Commons Sitting of 3 April 1865

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas) Dyke Acland the younger, esquire, for Devon (Northern Division).
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Public Accounts, Mr. Stansfeld added. Report—Open Spaces (Metropolis) (No. 178.)
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Navy Estimates; Civil Service Estimates.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Roads and Bridges (Scotland)*; Commissioners of Supply Meetings (Scotland).*
First Reading—Roads and Bridges (Scotland)* [101]; Commissioners of Supply Meetings (Scotland)* [102].
Second Reading—Prisons (Scotland) Act Amendment* [91].
Report—Public Offices (Site and Approaches) * [99]; India Office (Site and Approaches) * [100].
Considered as amended—Inclosure * [89].
Third Reading—Small Benefices (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment* [13].

OUT-DOOR CUSTOMS OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why such an unequal system prevails at the Customs for remunerating their Out-door Officers, so that in some ports, like Whitehaven, where both the cost of living is higher and the business much greater than in many other ports, yet the salary of the Officers is on a more reduced scale?
  MR. PEEL,in reply, said, the want of uniformity in the pay of Out-door Officers of Customs appeared to have arisen from the circumstance that up to 1856 those Officers were paid not by salaries, but by rates of daily pay, which, varied according to the nature of the duties they were employed in; but in 1856 the daily pay was reduced to a uniform sum of Is, a day, and the difference was commuted to a fixed salary, or wages, the amount of salary being fixed with reference to their average earnings during the three preceding years.

  COLLECTION OF TAXES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it be his intention to re-introduce the Bill for the Collection of Taxes; and, if so, to include exceptional Clauses in the same, or the compensation Clause, as before?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was bound to say that very great inconvenience was felt in the country from the want of a measure of this kind, and he much regretted having failed to obtain the assent of the House to it. At the same time, it was such a measure as it would not be satisfactory to have passed unless it received a very general assent, and he could not see any prospect of obtaining that degree of assent to it during the present Session. However, he looked forward to the House legislating upon the subject on a future occasion.

DEEP SEA FISHERY (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ire-
  670
  land, When the Report of the Deep Sea and Coast Fishery Commissioners of Ireland, for 1864, will be presented to Parliament?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL,said in reply, that he expected to be able to present the Report to Parliament shortly after Easter.

  INCOME TAX PAPERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has recently received any communications relative to certain discrepancies in the papers which persons assessed to the Income Tax are called upon to fill up; and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that he had received a communication on the subject from one gentleman, and that was the only communication he had received. He had also received the answer of the Board of Inland Revenue to the statement made by that gentleman, and if his hon. and learned Friend wished to see the papers he could do so, and he would then he able to form his own judgment whether or not it was necessary to bring the matter before Parliament. For his own part, he thought such a course unnecessary.

  ARMY—CULTIVATION OF GARDENS BY SOLDIERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state or allow a Return to be made showing to what extent the Cultivation of Gardens by Soldiers has been adopted in the Army?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that there would be no objection to produce the Returns. Up to the present time very few gardens had been cultivated by soldiers. A circular had lately been issued from the War Office giving greater facilities for the cultivation of gardens, and since the issue of that Circular many applications had been made. The weather had not lately been very favourable for garden operations, and he should be much obliged if the hon. Member would wait a month or two before he moved for the Return.

UNION CHARGEABILITY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor

  671
  Law Board, Whether he will fix a later day after Easter for going into Committee on the Union Chargeability Bill?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the Bill could not come on on the 27th, and he would state on the 24th what day he would proceed with it.

DRILL INSTRUCTORS OF VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to his statement that no Capitation Grant is made to Drill Instructors of Administrative Volunteer Battalions because they are not attached to any particular corps, Whether he is aware that the cost of clothing and equipping such Instructors now falls on the particular companies to which they are attached; and whether, considering the greater need companies in Administrative Battalions have of Government assistance, it is intended to make any provision for defraying the cost of such equipment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that in fixing the pay of Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers a sum was included to cover the expenses they were put to for lodging and clothing themselves. The pay of these Sergeant Instructors was 6d. a day higher than the pay of the similar rank of sergeants in the militia, that 6d. consisting of 4d. a day for lodging allowance, and 2d. in lieu of clothing allowance. He believed that in many cases the Sergeant Instructors were clothed by the corps which they instructed, but that was not in the contemplation of the Government when the rate of their pay was fixed.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS—SERVICE ON JURIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government have come to any decision on the question of the exemption of Officers of the Volunteer Force from service on Juries?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that upon the representations made by the deputation introduced to Lord de Grey by his hon. Friend opposite, Lord de Grey made inquiries as to the facts relating to the exemption from serving on juries allowed in favour of militia officers. It appeared that they were not exempted from
  672
  serving on juries except when the militia regiments to which they belonged were embodied. It was supposed that militia officers were exempted during the time their regiments were out for training, but such was not the fact, and it was only when their regiments were actually embodied that militia officers were exempted from serving on juries. Under these circumstances, it did not appear desirable to extend to Volunteer officers a privilege which was not enjoyed by militia officers.

  OYSTER FISHERY.—QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Report of the Sea Fishery Commission would be made in time for legislation on the Oyster Fishery during the present Session?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that he did not think it probable that any legislation on that subject could be undertaken during the present Session.

ARMY—ORDNANCE EXPERIMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to test the Lancaster, Scott, and French 7-inch gun, competion guns, by firing from them shells filled with powder, before coming to a decision as to the best system of rifling; and whether it is true that the 7-inch shunt and French guns have, in the late competition at Shoeburyness, been placed under similar conditions, and whether one has yet been fired from a wooden and another from an iron carriage; and whether other advantages have not been given to the shunt gun?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was rather unusual and very inconvenient that information of that kind should be asked for during the progress of these experiments. The experiments which had been ordered between the competitive systems of rifling were now going on, and not likely to be concluded for a short time yet. As a matter of fact, he believed the competition guns had not yet had shells filled with powder fired from them, and he could not say yet whether it was intended to test them in that way or not. As to the shunt and French guns, they had both been fired on wooden carriages; the shunt gun had been fired from an iron platform, but the French gun had not been placed on that

  673
  platform. The Committee were not aware of any advantage having been given to the shunt gun over any other, and perhaps he might be permitted to observe that if the hon. Member supposed—as he appeared to do—that the Committee did not carry out the experiments fairly, he had better state to the House what the circumstances were which gave rise to that impression, rather than convoy imputations against the Committee by means of questions.

RAILWAY SYSTEM (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Limerick County), When he proposes to bring on this Bill, and whether he has made any arrangement with the Government to secure a proper opportunity for its discussion?
  MR. MONSELL,in reply, said, it was certainly his intention to bring on the measure, which excited very great interest in Ireland. It stood first among the notices for Friday upon going into Supply; but the Motion for the adjournment of the House unfortunately stood before it. He trusted, however, to be able to make an arrangement with the noble Lord at the head of the Government to secure the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE LATE MR. COBDEN.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for this House to have that order put without calling to its mind the great loss which this House and the country have sustained by the event which took place yesterday morning. Sir, Mr. Cobden, whose loss we deplore, occupied a pre-eminent position both as a Member of this House and as a member of the British nation. I do not mean, in the few words I have to say, to disguise or to avoid stating that there were many matters upon which a great number of people differed from Mr. Cobden, I among the rest. But those who differed from him the most never could doubt the honesty of his purpose
  674
  or the sincerity of his convictions. They felt that his object was the good of his country, however they might differ on particular questions from him as to the means by which that end was to be accomplished. But we all agree in burying in oblivion every point of difference, and think only of the great and important services he rendered to our common country. Sir, it is many years ago since Adam Smith elaborately and conclusively, as far as argument could go, advocated as the fundamental principles of the wealth of nations freedom of industry and unrestricted exchange of the objects which are the results of industry. These doctrines were inculcated by learned men, by Dugald Stewart and others. They were taken up in process of time by leading statesmen, such as Mr. Huskisson and those who agreed with him. But the barriers which long-established prejudice—honest and conscientious prejudice—had raised against the practical application of those doctrines prevented for a long series of years their coming into use as instruments of progress in the country. To Mr. Cobden it was reserved by his untiring industry, his indefatigable personal activity, the indomitable energy of his mind, and by—I will say—that forcible and Demosthenic eloquence with which he treated all the subjects which he took in hand—it was reserved to Mr. Cobden, aided, no doubt, by a great phalanx of worthy associates—by my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Villiers) and by Sir Robert Peel, whose memory will ever be associated with the principles Mr. Cobden so ably advocated—it was reserved, I say, to Mr. Cobden, by exertions which never were surpassed, to carry into practical application those abstract principles with the truth of which he was so deeply impressed, and which at last gained the acceptance of all reasonable men in the country. He rendered an inestimable and enduring benefit to our country by the result of those exertions. But, Sir, great as were Mr. Cobden's talents, great as was his industry, and eminent as was his success, the disinterestedness of his mind more than equalled all of these. He was a man of great ambition, but his ambition was to be useful to his country; and that ambition was amply gratified. When the present Government was formed I was authorized graciously by Her Majesty to offer to Mr. Cobden a seat in the Cabinet.

  675
  Mr. Cobden declined, and frankly told me that he thought he and I differed a good deal upon many important principles of political action, and therefore he could not either comfortably for me or for himself join the Administration of which I was the head. I think he was wrong. I lamented it, but it was he who had to decide. But this I will say of Mr. Cobden, that no man, however strongly he may have differed from him upon general political principles, or the application of those principles, could come into contact with him without carrying away the strongest personal esteem and regard for the man with whom he had the misfortune not entirely to agree. Sir, the two great achievements of Mr. Cobden were, in the first place, the abrogation of those laws which regulated the importation of corn and the great development which that gave to the industry of the country, and next the commercial arrangements which he negotiated with France, which paved the way for improving the trade, and tended greatly to extend the intercourse between the two countries. When the latter achievement was accomplished, it was my lot to offer to Mr. Cobden—not office, for that I knew he would not take, but to offer him those honours which the Crown can bestow—a Baronetcy and the rank of a Privy Councillor, honourable distinctions which it would have gratified the Crown to be3tovv for important services rendered to the country, and which I think it would not have been at all derogatory for him to accept. But the same disinterested spirit which actuated all his conduct, whether in private or in public, led him to decline even the acknowledgments which would properly have been made for the services he had rendered. Sir, I can only say that we have sustained a loss which every man in the country will feel. We have lost a man who may be said to have been peculiarly emblematical of the Constitution under which we have the happiness to live, because he rose to great eminence in this House, and acquired an ascendancy in the public mind not by virtue of any family connections, but solely and entirely by means of the power and vigour of his mind, that power and vigour being applied to purposes eminently advantageous to the country. Sir, Mr. Cobden's name will be for ever en graved on the most interesting pages of the history of this country; and I am sure
  676
  there is not one in this House who does not feel the deepest regret that we have lost one of its brightest ornaments, and that the country has been deprived of one of her roost useful servants.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, having been a Member of this House when Mr. Cobden first took his seat, and having remained in the House during the whole of his lengthened career, I cannot reconcile it to myself to he silent on this occasion, when we have to deplore the loss of one so eminent, and that too in the ripeness of his manhood and the full vigour of his intellect.
  Although it was the fortune of Mr. Cobden to enter public life at a time when passions ran high, and he himself by no means a man insensible to political excitement, still when the strife was over, there was soon observed in him a moderation and a tempered thought that indicated a large intellectual horizon, and the possession of statesmanlike qualities. Though formed in the tumult of popular opinions, with which he identified himself, there was in his character a vein of reverence for tradition which, even un-t consciously to himself, subdued and softened the acerbity of the cruder conclusions at which he may have arrived. That in my mind is a quality which in some degree must be possessed by any one who attempts or aspires to sway this country. For, not withstanding the rapid changes in which we live, and the numerous improvements and alterations we anticipate, this country is still Old England, and the past is one of the elements of our power.
  What the qualities of Mr. Cobden were in this House all present are aware, yet, perhaps, I may be permitted to say that as a debater he had few equals. As a logician he was close and complete; adroit, acute, perhaps even subtle; yet at the same time he was gifted with such a degree of imagination that he never lost sight of the sympathies of those whom he addressed, and so, generally avoiding to drive his argument to extremity, he became as a speaker both practical and persuasive.
  The noble Lord, who is far more competent than myself to deal with such subjects, has referred the House to Mr. Cobden's conduct as an administrator. It would seem that, notwithstanding the eminent position which he had achieved and occupied, and the various opportunities which offered for the exercise of that ambition which he might legitimately enter-

  677
  tain, his life was destined to pass without his being afforded an occasion of showing that he possessed those qualities which are invaluable in council and in the management of public affairs. Still, fortunately, it happened, that before he quitted us, there came to him one of the finest opportunities that a public man could well enjoy, and it may be truly said that by the transaction of great affairs he obtained the consideration of the two leading countries of the world.
  Sir, there is something mournful in the history of this Parliament, when we remember how many of our most eminent and valued public men have passed from among us. I cannot refer to the history of any other Parliament which will bear to posterity so fatal a record. But there is this consolation when we remember these unequalled and irreparable visitations—that these great men are not altogether lost to us; that their opinions will be often quoted in this House; their authority appealed to, their judgments attested; even their very words will form part of our discussions and debates. There are some Members of Parliament who, though not present in the body, are still Members of this House: independent of dissolutions, of the caprice of constituencies, even of the course of time. I think, Sir, Mr. Cobden was one of these men. I believe that when the verdict of posterity shall be recorded on his life and conduct, it will be said of him that he was, without doubt, the greatest political character the pure middle class of this country has yet produced—an ornament to the House of Commons, and an honour to England.
  MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I feel that I cannot address the House on this occasion; but every expression of sympathy which I have heard has been most grateful to my heart. But the time which has elapsed since, in my presence, the manliest and gentlest spirit that ever quitted or tenanted ft human form took its flight is so short that I dare not even attempt to give utterance to the feelings by which I am oppressed. I shall leave to some calmer moment when I may have an opportunity of speaking before some portion of my countrymen, the lesson which I think may be learned from the life and character of my friend. I have only to say that after twenty years of most intimate and almost brotherly friendship with him, I little know how much I loved him until I found that I had lost him.

THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that as one who had known Mr. Cobden for seventeen years, he could not refrain from joining in the profound regret which had been expressed at the loss which the House and the country had sustained.
  In calling attention to the constitution and administration of the Admiralty Board, he should bear in mind that on many occasions on the Estimates recently this subject had been discussed more or less, and therefore he should confine himself entirely to the terms of his Notice. He desired rather to place before the House the evidence of the dissatisfaction which, the Board of Admiralty had given from its establishment, than to express any unsupported opinion of his own. On the recent examination of witnesses before a Commission, it would be found that almost the whole of them expressed condemnation of the Board, and even where there was approval, it proceeded from circumstances and opinions which would have elicited the strongest condemnation if the witnesses had been in possession of the real facts. His case was that there was no direct responsibility. He had only to refer to the evidence of three or four officers who had rendered eminent service in connection with our naval affairs. The opinion of Sir George Cockburn was, that the establishment at the Board of Admiralty was the most unsatisfactory and least effective for its purpose that could have been devised; and he owned himself to be the advocate for all bodies being responsible for what they did. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) said that the Board was a bad arrangement, and did not work favourably for the public service. He (Sir Morton Peto) therefore contended that it ought to be reformed, and that the present system should not be allowed to exist. Sir James Graham only supported the system provided the First Lord was always supreme. Sir Charles Wood was of opinion that the distribution of the business of the Admiralty had been altered at various times to fit into the peculiar competence of the Lord at the time. Mr. Goulburn, in a debate which took place in that House, said that when the head of a Board was responsible, there was a greater share of responsibility than if you threw it on the whole Board. He

  679
  also said the responsibility of the Board of Admiralty was a point which never could be ascertained under the present system; that the whole thing was given up, and the Board had no direct responsibility, and it was no longer worthy of the confidence of the country. With regard to the mode in which the business was conducted, Mr. Goulburn said that the correspondence of the Admiralty might be reduced, so that one letter might be written where there were now ten. Other witnesses were equally strong in their expressions against the Board of Admiralty. The Duke of Somerset said he did not hold that a better plan could not be devised, but that a better plan had not been submitted to him for consideration. Now, he hoped that the noble Lord would give to the plan which he would that night suggest, his calm and careful consideration. Sir Richard Bromley was of opinion that only one Minister of State should be in charge of the entire naval service; that that marine Minister should hold office by patent, and rank as a Secretary of State. He further recommended that the marine Minister should have four principal assistants to advise him; two naval officers and two civilians, and that those officers should have seats n the House. They should go out with the Ministry but should not require re-election on taking office. He described also the duties to be allotted to them, that the whole machinery might be set in motion, so that there should be a corresponding action, by each acting and re-acting upon the other. He (Sir Morton Peto) had communicated with Sir Richard Bromley as to the suggestions which he was about to offer to the House, and found they had met with his entire concurrence. With respect to the Constructor of the Navy, Mr. Reed was entitled to receive at the hands of the House the fairest possible trial, and the plan he was about to propose would not trench upon that fair trial. In connection with the Constructor of the Navy there ought to be a Council of Reference, before whom all designs should be brought for consideration. This Council should not be a paid body, and should be composed of eminent men, who had an intimate acquaintance with ship-building, machinery, and engineering, and who would, therefore, be competent to give a sound and practical opinion upon all matters coming before them. In order to obtain the services of such men without any pecuniary consideration the office must
  680
  be made one of honour. He knew many men who would be most valuable Members of such a Council, and who would be most ready to benefit their country by giving their services in this way. He also proposed that the Constructor should be made responsible to the Minister, and the Minister responsible to the House of Commons. The opinion of the Council of Reference was not to be in any way binding upon them. The Government would have in this Council a valuable Board of advice, and it would not trench in the slightest degree upon the responsibility of the Minister. He did not wish to interfere with the offices of the Controller of the Navy, the Constructor, or the three assistants, but he wished them to have the opportunity of consulting eminent men who had had great and varied experience, and who would be able to give very valuable advice and information. At present the Storekeeper General and the Controller of the Navy had equal power. The officer having charge of the construction of the navy should have supreme control, and the Storekeeper should be subordinate to him. He would next refer to the question of the Department of Works. The public works executed by the Admiralty at the present time were out of place as to the persons who should have the conduct of them. The Board of Admiralty had no efficient representatives who could carry out the public works of the country so far as it was concerned. The Board of Admiralty should simply define its requirements, and say what it wants, and have the works carried out by the Minister of Public Works. A Committee of the House in 1860 on the Miscellaneous Expenditure reported its opinion that all public works not already under the Department of Public Works, except those of naval and military defence, should be under that department. As to the conduct of affairs by the Admiralty, although the members of the Board might be excellent sailors, have an admirable knowledge of ships, able to give sound opinions on naval affairs, and fully competent to deal with all matters properly appertaining to a sailor's duties, they could not be said to have received such an education as qualified them for exercising an efficient superintendence over public works. In France these things were managed differently and more wisely. The Minister of Marine and the Navy Constructor had nothing to do with the superintendence of public works, excepting that they had to

  681
  define that which they wanted doing, and the works were then left in competent hands. It would be well if our Board of Admiralty would take a lesson from our neighbours. With respect to public works, he would like to see the Minister of that department assisted by a council composed of men of the highest eminence as engineers or contractors, who, having ceased from active business, should be able to devote their time and experience for the benefit of the country. This council might be consulted and its opinion obtained, although that opinion need not necessarily be binding, and the result could not but be advantageous. Would any Minister have made such a mistake as was made in building the gunboat slips at Haslar if there had been a body of competent and experienced persons to advise the Minister? To take another instance of blunder, he would refer to a building—the Herbert Hospital—recently erected at Woolwich, on a slope and overlooking a cemetery. It was found necessary to place the building upon a concrete foundation. The concrete was placed upon the clay, but the drains were placed below the clay, and the consequence had been that the clay had become so saturated with moisture that one-third of the building was shored up. The Board of Admiralty were not responsible for that blunder, but there were plenty of blunders which could be attributed to them. Would Alderney Harbour have been made if there had been a competent Board of Public Works? Would four or five times the original Estimates have been expended upon Holyhead and other harbours if we had had a competent tribunal to decide upon such questions? Again, he must remark that such mistakes were not made in France. In that country the Estimates were framed with so much care, and by such competent persons, that his firm, in the execution of some of the largest public works in that country, had been content to accept the figures of the Minister, which, with all respect, he must say they could not have ventured to do in this country. Then, again, as to the management of the dockyards, there was clearly something defective. Taking Portsmouth as an instance, he found that there was an Admiral Superintendent who was appointed for five years, but as he was usually selected from names very high up in the list, the office generally became vacant in about three years. However, that officer was a naval
  682
  man, quite unqualified by any previous education to undertake the management of a large establishment. If the Admiral Superintendent was absent his place was supplied by the captain of one of the ships in port, who would no doubt be a very excellent naval officer, but one of the very last persons to be intrusted with the charge of a dockyard. It must be remembered that a dockyard was nothing more or less than a large establishment in which Her Majesty's ships were built and repaired, and in which the object should be to combine the utmost efficiency with the greatest economy. Again, he must observe that the system in France was different to and an improvement upon our practice. Of course he did not mean that there should not be an admiral to take charge of the ships in port, and to superintend everything that properly fell within the sphere of a naval officer's duties, but he did not think that such an officer could be a very efficient manager of an establishment for the construction and repair of ships. It was quite certain that our dockyards would never be efficient while the present system was adhered to. He did not say that there should not be an admiral at Portsmouth, but he ought not to be made the superintendent of the public works or the constructor of ships. In France, the superintendent of the dockyard was well qualified for his post, and not removable on change of administration. The Admiral Superintendent was about as well qualified to make his own uniform as to perform the ordinary duties of the dockyard. Then, as to the cost of the superintendence of labour. He took the figures from the Estimates of 1861–2 and he found the percentage to be 13 at Deptford, 9 at Woolwich, 6 at Chatham, 9 at Sheerness, 6½ at Portsmouth, 7½ at Devonport, and 9 at Pembroke; the average being 8 per cent. He had had as much experience in public works as any man, and he declared that such a percentage of cost of superintendence was unheard of, and in the execution of works to the extent of millions in different parts of the world he had never known anything like such an amount for the cost of superintendence. The very fact of its costing so much showed that the superintendence could not be very effectual, as in the multiplication of checks all individual responsibility was lost. With respect to the system of labour in the dockyards, he approved the day system, but thought that

  683
  at present there was no adequate motive for men to exert themselves. Nothing could ever be regarded as satisfactory where no motive was held out to a man to exert his energy beyond his fellow labourer, who did as little as possible beyond handling his tools. He had recently been reading a work which had afforded him some amusement—the Biography of Samuel Bentham, by his widow. That person made himself troublesome about naval reforms, and at last he was put upon a Board, which entirely put an end to his declaiming about the wrongs of his country. He would recommend the perusal of the work to the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. Then, as to the contract system, he understood that while two lords of the Admiralty were required to enter into a contract, one only could annul it by writing his initials. After finding so much fault with the Board of Admiralty, it was pleasant to express a word or two of approval. In 1858–60, when the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) was First Lord, he, in association with Sir Richard Bromley, originated a system of accounts, which was better than any theretofore in use. The present Secretary to the Admiralty had followed that system up year after year, and now the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had promised them a system of accounts. But he warned his hon. Friend that if the accounts were to be satisfactory they must show the expense of working each dockyard, the balance value of the stock in hand, the stock issue within the year, and the amount expended for labour employed. Another point to which he desired to refer was that of the great unsteadiness and uncertainty of action on the part of the Board of Admiralty. As an instance of this the hon. Baronet mentioned that in 1805 Lord Melville, acting on a letter from Lord Nelson, then Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, took steps for raising the position of the medical officers of the navy, and a uniform, and other advantages, were granted, but his successor in office reversed his policy. In 1858 the right hon. Baronet opposite placed the medical officers in the navy on the same footing as those in the army; but the Duke of Somerset had reversed that policy. Until this system of direction by a Board was broken up naval affairs would never be efficiently conducted. The time was come when the question ought to be taken up. They looked to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) to do much, and
  684
  what ability and practical acquaintance with business details would effect he would do; but he hoped that his hon. Friend would not be drawn into that official vortex of passive inaction which had swallowed up so many talented men. If he found himself at any time placed in a position in which he could not discharge his responsibility to that House, he trusted that he would know how to resign a post which would be unworthy of a Gentleman of his high character and talents. The country had a right to expect that the governing body of the Admiralty, whatever it were called, should be placed in a position of direct responsibility towards that House which voted the money for the maintenance of the honour of the country. That was not the case at the present, moment. He believed that the £58,000,000 of money which had been voted to the present Government for naval affairs had not been—if the accounts were closely analysed—properly expended, or in a manner which the House ought to be satisfied with. He would have the whole of the dockyards managed upon strictly commercial principles. Why should there be a difference between the management of the nation's establishments and those of private persons? But he believed that there would be no improvement so long as they appointed men to superintend these establishments who knew nothing about the matter, He might say frankly that he did not wish to see all the Government shipbuilding conducted by private firms. But he did want to see a fair share in private yards, in order that by means of the competition which would thence arise there might result economy in the construction of our vessels, and he did complain that the Royal Dockyards were not conducted as efficiently and economically as private establishments. The country had a right to expect that the Government would abandon the system of patronage, and that all promotion should proceed upon merit alone; but the Government were not the only parties to blame in this matter; so long as hon. Members would ask for places for their friends, the Government would not give up this patronage. He believed that this system of patronage was forced upon the Government by the House. As regarded the whole subject, it, in his opinion, demanded at the hands of the Government, an instant course of action. Things were not now as they used to be, when valour in the men and talent in the admiral were all that

  685
  was looked for. Steam and scientific appliances of new kinds were now seen on every hand. He thought the Government ought not to say, "Leave the matter in our hands, and we will make all the improvements which may be necessary, and then do nothing." If the House desired that this country should be successful in future wars, the affairs of the Admiralty must be better conducted. He would call upon the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and those associated with him, to get out of this system of inaction. This subject was one which required the calm, thoughtful, and careful consideration of the noble Lord, and he hoped that he would in a new Parliament propose measures which would conduce to the welfare of the country.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was very glad that the hon. Baronet had again brought this subject before the House. He agreed with much that had been said on the subject by the hon. Baronet, who had referred to high authorities who had expressed opinions condemnatory of the present Board of Admiralty. He might have gone further and have said that, with the exception of those who were, or had been, members of the Board, he would not have found a single sane man in the country who was satisfied with the present system. He (Mr. Bentinck) agreed with the hon. Baronet in condemning the system of having a Board of Admiralty at the head of the Naval Department of the country. The business could not be satisfactorily conducted by a Board. The first result was the entire absence of all responsibility. This alone was sufficient to constitute inefficiency. But it appeared to him that the system of such a Board as the Board of Admiralty was doubly mischievous, and for this reason—that in a Board of Admiralty, composed as it generally was, with a civilian at its head, and the two senior Naval Lords, a great part of the business must be conducted under the authority of those Naval Lords, without responsibility on their part, the responsibility remaining with the civilian. Thus there was action without responsibility, and responsibility without the power of action. Another great imperfection in the constitution of the Admiralty Board was its political character; and this necessarily led to those constant changes in the members of the Board, which entirely prevented the possibility of any continuous and well conducted system. With respect to the prac-
  686
  tice of appointing a civilian to the post of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he asked what instance could be found in any other description of business of a person being put at the head of it who could not by possibility possess any knowledge of the business with which he was called on to deal? One of the most essential improvements in the constitution of the Admiralty Board would be to place the navy under the charge of a naval officer, as the army was placed under the superintendence of a military officer. He did not agree with the hon. Baronet in thinking that the business of the dockyards could be as economically managed as the business of any private firm. In private yards there was always some person superintending who had a direct personal interest in the work that was being done. He joined in the wish expressed by the hon. Baronet, that some change would be made in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty; but he was not sanguine enough to expect its realization, and he would explain the reason why by referring to what had occurred in that House within the last few years. After a good deal of discussion a Committee was appointed by that House in 1861 to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. Upon that Committee there were several distinguished Members of the House, who had been First Lords of the Admiralty, some others who had been Secretaries to the Admiralty, and one or two Members connected with the Government. The re suit was that the Committee assembled with the conclusion already arrived at that nothing could be better than the present state of things respecting which they had been directed to inquire. He had proposed the removal of some of those members, but as the House did not agree with him, the Committee met and proceeded with the business before them. He had taken his share in the labours of that Committee, and had attended its sittings for about three months. They had had long self-laudations from First Lords and former Secretaries of the Admiralty, all endeavouring to prove that, during their connection with the Admiralty, everything was done for the best. After three months, his patience being exhausted, he stated to the Committee and to the House the reason why he wished no longer to serve on that Committee, and that was that he considered it to be an absolute waste of time. He was allowed to withdraw, and the Committee

  687
  sat till the end of the Session. In the following Session so unsatisfactory were its proceedings regarded, that neither the hon. Gentleman who had moved the appointment of the Committee nor the Government were prepared to move its reappointment. He wanted to know what hope his hon. Friend had of obtaining a more practical Committee now, or what hope he had of any proposal being made to re-model the Board of Admiralty. As there was no likelihood that those in office, or those waiting for office, would diminish the political power and patronage they enjoyed, or anticipated to enjoy, the only way in which the object of the hon. Baronet could be attained, was by the action of independent Members forcing this question on the consideration of the House, and by a direct Motion calling on the House to declare whether or not the constitution of the Board of Admiralty was of a satisfactory character. Believing the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty to be the cause of inefficiency and extravagance, he thought it would be a better mode of dealing with the question to move a direct Resolution condemnatory of that constitution; and if such a Resolution were brought forward it should have his cordial support.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had rested his charge against the Board of Admiralty on the ground that almost every man who had been connected with that Board, and who was thoroughly acquainted with its working, had given his support to the present system, while those who were unacquainted with its mode of conducting business accused it of inefficiency. But it was to be hoped that when the Resolution to which the hon. Gentleman had referred was hereafter proposed, the House would be guided by the opinions of those who were practically most conversant with the matter. The whole drift and burden of the speeches made against the constitution of the Board was "the total want of Parliamentary responsibility." What, he asked, was meant by that often repeated phrase? He had never heard any definition given of it, but he supposed that those who used it intended to imply that when the heads of a public Department did anything in the opinion of the House which was wrong, or failed to do anything which in the opinion of the House ought to be done, the House should have the power of censuring them or driving them from office. Well, he maintained that the House had at
  688
  that moment full power, in either of those cases, to censure or expel the heads of the present Board of Admiralty. He did not see how they could have a more direct responsibility than that which that Board was under towards Parliament. The hon. Baronet had said that if any private undertaking conducted its business in that way it would certainly fail but did he forget how many railways and banks were conducted by Boards, which were not a whit more responsible to their shareholders than the Board of Admiralty was to that House? That was a favourite mode of managing large commercial affairs, and yet many Boards of Directors were far less conversant with the nature of the business they had to transact than the Board of Admiralty was with its duties. If a standing Committee for this, or a standing Committee for that, were appointed, how was it to be made responsible to Parliament? It would act as a shield to the Board of Admiralty. A council of naval officers might be able to give valuable advice; but if its members were to go out of office with the Government, the faults of the present system would remain; and if they were not to be changed, the Minister of the day, when any of his measures were called in question, could easily turn round and say, "Oh, I acted under the advice of my Council." Again, one of the charges against the existing Board was that it was slow; but if they had one council to advise and another body to execute, as had been suggested, he was convinced that the evils of delay would be doubled, the cost of works largely increased, and great confusion, coupled with divided responsibility, introduced. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury had said that 8 per cent was an amount of cost for superintendence such as he had never known to be called for in regard to works with which he had been connected, the expenditure on which extended to millions. But if the hon. Baronet was there referring to the construction of railways or other large works of a similar character, he was instituting a comparison between things which were really very dissimilar, for there was an enormous variety of detail and of different manufactures incident to the operations in the Royal dockyards, which placed them in a separate category from the undertakings which the hon. Baronet had in his mind. What they ought to aim at was to arrive at such a balance between the work done

