Sitting of 26 July 1866

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Dockyard Extensions.*
*First Reading—Dockyard Extensions * [246]; Extradition Treaties Act Amendment* [247] [Lords]; Law of Capital Punishment Amendment * [248] [Lords].
Second Reading — New Zealand Guarantee * [225]; Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment * [235]; Oysters Cultivation (Ireland) * [243]; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) * [244]; New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land Government * [242] [Lords].
Committee—Poor Law Amendment [221]; Naval Discipline * [231]; Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation * [237]; Inclosure (No. 2.)* [238]; Railway Companies' Securities (re-comm.) * [151]; Parishes (Scotland) Act (1844) Amendment* [232].
Report—Poor Law Amendment [221]; Naval Discipline* [245]; Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation* [237]; Inclosure (No. 2.)* [238]; Railway Companies' Securities (re-comm.) * [151]; Parishes (Scotland) Act (1844) Amendment * [232].
Considered as amended—Public Libraries Act Amendment * [104].
Third Reading— Fees (Public Departments) * [223], and passed.
Withdrawn—Poor Law Officers Superannuation (Scotland)* [66]; Elections (Returning Officers) * [161]; Sale and Purchase of Shares * [189].

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

NAVY—THE ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  MR. SEELYrose, pursuant to Notice, to call attention to the general administration and to the accounts of Her Majesty's dockyards, and to move certain Resolutions thereupon. He said, that when on the 16th of June, in the last Session, he brought forward a Motion on this subject the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget), the then Secretary to the Admiralty, said it would be impossible to follow him through an array of figures on matters of detail. The Admiralty had since published their reply in two Returns, Nos. 465 and 465-I. He (Mr. Seely) had disputed the reasons, excuses, &c., given in 465 and 465-I for the discrepancies, and it was arranged in the House early this Session, after a discussion on the subject, that his Secretary, in conjunction with the Accountant General of the Navy, should investigate the matters opened up by his speeches, and the Admiralty published replies, 465 and 465-I, thereto, and that disputes should be settled by some independent accountant named by any Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. This agreement had been summarily violated by the Admiralty removing the books under investigation, and he had, therefore, determined to bring the details and particulars before the House. He had stated last Session from the Returns laid before Parliament that at Chatham boats were fitted out at half the rate book price, while at Portsmouth they cost double the rate book price, or four times as much in one dockyard as at another. In No. 465-I the Admiralty explained that there was an error in the accounts at Chatham, the cost of fitting given in printed accounts being the cost incurred in fitting during the year only, the rate book price being for completely fitting the same boats. And with regard to Portsmouth, as a kind of excuse for its excess cost, there was a
  1502
  vague allusion to a variance of local practice in treating as part of the cost of building at one yard what was entered as expense of fitting at another, though it was not stated that this was applicable to Portsmouth. He wanted to get the cost of completely fitting twenty-five boats at Chatham so as to compare with the rate book price of completely fitting the same twenty-five boats, so as to compare cost at Chatham with cost at Portsmouth. The Admiralty would not give this Return, but he obtained the account of the boats fitting at Devonport. He wanted the cost of fitting each of the eighty-five boats fitted at Portsmouth, with the rate book price of the same. The Admiralty said, "it was not possible to ascertain from the manufacturing accounts as prepared the cost of fitting each of the eighty-five boats fitted at Portsmouth, &c." The books were then asked for by his Secretary, and he found it was quite possible to obtain the cost of each, and the following startling results appeared: —At Devonport, fitting eight twenty-eight feet cutters cost £6 8s. 1d. each, the rate book price being £9 16 s. 0d. each; and six twenty-five feet cutters cost £6 5s. 0d. each, rate-book price for fitting being £7 10 s. 0d. each; and the balance sheet from Devonport has against these cutters the remark that "the rate book prices for fitting appears to be too high." Notwithstanding this, at Portsmouth fitting a thirty-two feet galley cost £100 13 s. 4d., the rate book price (that is, the price it ought only to have cost in fitting) being only £7 17 s. 4d., whilst a new thirty-two feet galley, completely built and fitted, should have only cost £31 9s. 4d. Fitting a thirty-four feetcutter cost £93 8s. 7d., the rate book price being only £11 18 s. 0d., whilst a new boat completely built and fitted should have only cost £47 12 s. 0d. Against these two boats the Portsmouth balance sheet remarks that "they were fitted for an Admiral, and defects made good." Notwithstanding that the cost of fitting was in each case £100 13 s. 4d. and £93 8s. 7d., the charge made for fitting these boats to the ship was only £7 17 s. 4d. and £11 18 s. 0d. (the rate book price). At Devonport, a twenty feet gig cost in fitting £3 4s. 8d., rate book price £4 17 s. 6d.; at Portsmouth fitting a twenty feet gig cost £17, rate book price £4 18 s. 4d.; and a thirty feet gig cost £47, rate book price being £7 7s. 6d. At Devonport in the same year twenty-two fourteen feet

  1503
  dingies in all had been fitted at an average cost of £2 10 s. 7d. each, rate book price being £3 3s. 0d. each, whilst a fourteen feet dingy at Portsmouth cost in fitting £14, rate book price being likewise £3 3s. 0d. In the return of the Portsmouth boat-houses for 1862–3 it appeared that the excess of cost above the rate book price for building boats was as £765 to £490, being an excess above the rate book price of 50 per cent, or £275; and for fitting boats £1,593 as against £799, or an excess above rate book price of 100 per cent, or £794. The Admiralty stated that the accounts for 1863–4 showed a better result, and that the difference of fitting boats at Chatham and Portsmouth was in that year inconsiderable. The instances adduced for 1863–4 showed that at Chatham the cost of fitting twenty-five boats was 10 per cent below the rate book price, while at Portsmouth the cost of fitting forty-four boats was 17½ per cent above the rate book price, and 27½ per cent above the Chatham rate. However, in 1863–4 there were some striking examples of excessive cost, as, for instance, a twenty-six feet barge costing in fitting £73 16 s. 9d., when it should only have cost £23 8s. 0d. &c.; but if the cost of fitting appeared to have lessened in that year the cost of the repairs of boats appeared frightful; for instance, he found that a thirty feet cutter had been repaired at a cost of £110, but which if new built and fitted would cost only £42. A twenty-two feet gig had cost in repairs £58, which new built and fitted would cost £21; and three twenty feet gigs had cost £90, which if new would cost £58. The returns of the Portsmouth boat-houses for 1864–5 were next examined. It appeared that the eighty-three boats repaired at a cost of £5,685 had better have been burnt, for the dockyard people might have bought newly built eighty-three boats of the same size for about the cost incurred in repairing them. One cutter had been repaired at a cost of £66, which if new built and fitted would have cost £30. There were several similar instances. The small amount of new work as compared with the increasing cost of repairs was worthy of attention. In 1862–3 the charge for new work for Portsmouth boats was about the same as repairs. In 1863–4 the new work cost £1,346, and the repairs £4,375. The hon. Member cited other figures to show the enormous cost of repairs at all the yards compared with the new work
  1504
  done, the amount in 1864–5 and 1863–4, being very much more than that of 1862–3. When the examination had proceeded thus far the books were removed, and the Admiralty refused to allow any further investigation of the manufacturing accounts, although an arrangement was made publicly in the House of Commons between the then Secretary for the Admiralty and himself that the necessary facilities for continuing the investigation should be afforded. Touching upon the question of the cost of forging, the hon. Member then went into a series of elaborate details, proving that the Admiralty accounts were wrong upon the showing of the Admiralty themselves, and that the system of forging in the Royal dockyards was most wasteful and extravagant; and yet the Admiralty Committee actually recommended that the Admiralty should begin the manufacture of shoes for the navy and half-boots for the Royal Marines! The hon. Member proceeded to justify his computations as to the excess of offal timber. The Admiralty admitted an excess of offal, more than should have been made according to Admiralty data, of 146,724 cubic feet, the difference between the value of this offal as offal or timber, or timber converted, being a loss reckoned as timber of £28,803, and a loss reckoned as conversion of £37,290; but the Admiralty even in this admitted they had compared amount of offal that should be made from "contract timber (that is, rough and sided) only"—with the offal that was made by them from "contract and reserved timber, thick stuff and plant"—so that if offal for like timber were compared it would be found, as he had stated last Session, that the excess quantity of offal made in 1862–3 was about 200,000 cubic feet, and that the difference in value between this as offal and timber was £37,000, and as conversions £50,000. On the subject of English elm conversions he had adduced figures to show that while at Devonport the cost was 186 per cent above, at Sheerness it was 26 per cent below rate book price, or a difference of 212 per cent according to Admiralty printed accounts. The Admiralty in 465-I gave long explanations, their defence being that their own accounts of cost were erroneous, and that the real difference was not so great as their published accounts gave, and that this erroneous method would be discontinued in future. During the investigation, on being asked for correct accounts they wrote—

