that whatever attacks might be made upon the weight and force which it ought to have. them, or whatever misstatements might be But I believe we shall soon have a more published, they were not to defend them-powerful weapon. I asked Mr. Whitworth selves. This I did to put a stop to con- if he could make a gun that would pierce troversies in the newspapers, which other the Hercules target, and he said, “Yes; wise would have been endless; but in justice but I cannot do it under 24 tons." We to the Department I felt that I could not have not yet got to that; but my belief is allow it to be attacked by a salaried officer that we shall very soon get to an 18 or 20who since 1862 had been receiving pay ton gun, and shall then be obliged to carry every week. I therefore wrote to Captain a centre battery. It only remains for me Coles, saying that he must take his choice to add that although these designs have whether he would continue to serve the been prepared by the Department, there Admiralty, in which case he must desist has been no opposition to Captain Coles, from his attacks; er else, if he wished to but, on the contrary, an earnest desire to persevere in them, he must resign his of- co-operate with him in producing the best fice and take up an independent position. ship that we possibly can. I believe I have He then undertook that while he was em- now answered all the Questions of the noble ployed at the Admiralty he would not con- Lord. I have not felt it necessary to touch tinue his newspaper attacks, and I at once upon one part of his Question, because to said I should be very glad to have the bene- do so would be to revive questions now hapfit of his experience; because Captain Coles pily at an end, and I hope for the future that has now had great experience on these sub-all will work together for the public service. jects, and I do not hesitate to say has learnt a great deal from the Admiralty. Both at Woolwich and at Portsmouth he has been engaged with professional officers of great skill in building turrets; and half, probably, of his experience is consequently due to service with the Admiralty. The vessel of which I have spoken will, I think, be more powerful than any which has yet been built, and for the estimate the Admiralty must take the entire responsibility. I have told Captain Coles, however, that we should give him every opportunity for forming and offering opinions, more particularly as to the turrets, their mode of fitting, &c. With regard to the turret principle and its supposed importance to heavy guns, I have the high authority of Captain Cooper Key for saying that these can be worked equally well along a broadside as in turrets. Cap-known as the cupola-ship. The question tain Cooper Key says No practical reasons exist why a heavy gnn should not be worked on a broadside with the same security as in a turret; and I am satisfied that there is no difference between the two systems in this respect." And Captain Cooper Key, we must remember, has had great experience in the Excellent. Up to 12-ton guns I see no reason why they should not be worked as broadside guns; but when they become larger and go up to 18 or 20 tons, my own opinion is that we shall require the central principle of working. At the present moment we have only one 20-ton gun, and that is not satisfactory in its performance; it does not consume properly the powder suitable for so large a weapon, and its discharge has not There is no objection to give the Reports that the noble Lord asks for. THE EARL OF HARDWICKE said, he had not the advantage of being in the House when the Question was put by the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany), but he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from the noble Duke in reply. The noble Duke had entered not merely into the merits of the cupola and turret-ships, but into their strength and dimensions, the power of the cannon, thickness of the armour-plating, and the various points con nected with the experiments-subjects of the very highest importance, and such as were not usually debated in that House. Taken as a whole, it seemed that the opinion of the noble Duke was directed rather against the progress of what was of training guns on a turntable was one to THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH said, he had paid great attention to this matter throughout the debate, and it appeared to him that it was not only necessary to use a very large gun amidships, but that to do so the turret system must be employed. It required, however, an engineer to construct a proper turntable, and a shipbuilder to build a suitable vessel. He understood the noble Duke to argue that Captain Coles was no shipbuilder, and he (the Earl of Ellenborough) felt perfectly certain that he was no engineer. Instead, therefore, of being entitled to build this ship, Captain Coles was exactly the last person who should have been selected for that purpose. Motion agreed to. mous artillery must be carried amidships. | side of the ship in what was termed "reThat was the whole mystery of the case; verse," and under those circumstances and by adopting the principle of Captain would cause more disaster than would be Coles, or of anybody else, we should avail the case if the vessel were struck in the ourselves of the system of a turntable ordinary way. carried amidships. The complaint was that Captain Coles had not had a fair chance hitherto of proving the merit of his invention, and he (the Earl of Hardwicke) must say that the impression left upon his mind by the speech of the noble Duke was that he was not very favourable to Captain Coles. It also appeared that Captain Coles had not had a very good ship placed at his disposal for the purpose of carrying out his invention, and what he now asked for was to have a good ship placed at his disposal. He was glad to hear from the noble Duke that at length an admirable vessel was about to be placed at Captain Coles' disposal, so that he would have an opportunity of testing his invention. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) did not at that time intend to go into the question of guns and of armourplating, and he would merely say that the desire of the country was that experiments should be undertaken once for all to determine the best calibre of guns, the dimensions of ships, and the thickness of armourplating, so that at last we might obtain a good ship properly armed. In one instance, where large broadside guns were being worked, it required thirteen minutes to shift the gun, which might have the effect of losing an action. THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: The noble Earl appears to think that the Royal Sovereign is the only ship ever intended for Captain Coles, whereas, in fact, the Prince Alfred, a remarkably fine vessel, was expressly designed for the trial of his invention, although that vessel was not completed until a year after the time allowed for its building. LORD DUNSANY said, the noble Duke appeared to think that unless armourplating was invulnerable, it was utterly worthless; whereas it would be a great thing to keep out shells. It was of the utmost importance that we should secure large guns, because without them, although we might succeed in making holes in the vessels of the enemy, we could not possibly expect to be able to detach their plates. Then, again, it must be remembered that there was this difference between a turret and a broadside ship, that the plates in the latter were much more liable to injury, because a shot entering through the porthole would take the armour of the opposite House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Monday, March 12, 1866. MINUTES.]-SUPPLY-considered in Committee Ordered-Land Tax Commissioners' Names Second Reading-Labouring Classes' Dwellings Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings * [27]. MR. SPEAKER'S ILLNESS. Speaker's House, March 12, 1866. Sir, I regret that it is not in my power to resume my duties to-day. My medical adviser, Sir William Fergusson, prescribes absolute rest for some further time.—1 have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, J. EVELYN DENISON, Speaker: To Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bt. Whereupon Mr. Dodson, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table as Deputy Speaker; and after prayers, counted the House, and Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July 1855. CATTLE STATISTICS.—QUESTION. ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If he is aware that the Schedules prepared by the Board of Trade, calling upon the owners of live stock to make a return thereof on the 5th day of March, have never been issued in many townships; and how he purposes to insure an accurate return of Cattle throughout the country on a given day? MR. MILNER GIBSON said, in reply, that in consequence of the notice he had received of the Question of the hon. and gallant Admiral he had made inquiries of those charged with the duty of issuing the schedules, and there was every reason to believe that the officers charged with the duty of issuing schedules for the return of live stock had complied with their instructions, and had sent schedules to all occupiers of land whose names appeared on the Land Assessment Returns. The only persons to whom they had not been sent were some small occupiers, being sub-tenants or persons described as occupiers of houses and gardens. In those cases steps had been taken to ascertain the number of their live stock. ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE said, that there were to his knowledge many townships in which the occupiers had not had the returns sent to them. RINDERPEST AMONG sheep. QUESTION. SIR ANDREW AGNEW said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council on Education, If he can give any information as to whether the disease said to have broken out among sheep in some parts in Scotland had in any instance been reported by competent authority to be identical with Rinderpest? MR. H. A. BRUCE said, in reply, that no official information had been received as to the existence of rinderpest among sheep in Scotland; but he was sorry to say that other information had reached the Government which left little doubt of the existence of the disease in Forfarshire and the county of Fife. As to England, he regretted to say there could be no doubt. of sheep said to have died by rinderpest An inspection had been made by Professors Simonds and Brown on behalf of the Veterinary Depart ment. The result was to establish in their minds beyond all doubt that the rinderpest had existed in ten different cases among sheep in England, and that it was accompanied with serious loss. He was informed by Professor Simonds that in every case where he had traced the loss of sheep to its source the animals had been in contact with cattle suffering from the disease. 'ARMY-BARRACKS AT NOTTINGHAM. QUESTION. SIR ROBERT CLIFTON said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, The date of the purchase of land at Nottingham for site of Barracks, from whom it was purchased, the extent of land, and price paid? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The land was purchased in 1860 from the Duke of Newcastle. The extent was twenty-one acres, and the price £5,200. ARMY-ARTILLERY-RIFLED ORDNANCE.-QUESTION. MR. H. BAILLIE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any of the 12-ton guns rifled upon the Woolwich pattern, and now being served out to Her Majesty's Ships, have been submitted to the test of continuous firing, such as would occur during a bombardment; whether the range and accuracy of such guns have been fully ascertained by either separate or competitive proof; and whether it has been represented to the War Office that the steel tubes rifled on the Woolwich system of those guns will not be able to stand, without injury or destruction, such a test? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON replied, that the 12-ton rifle guns were fired 135 rounds before they were proved, and as continuously as the state of the tide at Shoeburyness would admit. The same gun was afterwards fired 315 rounds, and the accuracy of the guns had been fully maintained, A Select Committee had reported that, looking to the practice of the gun as a whole, it was the best ever made by a rifle gun. He was not able to give a definite answer to the third question. NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE AND NA TIONAL GALLERY.