  689
  in private yards and the work done under the Government, that the one should act as a cheek upon the other in regard to cost and time of execution. Wherever they could buy the articles they required, and could make sure of having the market always open to them, it was unnecessary for the Government to manufacture them for themselves. He thought articles not of vital importance might be got in the market cheaper and in the quantities wanted, and in this way many of the articles now manufactured might advantageously be struck off the list. He thought the question of the superintendence of dockyards was a point of considerable importance, and the hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto) had stated that it was impossible to get the dockyards properly superintended so long as a man was appointed for only five years, and removed whenever he was promoted. He agreed with the hon. Member to a considerable extent in that opinion. He considered it desirable that the superintendent of the dockyards should he a naval man, but he never could see any reason for withdrawing him at the end of five years, or when he got promotion. He thought it would he a beneficial reform if the Admiralty would employ these officers for three years, and renew the term of office if their services should be found efficient. With respect to the Board of Admiralty, it had this great recommendation, that whatever came into the office went directly to the heads of the Department. He knew no machinery better adapted for administering the navy; and as to any more direct responsibility, he could not see it.
  MR. H. ROBERTSONsaid, there was one department of the Admiralty to which he had turned his attention—namely, that of the Director of Public Works, and by way of illustration he would mention two important public works respecting which there were not two opinions both as to their necessity and the advantage both as regarded the efficiency of the navy and in an economical point of view of executing them rapidly; he meant the contemplated improvements in Portsmouth Dockyard, and that at Malta. There was a great want of efficiency in that department. With regard to Portsmouth, on the 18th of February in last year a plan was produced for the extension of the dockyard at that place, hearing the signature of the Director of Public Works, but anything more ridiculous he had never seen or less fitted for
  690
  the object in view. In the last Estimates there was an item of £7,000, and in answer to an inquiry whether that item had reference to that large plan, he was informed that it was to be applied to the purchase of some property that was required to test the scheme, while the works were likely to cost between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000. Up to the present time nothing had been done towards rendering the dockyard more efficient. A Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject, but everyone seemed to ignore the plan. They were now asked to vote £20,000 towards carrying out that large plan. Although the improvement was admitted to be necessary, and the House was prepared to vote the amount required, it seemed that not more than £20,000 could be spent during the first year, showing that they had not got the right Director of Works. The case would not bear argument, and all he would say upon the matter was that it was simply too bad. It was said that a model was necessary. Now, a model was a very pretty thing, but it was a mere plaything. A plan was far better, when a proposition was made for expending a large sum of money. Who was now the Director of Public Works? Major Clarke was a man of talent and experienced in his own line, and no doubt he bad superintended some railway works in Victoria; but he thought a man of the highest eminence was required to design and construct important works such as that to which he had referred. There were four or five engineers of experience in Great George Street, who could give the Admiralty a design in six weeks, why bad one of these gentlemen not been selected for this work? There were very able men in the Royal Engineers, but the corps of Engineers was a limited field, and he was of opinion that the public service would obtain a great advantage from a competition open to the profession of Civil Engineers. If the choice were limited to such a narrow field it was impossible to obtain men properly qualified to spend the money in a proper manner. In that department of the Admiralty there was a manifest defect so far as regarded the dockyard at Portsmouth, and the same remark applied to the works at Malta. He had known Boards of Directors amusing themselves with dilettante engineering, and he supposed something of the same kind was going on at the Admiralty. He trusted that before the Admiralty spent this large

  691
  sum of money they would take the opinions of some engineers of experience, and having selected the best plans, then to select the best men to carry them out.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I am bound to say that of the tone and temper of the hon. Gentlemen who desire to criticize the constitution of the Board of Admiralty I have no right to complain. I have rather to thank them for the valuable suggestions which they have made with respect to various matters. I think, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, in making the wholesale charges he has made regarding the responsibility of those who are at the head of the Admiralty, would have done well to take into consideration the opinions of those who held the post of First Lord. Sir James Graham when examined before the Committee on the Admiralty of 1861 deliberately told them that the First Lord was fully responsible for the duties of the Admiralty. I think he mentioned on that occasion that he gave his evidence most disinterestedly, because he never expected to hold the office of First Lord again. I submit, therefore, that the opinion so given by Sir James Graham is one to which my hon. Friend was bound to give every attention. If he (Sir Morton Peto) did not quote to-night, he quoted on a former occasion some evidence which Sir James Graham once gave to the effect that in order to make the Board of Admiralty work efficiently it should be made as unlike a Board as possible. But it is only fair to notice the evidence subsequently given on the same subject by the same distinguished man. No doubt Sir James Graham did once express that opinion, but he afterwards, before another Committee, stated that having given the subject his most careful consideration, he had seen reason to change it. He was asked by the Chairman—
  "Do you think, taking the whole administration of the army and navy, that the First Lord is more or less responsible for the whole conduct of the Navy than the Secretary for War is responsible for the conduct of the army?"
  Sir James Graham replied—
  "I look upon the First Lord of the Admiralty to stand in regard to the public, so far as relates to responsibility, in the same relation as the Secretary for War. But until recent changes in regard to the War Department the First Lord was infinitely more responsible."
  The Duke of Somerset when asked—
  "Do you consider yourself entirely responsible for the administration of the Navy?"
  692
  Replied—
  "Yes, I consider the First Lord is responsible for the whole administration of the Navy."
  The Duke of Somerset gave his evidence after he had been two years in his present office, and if any persons be justified in complaining that the First Lord is not in a position to carry out his views they must be those who have themselves filled the office. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood) in his evidence told the Committee that various changes had been made from time to time to meet an altered state of things, and, as showing that there is no feeling in the Department against introducing improvements, I may refer to a recent order issued by the Duke of Somerset. This order states that no question of general policy and no expenditure of money shall be undertaken by any of the branches of the establishment without its coming under the cognizance of those who represent the Admiralty in the House of Commons. Going over the various proposals which have been made for the reconstruction of the Admiralty, I am not prepared to say that if we had now to construct the Department I, for one, should be an advocate for having it in the shape of a Board. I quite admit that there are certain disadvantages in having it in that shape; but there are advantages also. Every project submitted to the Admiralty is at once brought under the notice of a Board. A Board meets every day except Saturday, and in this way delay is avoided in the arrangements connected with the active service of the navy. If it was found necessary for example to commission a ship or send out, a squadron the matter was brought immediately before the Board, and the various necessary orders were at once issued. With regard to the suggestion that the Admiralty should seek the advice of eminent private persons either in the construction of ships or of docks and basins, I think undoubtedly there is great force in that. I, for one, have always been of opinion that there are many advantages in obtaining certain external advice before entering upon the construction of great ships or of expensive public works. The question of the construction of ships was brought before the Duke of Somerset, and he expressed his opinion upon it when being examined before a Royal Commission on the Dockyards. In reply to a question asked by Lord Gifford, the Duke of Somerset said he had known alterations sug-

  693
  gested in the construction of large ships, but they were not brought before the Admiralty scientific men unconnected with the Department. Lord Gifford said the French Admiralty had a council or committee of reference. The Duke of Somerset, in reply to that, remarked that the Admiralty of this country had at one time a council, of which he believed the late Lord John Hay was a member, but it was not found to work well. There were so many checks and so little agreement that the progress of the works was stopped, and it was found necessary to make an alteration. He added that whether any other council could be introduced was a very important question. It would be very desirable if it could, but it was a very difficult matter to decide. With regard to vessels of war, if you bring in men who are not accustomed to that particular style of shipbuilding they will have to learn their business before their opinion will be worth much. "I see (said the Duke) the desirability of having a Committee, but I also see very great difficulty in the way." And there indeed lies the whole difficulty. It would be of very great advantage to us before constructing such a a ship as the Minotaur if we could get any scientific gentleman to assist us, but the fact is that it is only within the Department of the Admiralty that there is sufficient knowledge to give a good opinion on questions of this sort. We do not depend upon ourselves in the construction of large and costly transports, but call upon eminent shipbuilders to furnish their own drawings; but in building vessels of war, as the Duke of Somerset said, it is a peculiar business, which mercantile ship-builders could not give so sound an opinion upon as the officers of the Admiralty. With reference to other public works, such as the construction of docks and basins, it would doubtless, as the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Robertson) says, be a great advantage if we had some persons in the service of the Admiralty who had great experience in such works. The present Director of Works, however, has carried out great works in one of our colonies; but I do not know that he has had that particular experience in the construction of basins which it has been said is desirable. The House must remember that it is not solely in the construction of basins that our Director of Works is engaged. We have barracks to construct, and warehouses and various kinds of build-
  694
  ings to erect, and it is therefore impossible to combine in any one individual all the requisite qualifications. I will tell the House what we have done with regard to the works at Portsmouth. We laid preliminary plans upon the table of the House last year, and the reason why we did so was that the House might obtain a general idea of the proposal which we meant to carry out, the locality and other general information, and I stated at the time that there would be full and detailed plans laid before the House before the whole work was commenced. I only asked then for a small Vote of £7,000 in order to take certain lands and make certain preparations before bringing in the more detailed plan this year for the consideration of the House. An hon. Member (Mr. Robertson) seems to think that we have instructed the Director of Works alone to prepare these plans; but, on the contrary, we have a Committee composed of our best officers connected with the docks, who have had; various plans put before them which they have been invited to criticize, and after their united recommendations in favour of one plan we have adopted that plan, and these are the men who, after all, you have to look to for a good opinion on these subjects. The construction of a basin is not more an engineering than a naval question. I hold that it is our naval men who can give you the most practical opinion as to what is the best position for a basin, and the best place to put the entrance gates with the view of getting ships in at certain times, and many other details which are eminently naval in their character. The hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto) proposes that the construction of docks and other works should be under a distinct Department of the State. That would be a very convenient course for us, and it would relieve me from a great deal of discussion in this House; but I think the House would not be quite satisfied with the representative of such a Department of works defending the form of a dock or basin. I think it is essentially an Admiralty question, and if you take away the responsibility of that Department and confer it upon another Board I think in the result it will not be found to promote efficiency in the public works. There is another important question which has been raised by the hon. Baronet with regard to the superintendence of Her Majesty's dockyards. No doubt, there are many arguments in favour of appointing scientific civilians

  695
  to these offices, and there are branches of the business of the dockyards which could be performed by such persons, but I have often stated to this House, and I repeat it, that the business of the dockyard is not confined to shipbuilding. I believe I may say that building forms the smallest portion of the business. There are the numerous details which sailors can alone criticize and determine upon. There are, for instance, the fitting, the rig, the armament, and the stowage of the ships, which sailors alone can deal with. Moreover, if you were to put your dockyards into the hands of a civilian, you would have the captains coming in wanting their ships altered and fitted, and it is well known captains ask for a great many little things which it would be extravagance to grant, and which a civilian would grant, because it is only a superior naval officer that can decide what is really necessary to be done to the ship. There would, therefore, be a great extra expenditurg entailed. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) objects to the removal of the Captain Superintendent every five years, and my own belief is, that if you take the advantages on the one hand and the disadvantages on the other, it is better that this officer should be removable after a certain period. It may be advantageous to put a man into any position for life, without the power of removal, but I think the greater advantages are in favour of removing periodically. With regard to the cost of the superintendence of our dockyards, there is no doubt that in comparison with private establishments it would not stand in a favourable light. The case of the private ship yards is not always analogous to that of our dockyards. Some of our shipbuilders are also shipowners, and their case is more nearly alike to our dockyards, so that some comparison can be drawn. A shipowner, however, sends his ship abroad in a foreign trade; she returns at a certain period and takes her proper turn to be docked and refitted. But the business of the dockyards are so multifarious—ships are always coming in for repairs on account of disasters or other causes, for alteration of armament and various other reasons—that it is absolutely necessary to have a much larger staff of superintendence than is required in private yards; and it is an undoubted fact that men who are working for the public do require a larger amount of superintendence than persons who are employed in private establishments. But I also believe
  696
  that the excellence of the work done in the dockyards counterbalances the additional cost of a closer and more extensive system of superintendence. But let me tell my hon. Friend that in making this comparison and in making out this large percentage he has included many expenses which do not exist in private yards. As an instance, I may mention that he has included all the medical superintendence—an item which is not to be found in the expenditure of private yards, and I have no doubt there are many other items which must be omitted to make the comparison at all a fair one. But what I do most strongly disapprove is the tone in which the hon. Baronet referred to the patronage and promotions of the Duke of Somerset. I would challenge the hon. Member or any hon. Gentleman, to show me any case in which the Duke of Somerset has promoted any officer either in the dockyards or out of them from motives of favouritism. Such a charge ought to be proved, and when it is made against a great officer of State those who made it should be prepared to give the facts. I challenge the hon. Baronet to bring forward any case in which the Duke of Somerset has promoted or appointed any officer upon any other principle than the good of the public service. As to the charges which the hon. Baronet has made of the present Board of Admiralty upsetting what had been done by its precedessors, that is entirely without foundation. The story is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John Pakington) greatly improved the pecuniary and social condition of a very deserving class of officers—the medical officers of the navy. These officers—and I do not blame them,—considered that the additional rank given to them was to be equivalent to the military rank, and that by it they had obtained a right to assume a superior position to officers of the Executive branch of junior standing. On shore there is no great difficulty, but on board ship it is impossible to allow any asssumption of rank by a civilian over an Executive officer. I regret that some of the surgeons—the great majority of medical officers, I am bound to say, thoroughly understand their position—but some few did raise difficulties which rendered it necessary that the distinction between civil and military rank should be precisely defined. I believe if the right hon. Baronet had remained at the Admiralty, he would himself have had to do the same as we did. Well, then,