  1505
  "The real cost of English elm conversions at Sheerness and Devonport according to the present (that is corrected) method, &c., would be at Sheerness about 30 per cent less than rate book, and at Devonport about 12 per cent more than rate book, or a difference between the two of about 42 per cent."
  Thus the difference on Return 454 is 212 per cent, and the real difference with corrected accounts only 42 per cent. Fancy accounts of conversions of timber of which ships are built wrong by 170 per cent, and then ask how the accounts of cost of ships, &c. can be correctly given? Lord Clarence Paget on the 6th of March, 1865, told the House that he should not be satisfied until he was able to lay upon the table a regular capital and current account with reference to the navy, and the Accountant General stated that in future there would be shown the extent and value of the works executed and the amount of the expenses with which they should be charged, in accordance with the principles of account observed in the commercial world. In order to ascertain what the ships of the Royal Navy cost, as compared with what the country could buy them for, there ought to be an account from each dockyard, showing the money they received and the work they produced for it. This was not impossible; for in the army manufacturing establishments for 1864–5 it was really done. Three and a half per cent was charged for capital and plant; 5 per cent for depreciation of buildings, and 10 per cent for machinery. He prayed the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to this subject of the accounts of the navy. He would have an opportunity during the recess of weighing his (Mr. Seely's) suggestions and of satisfying himself whether the Admiralty could not produce a balance sheet such as the War Office produced for the army manufacturing establishments. The navy accounts might be classed under five or six heads. The Navy Estimates gave the money voted for the past and coming year. The second account under the head "Navy statement of savings and deficiencies upon the grants for the navy," gave the money voted and the money expended. The third, under the heads of "Dockyards and Factories," gave the cost of the manufacturing operations, the articles made for ships, and the timber converted for ships for each yard. The fourth called "Labour Charts" for the navy, gave the materials —namely, the timber and articles, at the rate book price, and the labour cost for
  1506
  each ship and each yard, and the totals. The fifth called "Navy Dockyard and Stock Valuation and Expenditure on Ships, &c.," gave the supposed total cost of building and repairing ships. In this, however, at present the salaries, rents, repairs, incidentals, and interest were all lumped and divided pro rata among all ships. None of the accounts gave all the money had by each yard for ships, nor all the money spent in each yard on ships, and the result was that the economical dockyard had to bear part of the cost of the extravagant yard, while the latter was relieved from a portion of its acts of extravagance. Such a system went far to diminish the desire of the authorities in any yard in favour of economy and the avoidance of waste. The hon. Member next called attention to the manner in which the Admiralty had applied the principle, that their accounts ought to be made out in accordance with the system of account adopted in the commercial world. He had on a former occasion stated that items were omitted to the extent of about 40 per cent which ought to be added to the cost of our ships. Practically the Admiralty had admitted that he was correct, for about 35 per cent had since been added in the latest published account—namely, those for 1864–5. The Admiralty, however, in this account said that 3 per cent interest on the cost of production in labour, material, &c., should be charged "in the nature of a rent to cover interest on capital and depreciation of plant in the establishments where the works are carried on." This Admiralty interest of 3 per cent in 1864–5 on "final productions" was £46,398. Now, he should show that this was nothing like the amount the real interest would come to. Let the House compare this with the principles observed in the commercial world. The private trader charged 5 per cent on capital, 10 per cent depreciation on machinery, and 5 per cent on building. The army did the same. The Admiralty accounts gave the value of the stores, April 1864, at £5,029,126, and the plant at (say) £2,000,000, being a total of £7,029,126. Interest upon this sum at 3 per cent would amount to £210,873, but the Admiralty only put down for interest and depreciation the sum of £46,398, leaving a sum of £164,475 not charged. Now if the House thought fit to pay 40 per cent or any other sum more for the ships of the Royal Navy than they could be bought at private yards, let them at all events do it with their eyes

  1507
  open. Then, nothing was charged in this estimate for pensions to artificers, but that really formed a part of wages, because the Admiralty expected to get the work done at less wages in consequence of the pensions. This item of pensions amounted to £74,607, so that these two items of interest and pensions gave to be added to the cost of ships for 1864–5 the further sum of £239,000. The 35 per cent already added by the Admiralty to their accounts of cost should, in fact, be 50 per cent. To show that this estimate was not overstated, the hon. Member went over the accounts of the navy, and made them out in the same form and manner as the army manufacturing establishments of 1864–5, contending that the total charge for interest and depreciation of plant made out on this method instead of £46,398 should be £605,115. For instance, the accounts made out as the army manufacturing accounts for interest would be as follows:—

  Navy Stores, 1st April, 1804

  £5,029,126

  "Semi-manufactured Stores" as Army, Ships, building spent on to 1st April, 1864, say

  2,000,000

  Returns to Store and Work in hand, £290,087, say

  200,000

  Working Capital — namely, one-fifth of Annual Expenditure— that is, £2,500,000 for 1864–5 one-fifth

  500,000

  Land (?) say nil Plant, Buildings, and Machinery

  2,000,000

  Total

  £9,729,126

  3½ per cent on £9,729,126, is

  £340,518

  Depreciation as Army, 5 per cent on Buildings, say £1,200,000

  60,000

  10 per cent on Machinery £800,000 say

  80,000

  Total interest and depreciation if reckoned as Army

  £480,518

  Admiralty have reckoned only

  46,398

  That is 3 per cent on final productions, £1,546,600.

  To be added for interest and depreciation

  £434,120

  "Superannuations," Artificers

  74,607

  Do. Clerks and Foremen, £83,846, say

  50,000

  Or I add only £239,082, and should add

  £558,727

  The amount voted for new works, building, machinery, and repairs for the last eleven years reached the enormous sum of £6,242,029, being a yearly average of £567,457. The hon. Member then adduced examples of the excess of the cost of Admiralty ships. The Frederick William, of seventy-four guns, for instance, had
  1508
  cost £281,691, instead of £134,453, or more than double what she would have cost if built at a private yard. It might be said that the work of the Royal Dockyards was superior to that of the private yards, but the Controller of the Navy, Admiral Robinson, at the launch of the Northumberland, said—
  "I bear most willing testimony to the excellence of the workmanship. I am not going beyond my province when I say that the skill of trained artificers and the care and judgment of a first-rate manager have produced a work that may be equalled, but cannot be surpassed."
  The expenditure in repairs was equally excessive, for several ships had cost more for repairs than they would cost new in private yards. The Brisk had cost £43,498 in repairs, and could be built for £49,321. The Cadmus had cost in repairs £65,800, and would cost new £68,278. Instances were next adduced of the excess of the cost of produce in dockyards and steam factories over the rate book value, and these the hon. Member followed up by cases of omission of the rate book price. He protested against this mode of putting the Admiralty accounts before the country. These were calculations to delude, whereas the Government and a public department ought to put the truth before the country whatever might come out. He must now detain the Committee for a moment with regard to the price of cold blast pig iron, and the course pursued in paving the workshops, roadways, &c., at the dockyards with iron ballast. He had endeavoured to ascertain the value of the iron used, and if he had fallen into error the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) was partly to blame, because he had offered to go through all the points of his case before bringing them forward publicly, so that the facts might be ascertained and placed beyond dispute, and then the House would have nothing to do but to come to a judicial decision in the matter. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Platt), who employed about 5,000 hands, told him that £5 per ton might fairly be put down as the value of all the iron in the yards used thus as paving—and if so, the cost of such paving is £4 7s. 0d. per square yard. He feared he was open to the charge of having taken away a portion of the public stores, for he had brought away a sample of it and sent it into Staffordshire. The ironmasters said universally it was a metal of the highest quality, and when they knew it was at least fifty years old they

