the hon. Gentleman's remarks upon what had fallen from him (Sir J. Pakington) the other evening, he should repeat that in the upper part of the navy they were full, but there was a deficiency in the lower ranks. The cause of this was that there had been regulations in force which restricted the number of young men admitted in each year. Those restrictions had been removed since he entered office, and consequently this deficiency would be supplied. Inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman had given him no notice of his intention to put those questions to him, he hoped he might be excused from following him any further in his remarks.

House in Committee. MR. FITZROY in the chair. (1.) £1,050,000, Deficiency upon certain Army Grants.

GENERAL PEEL, in moving a Vote of £1,050,000 to defray the deficiency in certain army grants of last year, stated that this deficiency arose before the present Government had entered into office, and was occasioned by the Indian mutiny and the Chinese war. A great many regiments had been sent from this country, and fresh regiments had to be raised in their places. No provision had been made for raising them, and the expenses attendant upon them not having been provided for in the

this Vote was of course to be repaid out of the Indian revenue. There were also many demands made on the East India Company for stores, &c. A debt was due then from the Company to the Army Estimates of a sum amounting to upwards of £600,000. The Company not having obtained the money in time in the financial year, it could not be made available in the way of reducing the excess. A Vote of credit had been taken, in order to cover the naval and military expenses, but when the expenses were made up in November it was found that the whole of the money was absorbed, and therefore there was nothing left for the Army Estimates. These facts accounted for the excess of 1,050,000 which was now asked for.

MR. MACARTNEY said, that since the establishment of the Consolidated War Department it appeared to be necessary every year to apply to the House for a supplemental Vote beyond the amount asked for in the Estimates. This practice arose in consequence of the 9th & 10th Vict., which regulated the audit of the public accounts. There was a great difficulty now in understanding the accounts. hoped that the Government would adopt the recommendation of the Committee that sat upon the subject of the public monies.

He

SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that the explanation of the hon. and gallant General was perfectly clear, and ought to satisfy the House. With respect to £600,000 it was a sum to be repaid out of the revenues of India. The Government which preceded the present were responsible for allowing the East India Company to be in arrear for a certain time, and for allowing the War Department to make advances to the Company for the expenses of regiments that proceeded to India, and for certain stores. As the finances of India were pressed by the extraordinary demands caused by the mutiny, he thought it was a legitimate. exercise of the discretion of the Government. There was some delay in passing the Bill by which the East India Company were authorized to borrow money, and but for that delay the sum would probably have been restored within the year. Inasmuch as it was not repaid until after the 1st of April it went to the credit of the succeeding year, and therefore it became necessary as a matter of account, to ask for a Vote of £600,000. With regard to £180,000 that was merely a question of account,

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY denied that the £180,000 was a matter of account. It was an expenditure of money without the authority of Parliament. That money had been voted for certain purposes and it was not competent to divert it from those purposes or to make any alteration in respect to it after the Appropriation Act. They were now called on to vote money which had been actually spent, and if that principle were extended what would become of the functions of the House of Commons? He wished to hear an explanation of an item of £54,052 for civil buildings and barracks. By whose authority was payment of that sum made?

GENERAL PEEL said, this excess was mainly caused by certain works of an urgent and important character which were ordered by the Secretary of State and approved by the Treasury.

MR NEWDEGATE urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the necessity of producing the debtor and creditor account of the establishment at Weedon which was asked for by the Committee of 1854, and had therefore been due for five years. Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY-NAVY ESTIMATES.