  697
  as to the oft-repeated assertions of my hon. Friend, that it is absolutely necessary to change the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. Nothing is so easy as to attack a great Department, to attribute to it all sorts of faults, and to criticize all its acts, but I have failed to hear from the hon. Baronet any proposition of a practical nature. We gave the fullest consideration to the recommendations of the Committee of 1861. I believe, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) says, that every hon. Member who sat upon that Committee performed his duties with a sincere desire to ascertain what would most conduce to the efficiency of the Department upon which the existence of the country mainly depends. If any new system could be devised which would improve the navy, if it could be shown that any steps could be taken to improve the administration, then we should have something to go upon; but my hon. Friend has mentioned specially only the cost of superintendence in the dockyards as being too high. But that might be the case if you had a Secretary of State for the Navy. I think it would be wiser to allow the Minister of the day to make such alterations as he finds to be necessary, as I have stated the Duke of Somerset has done, than to raise annual discussions in this House upon general charges against the Department which do not I am bound to say in any way contribute to the efficiency of the navy.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he desired to explain that he had not intended to impute any blame to the Duke of Somerset, but rather to cast blame upon the House for what was notorious. He had heard the noble Lord himself regret that influence of a particular kind was brought to bear upon the Admiralty upon certain occasions.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: As the hon. Member for Finsbury had not concluded his speech with any Motion, I should not have troubled the House had it not been that he has referred to the evidence which I gave before the Committee of 1861. I must say that I know no reason for receding from the evidence I then gave. That evidence certainly was not favourable to the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty as being the best mode in which the administration of the great Department of the navy could be efficiently worked. I gave that reluctantly, as I was following three or four witnesses who then held, or had held, the office of First Lord of the
  698
  Admiralty for a longer period than it was my good fortune to do, and they all gave evidence in an opposite direction to that which I felt it was my duty to give. My reasons for giving that evidence, however, were not those which have been assigned by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck)—the extreme impolicy of having a civilian at the head of the Admiralty. When I hear the hon. Member for Norfolk repeating those opinions I cannot help wishing it were possible that he could change places with the Duke of Somerset for a short time. If the hon. Member were at the head of the Admiralty for a few months, I do not think he would afterwards insist upon the impossibility of managing the navy with a civilian at the head of the Board. My hon. Friend talks as though the Admiralty had nothing to do but to judge of the height of masts, the length of yards, the best form of anchors, and such questions of detail of which professional men would be undoubtedly the best judges. He seems to be quite unconscious of the fact that a very large proportion—the most important proportion—of the business to be transacted is really business which has nothing to do with professional knowledge, and of which a civilian is as capable of judging as a professional officer. I do not mean to deny that it is an open question whether there are not grounds upon which it would be desirable to have a naval officer at the head of the Admiralty, but I think it would be impossible for this House to take a more unwise step than to lay down as an indispensable condition that the head of the Admiralty should always be a naval officer. I must say that I do not believe that in the Minister at the head of the Board of Admiralty there is that sense of full, concentrated, and personal responsibility which the head of a great Department ought to feel. It is asked how could there be greater responsibility, and is there not a power to set anything right which is found wrong at the Board of Admiralty? My own experience at the Board was, I admit, short; but I cannot accept this answer. I do not think there exists that amount of responsibility which ought to exist. There is not the necessary degree of responsibility for things which are done; still less is there responsibility for things which are omitted. Looking at the extreme importance of the Board I think there could be a better constitution of the Board than at present exists. My noble Friend opposite (Lord

  699
  Clarence Paget) has naturally adverted to opinions the weight of which must be admitted—I allude to the evidence of Sir James Graham; but I do not think he gave quite an accurate description of the evidence which Sir James Graham gave. Sir James Graham did not recommend that there should be a change in the constitution of the Board. The ground on which he rested that opinion was a thoroughly constitutional one, but I think he pressed the reason he gave further than it would bear. On the other hand, we must remember that important opinion of Sir James Graham, that the only way to work a Board was to make it as unlike a Board as possible. Sir James Graham, too, a few years, ago was Chairman of a Committee which sat to inquire into the new system of administering the army, and if hon. Members will turn to the Report of that Committee they will find in it a warning to avoid adopting for the army the system which was in force for governing the navy. Notwithstanding, therefore, the general complexion of the evidence which Sir James Graham gave before that Committee, I venture to think that his opinion of the Admiralty as a machine for administering the navy differs little from that which I have expressed myself. There are, moreover, things in the present condition of our navy which entitle me to say that I am not satisfied with the present construction of the Board of Admiralty. In recent debates I have twice alluded to rumours which I had heard as to the conduct of the Admiralty with reference to our fleet and armour covered ships, which certainly, if true, amounted to one of the most flagrant instances of indiscretion and mal-administration that ever I heard of. They were to the effect that at the commencement of a great critical experiment, involving important changes in the construction of our navy, the Board of Admiralty took upon themselves entirely to disregard the opinions of the eminent scientific authorities whose assistance they had at hand, and built ships on their own opinions and in a manner which in the event of war we should have reason deeply to deplore. The noble Lord has never contradicted the statement I then made, and I venture to say now, that if there had been at the head of the Admiralty a Minister acting under a sense of concentrated personal responsibility he never would have dared to commit such an indiscretion. I am bound to admit that it
  700
  is one thing to find fault and another to re-organize a Department. When I for a short time was Secretary for the Colonies I was also Secretary for War. I said then, both in public and private, that though the thing might do for peace it would break down directly in war. War did come, and the system broke down at once, and the Government, in the face of actual war, had to undertake the task of reorganizing the Department. Even now I believe the re-organization of the War Office is not finally settled. But though the Board of Admiralty is not all that I should like to see it, I cannot give my support by any means to some of the suggestions of the hon. Baronet opposite. If I understood him rightly, he proposed that the head of the Admiralty should have an unpaid council to assist him in shipbuilding, and another unpaid council to assist him in the construction of public works. I quite acknowledge the weight which is due to the opinion of a practical man like the hon. Baronet on a matter of this kind, but my impression is that if the head of the Admiralty were to attempt to manage the navy with amateur councils like those referred to he has described, then he would very soon find himself obliged to look out for an opportunity of getting rid of such Colleagues. There is no doubt that changes may be advantageously made in the present construction of the Board of Admiralty, and I do not think it would be impracticable, still less impossible, for the Government to make them. This is one of the questions which give rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction out of doors. There is a general feeling out of doors that the Board of Admiralty is not the best machine for managing the affairs of the navy, my short experience as First Lord inclines me to adopt the same conclusion; and a matter of this sort is certainly well worthy the consideration of the Government and of Parliament.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, though he could not agree with him in all respects, he thought the House ought to be greatly obliged to the hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto) for giving it an opportunity of again recording its dissatisfaction with the present constitution of the Admiralty. The noble Lord had quoted Sir James Graham, as usual, but, as a sailor, he (Sir James Elphinstone) had always contended that Sir James Graham's administration of the navy was more disastrous than any

  701
  operations of the French. He came into office, never having held any office before. He was a man of great ability and energy. He worked his Board as if it were not a Board. He destroyed the Naval College, the Transport Board, the Marino Artillery, the Navy Board, and the College of Naval Architecture, and he built a class of the most expensive and unmanageable ships that ever were in the navy. During the Crimean war he sent a fleet to the Baltic without a single light-draught vessel in it, and the war was in consequence prolonged much beyond what it otherwise would have been. And what was the Admiralty Administration at the present day? When screw ships were adopted by the merchant service and ships were lengthened, the Admiralty lagged behind, and when iron ships were built by the Emperor of the French, our Admiralty built them in a square form, and they did not reach Sebastopol, where they were destined, until after the place had been conquered. With respect to our fleet, the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) when at the head of; the Board had adopted the right course in assembling the School of Naval Architects, and, under their advice, in constructing four iron-clad ships which were practically the only four seaworthy ships in the possession of the Government at this day. The rest of the iron-clad ships were entirely harbour ships. But what was the subsequent policy of the Admiralty? By the most contumaceous and insulting means to supersede the Board of Naval Architects, and substitute a man who had never drawn I a line of a ship, and whose first production in ship construction was a most miserable abortion. What was the consequence? It was this—that those four ships were the only iron-clads that could be trusted at sea, while the iron-clad ships constructed by the successor of the able and scientific men he had alluded to were not seaworthy. Judging from these fruits, he came to the conclusion that the Admiralty tree was rotten. Again, as soon as it was decided that iron ships were to form the armament of this country, it was absolutely necessary that there should be docks abroad for the purpose of receiving and cleaning them. The Admiralty sent out an officer to report as to docks in the Mediterranean. They begun them at Malta, where some £50,000 or £60,000 were expended in the most disgraceful manner, the proposed docks being commenced at a point where they would be
  702
  the least serviceable. At last the Duke of Somerset went to the spot and perceived that the Board of Admiralty were wrong; but what had the noble Duke done to the officer who led him into the scrape? Why, that officer was made a Grand Cross of the Bath, though he had never seen a shot fired in his life. By a very small amount of expenditure, Halifax, on the other side of the Atlantic, was capable of being converted into a position where ships of the largest class might be put into dry dock, but not one shilling for this purpose was asked for in the Navy Estimates for a graving dock there. The Admiralty had sent an officer to report as to a dock at Bermuda, but not a shilling was asked in the Estimates on account of such dock. What had occurred with reference to the new principle, which was brought to a most wonderful state of perfection by Captain Coles? The Royal Sovereign was put in commission by one of the best officers in the service, and the guns were fired to the admiration of the whole squadron. That ship was put out of commission to make good some trifling defects which did not amount to half the defects observable in the Prince Consort, which was kept in commission; the reason being that Captain Coles was not backed up by the power of the Admiralty. He now wished to make some remarks on the victualling of the navy, the present system being, in his opinion, most improper. The men had not enough to eat. The quantity might be sufficient to maintain life, but it was infinitely inferior to the food given to convicts, and it was given out at such lengthened intervals that the men suffered in health from that cause as well. They dined at twelve o'clock, had tea and biscuit at five o'clock, and then they had nothing till six or seven o'clock next morning. The old men whose stomachs were pretty well toned down by tobacco, did not feel the craving of hunger so much; and the young men, in order to get rid of a feeling which was actually painful to them, took to chewing tobacco. By the scantiness of their diet, and the injudicious mode in which it was administered, they struck off ten years from the age of their seamen. The food was virtually insufficient for the young men especially, and led them to contract that most pernicious of all habits, the chewing of tobacco, which injured their health more rapidly than anything else. He was glad to see the Secretary of State for India in his place, because he wished

  703
  to ask him why the taxpayers of England had to provide naval defence for India, and why he did not raise the pay of those who protected a race of people to whom our rule had brought greater blessings than to any other race on earth. The people of India had been ground down and oppressed by their own princes, but now they were in the enjoyment of protection to life and property, and many of them had grown so rich that they were putting silver tiles on their verandahs. Why, then, was this country to find naval defence for such a community without receiving any subsidy for that service? He must now advert to the grievances of various classes of naval officers. The emoluments of the superintendents at Woolwich and Chatham were insufficient to enable them to meet the expenses to which they were put by their official position. His noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) seemed to think they had been included in the rise of pay granted last year to certain officers, but that was not so. Then, again, as regarded lieutenants, their grievances were very strong, and in reference to them he might notice the death of the Rev. Mr. Harvey, who had devoted his life to improving the condition of naval officers, and who had produced a work on the state of the navy, which he (Sir James Elphinstone) would recommend to the consideration of the Lords of the Admiralty. The noble Lord would find that there were officers in the navy who had been serving fifteen or sixteen years without leave of absence, but the moment a naval officer went on leave he was put on half-pay. Lieutenants now were allowed three weeks and had half-pay, while military men had three months and full pay, and civil servants had six weeks and all their Sundays. He asked that they should have three months' leave of absence at the end of each commission upon full pay, and that those of their number who were on home stations should, instead of three weeks' leave in the year, have six weeks on full pay, like the Civil Service. A grade of first-class warrant officers had lately been created, but it had been extended to so few—those few being men whose acceptance of it would not tend to increase the Estimates—that it had been practically inoperative as regarded the service. The widows of warrant officers had been very cruelly treated. Some thirty years ago Sir James Graham abolished their pensions, on the plea that increased pay had been
  704
  allowed to warrant officers for insuring their lives. That was a mean and paltry plea, because the increased pay was miserably inadequate for any such purpose; and, moreover, it was not easy to get any insurance office to insure the lives of men employed on the coast of Africa or in China. There were now thirty-seven of these widows who had been reduced to extreme poverty by the arbitrary with drawal of their pensions; and all that was required from the Government to bring some of them out of the workhouse, and to enable the rest to keep out of it, was only £800 a year. This subject had been referred to on a former evening, and he was now authorized to say that these poor women did not ask for payment of the arrears to which they were justly entitled they would be satisfied with the restoration of their yearly pensions. He hoped this righteous demand would be complied with by the Board. With respect to the docks at Portsmouth, no doubt certain officers had been consulted, as the noble Lord had told them. Where public offices were to he erected for the accommodation chiefly of the clerks of any Department, the plans of our public buildings were thrown open to competition; and how much more was it necessary in connection with the proposed works at Portsmouth, to invoke the genius which had constructed the great works at Liverpool, Grimsby, Leith, and Aberdeen, in comparison with which no docks belonging to Her Majesty, were worthy to be mentioned on the same day. It was plans of that description that ought to be considered by the Committee. At present they knew nothing further than that the noble Lord told them that plans had been submitted. In the matter of so great a national undertaking it was incumbent on the Government to bring to bear the whole science and ability of the country before finally deciding on the details of the plan to be adopted. Secretaries to the Admiralty had put down works in Portsmouth Dockyard which were most objectionable. Sir Henry Ward, for instance, who had been a most excellent Governor of Ceylon, when Secretary to the Admiralty, had placed the workshops in a most inconvenient situation, and destroyed the best site in all the dockyards of England, for building slips and graving docks; and they would have something of the same kind again unless these plans were most carefully looked into.
  MR. SEELYsaid, that his hon. Friend