  1509
  said "at that time they did not know how to make bad iron." They said it was cold-blast iron, and easy of conversion in the puddling furnace. He could have disposed of any quantity at fully £4 per ton, and the opinion of the best judges was that it would turn out to be worth from £6 to £7 per ton. The account stood thus:—The Admiralty paid in 1815 109 s. per ton at the east yards, and at the west yards 108 s. per ton for this cold blast pig iron used then for ballast for ships, and it was now worth at the yards 105 s. per ton. About 31,000 tons had been employed in paving the yards and building walls, and the value of the iron and the cost of laying he estimated at £172,273. The best paving and brick walls would have cost £19,577, being a loss by the employment of this iron of £151,696. The 4,214 tons in stock now being laid down at 105 s. per ton would amount to £22,120, and the proper materials to only £2,500, being a loss of £19,620, and making a total loss of £171,316. While the Admiralty had been wasting this valuable iron they had been purchasing from year to year cold blast pig iron. As well as he could make out there had been bought from 1860 to 1866 1,768 tons of Blaenavon pig iron at £6 10 s., making £11,498 for melting in the foundries of the yards, while during that time more than 1,768 tons of this cold blast pig ballast bought before 1815 had been sold by the authorities at £2 7s., being a loss of £7,339. Adverting to the price of anchors, the hon. Member remarked that the Admiralty appeared to have been very liberally inclined to their contractors. From the year 1859 to 1864 they had bought 25,400 cwt., at a cost of £60,330. According to the calculation he bad made last year the market price for these anchors would have been £36,458, so that the country had lost no less than £23,872 during these few years by these Admiralty payments to Brown, Lennox, and Co., of 70 per cent above the market price. He wished now to call attention to a graver matter. On the face of the Return from which he took the above facts there was, to say the least of it, something very suspicious. From the year 1842 to 1849 the price paid by the Admiralty for Brown, Lennox, and Co.'s anchors of 20 cwt. and less was 26 s. per cwt. From 1849 to 1853 the price of these anchors was rather less, being 25 s. 11 d. During these years there was no great quantity of
  1510
  small anchors used. He was now speaking of anchors of 20 cwt and less. In the years, however, from 1854 to 1858 a large number of small anchors were required. Not less than 2,071 anchors of all sizes were bought during that time. Of these, 1,574 anchors were 20 cwt. and less, which were wanted for the gunboats, &c. In 1854, the price of these 20 cwt. and less rose from 25 s. 5d. to 33 s. per cwt. In 1855 the price rose to 36 s.; in 1856, to 40 s.; in 1857, it was 40 s.; in 1858, 40 s. In the year 1854 there were 37 anchors bought; in 1855 the number rose to 524; in 1856 no less than 788 were bought; in 1857 the number fell to 211; and in 1858 it further decreased to 14, after which the price for 20 cwt. and less was lowered again to 26 s. per cwt. This Return might admit of explanation, but he said that, on the face of it, there was something exceedingly suspicious in the fact that these small anchors were advanced in prices just in those years when large quantities of them were required. The large anchors during this period were not increased in price even by Brown, Lennox, and Co., but remained as before; and, as there was no advance in the market price of the country, he asserted that this great increase of price for this largely increased quantity of small anchors supplied ought to be explained. It could not be contended that the price was advanced because a large demand suddenly arose, because the greatest quantity the Admiralty required in any one year was about 1,000 tons, and there were at least twenty makers in England who could each make 2,000 tons in any one year of these anchors. That could not, therefore, be the ground for raising the price. The calculations he had made showed that since the date of the contract for anchors enjoyed by Brown, Lennox, and Co., about £170,000 of the public money had been paid to these individuals over and above the market price of anchors. With regard to the pig iron ballast it was sheer waste. If the Admiralty paved their yards with iron, nobody gained by it, but no doubt what the country lost by the arrangement with Brown, Lennox, and Co., those individuals gained. When, last year, he brought this subject forward, Lord Clarence Paget said—
  "On the question of anchors and cables, I will say that there can be no doubt that we pay higher for our anchors than others do. But this is no

  1511
  new subject. I have said, and say again, that I look on anchors and cables as of the first importance to the existence of ships and the lives of their crews, and therefore that anything like mere buying in the cheapest market must be detrimental to the public service."—[3 Hansard, clxxx. 384.]
  Now, how stood the fact? The Queen's yacht was supplied with one of Trotman's anchors, not made by Brown, Lennox, and Co., but by Hawks, Crawshay, and Co.; so that the life best beloved and most dear to the realm was intrusted to an anchor not made by this favoured Admiralty firm. The fine vessels of the Peninsular and Oriental Company were all supplied with Trotman's anchors, made by Hawks, Crawshay, and Co. The Cunard steamers were also supplied with Trotman's anchors, made by various firms. So was the Great Eastern. When these great public companies and the Queen's yacht were supplied with Mr. Trotman's anchors, made by different makers and not by this favoured firm, he maintained that to throw away £170,000 of the public money in comparatively a few years upon such a pretext as that put forward by Lord Clarence Paget was trifling with that House and with the country. In the Report of the Anchor Committee appointed by the Admiralty themselves, and including the greatest and most competent authorities who could be found, it was set forth that of 1,567 anchors made by Brown, Lennox, and Co., 196 failed under proof, or 13½ per cent, while of 87 anchors made by Hawks, Crawshay, & Co. (all that were proved of these makers) only seven failed under proof, or only 8 per cent. The anchors made by Hawks and Crawshay for the East India Company were of the Admiralty pattern, and were tested by the Admiralty officers in just the same manner as the Admiralty anchor, with the result above given. If he were not afraid of wearying the House he would read the Report of the Anchor Committee. This Report, dated February 1, 1853, was unanimously signed by the following distinguished naval officers:— Admiral Sir W. Stopford, Admiral Charles Hope, Admiral Sir G. R. Mundy; by the two master attendants of Portsmouth and Sheerness dockyards; also by the Chairman of the General Shipowners' Society, and five other experienced members of Lloyd's, acting on behalf of the mercantile marine. They unequivocally declared the Admiralty or navy anchor to be the worst save one of eight competing anchors,
  1512
  and wanting in every essential quality looked for in a good and safe anchor. Putting the Admiralty anchor at 1·0 as the standard, the Anchor Committee placed the other anchors as follows:— Aylen, 1·09; Porter's, 1·09; Lennox, 1·13; Mitcheson, 1·20; Rogers, 1·26; Trotman's, 1·28, or 28 per cent superior to the Admiralty anchor. Thus it appeared that the Admiralty anchor was the worst, and Trotman's the best of the lot. He should like to refer on this subject to the evidence given by Captain, now Admiral, Sulivan, before the Select Committee of 1861. He said—
  "There has been no objection more strongly felt in the service with respect to the material of the navy than the inferiority of the anchors supplied to our fleet by the Admiralty."
  Again, in a letter which appeared in The Times, May, 1862, Captain Sulivan said—
  "In one surveying vessel in South America we broke one set of anchors in six months. In the Baltic in 1854 most of the vessels of the inshore squadron broke their Admiralty anchors—some as many as two or three out of four."
  Captain Sulivan was captain of the fleet under Sir Charles Napier in the late Baltic campaign. He was happy to say he had now got to the end of his figures. The first part of the Resolutions he intended to move—namely, that it was inexpedient to pave the roadways, workshops, and other places in the dockyards with iron ballast—was not unconnected with the third Resolution, for if the Superintendents of Her Majesty's Dockyards possessed a practical knowledge of their business they would not have paved the workshops with cold blast pig iron. The House ought to have in the first place reliable accounts that would really give the exact cost as nearly as it could be ascertained of building ships, but the best accounts would be useless unless the parties who superintended these establishments were active, intelligent, practical men. He had attempted to show that the cost of building and repairing Her Majesty's ships was excessive, and that, notwithstanding, the country had not got the article it wanted or the kind of ship it required. In corroboration of this view he should like to read an extract from a letter written by the late Mr. Cobden and addressed to Captain Coles. It was dated October 30, 1864. Mr. Cobden said—
  "I have read Captain Sherard Osborn's report on your turret vessel with the greatest interest. If we were governed in the interests of the great