(2.) £133,383 8s. 9d., Excess of Naval Expenditure.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that he had to move a supplemental Navy Estimate for the current financial year, which consisted of three items. The first item was one of £133,383 8s. 9d., arising from the excess of expenditure connected with the war in China. It was true, as had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Radnor (Sir George Lewis), that the Admiralty obtained the lion's share of the grant of £400,000 made last year on this account, that branch of the service having received £390,000, or something of that sort; and when he moved the Estimates last year he hoped that that

In the course of the last autumn, however, he found that there would still be a deficiency of rather more than £133,000. The next item for which he should ask was a Vote of £12,000, which he brought forward in consequence of the strong recommendation from the Surveyor of the Navy that additional shipwrights and other labourers should be engaged in the dockyards during the present month, with a view to the increase of the navy. The remaining Vote for which he proposed to ask the Committee was one of £27,000 towards the purchase of some land in Malta. In preparing the Navy Estimates for last year the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) inserted a sum of £23,000 for this purchase; but it turned out that that Estimate was greatly below the mark. He believed that no blame attached to the late Board of Admiralty for this misapprehension. On the contrary, valuation of the property made by a Government official was somewhere about £21,000, and it was to cover that sum that the right hon. Baronet inserted £23,000 in his Estimates. Subsequently a Government valuer was employed who gave in his Estimate at nearly £40,000. After that Dr. Cassolani came to him (Sir John Pakington) to carry on the negotiations about the property, and instead of selling it for £23,000 or £40,000, he had the modesty to ask £120,000 for it. At that time the Colonial Secretary in Malta himself valued the land at £60,000. Under these circumstances, after considerable negotiation, and finding that the property was very valuable, the Government offered £50,000, which, after some discussion, was accepted by Dr. Cassolani. He now asked the Committee to Vote £27,000, which, with the £23,000 granted last year, would make up that amount.

Vote agreed to, as were the two following Votes.

(3.) £12,000, Additional Shipwrights and Artificers in Dockyards at Home. (4.) £27,000, to complete Purchase of Property in Great Harbour of Malta.

SUPPLY-ARMY ESTIMATES.

(5.) £185,594, Departments of Seeretary of State for War and General Commanding in Chief.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following two Votes :

(6.) £359,040, Manufacturing Departments, Military Storekeepers, &c.

(7.) £626,153, Wages of Artificers, Labourers. &c.

(8.) 1,003,604, Provisions, Forage, &c. SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY suggested, that the Vote should be divided into two, in accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Audit.

GENERAL PEEL said, that the suggestion of the hon. Baronet would be taken into consideration.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £718,088, Warlike Stores.

MR. MACARTNEY asked whether the Minister for War could state the amount of iron ordnance which the gun factory at Woolwich was able to turn out in the year.

GENERAL PEEL assured the hon. Member that nothing could be going on more satisfactorily than the gun factory at Woolwich, and he should have much pleasure in presenting a Return of all the guns manufactured there during the past year. SIR CHARLES NAPIER inquired how many Armstrong guns were ready for delivery.

GENERAL PEEL replied, that very few were ready for delivery, but a considerable number were in process of manufacture. Machinery was being prepared for turning out as many as possible during the next year, and the Government were establishing a factory at Woolwich as well as in the north.

MR. R. N. PHILIPS asked whether it was intended to vote any money for Mr. Whitworth.

GENERAL PEEL replied that the Whitworth gun was tried at the same time and by the same Committee as the Armstrong. There was certainly some defect in it then, for it burst; but he believed that Mr. Whitworth had made some improvements in it since. That gentleman had requested that his invention should again be submitted to the Committee, and it would assuredly have a fair trial.

GENERAL CODRINGTON observed that it was greatly to the credit of Mr. Whitworth that he had given his time and talent for the benefit of the country without remuneration, while he was acknowledged as one of the most eminent mechanicians of this country. He had not only given his attention to the subject, but had attended to see the experiments carried on. It was highly important that the closest attention should be devoted to the perfecting of small VOL. CLII. [THIRD SERIES.]

arms; and the Enfield rifle should be tried with the Whitworth rifle, and the closest observations made as to their range and penetration for the latter was as important as the former, and he hoped the result would be laid before the House and the country. He repeated that Mr. Whitworth deserved the highest praise for the efforts he had made to improve fire arms in this country.

MR. W. WILLIAMS wished to have an explanation of the item of £400,000 which stood in the Vote in connection with the name of the East India Company.