  705
  the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had agreed that the statements he made on a former occasion, instead of being debateable, were now to be admitted as facts. It would be recollected that his hon. Friend had dented some of his statements, and he immediately offered to meet him at Somerset House to endeavour to ascertain which of them was correct. His hon. Friend, with that desire to promote the public service which he had always shown in that House, and with that frankness of character which belonged to him, at once accepted the offer. A few weeks ago they met at Somerset House, and he would briefly state the results of the interview. On a former occasion he said that in the four years from 1860 to 1864, there was a sum of £2,262,281 not accounted for. He now found there were certain items not put into the Admiralty accounts for which they claimed credit, amounting to £388,075, which had to be deducted from £2,262,281, leaving a balance of £1,870,000 not accounted for in these four years. His hon. Friend's solution of tins deficiency was that a considerable portion of it had gone to stock in the purchase of naval stores. He had then called his attention to the £1,500,000 unaccounted for between 1848 and 1858, but this also was said to have gone in the increase of naval stores. This made, from 1848 to 1864, an amount of £3,370,000 which was unaccounted for. His hon. Friend said that the amount of naval stores at the present time was about £5,000,000, and he now put it to him if he would assert his belief that in the year 1848 the amount of naval stores in all the dockyards was only £1,630,000. If he would not assert that, he must make to the House what other explanation he thought fit. With reference to the amount of stock in 1848, he believed there were 86,507 loads of timber (the main item of stock), and now he fancied there were only 112,000 loads. The difference between 1848 and the present time was only 25,493 loads, which at £8 per load, the average value, came to £203,944. That seemed to account for a very small portion of the deficiency. But there was another matter to which he must call the attention of his hon. Friend. He found on the examination of the accounts that from the year 1859–60 to 1863–4 there was voted under Vote No. 10 (for the purchase of ships), £2,619,644, and there had been expended £3,670,980. In those years,
  706
  therefore, there was £1,051,336 more voted for ships than the amount actually expended on them; taking that sum with the sum of £339,328—which was expended for stores but not voted that year—it appeared that there was about £1,390,604 more expended on stores than had been voted for them. If these figures were correct, the farce of going through those Estimates had better be dropped; the House had better give the Board of Admiralty power to spend money for whatever purposes they might think fit to disburse it. He had further stated that to the sum for repairing and building ships in the four years he had mentioned—namely, from 1860 to 1864—there ought to be added £1,560,000. He would not trouble the House by going through the details by which he arrived at that conclusion, but he assumed that they were correct. They had been admitted to be correct by his hon. Friend with the exception of an item of £287,948 for pensions to artificers, which his hon. Friend thought ought not to be included in the cost of building and repairing ships. In 1860–1 the total expenditure in building, repairing, and purchasing of ships was £4,017,780. But ships and engines were bought, of the value of £1,273,000, so that only £2,744,780 was left for the building and repairing of ships; £390,000 (the fourth of £1,560,000) added to that would be about one-seventh of £2,744,780, and it would be an addition of one-fifth other years. He mentioned this in order to show the effect it had upon another statement made by him as to the cost of repairing certain vessels. His hon. Friend admitted that he (Mr. Seely) was correct with regard to the amount expended in repairing the Falcon, but he had to add to that expense one-fifth, so that in 1858–9 the Falcon cost £13,491 in repairs, and in 1863–4, £31,970—a total of £45,461, Taking the highest testimony on this subject—namely, that of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—£35 per ton was the value of a new vessel, and £55 per horse-power, which would give a sum of £31,768 for her purchase. But she had cost more than that even in two years for repairs—namely £45,461. Moreover, her speed was only eight miles an hour, and as her armament was only twelve 32-pounders, four 20-pounder Armstrongs, and one 40-pounder pivot gun, it was manifest that she could neither fight nor run away. Then there was the Wasp,

  707
  in two years, 1861–2 and 1863–4, she would cost for repairs £48,097, and at £35 per ton she should have cost new £39,000. The Lyra, in the year 1863–4, cost for repairs £21,183; new, she should cost £20,380. And in round numbers the Sharpshooter cost for repairs in two years £28,000, and was worth £22,000; the Salamander £43,000, and was worth £39,000. He asked who was responsible for those repairs? There were several other somewhat similar cases, but he would not weary the House by going through all his figures in detail, but hand them to his hon. Friend if he desired it. He thought it of the last importance that the accounts of the Admiralty should be correct. The late Sir James Graham stated on one occasion that an account misrepresenting the facts was infinitely worse than no account at all. The conversion of the timber was another question between him and his hon. Friend. He had stated that there was a difference between the actual cost of conversion and the rate-book prices of somewhere about £35,000, and his hon. Friend told the House that the rate-book was about being revised, and in another year would be made to represent the actual cost price. He thought there was no actual necessity for altering the rate-book prices; it would be better to look to the mode of conversion. He thought the excess of waste was greater than it should be, and in that opinion he was borne out by the evidence of Llewellyn, a dockyard official, given before the Commissioners of 1861. On 180 feet of rough timber there should not, even according to this evidence, be more than 60 feet of waste; and Mr. Llewellyn gives a table of the actual waste on the various sorts of timber at Devonport Dockyard from 1850 to 1854. In 1862–3 there were 222,673 cubic feet of wood wasted over and above Llewellyn's Devonport rate of waste in 1850 to 1854, occasioning a loss of £37,760; that was, deducting from the value of the timber the amount for which the waste sold. He was quite aware that the House would be told, and he hoped with truth, that these accounts would next year be put into better form. That statement, however, had been made again and again from the commencement of the present century. He found on reference that attention had been called to dockyard mis-management as early as 1796. He believed, however, that the present mode of superintendence in Go-
  708
  vernment dockyards was likely to lead to the results of which they had complained. In the ordinary business of life the services of responsible and competent men were secured, and on proof of incompetency the men were discharged; but the expenditure of £4,000,000 for the purposes of building and repairing our ships was intrusted to superintendents placed at the head of the dockyards, who, according to the acknowledgment of the Duke of Somerset himself, were totally unacquainted with the details of shipbuilding, and who were removed every five years. In the army some sort of examination was required, and commissions were even occasionally given to those who distinguished themselves. But for these appointments no examination was necessary. The noble Lord had said that there were many things connected with dockyards which a civilian could not understand, but the noble Lord must also admit that there were many things which naval men could not understand; and he believed that if men practically acquainted with shipbuilding were appointed to the management of the dockyards the result would be a great economy to the nation. It was well known, too, that there was a good deal of jealousy between the different departments. As an instance of this feeling he might mention a circumstance which happened to a friend of his. The Admiralty sent down an officer from Woolwich to view his friend's works. The officer was very much pleased with one portion of the machinery, and promised to recommend it to the Government for adoption; but his friend on going to Woolwich some short time afterwards not only saw machinery there similar to his own, but absolutely combined with greater improvements. On informing the officer of the fact he was told that the machinery which he had seen at Woolwich belonged to the Arsenal, which was a department with which the officer had no connection. The selection of practical men would secure also the purchase of the best and cheapest machinery, and a great saving would thus accrue to the nation. The change was but a small one, and might be easily effected. It appeared to him that facts, theories, and authority were alike against the present system. The Admiralty would certainly never manage the dockyard business of the country cheaply until they placed at the head of their management men who were thoroughly acquainted with the value and the practical nature of

  709
  the work which they were appointed to superintend.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he should not have arisen but to reply to what had been said with reference to Captain Clarke, the officer who was appointed to conduct the Admiralty engineering works. If the Admiralty had asked any officer in the service whom he would recommend for the appointment, all the elder officers of the corps of Royal Engineers would have recommended that officer, who was one of the most able and intelligent in that branch of the service. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Robertson) had stated that the field of selection was a very narrow one; but when made out of hundreds it could not be very fairly considered narrow. He thought, in fact, that the Board of Admiralty, in making that appointment, had done honour to themselves. It had been stated, as a blot in the system, that the captain superintendents were not mechanics nor acquainted with engineering. But had any one ever known an inefficient captain superintendent? He could not understand why it was thought necessary by some hon. Members that the captain superintendent should be acquainted with the details of every branch in the several departments under his control. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had stated that the master shipwrights, the engineers, the master ropemakers, and other heads of the respective branches, were all efficient. Well, it was a fact that none of them were inefficient. But was any one of them more qualified than the superintendent to conduct any other branch than his own? What was wanted at the head of the yard was a man of judgment, a man of experience in the naval profession, a man of industry, a man of temper. He had to deal with a variety of circumstances. Place a civilian, however well acquainted with mechanics and engineering or shipbuilding works at the head of the dockyard, and he came into conflict almost immediately with the officer of a ship coming in for repairs. Who was to judge of the necessity of repairs? A report was first sent in to the superintendent of the yard; and then the vessel was visited by the head of each branch, the foreman of shipwrights, the carpenter, the engineer, the caulker, the ropemaker, and others—all of whom made reports to an admiral or captain of the navy, one who knew every part of a ship, and then the necessary repairs were ordered on
  710
  his judgment. He could not conceive a better system to ensure what was wanted—good work, and economical work. If they had not the right man, get him; but the system itself was good. The engineers in the Royal yards were all striving to get to the head of their profession; and some of the master shipwrights had built for the private trade some of the very fastest ships on the ocean. Objection had been taken to patronage. But there were some officers in the Admiralty with no connection whatever with politics. In their cases patronage had not operated; and with regard to the remainder, could any one point out a superintendent and say he was not efficient? With regard to another objection, the Board of Admiralty was not the only Board we have known. He remembered the breaking up of the Board of Ordnance, and he believed it was the worst step ever taken. As to the head of the Board of Admiralty, there were reasons why he should be a naval officer, and there were reasons in the opposite direction. Whether the head should be a naval man or a civilian should, he thought, be an open question, left to the Crown, and to be determined according to the circumstances of the day. It would be rash in the House to attempt to force the Government into a change of the present Admiralty system. At present every question was discussed by the Board of Admiralty the day it was brought forward, and there could be nothing more prompt than their proceedings in that respect. Some of the ablest administrators of the country had been at the head of the Admiralty, and if an inefficient man were placed there it was the fault of the Government; but it had not been proved that the practice of appointing other than naval men to that office had failed. He (Sir Frederic Smith) would be ready to vote for the sum set down in the Estimates, and regretted that a larger amount was not provided. He was sorry that the docks and basins were neglected. At this very moment, supposing we had a war, we had only two docks at Portsmouth and two at Devonport which would take in first-class ships. We wanted ten docks for large vessels and ten for smaller vessels in the Channel. France had four times the dock power that we possessed in the Channel. This state of things ought not to be permitted to remain. The Admiralty did not ask for money enough. They ought to commence at once at

  711
  Portsmouth making large docks. They wanted means in the Channel to repair a fleet in the event of their sustaining disaster. The French ships could run into Cherbourg and Brest to repair after an action, and then sweep the waters of the Channel; while our ships, which had sustained serious damage, would be waiting for dock accommodation to repair. He trusted that the Government would not allow another year to pass without well considering these points, and bringing up Estimates to put the Channel Dockyards in a proper state. They might erect fortifications around Portsmouth and Plymouth; but the money would be thrown away if they were without docks in which to repair and make good disasters of any kind that might happen to our fleet. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) had remarked that nobody seemed to be responsible for things which were not done. Well, here were things not done, and the Government were responsible. He trusted that no time would be lost in preparing plans for the necessary works. The preparation of plans had heretofore been done in a very incomplete manner. What was wanted was more vigour, more rapid action. As to the medical officers, respecting whom some remarks had been made, he would observe that, in regard to authority, those of the army and navy were now on a par. They were non-combatant officers; they had no control over any portion of either army or navy, except over the hospital orderlies. The observations of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) were sound; but the hon. Gentleman seemed to push the point a little beyond what was reasonable. The hon. Member for Lincoln, with his usual acute-ness, had shown that there had been a certain waste of materials, such as did not take place in the generality of private yards; but the hon. Gentleman seemed to have been misinformed as to facts, and he trusted that the hon. Member for Pontefract would show the House the real state of things, and that, on the whole, our public establishments were worked with a due regard to economy, bearing in mind that none but the best materials were used in building or repairing ships in the Royal yards, and that, therefore, articles which would be used sometimes very improperly in private yards, were very judiciously placed in the refuse stock by the Government officers,
  712
  and hence an apparent, but not a real waste.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he agreed with the strictures made by the hon. Member (Mr. Robertson) as to the system upon which the dockyard works were conducted. Instead of getting a practical engineer to make a plan and then carrying on the works with the necessary rapidity, Votes for small amounts were passed from year to year, and the work was delayed till a new Administration came into office, when an entire change was probably made in the plan. In looking over the accounts, he found the result of this system to be that in ten years £1,500,000 had been spent upon peddling alterations of works without making them more efficient for the business of the navy. He hoped, therefore, that any new plan would be laid on the table soon, would be properly discussed, and then executed more rapidly than had been the system hitherto. Another point to which he would refer was the expense of managing the dockyards compared with the results obtained in the shape of ships turned out. Next year it appeared the cost of management of the various dockyards would be £132,631, and that it was proposed to build 15,100 tons of ships and to employ a total of 4,802 shipwrights. It appeared to him that the cost of management in the dockyards was quite disproportioned to the work done, and unless his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) could give some more detailed explanations than the Returns laid upon the table furnished, the House and the country would probably come to the same conclusion. The cost of repairs formed a very large item, and would continue to do so while the present system was in operation. It would be much cheaper for the Government to repair only such ships as were serviceable, or to build new ones, instead of wasting so much money in patching up old vessels that were of very little use.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, after the three nights' debate which they had had upon questions connected with the Admiralty the House would not probably wish to postpone the subject of the detailed Estimates much longer. He thought that many of the questions which had been asked in the course, of the discussion would best be answered in Committee when the Vote to which any question had reference was before them. However, he would risk detaining them for a few moments while he did his best to reply to some remarks which

  713
  had been made by hon. Members. With reference to the remarks in the very temperate speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto) upon the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, he would remark that he should be very unwilling to go into a general theoretical discussion as to the constitution of the supervising body. That question—as to the comparative merits of a Board, a Secretary of State with a Council or without one was like all those constitutional questions which had agitated all ages—every one had his own opinion upon the subject, and, whatever one or another might say, somebody was sure to find fault. But the fact was this:—If, as the Duke of Somerset had stated, the First Lord was responsible for the business of the Department, and if the Admiralty were represented in both Houses of Parliament, the question whether there should be a Board or a Chief Secretary and Under Secretary, or what assistance should be given to the head of the Department, was comparatively of minor importance. A bad workman always complained of his tools; but the real question was this—whether they got good work out of the men, and whether the men were working harmoniously together? The hon. Baronet had recommended that when large public works were to be executed the opinion of certain able men accustomed to the carrying out of great plans, but outside the Department, should be taken, and that to their advice great weight should be attached. That might be all very well, but as to the specific proposal of his hon. Friend, that the works of the Admiralty should be put under the control of the Board of Works, or some other Department utterly unconnected with the Admiralty, that was a proposition which, in the naked form in which it was put, the House would hardly be disposed to accept. His hon. Friend said that there was nothing in the naval men at the Board of Admiralty which should make the country take their opinions upon public works; but that was an objection which would equally apply to all public Departments with a Parliamentary head, unless they had the good fortune to have in Parliament persons with professional experience willing to take office. His hon. Friend had spoken of what was done in France, and said that the construction of docks and basins was under the control of the Minister of Public Works. He (Mr. Childers)
  714
  was at Toulon last year, and he went carefully into the subject, and every one to whom he spoke informed him that the responsible Minister was the Minister of Marine. However, as he might possibly be mistaken upon that point, he would not speak positively, as he should be sorry to mislead the House. His hon. Friend had afterwards asked some questions about the supervision by the Board of Contracts. Upon that subject he might be allowed to say that that question had lately received special attention from the Duke of Somerset, and arrangements had been made with respect to them which could not but prove satisfactory. He would now pass to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Robertson), whose eminence in his profession entitled anything which he said upon the subject of public works to great weight. He (Mr. Childers) entirely agreed with him when he said that such works as they were carrying on at Portsmouth should not be taken in hand unless they were thoroughly satisfied that the plan was a really good one, and that then they should be prosecuted not bit by bit in one year after another, but as they would be by a private person or a public company. Other hon. Gentlemen took the opposite objection, that the Admiralty were unduly delaying the commencement of these works, but when they came to Vote 11 he should be prepared to defend what had been done. Hon. Members had laid great stress upon the necessity for careful inquiry into the expenditure, and had said that merely taking a plan and laying it upon the table upon the authority of one man was not all that was required. But the Government had done exactly what had been recommended. They had not undertaken those great works this year without the fullest inquiry, and they were coming to the House not only showing the total amount of the Vote in connection with the contracts, but also the amounts for certain portions of the works to be executed by contract, and they should endeavour to obtain the authority of the House for carrying them on as quickly as possible. When they proposed to take only small sums for certain works this year, that course would be justified on grounds which he hoped would be conclusive to all men of business conversant with large works. Upon Vote 11 he should be prepared to go into the details. It had been said that the plans for the works at Malta were open to grave objection, and that Mr. M'Lean's plan