  1513
  public instead of the great families, this would involve an instant revolution in our defensive naval force. The old block ships would be superseded with a dozen turret coast-guard ships, and every inland and fixed fortification, except those actually commanding entrances to harbours or great waterways, would be abandoned and destroyed. Instead of which, when I was lately on a visit to Seely, in the Isle of Wight, I found the first sod had been turned for a system of ten miles of military strategic roads to connect vast earthworks and fortifications—all constructed on the assumption that an enemy had landed in force and taken possession of the island. 'What for?' is a question nobody answers. There is Osborne in the meantime quite unprotected, with a neat jetty run out into the sea, quite convenient for an enemy to land its boats' crews to carry off the Queen and Royal family. If you and I and Captain Osborn had the power we could, by a competent outlay of national capital which the nation can well afford, contrive such a coast defence as would make us absolutely unassailable by sea, and the cost of which, after the first outlay, need not be one-third of what we are now spending. My own conviction is, that if our whole fleet was what it ought to be, 30,000 men are as many as you could possibly employ in a time of peace."
  He should like, also, to read the substance of a letter written by Captain Campbell, of Her Majesty's ship Narcissus, dated Montevideo, the 5th of February, 1866. It was addressed to Captain Coles, and described one of the best specimens of the American Monitors, the Monadnock, which was then at Montevideo. The writer said that at half a mile distance from her there was no ship's side to be seen, and as to going into action against a thing like that, the only thing that could be aimed at were a couple of turrets, and if they were stout enough to resist your shot, it was only a waste of time to fire at her. She had two guns in each turret, each gun weighing nineteen tons, and throwing a spherical shot of from 480 lb. to 500 lb. Each turret had its separate little engine to work it. The upper deck was very little above the level of the water—say fifteen or eighteen inches, and there was no gunwale or bulwark of any sort. The difficulty about ventilation was triumphantly overcome. She had six steam-engines solely for the purpose of ventilating the ship below, and the officers declared there was plenty of fresh air. Her officers expressed themselves with the most perfect confidence in regard to her sea-going qualities. She easily kept ahead of the Admiral's ship, the Susquehanna—a paddle steamer bigger than the Terrible —and the first lieutenant stated that the Monadnock, in very bad weather, had
  1514
  never rolled more than sixteen degrees, and that this was very rare. Captain Campbell added that the French officers there were much struck by the appearance and evident business capabilities of the Monadnock, and took a desponding view of the chances of any other vessel against her. In conclusion, the hon. Member said that it was sheer nonsense to send a man to superintend a dockyard who did not understand his business. It was said that a naval officer was required to maintain the discipline of the yard. He would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuda), or any other large employer of labour, and ask whether he ever found any difficulty in keeping his hands in order? He doubted, indeed, whether the discipline of the quarter-deck was that which enabled the country to get the best men for the dockyards. He attached no weight whatever to the argument that naval men knew best what was required in a ship. He did not wish to deprive naval officers of their posts if they were fit for them. He would go further, and say that if two men of equal ability and fitness offered themselves—one a naval man and the other a civilian, he would give the preference to the naval man. He did not deny that naval officers, as well as officers of the army, were underpaid; but he would not pay them in the way which took the greatest amount of money out of the pocket of the nation with the least pleasure and profit to the officer. The leaders on both sides of the House had vied with each other in professions of economy, but such professions were of no value unless they bore some practical fruits. Year by year the House of Commons had been squandering money, instead of saving it. Hoping that the facts and figures be had brought forward would do something to bring about a more economical system, he would beg to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the course pursued in paving the roadways, workshops, and other places in the Dockyards with Iron Ballast was inexpedient,"—(Mr. Seely,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that so far from having anything to complain

  1515
  of in the long and very clear statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely), he thought the House and the country were greatly indebted to him for the pains he had taken in investigating this subject. As, however, he (Sir John Pakington) had only held his present office for a short period, it would be impossible for him to follow the hon. Gentleman into all the details which he had brought forward, and to give so satisfactory a reply as he might have otherwise done, It was obvious that in order to make the statement which had just been laid before the House the hon. Member must have gone through a great amount of labour in gathering information; and, instead of being disposed to complain of the course which the hon. Gentleman had taken, he was of opinion that the House and the country were extremely indebted to him. There were, however, several parts of the hon. Member's speech on which he desired to make some remarks. He believed that the present statement originated in statements of a similar kind made by the hon. Gentleman during the time when Lord Clarence Paget represented the Department of the Admiralty in that House. The result of those statements was the production of the two papers numbered 465 and 465-I, to which the hon. Member had referred; and, if he rightly understood the hon. Member, his reason for again bringing this subject before the House was that he was not contented with the explanations given in those two papers. He was very glad to see opposite to him three hon. Gentlemen who had, under the late Government, held the position of lay Lords of the Admiralty and been members of the Department to which was intrusted particularly the superintendence of the accounts, and who, consequently, were better qualified than he was to enter into the questions of detail. With respect to the two papers, he could not see that there had been any disposition on the part of the gentlemen who drew them up to conceal the truth, or to meet the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite in any way that was not perfectly frank and fair. In the earlier part of his speech the hon. Gentleman had referred to the different prices which prevailed in the different dockyards; but as he (Sir John Pakington) was not previously aware that there was any ground for complaint on this head, he would leave to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Childers) to give
  1516
  some explanation on the subject. Then the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) had referred to the cost of fitting boats. In some cases he said it was in excess of the prescribed rate, and in others below it. One statement, indeed, was so extraordinary that he (Sir John Pakington) could not help adverting to it, for he thought it must have originated in a mistake. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to state that a twenty-six feet cutter which would cost £30 to build had cost upwards of £60 to repair.
  MR. SEELYsaid, he believed that statement was correct.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, if it were possible for such a thing to occur there must be something which was very seriously wrong, which ought to be explained, and which it was absolutely impossible to defend. There was another question connected with the statement—namely, why a twenty-six feet cutter should cost £30 to build. He was speaking from recollections of another kind, but he had always understood that the cost of a new boat was about a guinea per foot of its length. The hon. Gentleman had next proceeded to advert to the general cost of repairs in the dockyards; but on this point he (Sir John Pakington) must speak with some reserve, on account of the short time he had held his present office, though he might confess that there was no question which more required attention and called for inquiry than that of the cost of the repairs of our navy. During the few days that he had been at the Admiralty the Board had received estimates for repairs so startling in amount that he had reserved them for special inquiry and investigation. In this direction it was not improbable that some considerable saving might be effected. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the professions made on both sides of the House with regard to economy; but there was a very wide difference between economy and judicious outlay, and he did not believe it was desired on either side of the House that under the name of economy there should be any diminution of efficiency. If by economy were meant the prevention of injudicious expenditure, then he might say that no man could go further than he was disposed to go in that direction, for he considered the carrying out of such economy to be one of the first duties of a Minister of the Crown. He could assure the hon. Gentleman most sincerely that he