GENERAL PEEL stated that the sum in question was due by the East India Company for stores furnished during the present year; but, as it would not be paid till the next financial year, it was necessary to cover it with a Vote now.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £325,072, Fortifications.

MR. MONSELL asked the Secretary for War whether it was intended to proceed with the fortifications now in course of construction, since the invention of improved weapons must materially affect many of those in existence? During the Russian war they had no guns that would carry more than 4500 yards; whereas if they had had this gun they might have been able to attack Cronstadt. The Armstrong gun would make a change in the whole system of fortifications. He should be glad to know if it was the intention to proceed with the construction of any new fortifications, or to spend any money upon them at all until the probable effects of Armstrong's gun upon the present system of fortifications had been ascertained.

SIR FREDERICK SMITH said, he had no doubt whatever that the penetration of a shot fired from Armstrong's gun would be much more considerable than that of the old ordnance; but that fact would simply involve this alteration-that, whereas we had hitherto been satisfied with a parapet eighteen feet in thickness, in future we should have to make the parapet of twenty feet or twenty-two feet in thickness. But there were other questions involved. When the works for the defence of Portsmouth were designed it was understood that the works were to be advanced, in order to prevent an enemy from making a lodgment and bombarding the place. It was clear that the radius which was sufficient then was insufficient now, and the question arose whether it ought not to be extended.

LORD PALMERSTON said, there could

2 Z

be no doubt that the general adoption of Sir William Armstrong's guns would cause an alteration in warfare both by land and sea, and that when their use became general great changes might be required in the system of defensive works. But meanwhile he trusted that the Government would not suspend those works for the im mediate defence of Portsmouth and Plymouth which had been thought necessary. Sir William Armstrong's guns were not yet in use, while here were works essential for the defence of our dockyards against existing ordnance. It would be bad policy to leave these works unfinished until the enemy, whoever he might be, should come. Let us then make these places secure against the ordnance which was at present in use; and if hereafter weapons of greater range should come into use, we should then have to consider whether works still further in advance might or might not be necessary. There was no question that the works now in progress were absolutely necessary for the defence of our dockyards in the present state of the science of gunnery.

SIR C. NAPIER asked for an explanation of the expenditure upon new fortifications at Dovor.

GENERAL PEEL said, the first thing he did when the merits of Sir W. Armstrong's gun were reported to him was to appoint a Committee, including some naval officers, to consider what effect this gun would have upon the system of fortifications. Experiments were now going on upon this subject with regard both to masonry and fieldworks, but at present it was hardly possible to calculate to what extent. Sir W. Armstrong's gun would affect fortifications. The largest gun hitherto made upon Sir W. Armstrong's plan was a 32-pounder, but Sir W. Armstrong proposed to make cannons of much larger calibre, longer range, and greater weight of projectile. He agreed with the noble Lord that it would not be advisable to stop our fortifications and leave Portsmouth and Plymouth undefended until the Committee should report. At Dovor the works going on for a harbour of refuge rendered necessary some fortifications to prevent the possibility of any foreign fleet coming in.

SIR CHARLES NAPIER said, that in former days nothing was heard of fortifications, but people looked to the fleet as the proper defence of the country; and he believed that if the money that we were now spending for this purpose were laid out in building and fitting out ships,

we should not now require fortifications on shore. Vote agreed to.

(11.) £212,507, Civil Buildings.

MR. MACARTNEY asked if the Pimlico stores were for the supply of clothing to the army in addition to the Tower stores?

GENERAL PEEL said, that the establishment at Pimlico was intended for the depôt of stores hitherto kept at Weedon. The clothing would also be inspected here, and when the buildings were completed a portion of the stores now kept in the Tower would be removed to Pimlico.

COLONEL KNOX inquired if the store at Weedon was to be closed altogether?

GENERAL PEEL said, the establishment at Weedon would continue to be a depôt of arms for the centre of England. Vote agreed to.

(12.) £797,122, Barracks.

MR. W. WILLIAMS took exception to the increase-exceeding £118,000—in it over that of the previous year, remarking at the same time that he did not object to any expenditure on barrack accommodation calculated to preserve the health and comfort of the army.