  715
  of last year was to be preferred. He would not enter upon a comparison of the two plans, but would merely any that the present plan was founded upon soundest principles. The original plan of Mr. M'Lean was an excellent one, with the information the Government then had, but the able engineer by whom it was formed was not then in possession of the facts since ascertained, that the dock could be made upon the land between the French Creek and the old Dockyard Creek without interfering with the defences of Malta. The gallant Member opposite (Sir Frederic Smith) had given a satisfactory opinion as to the capacity of the Director of Works. He thought that the Board were fortunate in the selection of such an officer. Technically the Duke of Somerset alone was responsible for this appointment; but he (Mr. Childers) declined to shelter himself behind this responsibility, and was fully prepared to justify his recommendation to the First Lord. When the works were completed he believed they would be as acceptable to his hon. Friend as to all those with whom the officer in question had been connected. The appointment of Mr. Reed had been adverted to, and it was said that the Government had placed themselves in a false position in disregarding the long services of other gentlemen, and in finding themselves mainly dependent upon Mr. Reed as a shipbuilder. But what had been the tone of bon. Members through out these debates in this and former years? Had it not been that the Government were entering upon a new course of shipbuilding, and that they required the experience of a new class of officers? The Government were building in iron for the most part instead of wood, and in iron of a new kind, and it had been said over and over again that with new works they should have new men. His hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) went so far as to advise the Government to have business men as managers at the dockyards, instead of admirals and captains. Yet, at the same time, they were told that they must keep the old class of constructors, merely because they had been long in the service. He was sure that no private shipbuilder would take this advice? He thought they were and would be the first to urge the necessity of new blood, and the propriety of engaging men of known ability like Mr. Reed. The building of ships was now more a matter of engineering and
  716
  less a matter of shipbuilding than it used to be. Were, then, the Government to blame in engaging the services of a gentleman in regard to whom he might appeal to the hon. Member (Mr. Laird) whether he had not done his work with great ability and marked success? He trusted that Mr. Reed would not only receive the confidence of the Government but also of the House. He must now for the fourth time advert to the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. Seely) on an exceedingly dry subject, that of figures and balance-sheets, but he could introduce no new matter into the debate. His hon. Friend truly said that he and his hon. Friend met and exhibited certain figures to each other. His hon. Friend quoted certain figures which could not be gainsaid, and he (Mr. Childers) quoted certain figures which were also in black and white and equally undeniable. But his hon. Friend drew certain conclusions which he could not admit, and his hon. Friend refused in turn to admit the conclusions he drew from the figures, and however often they might meet, he feared that the result would be the same. After they left the realms of facts and figures and proceeded into those of the imagination, he could not, he was sorry to say, follow his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend said that there was a difference between the accounts of 1858 and 1863 of £1,870,000; but that difference was easily accounted for by the stock in hand in those years. He had already stated the figures as to timber and other articles, and those figures he had entirely substantiated to his hon. Friend. The hon. Member, however, went back to 1848, and said that between 1848 and 1863 there was a difference that he could not reconcile. But between 1848 and 1858 these accounts did not exist, and, therefore, the remarks of his hon. Friend were no answer to him. He (Mr. Childers) did not go beyond certain plain facts and figures in account, and when his hon. Friend evaded the plain comparison he had shown, and drew conclusions from words spoken years ago as to supposed stocks, at a time when no such accounts were kept, he could not admit that his statements had been shaken. He had found it impossible to follow his hon. Friend in the remarks he had made upon the sum of £2,200,000, but if his hon. Friend had put the figures into his hands a day or two ago, he should have been only too happy to enter upon the discussion with him. What he (Mr. Childers)

  717
  had really said as to debiting the amount of dockyard pensions in the expense account was that it was exceedingly difficult to see on what principles it was right to add the amount of pensions in any one year to the other expenditure in the same year for wages. He hoped next year to be able to show a satisfactory balance-sheet of expenditure in shipbuilding in the Royal yards, but the details of such an account could only be settled after very careful consideration by able accountants. They all agreed that the accounts ought to be prepared in a certain way, and he trusted that they would be clear and satisfactory to the House.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the discussions in Committee on these Estimates. They embraced details which it was quite uncertain whether hon. Members would take up, and the House could never depend upon their being discussed. The House was often asked to give a Vote on account for Estimates that were not before it. It had often been suggested that it would be well to refer the Civil Service Estimates to a Select Committee before they came before the House for discussion; and as he thought that suggestion was well worthy of trial at least, he took this opportunity of submitting it to the House. The only objection that ever he had heard suggested to such a course was that it would weaken the responsibility of the Government, as the Estimates would be those of the Committee not of the Government, but he did not understand that any recommendation of a Committee could interfere with the free action of the House. In Prance and some other foreign countries it was the custom to refer the Budgets of different departments to Bureaux, and the same course might be attended with advantage here. They would be considered item by item in Committee, and the taxpayers would have further security that there was no excess in the public expenditure. He therefore begged to move—
  "That the Civil Service Estimates be referred to a Select Committee for examination, and to report thereon, in respect of each class separately, such matters as may appear to them specially to deserve the attention of the House.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
  718
  "the Civil Service Estimates be referred to a Select Committee for examination, and to report thereon, in respect of each Class separately, such matters as may appear to them specially to deserve the attention of the House,"—(Mr. Augustus Smith,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PEELsaid, he thought that the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman's Motion was objectionable, because it would have the effect of taking the conduct of the business of the House very much out of the hands of the Government, as they would be unable to bring forward the Estimates when they wished, and because it would indefinitely extend the time during which the expenditure for the Civil Service would be going on without proper authority from Parliament. With respect to the Report of the Select Committee, if it was intended that they should only call attention to the variations in the Estimates from year to year, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that as the Estimates were now prepared those variations were shown; and if it was intended to do more and to give the reasons for or against such variations, then the Committee would undertake a task which it would be impossible to finish by the time when it would be absolutely necessary the Estimates should be submitted to Parliament. Why should a different course be adopted with reference to the Civil Service Estimates and the Army and Navy Estimates? The Civil Service Estimates were not increasing—on the contrary, their tendency was to decrease. He did not see any reason for a preliminary examination of the items of the Estimates, in addition to the examination which took place at the Treasury. They were now prepared in such a manner as to show the sums taken in the former year, so that the House was enabled to see at a glance whether the items had increased or diminished. As the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, if carried out, would tend to diminish the responsibility of the Government, and to weaken the interest which many Members took in the discussion of the Estimates, he trusted that the Motion would not be adopted by the House.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would not press his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR RICHARD MAYNE AND THE BARNET MAGISTRATES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to a subject of considerable importance, but which, on its first aspect, might not appear to be very deserving the attention of the House. He desired to invite their attention to the correspondence just laid before the House between Sir Richard Mayne and the Magistrates of Barnet. The subject seemed small, but there was involved the question, whether that House would consent to allow habitually the Chief Commissioner of Police, an Executive officer, to set at nought or explain away by his instruction the legislation of Parliament. The facts out of which this question arose were briefly these. The magistrates at Barnet sentenced two boys under the Juvenile Offenders' Act to be whipped, and took advantage of a section in that Act which enabled them to order the punishment to be inflicted by a constable, as, the boys being the children of respectable parents, it was desired to spare them the stigma of confinement in the county gaol. Upon applying to the Inspector of Police, however, the magistrates were informed that to carry out their sentence would be contrary to his instructions. Now, the House ought to consider whether it would share with the ordinary, by a process of official instructions, the functions of legislation. At least the instructions so issued should be always laid before Parliament, so that the Legislature might be made aware of what had become of previous legislation, and on what practical conditions of the law it might proceed to further enactments. The magistrates, of course, were rather astonished at the Inspector's statement, because Barnet being a rural district, within the Metropolitan Police Act, their own constables had disappeared, and had become merged in the metropolitan Police. They remonstrated, and in reply they got a letter from Sir Richard Mayne referring to two cases which had occurred at Epsom and Richmond some twenty or thirty years ago. This letter seemed somewhat to implicate the Home Secretary in the matter, for Sir Richard stated that in these cases he had taken the advice of Sir George Grey, who thought that though the police were not exempt in case of magisterial order from the duty of whipping offenders, yet some arrangement might
  720
  be made "by which the necessity of throwing it on the police might be obviated." Now, whatever might be the private opinion of the Home Secretary or Sir Richard Mayne it mattered nothing compared to the public duty of the execution of legislative enactments. When Parliament had once said that such and such should be the law, the course was simple to the Executive administrators of the law. Judging from the opposition which was made by the right hon. Gentleman two years ago to the proposition for extending the punishment of whipping to garrotters, he fancied the Home Secretary had allowed private feelings to intrude in this case into his public office. Under the encouragement given by Sir George Grey, Sir Richard Mayne stated to the Barnet magistrates that, looking at what occurred in the cases at Epsom and Richmond, he had reason to believe that the constables would feel great repugnance in carrying out the sentence. The case had now arrived at this point—not only might the Chief Commissioner explain away, but he might also obstruct legislation, and he might do so simply on the ground of his officers having a repugnance to it. It was a grave question, whether the Executive of the country could, on the mere ground of the repugnance of its officer, obstruct the carrying out the enactments of Parliament. The magistrates seemed to have thought this letter very unsatisfactory, as, no doubt, the House would also, and they wrote again to Sir Richard Mayne, and received from him a reply which was most significant. He required, if the police were to perform the duty, that there should be provided for the birching of two little boys—a punishment inflicted in most of our public schools—all the paraphernalia which was provided in the old days when 400 or 500 lashes with a cat-o'-nine tails were inflicted in the army, when it was necessary to have a surgeon on the ground, and all the hospital appliances, and to provide for the contingency of death. He Baid—
  "I do not think the police ought to be allowed by me to inflict such a punishment unless precautions are taken by the magistrates to guard against any abuse of the power proposed to be given, and that the sentence should not be inflicted if, from the state of health of the prisoner, or other causes, dangerous consequences might ensue. For these purposes, some persons should attend on the part of the magistrates to see that the punishment is duly inflicted according to the sentence, and a competent medical

  721
  man, appointed by the magistrates, be present during the punishment."
  Now, such a demand where all that was to happen was the birching of two little boys, could never have been seriously made by a man in Sir Richard Mayne's position, and it was therefore merely a pretext for obstructing the execution of the sentence. Sir Richard went on to assign a further reason against executing the magistrates order—that if the sentence were carried out at the police-station, it would be within the hearing of the wives and daughters of the constables, whose nerves, no doubt, were so delicate that the cries of these little boys would be too much for them. He had no objection to police constables being married and having families, but if the fact of their having wives and families was to excuse them from performing the duties cast on them by law, he should be ready to propose a Vote to provide a separate house for the wives and daughters, where they could not be shocked by the cries of little boys who were birched. Would the House permit Executive officers to set its legislation at naught in this fashion? He hoped the right hon. Baronet opposite would explain the transaction, and that he would promise at least, if such transactions were to continue, to supply the House with copies of all instructions which Sir Richard Mayne might think fit from time to time to issue to his police on particular Acts passed by that House, especially as he had been informed that in many other cases those instructions had completely set Acts of Parliament at naught. This matter might be small, but the principle involved was a very important one.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this subject before the House. He thought this case was a remarkable illustration of some observations which had fallen from him on a previous evening respecting the position of the Chief Commissioner of Police in reference to the rural districts. It showed how entirely out of harmony Sir Richard's police administration was with the circumstances of those districts. They had been included in his jurisdiction not from police reasons, but from financial reasons. All counties, however, were now able to get contributions from the Consolidated Fund for their police, and there was no longer the same reason for these districts being in connection with the metropolitan police as when that force alone
  722
  received a contribution from the funds of the State. It was a great mistake to suppose that any advantage was gained in police administration from having a large area. On the contrary, police efficiency depended a great deal on having a small area and close inspection. Another essential was that the police should be in harmony with the judicial functionaries of the district and with public opinion. What might be a good system in London was not necessarily a good system in a country district, and it would be better to give back to the counties the jurisdictions which had been taken from them. It would be judicious to revert to the rural police system in the districts now under the metropolitan police, and to make such police responsible to the magistrates of the counties, where no such case as the present one would ever occur again. The most satisfactory way of administering justice was through unpaid magistrates acting in petty session. What ought Sir Richard Mayne, the chief of the metropolitan police, to have to do at Uxbridge? Possibly, the system of "unpaid magistrates," like all other systems, might be open to some objection, but he should be very sorry to see "barristers of five years' standing" scattered all over the country as stipendiaries. The police force under the control of Sir Richard Mayne had grown up into a gigantic system quite beyond control, and such as ought never to be placed under the absolute authority of any one man. In the metropolis there was nothing to induce anybody to perform gratuitously those duties which were so generously and well performed by the body of country gentlemen throughout England. But though they could not have petty sessions in London, they certainly might confine Sir Richard Mayne within his legitimate sphere of action; for the military display of helmets, &c, gratifying though they might be to look at, were of slight importance compared with the due preservation of life and property.
  EARL PERCYsaid, that he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, and believed that within a certain circle of the metropolis it was desirable that the metropolitan police should have jurisdiction. At any rate, as far as the mere detection of crime was concerned, it was more satisfactory to have the jurisdiction in the hands of the police than in those of the magistrates of the county.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he believed

  723
  that what the noble Lord said was perfectly true—namely, that it was desirable the metropolitan police should have jurisdiction within a certain area beyond the actual metropolis with a view to the prevention and detection of crime. Outlying districts included within the police jurisdiction were brought within its limits at the express request of the inhabitants. As regarded the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, he could assure him that the views and instructions of successive Secretaries of State for the last twenty-five years were perfectly consistent on this point. With regard to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, he was at perfect liberty to see all the instructions which had been issued from the Home Office for the last twenty-five years. In 1847, after the Act of 11 & 12 Vict., which subjected boys to the punishment of flogging, the question was brought before the Home Office, and it was decided that it would be inexpedient to allow any police constable without check or supervision to inflict this punishment, and instructions were accordingly given that in all cases it should be inflicted by the gaoler of the police station, who was to be sworn in a constable of the metropolitan force for the express purpose. Lately, he had inquired from Sir Thomas Henry whether these regulations were still in force, and found, notwithstanding the ridicule thrown upon the matter by the right hon. Gentleman, that the cries of the boys did attract such a disorderly crowd and occasioned so much inconvenience, that for some years past the practice of whipping at the police stations had been abandoned, and boys were sentenced to imprisonment, though it might be only for a few days or a few hours, in order that the punishment might be inflicted at the prison, subject to those precautions which the right hon. Gentleman had also ridiculed. The other night his attention had been called to a Return of the whippings inflicted by order of the magistrates, and especially to one case where twelve lashes were inflicted on a boy six years of age. Into the circumstances of that case he had inquired; and the answer had not yet been received. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was quite in error in supposing that no precautions were taken against excessive punishment. In one case contained in that Return where twelve lashes were ordered, the surgeon who was present stopped the punishment at the eighth
  724
  stroke. If the whippings were inflicted in the manner that was desired, and without any supervision, the House would ring night after night with complaints of the undue severity of the police. In the case of every boy who was sent to prison to be whipped, the surgeon was ordered to superintend the punishment, and the Governor was also bound to be present. In the outlying districts, no doubt, police constables were bound to carry out the lawful order of the magistrates, and both they and Sir Richard Mayne would he ready to do so; but he thought Sir Richard Mayne only did his duty in protecting the constabulary from the complaints which would be made if they inflicted these punishments free from all control and supervision. The magistrates, on their part, ought to see that proper precautions for this purpose were taken.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, this was one of the gravest questions that could come before the House, and the manner in which it had been met by the right hon. Gentleman did not lessen its importance; for what did he say?—that the members of this highly-organized and highly-paid police force would only carry out the law if the magistrates did something which the law did not authorize them to do. The papers showed that this question did not come upon the police by surprise, but formed a branch of a regularly codified system. The law had been altered two or three times since the Epsom case in 1850, and if the Home Secretary thought it was still defective, why had he not provided the necessary Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the power as dangerous, and talked about "lashes." Language of that kind served very well to get up a cheer in the House, but he knew very well this was no case of lashes, but of whipping with a birch rod. These two things were as different as chalk and cheese. In 1850, in 1857, or in 1865 did Sir Richard Mayne dream of securing the attendance of a surgeon? He never dreamt of it. Was it out of mercy to the child that the whipping was withdrawn from the hands of the police constables. Such a thing never entered into his consideration. The real and only reason for the course adopted was that it was repugnant to the feelings of the highly-paid constable to discharge these functions, and the humane considerations were thrown in as corks to float the case. The paid constable could not soil his fingers, but he