  1517
  should feel grateful to him or any other competent authority who gave him such information as would enable him to practise the judicious economy which he admitted to be desirable. Without making a charge of intentional extravagance against the existing authorities of the dockyards, he admitted that in public establishments of that kind there naturally was a tendency towards a greater laxity in regard to expenditure than was to be found in private establishments, where the interests of individuals were concerned. This rendered it the more desirable that whoever was intrusted with the administration of public affairs of this character should watch with great jealousy any tendency to undue extravagance. With an air of ridicule the hon. Member had referred to a proposal for making shoes for the navy and half-boots for the marines. The motive for making such a proposal was that shoes and boots when supplied by contract were too frequently made of bad leather and with bad workmanship; so that, at all events, the object of the proposal was a very laudable one. Then, the hon. Gentleman had complained that the annual Navy Estimates did not enter into details sufficiently to enable the House to judge of the expenditure which was incurred. That was quite true; but he did not think it possible so to frame them as to go minutely into all the items of expenditure. Lord Clarence Paget, however, had done a great deal to improve the Estimates. Indeed, he did not believe that any man who ever held the office of Secretary of the Admiralty had shown more anxiety than Lord Clarence Paget to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, by bringing all the elaborate items honestly before the House. Then, with regard to what had been said about the expenditure on new works, he presumed the hon. Member was referring principally to the expenditure which was being incurred in extending the dockyards at Chatham and Portsmouth. If so, the only question that could be raised was, whether that expenditure was fair, and whether any money was being wasted. As to the building of our ships of war in private yards, he (Sir John Pakington) might remark that that bad been done much more extensively of late years than was formerly the case. As long as our ships were constructed of wood, it did not answer to build them in private yards, because it was impossible to have sufficient security that good sound timber would be used. That difficulty was to a great extent
  1518
  obviated when iron came into use, and since that time our vessels had been built in private yards to a greater extent than formerly. As to the iron-clad ships built in private yards for Government, so far as his experience went, they did the greatest honour to the constructors who built and finished them. He would now leave this part of the subject, repeating that he desired to see the utmost economy practised in the dockyards. Everybody in early life had heard about cities paved with gold, but this was scarcely more wonderful than the state of things which had been brought under his notice a few days ago, when the hon. Member for Lincoln waited upon him, accompanied by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin) and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Platt). The hon. Member for Stockport stated that some parts of our dockyards were paved with cast-iron—and said, "If you will allow me to take up the existing pavement, and re-pave the dockyards in whatever mode you may prefer, I shall be happy to give you £100,000 for permission to do so." Well, all he (Sir John Pakington) could say was that if the offer were formally made in writing, and sent in to the Admiralty, it should be seriously entertained, and gravely dealt with. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Seely), said this pavement was worth £5 a ton, but the hon. Member for Oldham estimated its value at upwards of £6 a ton. After this conversation had taken place, he made inquiries on the subject, and he was informed that this paving had been laid down since the year 1815.
  MR. SEELYsaid, it was bought in 1815, and had been laid down since 1860.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he understood that this iron was formerly used for the ballast of our men-of-war, and was laid down as pavement under the idea that it would be available at any time for the purpose to which it had been originally applied. In consequence of the great changes in modern shipbuilding, such ballast had become no longer necessary, and the iron in question was disregarded. The matter, however, should be fully inquired into. He might mention that Dr. Percy had declared the iron to be of considerable value; though the dockyard authorities stated that when attempts had been made to sell portions of it on previous occasions it had not fetched anything like the sums alluded to by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would, however, promise that the subject should be considered, and

  1519
  hoped that the iron would be found suited for the sides of our iron-clads. He had listened with surprise to some of the statements which had been made respecting our anchors and cables. No one was more opposed than he was to monopoly, in regard to any of our Public Establishments. Inquiries should be instituted on the subject; but he might remark that it was a primary necessity to have the navy supplied with the best anchors and cables possible. He believed no one denied that Messrs. Brown and Lennox had supplied anchors of the very best quality, and therefore the only question was whether equally good anchors could be obtained elsewhere at a lower price. As inquiries would be instituted, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion on this subject. The remaining Resolution referred to the practice of appointing officers of the Royal Navy to the offices of Chief Superintendants of the Dockyards. He (Sir John Pakington) thought the practice was a judicious one, and tended much to the public service; but it was a question fairly open to discussion, but he thought the hon. Gentleman relied too much on the assumption that because a man was an officer in the navy he could not be conversant with the duties to be performed in the dockyards. He (Sir John Pakington) believed that many naval officers were most competent for this responsible post, and great shipbuilding firms in this country had sought the assistance of those officers to enable them to carry out works to their own profit and advantage. He was quite ready to fully consider the suggestions of the hon. Member, but at present he could give no engagement on the subject. The hon. Member seemed to have forgotten that in every dockyard there was a very competent chief of each particular department within it, and that every day these officers met in a sort of council, which was presided over by the Chief Superintendent, for the purpose of considering and controlling the affairs of the dockyard. It was a mistake to suppose that any injury had resulted to the public service from this system of superintendence; but he repeated that the point was well deserving consideration. The hon. Member had complained of the disadvantage to which the naval force of England was exposed in the Pacific in consequence of the presence of the Monadnock, an ironclad belonging to the United States; and he might have added that the Powers of South America on the shore of the Pacific
  1520
  were also provided with iron-clad steamers. It was only just to state that the late Administration had taken steps with reference to this, and the Zealous, an ironclad vessel, was about to proceed to the Pacific station. He regretted to be obliged to add that until our navy was strengthened it would be impossible to supply our naval stations with iron-dads to the extent that was desirable. In conclusion, he remarked that he had endeavoured to meet the right hon. Gentleman in a spirit of fairness, and, after the statements he had made, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.
  MR. WATKINsaid, he would not depart from the valuation which had been put upon the cold-blast iron ballast by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Platt) and himself; but he thought the right hon. Baronet must have a design upon his (Mr. Watkin's) seat, for he must know that if he made a formal tender to the Admiralty, it would be necessary for him to vacate it. He was satisfied that the right hon. Baronet would not seek to evade the questions that might be asked in reference to his office. The past career of the right hon. Baronet showed that he was not opposed to improvement, and that he possessed moral courage enough to carry out beneficial changes even when they were met by official resistance. Certainly, there could be no reason, excuse, or justification for paving the docks with iron ballast. Everybody must admit that it was one of the most monstrous things to which public attention had ever been directed. The nation was losing in interest alone £7,000 or £8,000 a year in consequence of this property being misused. He trusted that the Government would not be disposed to pooh-pooh the questions raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln, who was anxious to co-operate with them in making the necessary reforms. Naval economy was the horse upon which nautical men usually rode into office at the Admiralty. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) should prove to be as ardent a naval reformer as he was before he accepted office, they had reason to hope that a wise economy and efficient management would be introduced in the dockyards. But however well the different departments might be divided, what they wanted in such places, where enormous expense was being incurred, was what the Americans called "a one man power" to exercise a vigilant and practical superintendence.
  MR. BARINGsaid, inquiry ought certainly to be made respecting the iron paving and the anchors. With regard to the former, it was simply a question of what the ballast was worth at the present time, and what it was worth when first put down. If it were worth £6, by all means let it be sold. With regard to anchors, he believed naval officers, as a body, thought the best anchors were those of the Admiralty, but if that was not the case, then some change ought to be effected. The safety of Her Majesty's ships, however, signified a great deal more than the saving of a few thousand pounds in the cost of anchors, and if our vessels were safe with the present anchors, they need not care much about the statement that a small saving could be made by employing some other manufacturer's. He might call to the remembrance of the House the disastrous storm at Sebastopol during the Crimean war, when not a single ship of the Royal Navy was lost, whereas many merchant ships and war vessels belonging to other nations perished. Some of the discrepancies as to the cost pointed out by the hon. Member for Lincoln were to be explained by the sudden and large increase in the price of anchors in consequence of the large demand caused by the late Russian war. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) seemed to suggest that there was some malpractice respecting the ordering of anchors at the time when he (Mr. Baring) was connected with the Board of Admiralty—namely, in 1854–6. He courted a full investigation, and if, therefore, the hon. Gentleman really had such a suggestion to make, the proper course to pursue would be to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. For his own part, he was of opinion that there ought to be naval officers placed at the head of the great naval establishments for the purpose of exercising a general control over them. As to the accounts, no doubt the hon. Member had taken great pains to procure information; but it was right that the House should receive some broad reply to the statements which he had made. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman had discussed the accounts of 1862–3; but since then the accounts had been much improved. No Administration, indeed, had paid greater attention to the accounts than that which had just gone out of office. The hon. Gentleman in his first criticisms upon the dockyard accounts compared the castings and forgings in the dockyards with the castings and forgings of his own
  1522
  establishment at Stamp End, and because the former were much the most costly, inferred that the dockyards were mismanaged. But the articles compared were quite different. The hon. Gentleman's castings were prepared for thousands of agricultural machines of the same kind, whereas the dockyard castings could often be used but a few times of the same description. It was therefore apparent that no proper comparison could be made. Now the hon. Gentleman abandoned this ground of attack, and had compared the casting and forgings in one dockyard with those of another, and showed discrepancies in the price; but these discrepancies simply arose from the way in which the castings and forgings had been classified. They were classified in three or four classes—plain, middling, and so forth; but in each class there were great varieties and differences in regard to expense, so that no proper comparison of cost could be made without going into minute detail. In future, however, the price would be put on each article. The hon. Member had gone on to say that 40 per cent was to be added to the cost of all articles produced in Her Majesty's dockyards in regard to certain incidental charges. Now, this involved the question whether or not we were to maintain great public establishments, capable in time of war of great expansion, for the purpose of supplying the requirements of the fleet. The charges added by the hon. Member were the interest of money on stores in the dockyard and the value of the capital expended on the yards. Now, in theory, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman was right that some such calculation should be made; but he maintained that the hon. Gentleman had no right in drawing a comparison between articles manufactured in Government dockyards and those manufactured in private establishments to add 40 per cent to the cost of the former, unless he were also prepared to say that the country would be satisfied if each of the dockyards were only just large enough for the works carried on there day by day. The House must always recollect that these great establishments were wanted not so much in time of peace as in time of war. The Northumberland had been referred to as an excellent specimen of a vessel which had been built in a private yard; but he might remark that in order to launch her it had been necessary to obtain assistance from the Government dockyards. He must be allowed to express his regret at the manner in which the great name of Mr.