-QUESTION. ELECTORAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND). QUESTION. SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Electoral Statistics, similar to those laid on the table on Saturday for England, are in course of preparation for the rest of the United Kingdom; and, if so, when they will be ready? MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK said, he rose to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What course Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue with reference to THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEthe new building for the National Gallery; QUER said, in reply, that directions had whether a competition of architects has been given for the preparation of similar been invited, and who has been selected to Electoral Returns for Scotland as had been compete; whether any definite period has furnished for England. He could not name been fixed for the exhibition of the com-the precise day when they would be ready, peting designs, and who is to make the but ample time would be given for their final award; whether any of the archi- consideration. tects designated to compete for the new Courts of Justice have declined the proposed competition; by whom the Instructions in the form of a Blue Book, furnished to the competing architects, have been prepared; and, what date has been fixed for sending in the plans? MR. COWPER said, in reply, that two of the architects invited to send in designs for the new Courts of Justice-namely, Mr. Wyatt and Mr. Hardwicke-had declined to do so, and two others had the invitation still under consideration. The specifications, which contained elaborate details, had been prepared by the architec. tural clerk of the Board of Works. The time fixed for sending in the designs was the end of October. With regard to the National Gallery, it was intended to receive designs from a limited number of architects, suggesting the best way in which the ground in the rear of the National Gallery might be disposed of, and also a plan showing how, if it were determined to demolish altogether the building in Trafalgar Square, another building might be erected more convenient for the purposes of a National Gallery, and more ornamental. There was no intention to abandon the designs of the late Captain Fowke for the new buildings at Kensington. Mr. Waterhouse had been engaged to act in Captain Fowke's behalf, and to superintend the erection of the building. With regard to the Law Courts, the arrangements were not yet in such a state as to give any information, but plenty of time would be given for consideration before any step was taken by the Government. POSTPONEMENT OF THE ORders of THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- the Rights of Voting in the Election of Members of the House of Commons as may tend to strengthen our Free Institutions and conduce to the Public Welfare." improvements in the Laws which regulate circumstances I have stated, unnecessarily occupy its time on this occasion by diswhether there ought to be a revision of our cussing the general ground of the question electoral system, and whether the franchises of the people ought to be extended. With such an accumulation of authority, and of authority proceeding from every quarter, in my favour, I hold it to be superfluous for the moment to debate that general question. I shall assume that by these declarations, so repeatedly and so earnestly made, the general ground and justification have been sufficiently, nay, amply laid down on which Her Majesty's present Government are warranted in placing before you a proposal relating to this request from the House not only for myself that kind patience and indulgence which I have, times innumerable, received at its hands, but likewise, for the question which I have to introduce, that grave and earnest attention which belongs to a matter undoubtedly of a serious order. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER again rose and said-Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, if in order to estimate justly the difficulties of the question which I have now to bring before you it be right, as I suppose, to take into view not only its own extent and complexity, and not only the strange fluctuation of circumstances which has attended and marked its history, but also the weakness of the hands into which the treatment of it has fallen, then, per-important subject. And I venture, Sir, to haps, I may well say that few Ministers have risen in recent years to address this House under greater difficulties than those which at this moment attend my own position and my present task. Sir, those difficulties are difficulties which I am conscious affect in the first instance Her Majesty's Government; and they are perfectly sensible of the weight of responsibility which attaches to them. But although they be concentrated in their greatest weight upon us, yet they are not ours alone. The interest in the successful solution of this question is an interest common to the whole House of Commons, and to every party, and every section of a party that sits within these walls. For, Sir, let me remind you that those paragraphs which we have just heard read are not the only paragraphs in which, under the most solemn form known to the Constitution, the subject of the representation of the people has been brought under the notice of Parliament. By no less than five Administrations, and in no less than five Queen's Speeches before that of the present year, the House of Commons has been acquainted by the Sovereign, under the advice of her constitutionally appointed Ministers, that the time, in their judgment, had arrived when the representation of the people ought to undergo revision. It is needless to refer to the terms of those Speeches severally; but it will at once be recollected that they have not been delivered exclusively at periods when Ministers taken from one side of the House were in power. In 1859, and in 1860, by both parties each in its turn, those solemn pledges were given in the face of the country. And, Sir, having much, I fear, to state to the House, I shall not, under the Sir, it may be with great truth said, with respect to the origin of this question, that it is emphatically the work of the House of Commons itself. Let me remind the House, as the period has now long gone by, and as many of the Gentlemen whom I address have now taken their seats on these Benches for the first time-let me remind the House of what happened in the beginning of the year 1851. And I must say that the event which then occurred was of a nature to saddle the responsibility connected with the introduction of this question, in a high and peculiar sense, not merely on one or on another Minister or Government, but upon the whole body of the House of Commons. It was an independent Member-my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King)—who, on the 20th February, 1851, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to grant a £10 occupation franchise in counties. In the debate which followed, the sole opponent of that Motion was my noble Friend now at the head of the Government. Every other authority in the House either approved or was silent on the occasion. Although, in resisting the Motion, the noble Earl, then first Minister, promised that the Government would itself take the question into its consideration, and would in the following Session make a proposal for amending the representation of the people, yet this did not at the time satisfy the House, and the Government |