  725
  turned the dirty work over on the unpaid constable, the tradesman, perhaps, who had properly nothing to do in the matter. The question was, where was all this to stop? England was fast becoming one of the most police-ridden countries in Europe. When Sir Robert Peel got up the force, he gave to the policeman, at 20 s. a week, the power which the common law had given to the tradesman, and they had been growing on step by step. It was quite clear that Sir Richard Mayne did not like flogging, and he did not wonder at it. But what would it come to? The next tiling would be that a constable would not take a man into custody because he would have to be hanged, and a special constable would have to be sworn to take him. In the present instance, the House had the case submitted to it of a Chief Commissioner of Police who of his own arbitrary will relieve the constables under him from the performance of a duty which happened to be disagreeable to them, while if anybody was aggrieved by them there was no remedy against them unless the existence of private malice could be proved. That was a state of things which, in his opinion, was open to the strongest objection, and it would, he feared, continue to grow step by step in the direction pointed out unless a check were put upon it. It was evident that the boy3 in question had not been flogged either because Sir Richard Mayne did not like the infliction of that punishment, or because the police thought it a disagreeable task. If, however, the law imposed such a duty upon them, they were bound to perform it; for it was as monstrous to contend that they ought not to be called upon to do so as that a man should not be flogged in prison because the wife and children of the Governor resided within its walls. As matters stood we seemed to be getting into a very awkward position. If the law relating to such cases as the present were wrong it was easy to amend it; but while it remained on the statute book he did not think it was either right or fair of the Home Secretary to back up a Police Commissioner who refused to obey it because it did not happen to be to his mind. As to there being any danger to the boys from being flogged with that murderous instrument, a birch, those who were as old as he was would not entertain much apprehension on that score, and he felt sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who possibly might have had himself some experience in that way, would concur in
  726
  that opinion. At all events, when Sir Richard Mayne talked about dangerous consequences in the present instance there was as much an air of what was commonly called humbug about the whole thing as he had heard of for a long time. It was, he might add, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to compel Sir Richard Mayne, as an Executive officer under the Government, to obey the law, and not to make such absurd excuses for its violation as the House had just listened to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £175,957, Admiralty Office.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to impress upon the Government the expediency of concentrating the various Admiralty Offices in one locality, instead of having them divided, as at present, between Somerset House and Whitehall. He hoped they would state to what, if any, decision they had come.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Baronet as to the great importance, for the better administration of naval affairs, that the whole of the Offices connected with the Admiralty should be under one roof; but the concentration suggested would be attended with considerable expense, and that the only reason he could give the Committee for not having carried out a scheme which he admitted would effect a great public convenience was the enormous outlay which had been incurred in consequence of the change in the construction of the navy within the last few years. He was, however, in a position to inform the Committee that the Director of Works had been instructed by the Duke of Somerset to prepare plans on the subject, and that those plans were nearly ripe for consideration. The question to be decided was whether the whole of the Admiralty Offices were to be concentrated at Somerset House, or whether those Offices now situated at Somerset House could not be provided for by means of additional buildings at Whitehall. During the present year he was afraid he could hold out no hope that that question would be practically solved, but he sincerely hoped he should be able next Session, if he should continue to hold his present office, to introduce a measure for

  727
  the concentration of the Offices in one or the other of the places mentioned.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he wished to ask for an explanation with reference to the positions occupied by the temporary clerks at the Admiralty, in whose case promotion was very slow, while they received no increase of salary from year to year.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was formerly the system to subject the temporary clerks to two different examinations before they were permanently placed on the Establishment, while others obtained their appointments at once without that double ordeal. The Duke of Somerset had deemed it right to lay down a rule in accordance with which all now after one competitive examination entered the service as temporary clerks and then fell into the Establishment as vacancies occurred. There were a great many temporary clerks both at Whitehall and Somerset House, as owing to the pressure of business the staff had been increased, and he was not prepared at the present moment to say that the Admiralty were about to recommend to the Treasury any increase in the Establishment; but those who conducted themselves properly might in process of time hope to be placed upon it.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he understood that some of those clerks had filled their "temporary" position for as long a period as fourteen and even twenty years. He also drew attention to the fact, that whilst the cost of the Board of Admiralty was £9,700, that of the legal department of the Admiralty was £10,713.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that for the sum of £2,600 the solicitor of the Admiralty provided an office and clerks. It must be borne in mind that legal gentlemen would not abandon their private practice for the sake of government work unless they had a fair salary. As to the other item, all he could say was that legal expenses of the Department were increasing; there had been a good many contracts and much litigation arising out of them.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £284,395, Coast Guard Service, &c.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that one of the principal objects of appointing a Controller General of the Coastguard was that they might assemble the ships under
  728
  him in the summer months, as a squadron of evolution. During last year, however, this had not been done; but he hoped that it would be done this year.
  MR. AYRTON,said, the customs duties of the country were very much reduced, and he wished to know why, if the Coastguard was kept as a revenue force, they were not reduced in a proportionate degree. He wished to know if there was any prospect of a reduction in the Vote. It was to a great extent part of the navy, and the cost should really be placed upon the Navy Estimates.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the sum of £688,648 was the total cost of the Coastguard, and was a reduction by £16,000 upon previous years. There was a yearly increase in the reserve. The difficulties in the way of assembling the Coastguard squadron for evolutions were that its assembly caused a considerable expense, and occasioned inconvenience to the volunteers. Although the ships had not the advantage of cruising in squadron, which he admitted was of great importance, they went into the Channel singly and practised and manœuvred.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that the Vote for the Royal Naval Reserve was exactly the same in amount as last year; the number was 16,000 men, and he wished to know whether there was any endeavour to increase the number.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the number of this force wa3 steadily but slowly increasing. No addition had been made to the Vote this year, because the Votes of last year and the year before had been in excess of the amount required.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask, what increase of number there was during the year, and what it was intended to raise the number to?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the increase in number was about 400 or 500 per annum. They might increase the number rapidly by lowering the qualifications, but they found it desirable to keep the force as select as possible.
  MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, he wished to ask, how many of the 16,000 men of whom the force was stated to consist were in this country? He also desired to be informed as to the state of the Coast Volunteer force.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that on the 31st of January last the number of men belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve at home, and available at once, was

  729
  9,613; the number on leave for short voyages and available in six months or under was 4,995; and the number on leave for long voyages, and who could not be got at in less than about a year, was 1,141. Therefore, about two-thirds of the force were available at once. Those only received pay who underwent their annual exercise. The number of the Coast Volunteers had somewhat diminished, in consequence of the Act which authorized their being required to serve at a distance of more than 300 miles from England. The result of the introduction of armour-plated ships was that smaller crews were required than were necessary on board the old wooden line-of-battle ships. Therefore, this year the Vote for the Coastguard would be 500 less. After consulting with officers of the Customs he found that it was no longer necessary to keep up the number of the Coastguard on shore for the purposes of the revenue, and, therefore, the number of that force on shore was being gradually, but steadily, reduced.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to know, whether the long voyage men received a certificate entitling them to their retaining fee in cases where the length of their voyage had prevented them from going through the prescribed drill.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: No certificate was granted unless the necessary twenty-eight day's drill had been gone through.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask, when the Admiralty were going to provide a suitable ship for exercising the Naval Reserve at Aberdeen? There were 1,000 first-rate seamen enrolled in that town, and they were compelled to go through their drill in an old frigate of the class "Jackass frigates." He recollected that vessel forty years ago, when she was called the Conway. She had once been under the command of Captain Basil Hall, and she had the reputation of being an exceedingly bad ship, and when the Naval Reserve was established she was the Reformatory ship at Liverpool. It was utterly impossible for the men to be properly drilled on board her, as her decks were not of sufficient width to permit large guns to be worked. So useless was she for the purposes of drill that the officer in command of the men had applied for permission to build a shed on shore in which to exercise the men. In the meanwhile the Admiralty were selling numbers of ships admirably adapted for
  730
  the purposes of drill. He wished to know why the name of the vessel had been changed from the Conway to the Winchester; the latter having been the name of an exceedingly good ship, why should such a name be given to such an old beast of a ship? In consequence of some supposititious saving the services of these 1,000 men were entirely wasted, as they were not being taught to work the heavy guns now in use.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the change of name in the Conway was to prevent confusion in the Paymasters' Office and in the books of the navy. He was aware that every port was anxious to have a large ship for the purpose of drill; but the cost of preparing vessels for that purpose was very large. As soon as possible Aberdeen would be supplied with a more commodious vessel.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £70,042, Scientific Departments.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that the opposition he had offered last year to the removal of the School of Naval Architecture from Portsmouth to South Kensington had been fully justified by the results. It was then stated by the noble Lord that the removal was resolved on because there were already the requisite staff of professors at Kensington for the instruction of the students. It now turned out that, so far from that being the case, it had been found necessary to appoint a Director of Education for the Admiralty, at a salary altogether amounting to £1,200 per annum, and to bring officers from the different naval dockyards to lecture. Thus the Timber Inspector at Woolwich Dockyard; Mr. Reed, the Chief Constructor of the Navy; Mr. Murray, the Chief Instructor for Portsmouth; Mr. Rains, the Assistant Instructor for the Navy the surveyor at Lloyd's, and Mr. Murray, the engineer to the Board of Trade, were all taken to Kensington in rotation to lecture—the whole cost of the establishment being about £5,000 per annum, instead of the £2,500 it was estimated to cost. All this expensive and elaborate machinery was for the sole benefit of sixteen dockyard and four private students. The young men were brought from the different dockyards for six months in the year, for the purpose of going through a course of lectures occupying the greater portion of the day and a part of the evening, by which means these pupils were deprived of all