  1523
  Cobden had been introduced in this discussion. He thought that the hon. Member would do well to withdraw his Motion, as the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated his willingness to inquire in the fullest manner into any suggestions he might receive in respect to the naval accounts.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, the persevering industry of the hon. Member for Lincoln in obtaining information with a view to diminishing the expenditure in the manufacturing departments of the dockyards placed him in the same category as the lamented Mr. Joseph Hume, and he heartily trusted success might attend his labours, and that, like Mr. Hume, he might win the gratitude of the taxpayers in the country. There could be no doubt that the cost of the navy was increasing annually without commensurate efficiency. In the French dockyards stock was taken every year, and we might advantageously adopt that practice. Our dockyards were doubtless more costly than those of France, because wages were higher in this country; but if a comparison were made of the number of persons employed in the French dockyards with the amount of work turned out, it would be found that a much greater proportionable quantity of work was done in the French dockyards than in ours. It was obvious, therefore, that the expenditure in our yards might be diminished. He had been informed that since the present Government came into office the hon. Member for Lincoln had been denied access to the dockyard accounts.
  MR. SEELYsaid, it was the late Government which refused to allow him to continue his investigations.
  COLONEL SYKESthought it was to be lamented that those investigations had been discontinued. The refusal implied that discoveries were being made which were not creditable to the Administration. He hoped that in this respect his right hon. Friend opposite would not tread in the footsteps of the late Board of Admiralty.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not wish to receive any credit that was not due to him. A few days ago he had been asked by the hon. Gentleman for permission to renew his investigations; but it was found that such investigations would lead to inconvenience, and therefore the application was refused.
  COLONEL SYKESwas sorry to hear that, because he thought the public accounts ought to be open to the inspection of any Member of the House of Commons. There
  1524
  was one point respecting the navy to which he wished to draw attention. The navy was supplied with cannon and ammunition from the army establishments, and yet these were charged in the Army and not in the Navy Estimates, concealing therefore the real cost of the navy and unfairly swelling the cost of the army. This plan should not continue. In the French Budget, all supplies made to Departments are charged in the Departmental Estimates.
  MR. SAMUDAbelieved that to carry out naval operations successfully there was nothing more important than to possess a clear and actual knowledge of the cost of those operations. He could trace the failure of a number of firms to their inability to ascertain the cost of the works which they were carrying out. When the question was brought forward whether the dockyards should be changed in their character and build iron ships, he suggested that the iron work required for ships should be supplied by private establishments, and the wood work added in the dockyards, and he still believed great advantages would result from adopting this course. The way to get a reformation in the dockyards, would be to appoint a Committee for the purpose of simplifying the accounts. That Committee should be composed of civilians and naval officers; and their labours ought not to terminate until the people engaged in the dockyards knew what each item cost. He differed with his hon. Friend in the statement he made as to anchors; for, in his opinion, it was impossible to arrive at an accurate result in these matters in the way he described. He had been offered finished anchors and cables before now for less money than the raw material alone cost the makers he employed—quality must be taken into the account most carefully, and could scarcely be estimated too highly in all matters connected with shipping, and the difference of 4s. a cwt. or 40 s. as referred to, he did not regard as at all important. Great difference was found among even the first-class makers. He believed great advantages would result from the appointment of the Committee he had suggested, and he trusted that no effort would be spared by the Admiralty in carrying out the Amendments which were necessary in the present system.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was sorry that he had not heard the early part of the address of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely). But even if he had, inasmuch as he was not connected with the Admiralty during the last year, it