GENERAL CODRINGTON remarked that, although it had been stated on high sanitary authority that there should not be less than 1,000 cubic feet of air per man, in many of the barracks of England there was only 300 cubic feet per man.

MR. COWAN called attention to the great irritation caused by the system of billeting in Scotland. In the city which he represented, so far from the troops being billeted on the publicans generally, the burden fell on only a few of them. He wished to know whether it was intended to do away with billeting soldiers, except when they were actually on the march, or to increase the remuneration for billets. He thought that the atrocious system which now existed should be done away with as far as possible.

SIR FREDERICK SMITH said, that in the construction of barracks the lowest tender was always taken, and not a shilling was unnecessarily expended.

GENERAL PEEL said, in answer to the objections of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he had put this Vote at the lowest possible sum. There was certainly a great increase in it over that of last year; but it had become absolutely necessary to provide increased barrack accommodation, especially in London, and at Glasgow and Nottingham. With regard to billeting, it was

MR. W. WILLIAMS said, that his complaint was, that a very large sum of money was spent in inefficient barracks, not suited for the proper accommodation of the soldiers, or for the preservation of their health.

GENERAL CODRINGTON observed that the Report of the Commission was to the effect, that the men were crowded in the rooms, and that there was great mortality, particularly among the Guards, arising from the overcrowding of the rooms.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT thought, that in discussing this question, hon. Gentlemen forgot that there were now quartered in England many more troops than there were a few years ago. It was quite true that there was a great deal of over-crowding in the barracks. If they could get sites large enough he thought that they ought not to build barracks at all, for huts were cheaper and better; but such a suggestion could not apply to London, where the cost of sites was so very great, and buildings of masonry two or three stories in height must be constructed. He wished to ask what was the prospect of Netley Hospital being finished. The Commission on which he served reported strongly against the site of that building, and also the construction of the building; but his right hon. Friend found a number of learned men who said it was too late to give up the building. He thought that they should take warning not to construct on a plan so unnecessarily expensive. It was a theory among army medical officers, that invalid soldiers could only be accommodated in small wards. That was not the case in civil hospitals. When they put men into small wards, the cost of administation and attendance was almost double. That appeared to him to be extravagance. The site of Netley had now been settled, and he did not wish to reopen the matter, but he wished to know when the hospital would be fit to receive patients.

GENERAL PEEL said, it was stated in the Estimates what amount would be required to finish the building. As to the medical men appointed to report on the site, he thought that his right hon. Friend had not dealt fairly with them. The right hon. Gentleman had himself named half of them.

MR. SIDNEY HERBERT said, his right

MR. JOSEPH LOCKE observed, that no doubt there was every disposition that due care and attention should be bestowed on proper barrack accommodation for the soldier; but he complained of the want of sufficient care in preparing the estimates for barracks and hospitals. The House had one estimate on one day and another on the next, and the House did not know what would be the expense until the money was all expended. There had been an additional sum of about £100,000 expended in Netley Hospital, to remedy the defect in site.

SIR FREDERICK SMITH explained, that there were two plans, one larger than the other.

MR. JOSEPH LOCKE believed, that the original estimate was for a place to accommodate 1,000 men, and now it was not intended to accommodate more.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY did not think the House was fairly treated in the estimates for barracks. The amount of money expended was perfectly incredible, and the public could not understand how it was that the soldier was not properly ac commodated. There was a new demand for Aldershot in the Estimates, and there seemed to be somewhere a total want of care in preparing the Estimates. wished to know whether this new sum of £66,000 addded to the £574,000 already voted, would really complete the barracks?

He

SIR FREDERICK SMITH said, only £474,000 had been expended.

GENERAL PEEL said, he could promise that this would be the last sum asked for these barracks. They had engaged to pay the contractors £9,000 per month during the winter, and £15,000 during the summer, and had insisted that the whole amount should be inserted in this year's Estimate, and no better or cheaper barracks could be built, and they would accommodate 247 officers, 6,409 men, and 1,900 horses.