  731
  opportunity for the discipline and exercise which was necessary for the preservation of their health. During the other six months these young men were employed in the dockyards without receiving any kind of education whatever. He regarded this system as a most extraordinary one in every respect.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had to complain that no models of modern ships, such as the Warrior and the rams, were to be found in the School at Kensington. They were all old models which appeared to have been dug from the vaults of the Admiralty, and some means ought to be taken to place the school on a better footing.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he regretted that the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) should have determined to establish the school of naval architecture at the extreme west end of London, at a distance from all the shipbuilding establishments which existed on both sides of the Thames. He regarded it as an extraordinary piece of official eccentricity. In all probability the present situation was chosen in order to accommodate the protegés of fashionable people at the west end of the town. It could not, however, but be prejudicial to the best interests of the country.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that he had distinctly informed the House last year that the probable amount to be asked for the year would be £4,000. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith) appeared to regard this sum as extravagant, but a comparison with the expenses incurred by the French Government for a similar school at Paris would show that their expenditure was equal to ours. According to the report of Dr. Woolley and a captain of Engineers sent to Paris to inquire into the subject, the number of elèves in the school was twenty-eight, with occasionally two or three free pupils, but usually none of that class, and the cost was 100,000f., or £4,000 per annum. The object of our own School of Naval Architecture was not only to foster our naval shipbuilding, but also to promote the extension of a higher branch of shipbuilding in our private yards, and several pupils from the latter establishments had already availed themselves of the advantages offered by the Government institution. He did not believe that the position of the School was inconvenient. It was a pleasant ride from the east end of London by omnibus. The School was fixed at Kensington because, as he stated
  732
  last year, the Government had a very convenient building there where the pupils could be lodged at a comparatively small expense. With regard to the models, it was true that they had not such models as they would like to see in a museum of the kind, but the fact should not be overlooked that they had block models of the modern ships, and they hoped gradually to introduce other models of ships of the present day. The collection of models at Somerset House had been removed to the Museum. With regard to the Educational Director, education in the dockyards, the training ships, and the fleet had so increased, that the appointment of such an officer was deemed necessary. The Duke of Somerset had therefore appointed Dr. Woolley, a most efficient person, to the office. Vote agreed to.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £192,415, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries of the Officers and the Contingent Expenses of Her Majesty's Naval Establishments at Home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866."
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he had last year opposed the introduction of machinery into the rope-making department of Her Majesty's Dockyards, believing that it would have the effect of throwing a great many men out of employment. It appeared that since then a great many deserving men, who from six to twenty years had been employed on those works, were thrown out of employment without any compensation, and many of the men with large families. He admitted that those men had no claim on the Admiralty in point of law, but surely on the ground of equity it was most unjust to dismiss honest industrious men, who had served the Government for eighteen or twenty years, on the plea that they were after all but temporarily employed. The only persons who had not been benefited from the increase of wages in our national establishments were the joiners. They were paid only 3s. 10 d. a day and had to find their own tools. The ropemakers had been thrown out of employment, because the noble Lord had found it cheaper to employ women to do their work.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Motion to a division.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, it was too late then (ten minutes to twelve o'clock) to go through the Vote that night.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir James Elphinstone.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 51; Majority 24.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) £37,332, Naval Establishments Abroad.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £1,158,797 for Wages to Artificers at home.
  SIR JOHN HAY SIR JOHN HAY moved that the Chairman report Progress. The Vote was one of great importance, and he hoped it would not then be pressed.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would not press the Vote. He proposed, however, to proceed with the remaining Votes in the Navy Estimates on Friday next, and to defer Vote 11, for works connected with docks and basins, until after Easter.
  Motion withdrawn.
  Resolutions to be reported.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  MR. PEEL MR. PEEL moved the Vote he had given notice of for £1,748,000 on account towards defraying certain Civil Service Estimates for 1865–6. He said he had presented a Return to the House which showed the different services to which the Vote was to be applied, and the amount that would be appropriated to each service. No service was included for which provision had not been made from year to year for a long time past. It was, therefore, presumed that Parliament would again make provision for them. The object of the Vote was to enable the Government to meet the necessary charges during the first quarter of the current financial year, until Parliament should have passed the Civil Service Estimates in the regular course. The necessity of the Vote was owing to the circumstance that the balances in the Exchequer, to the credit of the different services were merely the balances of last year's Votes, and were not sufficient without this Vote on Account. In former years it was different, because the balances of former Votes were allowed to accumulate in the Treasury; but under the recent arrange-
  734
  ment the Treasury gave up the balances in the Exchequer except the last year's balances, and those were not sufficient for what was now required.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,748,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account of certain Civil Service Estimates for 1865–6."
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had no wish to oppose grants which might be necessary for the public service, but could not help drawing attention to an irregularity which might be drawn into a very evil precedent. He understood that the sums now asked for were intended for services for which the Estimates had not been laid on the table, or at least were not in the hands of Members. He did not say that the hon. Gentleman meant to take any advantage, or was not dealing towards them with perfect honour, but the House ought to be careful how it sanctioned a practice that might lead to dangerous consequences by voting public money for services of the details of which it had not yet been informed. He quite admitted that it might very often be necessary to vote sums on account before the time had arrived when the Estimates could be discussed in detail; but it ought never to be necessary to vote sums on account before the Estimates were in the hands of Members.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he hoped the Secretary of the Treasury would specify the services for which he asked that Vote. He wished to know in particular whether the salaries connected with the Mixed Commission at the Cape of Good Hope—which he believed to be a sinecure—were included in the Vote. If so, he should like to divide the House against those salaries, as he thought that that expenditure might be saved to the country.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) as to the irregularities of that proceeding. Last year was the first case he recollected of these Votes on Account being taken before the Estimates were in the hands of Members; but this year the practice was carried to an unprecedented length. That was the first time they had been asked to vote instalments without knowing what were the total sums of which they formed a part. The Estimates seemed to be kept back in order to prevent hon. Members from informing themselves previously about what they were called upon to vote.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he believed that the course now pursued had been adopted for the last two or three years, and it appeared to him most expedient and likely to prove economical. It was designed to obviate the necessity of waiting for the Estimates before they could have a full discussion on every Vote. There were many details which might remain undecided, and which it was desirable that the Government should have time to consider.
  MR. PEELsaid, that the Return presented on the 14th of March showed exactly in what manner the Vote now asked for was to be appropriated among the services; that Vote would not give authority to expend more for any particular service than the sum placed opposite to it in the Return. As to the Slave Trade Commission, the amount that would be allotted to it was only £3,000, whereas the total sum that would be required for that particular service was £10,000. If, therefore, the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) desired to propose a reduction on that head he would have an ample margin left him for doing so. It was not always possible to produce the Estimates as early as could be wished, because if a single Vote, or even a single item, remained undecided it prevented the presentation of the whole class to which it belonged. For example, Class 5 had been ready for some time past, with the exception of one Vote, but that one Vote was received only yesterday, and it was necessary to keep back that entire class of the Estimates in consequence. He might observe that all the services for which provision was made by a Vote on account were established services, well known to the House for which it was accustomed to make provision year by year, and as to which there could be no doubt Parliament would grant the sums asked for.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not agree in the doctrine laid down by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peel). The House ought to be placed in possession at an early period of the Civil Service Estimates, as these were the only Estimates in which there was a chance of effecting any reasonable reduction, and he wanted to know why they were not placed in possession of all the details of the accounts before they were asked for a Vote. Any item that had not been agreed on when the Estimates generally were ready could be
  736
  included in the Supplementary Estimates. Several of the items referred to in the Return would certainly lead to discussion. The present system not only led to inconvenience, but committed the House to the principle of the items for which Votes on account were granted. The doctrine laid down by the Secretary of the Treasury would preclude them from pronouncing an opinion on any items which they had voted in previous years.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, no inconvenience existed by the present arrangement, as any hon. Member could, if prepared, propose to strike out or reduce any items in this Vote of the accounts just as he could if the Estimates were before him. As to the remedy proposed by the hon. Gentleman, it would interfere with the classification of the Votes and be productive of great inconvenience. It was impossible to prepare the miscellaneous estimates for the commencement of the Session, as they did the Military and Naval Estimates, owing to their multifarious character. There was no desire on the part of the Government to withold those Estimates a moment longer than was absolutely necessary.
  MR. COXsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had given notice for the omission of the Vote for the Belfast Theological Institution. If they passed now a Vote on account would they not be met hereafter by the answer that they had already voted a sum on account?
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to point out that if this system were to be pursued they would lose their established right of controlling the expenditure of the country. It was the practice of the House to go through these Votes one by one. For the Civil Service Commission they were asked at once to vote on account three-fifths of their salaries. £10,000 out of £13,000 was asked for the National Gallery, and a similar item for Dr. Stevens's Hospital. It appeared to him that they were asked to vote a lump sum which included a number of separate items involving various important principles upon which great difference of opinion existed in that House. This plan was a most objectionable one, but if they were to reject this Motion he supposed they would bring the public service to a standstill, but there should be an unmistakable expression of opinion on the part of the House against the practice.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought

  737
  the system of taking Votes on account, especially in the case pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, was exceedingly objectionable; but, like the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), he did not see what they could do now.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the system no doubt was to some extent inconvenient, but it could not be avoided. There was no alternative, except that of leaving the services unpaid during the period till the House settled the details, or of giving a Vote on account. There remained a sufficient sum when the Estimates were examined in detail to enable the House to express its opinion and object to a particular Vote if it thought that the service to which it referred should cease; and therefore the House was just as free when it came later in the Session to discuss the Estimates in detail to object as if there had been no Vote on account. The first and most important Estimates were those of the Army and Navy. They were not disposed of and probably would not be till after Easter; and what was to become of those miscellaneous services if nothing was voted on account in the meantime? The introduction of these Votes on account was a necessary consequence of a recommendation made by a Select Committee of the House.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought they were in a more complicated position than ever. The noble Lord said they would be perfectly free at a future time to discuss any detail of these Estimates; whereas he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that if they assented to-night to the Vote before the House they were committed to the principle of the Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member was perfectly at liberty to take objection now to any Vote in the instalment asked for; and at a future time it would be competent to object to the balance, but not to the whole amount of the Vote. If the Vote on account was adopted the House might discuss the principle of any Vote in future, but would scarcely be open to come to any practical Resolution on the subject. Whether this system of voting on account were good or bad, it was not the invention of the Government, or of any former Government, but the system recommended by an authoritative Committee on Public Accounts nominated by that House.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he thought that any
  738
  contested Votes should be omitted from the Vote on account. For instance, the hon. Member for Sheffield had a notice of objection on the paper with respect to the payment of the Belfast Professors.
  MR. PEELsaid, the hon. Member for Sheffield had authorized him to state that he reserved his objection until the Vote was moved in the usual course.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted the truth of his objection—namely, that if they sanctioned the Vote that night they were precluded from negativing at a future period the whole amount included in that Vote. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the practice of asking thirty or forty Members, at nearly one o'clock in the morning, to pledge the Whole House to the principle and details contained in this Vote on account?
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that in Class 4 there were Votes for Science and Art, for the British Museum and National Gallery. The hon. Member for Galway had a notice on the paper for Friday to call attention to the British Museum, the National Gallery, and the Museum at South Kensington. It was possible that he might influence the views of hon. Members with respect to the Votes for those institutions. He should like to know whether these Votes on account for those establishments would effect such questions as to whether the British Museum should be broken up, or as to the removal of the Cartoons from Hampton to Kensington Museum?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the reply of the Secretary to the Treasury with respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield was an answer to the question of the noble Lord. A Select Committee of the House had recommended that the balances on Votes should be paid over to the Exchequer at the end of each financial year, and that in order to pay the expenditure of departments at the beginning of the financial year, before the miscellaneous Votes could be discussed, Votes on account should be taken. The course proposed by the Government was, therefore, in exact conformity with the recommendation of that Committee. At the same time, it would be perfectly open to the House to discuss at a later period the principle of every one of the services for which a Vote on account was proposed to be taken on the present occasion. He had never heard any hon. Member whe-

  739
  objected to a Vote contend that his objection should have a retrospective effect, and that the service which had been performed before, and was being performed at the time the Vote was objected to, should not be paid for. With regard, for instance, to the British Museum and the National Gallery, more expense was necessarily going on. It was inevitable; and it must be defrayed up to the final Vote. That being so, no harm could be done by agreeing to the Vote on account which was now before the House.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, that no explanation having been given as to them, he moved that the Votes of £1,200 for the Commissioner of the Mixed Commission Courts, and £800 for the Arbitrator, be suspended until the Estimates be placed in the hands of the Members.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £3,000, on account of Commissioners for Suppression of the Slave Trade, be reduced by the sum of £2,000."—(Mr. Torrens.)
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that without this Mixed Commission Court the slave trade would be revived in its original form, and we were bound to prevent this by existing treaties with Spain, Portugal, and the United States. While it was perfectly true that the duty of the Commissioner and the Arbitrator appeared very light, it was necessary that the Court of the Mixed Commission should be maintained as well as that of the Court of Admiralty. Other countries had similar courts, and they were necessary for the prevention of the slave trade. The Court of Admiralty could only confiscate the vessel, while the Court of the Mixed Commission could, in addition, punish the crew engaged in the slave trade.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, the Mixed Commission did nothing but draw their salaries. The entire work was done by the Court of Admiralty.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask would that Amendment, if carried, preclude all discussion on prior items?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, after this Motion was put from the Chair, no discussion could be raised as to any previous item.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, it was quite necessary to prevent this matter going further. The House had been told that these Votes on account were a mere form, but they now seemed very important in point of principle.
  MR. COXsaid, he quite agreed that
  740
  this Vote on account was adopted in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee. He thought it would be better to propose the Vote in a lump sum than in such a way as would preclude future discussion. He submitted that after what had been stated by the Chairman each item of the Vote ought to be put separately, so as to give the Committee an opportunity of objecting to any particular item.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the course which had been adopted had been deliberately recommended to the House in a Report of a Select Committee, which received the general approval of the House. That Report distinctly stated that—
  "Votes on account are only to be applied to the payment of services which have received the sanction of the House in former years."
  The hon. Member for Finsbury had asked, "Why not have a lump sum?" The Committee on that point said—
  "We are of opinion that this difficulty (the lateness of the Civil Estimates) may be overcome by taking one aggregate Vote upon account for such Civil Services as have been sanctioned by Parliament in the preceding Session, and in order to facilitate this practice it is recommended that all salaries for the last quarter shall be payable on the 31st of March in each year, and the amount thus made applicable to each separate Vote for Civil Services should be stated in the schedule and detached from the amount voted."
  The course taken to-night was precisely in accordance with that recommendation of the Committee.
  MR. COXsaid, that the items should be put seriatim from the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It has never been the practice of the House to put the separate items to the Vote seriatim. It had always been the practice to propose the Vote, and then any Member may raise a discussion and make a Motion upon any individual item in that Vote.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask whether it was the design of the Government in asking for this Vote on account to apply it exclusively to the payment of that which had fallen due this year to current expenditure as distinguished from extraordinary and incidental expenditure? With reference to the Science and Art Department, great doubts existed as to whether the sums applied by Government in that direction should he continued. He merely mentioned this as an illustration of the difference of opinion which existed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion before the Committee is, that the items for com mission and arbitration for the suppression of the slave trade be reduced by £2,000, and the hon. Member must confine his observations to that subject.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I object to the Vote being proceeded with. Because an hon. Member chooses to object to an item we are told that every other hon. Member is precluded from making any remarks with regard to previous items. I protest against that decision, as one limiting the just rights of the House of Commons.
  THE CHAIRMANbegged leave to read to the noble Lord the Resolution of the House of Commons upon which he had acted. That Resolution, agreed to on the 19th of February, 1858, stated that when a Motion was made in Committee of Supply to omit or reduce any item of a Vote, the question should be proposed from the Chair for omitting or reducing such item accordingly and the Member should speak to such question only until it had been decided.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that another Resolution had been passed by the House at the same time with the Resolution he had just read—
  "Resolved, that after a question has been proposed from the Chair for omitting or reducing any item, no Motion shall be made or debate allowed on any preceding item."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that according to the strict rule of the House, the Chairman was no doubt right in deciding that no question could be discussed excepting that which had been put from the Chair. But his hon. Friend (Mr. F. S. Powell) had merely alluded to the Vote for the Science and Art Department, not with a view of entering into the merits of that question, but as an illustration to show how inconvenient was this mode of taking Votes on account. If the mouths of Members were to be tied in this way, nothing in the shape of an illustration would be possible in such a case for the future. He thought the Chairman must have misunderstood the argument which his hon. Friend was using.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had hesitated for some time to stop the hon. Member, until it appeared to him that the hon. Member was discussing the item on its merits, and was not alluding to it as an illustration. Thereupon, in accordance with the rule of
  742
  the House, he thought it his duty to stop that discussion.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to ask, whether he was at liberty to withdraw the Motion, in order to give hon. Members an opportunity of objecting to other items?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it might be withdrawn with the permission of the House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask, whether it could be withdrawn until the Motion for reporting Progress had been put from the Chair?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought it would be irregular to withdraw the Motion until that for reporting Progress—which he bad made and would now repeat—had been disposed of. The Resolution which had been read by the Chairman had no reference to the case before the House. This was not a single Vote in the sense of that Resolution. It was an Estimate showing the several services for which Votes on account were required for the year 1865–6. The Resolution read by the Chairman referred to the ordinary Votes, each of which was made up of several items. The ruling of the Chairman might lead to embarrassing consequences, and the subject was not one to be disposed of hastily at one o'clock in the morning.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that he was distinctly alluding to the Science and Art Vote as an illustration only.
  THE CHAIRMAN,interposing, said, that the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Torrens) was withdrawn.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, that his Motion had been withdrawn, and he had been ready to withdraw it if the House consented, provided he had the opportunity of bringing it forward again.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had put the question for the withdrawal of the Motion, and there being no dissentient voice, he bad declared it withdrawn accordingly. The question now before the House was, that he report Progress.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed determined to have a grievance. The Motion having been withdrawn, there was no reason for continuing the discussion.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that a series of decisions had just been given, most irregular in character, and entirely preventing the Committee from proceeding with any satisfactory discussion. It was, therefore, his intention, and that of his

  743
  hon. Friends, to use the power possessed by a minority in such a case.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if there was one principle more than any other which it was necessary the House should respect in conducting its debates, it was acquiescence in the decision of the Speaker or of the hon. Member who sat as Chairman of Committees. If decisions made and founded on recorded Resolutions of the House were to be controverted and discussed by every hon. Member who thought he knew better than the Speaker and the Chairman, and who was wiser than the Committees by whom these Resolutions were framed, the proceedings of the House would fall into perfect confusion, and they would present a spectacle not at all creditable to this Assembly. As to the objection taken by the hon. Member, the decision of the Chairman appeared to him perfectly consistent with the invariable practice and with the Resolution which had been read. The Vote proposed was a single Vote. Every single Vote referred to a great number of details which were stated in the Estimates, and therefore this Vote was exactly in the category to which the Resolution pointed. However, he really thought that the House was not in a temper to make it desirable to continue the discussion. It was quite evident that they were not disposed to come to a final decision that evening, and therefore instead of wasting their time in constant wrangling, he would suggest that the Motion for reporting Progress be agreed to, and he hoped they would meet in a calmer temper another evening.
  To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again on Wednesday.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Lord ELCHO, Bill to provide for the management and maintenance of Turnpike and Statute Labour Roads and Bridges in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Lord ELCHO, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, and Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 101.]

  COMMISSIONERS OF SUPPLY MEETINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. FINLAT, Bill to anthorise the alteration of the time for holding Statutory Meetings of Commissioners of Supply in Scotland,
  744
  ordered to be brought in by Mr. FINLAY, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, and Sir WILLIAM SCOTT.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 102.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.