  1525
  would be impossible for him to answer off hand all the questions it had been suggested he should reply to. With respect to the Admiralty accounts generally, he thought the House ought to know something of what had been done during the administration of the late Government—how they found the dockyard accounts, what reforms they had made in them, and the position in which they stood at the present time. When the late Government came into office scarcely any account was rendered of the Admiralty expenditure; in fact, in a commercial point of view, no account except a cash account was kept. Before Lord Clarence Paget became Secretary he had called the attention of the House to the deficiency in this respect, and the Board took the matter into hand. The first thing they did was the preparation of the "expense account" — executed on very imperfect principles, he was willing to admit, but still it was an enormous advance on what had previously prevailed. The result was, that from 1860 Parliament had been regularly suppplied with information of the amount of money spent on each ship. In 1862 a further step was taken. Previous to that date no accounts were published which could be called the manufacturing accounts of the dockyards; but the Admiralty now prepared and laid before Parliament a Report of the proceedings of each of those establishments. Up to 1863, there had been no annual stock taking, the importance of which commercial men would admit. It was true that there were stock accounts prepared at certain times, for instance, when a new storekeeper was appointed; but nothing in the nature of a proper annual account. In 1864 his predecessor, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), looked into the matter, and from that date there had been prepared a valuation of stock account, showing the stock of all kinds in each of the dockyards at the commencement and the end of each year, and the receipts, issues, and alterations of value. What was done last year the House would allow him to explain, as it concerned business for which he was personally responsible. He conceived, on accepting the office first, that the accounts, although much improved, were too voluminous, and that it was possible to simplify them. Secondly, the accounts of the dockyards were prepared by three separate departments; but he placed them in the hands of one person, and nothing was more
  1526
  simple than the way in which they were now prepared. Thirdly, he thought it desirable that a complete balance sheet and capital account should be rendered; and when that for the current year was produced he believed that the principles on which it was founded would be considered sound, and he hoped they would not be departed from either by the present or any future Admiralty. It had further been suggested that another thing might be done at a slight cost—namely, that a capital account of the whole of the naval affairs might be prepared, showing not only the capital invested in the dockyards, but the capital actually invested in ships. This was a matter which he would submit to the consideration of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty. With that exception, he did not think the present accounts could be placed on a more satisfactory footing. The accounts for 1866–7 would be completed on strictly commercial principles; and he hoped the House would pause till they saw the account for the current year before adjudging the late Admiralty to be guilty of shortcomings in reference to the dockyard accounts.
  MR. SCOURFIELDobserved, that what was wanted at the head of the dockyards was a person of courage, honesty, and impartiality, who would see that all parties discharged their respective duties. With regard to the latter part of the Resolution before the House, he remarked that it was quite the exception, instead of the rule, that Superintendents remained in their offices five years. If the Superintendent, in rank a Captain, became an Admiral, he immediately ceased to be Superintendent.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he did not agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Baring) in regard to the letter of Mr. Cobden which had been read that day, believing that that gentleman, had he been living, would have had no objection whatever to the publication of any letter he had written on this or any similar subject. He did not think that the speech of the hon. Member for Penryn was an answer to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion. With regard to Government contracts, he believed they were frequently supplied by jobbers, who purchased the goods where they could procure them for least money, caring little as to their quality. The best way would be to employ an agent conversant with the article required, and

  1527
  the Government would be served in the same way as a merchant in China or America would be supplied. The goods would then be selected from the best makers, and be properly examined; and as the character both of the manufacturer and the agent would be at stake, there would be no risk of obtaining an inferior article.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had listened with great interest to the account which the hon. Member for Pomfret (Mr. Childers) had given of the reforms which had taken place in the Admiralty accounts. Some few years ago great pressure was put upon the Admiralty for an improvement of the system of keeping accounts, and it seemed that four or five years had been necessary to bring them to the state of efficiency the hon. Member had stated. He must say, however, that he had some doubt as to the practicability of preparing the "capital account" of the whole of the navy which he had alluded to. The hon. Member had also adverted to the difficulties encountered in deciding upon the principles upon which the preparation of the accounts should be based; but if all the ships of the navy were to be valued still greater difficulties would beset those who undertook that task. The report of such a work would form a curious historical document, but he did not think it would possess much practical value. It appeared that one result of the careful preparation of the accounts had been increased economy. He hoped this was the fact; for, spending as we did £10,000,000 per annum, and when it was urged in that House that this country did not keep pace with our neighbours in naval armaments, this was an important consideration. He trusted his right hon. Friend would see that the vast manufacturing establishments connected with the dockyards were conducted, he would not say on the most economical, but in such an economical manner as would insure the required efficiency. This should be always borne in mind, that men-of-war should not be built like ships for other purposes—good enough —they should be built as good as could possibly be done. There was an observation of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (the Duke of Somerset) which deserved to be written in letters of gold, to this effect—that if any misfortune were to happen to this country in a naval engagement through any fault in the ships, a very heavy responsibility would be
  1528
  thrown upon those who had got them cheaply constructed. Our ships must be built as well as possible, and that could not be done by contract work, which was never executed in the best possible manner. He could not agree with what had fallen from the late Under Secretary to the Admiralty, that no account ought to be taken of the value of the plant. Whether the estimate of the hon. Member for Lincoln was too high was another matter.
  MR. BARINGexplained that what he said was that 40 per cent was too great a proportion.
  MR. SEELY: I did not say 40 per cent. ["Divide!] I will not trouble you, Sir, to put the first or second Resolutions. I shall divide upon the third.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that as it was then ten minutes to four, if the hon. Member pressed for a division the debate must be adjourned. ["Withdraw!"]
  MR. SEELYsaid, he would withdraw the Resolutions altogether.
  Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Six of the Clock.

  INDIA—FAMINE IN.—QUESTION.
  MR. G. R. BARRYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any and what steps have been taken with reference to the present distress occasioned by the famine now prevailing in India, more particularly in Orissa; and what measures the Government propose to adopt to prevent the recurrence of these visitations?
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: I am sorry, Sir, I cannot attempt to give anything like an exact account of the measures which the Government have taken to remedy the deplorable famine to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am informed that a precise official account is on its way home, which, if necessary, I shall be happy to lay upon the table. But this I can say, that the greatest efforts have been made by the Government to provide grain for those who are not able to provide it for themselves, and their activity is fully equal to the lamentable emergency which undoubtedly exists. With regard to the future, I fear it is impossible to assert that the Government can do very much to prevent a return of the calamity, which depends very much for its mitigation or

  1529
  prevention on the state of the seasons. I believe the prosecution of the works in which they are engaged is the only means at the disposal of the Government for that purpose.

METROPOLIS—THE NELSON COLUMN.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, as to the present progress towards completion of the four lions destined to perfect and ornament the base of the Nelson Column, and the probable time when this National testimony to the services of that late great and heroic Admiral may attain completion?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, he was happy to be able to state that two of the lions were already completed in bronze, another was on the eve of completion, and there was every reason to hope that by the end of the autumn the four lions would be established in their proper places.

  NAVY—COLLISION OF THE "AMAZON" AND "OSPREY."—QUESTION.
  MR. SAMUDAsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in reference to the collision of the Amazon and Osprey, How it is to be explained that the whole of the crew of the Osprey has been saved, while the passengers committed to their charge, principally women, have been lost; and if it should appear that this has resulted from an absence of all discipline on the part of the crew at the time of the accident, if he will consider the propriety of framing some legislative enactment with the view to avoid the scandal such occurrences justly caused?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he would endeavour to reply to the Question of the hon. Member. The unfortunate collision took place at midnight, and not more than from three to five minutes elapsed before the Osprey went down. When the master found the danger was so imminent, he rushed into the cabin and roused the passengers, brought them on deck, and placed them in the life boat, into which he went himself with his wife and children. Unhappily the gear of the davits was out of order, and before it could be cleared the Osprey went down, taking with her the life boat and
  1530
  all on board. The master and his wife rose to the surface, and were picked up by the boats of the Amazon; but the rest, including two of the master's own children and six women, were never seen again. At the moment the ship was sinking, the crew saved themselves by climbing up the bow of the Amazon, which was then over the quarter of the Osprey. By the 232nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, it was enacted that any master or seaman was guilty of a misdemeanor who, by wilful neglect of his duty, omitted to do any lawful act for the preservation of his ship and those on board. Beyond this it was impossible to go. For a person to neglect his own safety in order to provide for that of others, and he was happy to say that this was no uncommon thing either in the Royal Navy or the merchant service, was a matter which could not be enforced by legal penalties. It was what was technically called a duty of imperfect obligation. The Government, however, did all they could to encourage the performance of acts of this kind by granting rewards, the highest of which was the Albert medal, recently instituted by Her Majesty. It appeared to the Board of Trade that this was not a case for either reward or punishment.

IRELAND—CARLOW LUNATIC ASYLUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PACK - BERESFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Is he aware that the gentleman recently appointed Resident Medical Superintendent of the Carlow Lunatic Asylum has taken no Medical Degree, and is not entitled to be designated M.D., and is Mr. Michael Howlett, improperly described as such in the warrant of appointment signed by Lord Kimberley, bearing date 7th July, 1866; and, if so, does it not appear that some misapprehension as to his qualification must have existed; also, if the diploma of Licentiate, granted by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, constitutes Mr. Howlett a physician in the sense required by the Act, as one of the essential qualifications necessary to the holding of the important and responsible situation of Resident Medical Superintendent of a County Lunatic Asylum in Ireland?
  LORD NAASsaid, in reply, that he had made inquiries with regard to the qualifi-

  1531
  cations of Mr. Howlett, who had been appointed resident medical superintendent of the Carlow Lunatic Asylum, and the best answer to the Question would be to read a letter which he had received from Dr. Hatchell, one of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland. The noble Lord then read the letter, which stated that the diploma of Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, did constitute Dr. Howlett a physician in the sense required by the Act, and though no other medical officer of lunatic asylums held the same qualification, that circumstance did not invalidate the appointment, inasmuch as Dr. Howlett was duly qualified for the service, having both a medical and surgical degree.

  ARMY—ARTILLERY—WHITWORTH GUNS.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the attention of the War Department has been called to the incorrectness of the Return respecting Whitworth Guns (No. 291, War Office, 14th May, 1866); and, if so, if he will have a correct Return presented to the House?
  GENERAL PEELreplied that some inaccuracies had been discovered in the Return, and when they were corrected there would be no objection to have it presented to the House.

  DWELLINGS FOR THE LABOURING CLASSES.—QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When he will lay upon the table of the House the Rules and Regulations under which, by virtue of an Act passed this Session, loans are to be granted towards extending the provision with regard to improved Dwellings for the Labouring Classes?
  MR. HUNT,in reply, said, the rules and regulations were not yet framed, but were likely to be completed in a few days, and they would be laid upon the table as soon as possible.

  SUNDAY SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cheetham), he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, If he has any intention to bring in a Bill, at the commencement of the next Session, to relieve schools set apart for religious instruction upon the
  1532
  Sunday from liability to pay parochial and other rates?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, the subject of exemptions from rating was one which had lately attracted a great deal of attention, and it would receive the best consideration of the Government; but he could not undertake to bring in a measure upon it at the beginning of the next Session.

  HABEAS CORPUS ACT SUSPENSION (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If Her Majesty's Government intended to bring in a Bill for the further suspension of the Habeas Corpus in Ireland; and, if such be the case, whether they will take into consideration the convenience of Irish Members by naming an early day for its introduction?
  LORD NAASreplied, that he was sorry to have to state that it would be the duty of the Government to propose to Parliament a Bill for the further suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland for a limited period; and he begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that it was the wish of Her Majesty's Government to introduce that Bill on as early a day as possible, consistently with the requirements of the other business before the House, and that the convenience of the Irish Members would be consulted in the matter.

  ARMY—ASYLUM FOR INSANE SOLDIERS AT NETLEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the proposed arrangements at Netley for the care and treatment of insane Soldiers; whether, considering that there are at the present time in a private Asylum at Bow 195 male and six female patients belonging to the military service, he considers the proposed provision for sixty patients adequate to the wants of the Army; and whether, in the event of its being considered necessary to provide for a much larger number in buildings under the control of the Government, he thinks that it is wise to make that provision in the grounds of the Hospital at Netley?
  GENERAL PEEL,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the building now being erected at Netley, for the care of insane soldiers. It was placed there in

  1533
  consequence of the Report of the Committee that sat in 1863, on the removal of the establishment from Chatham. It could hardly be called an asylum, because the patients were only placed there for the purpose of observation, and would after a short period be removed to their friends, or to private asylums. Certainly accommodation for only sixty patients would not be sufficient for a lunatic asylum for the whole army, neither was it intended that it should be. The reason for providing accommodation for sixty was that the Committee reported that that was the greatest number placed at one time in the old lunatic asylum at Chatham. The great advantage of having at Netley a connection with the marine establishments, was that the lunatics who came home from abroad could be at once taken charge of there. Another advantage was that the medical students of the hospital at Netley had an opportunity of studying the cases of lunacy in the asylum.

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. M'CULLAGH TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is prepared to lay upon the table any Correspondence between the British Government and the Government of France, or between persons authorized by the two Governments respectively, relative to the continuance of the Extradition Treaty, or to a modification of our criminal procedure with regard to Foreigners residing here?
  LORD STANLEYreplied, that he saw no objection whatever to laying on the table the papers to which the hon. Gentleman's Question referred.

  ARMY — COMMISSIONS IN THE ROYAL ENGINEERS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN KEARSLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the late award of Commissions in the Royal Engineers to the Woolwich Cadets, If the six prizes (Commissions) referred to by him in his answer on the 16th instant were awarded according to merit (precedence in marks) or on what other principle; and if he will reconsider this subject with a view to a modification of the award, if all the six Commissions were not given according to the number of marks?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, in reply, that at the period of the last examination to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, there were five vacancies in the Engineers, and they were offered to, and accepted by, the five cadets who stood highest by having the greatest number of marks. The grant of the sixth commission was an exceptional case. The gentleman cadet who stood fifth in the class met with an accident a very short time previous to the examination, having fallen in the riding school and broken his thigh. There was no doubt, in the opinion of the Professors, that but for that circumstance he would have maintained at the examination as high a position as he had held in the class, and thus would have obtained a commission in the Engineers. There was also this in his favour—that an application was made on his behalf by the other cadets of the class themselves, and consequently he was appointed on a sixth vacancy occurring.

METROPOLIS—THE HYDE PARK RIOTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWARDSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the present disturbed state of the Metropolis, and a possibility of a recurrence of the disturbances that occurred last Monday and Tuesday, it would not be advisable to enlist special constables to assist the police to protect the Parks, and also the private property of individuals, against the conduct of what are called the "roughs" of the Metropolis?
  MR. WALPOLEwas understood to say that a few days ago it was deemed advisable that a letter should be addressed to the different vestries of parishes and magistrates in the neighbourhood of the Parks recommending them to call upon all well ordered subjects of Her Majesty to assist the authorities in the quelling of disturbances. He hoped from what had occurred, and from what he had heard, that there would be no necessity of putting such measures in operation. At any rate, they would not be resorted to until they were imperatively called for. He was willing to hope that future disturbances would be avoided.

  DANISH SLESWIG.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State

  1535
  for Foreign Affairs, Whether he knows what portion of the country is intended to be included in the term "Danish Sleswig," which it is proposed that Prussia should cede to Denmark?
  LORD STANLEYreplied, that he understood there was a proposal that some portion of the Sleswig territory should be ceded back again to Denmark; but he was not able to say precisely what portion of the Sleswig territory was included in that proposal.

  PRUSSIAN REQUISITIONS ON FRANKFORT.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs two Questions of which he had given the noble Lord private notice—namely. Whether the Government have received any official communication relative to a demand made by the Prussian authorities for a contribution of £2,000,000 in addition to £500,000 already paid from the free city of Frankfort; and, whether the noble Lord can give the House any idea whether there is a prospect of the cessation of hostilities between Prussia and Austria?
  LORD STANLEY: In answer, Sir, to the right hon. Gentleman's first Question, I have to say that I apprehend there is no doubt that a demand to the amount named by him has been made upon the free city of Frankfort. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman desires me to go into further details on the subject. As to the second Question, I understand that the Grand Duke of Baden, with the sanction of the allied Governments, is occupied in negotiating an armistice between the Federal armies and the Prussians; but I am not yet aware of the result of that proceeding.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that as it had been stated in one of the papers that an application had been made to the British Government by the Senate of Frankfort for its arbitration on that subject, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether that was the fact, and whether Her Majesty's Government have undertaken any such arbitration?
  LORD STANLEY: No demand or request has been made to Her Majesty's Government that they should arbitrate in this matter, and as long as the question was one between a German Government and a German population we should have no locus standi. I ought, perhaps, to say that
  1536
  it has been reported to us that threats have been used by military officers commanding in Frankfort of a very violent character. One of those reports was that it had been threatened, in case payment was not made, to bombard the town and give it up to pillage. I am bound to say that the Prussian Government have strongly disclaimed any such conduct. The accounts are very contradictory, yet it certainly does appear that some language of that kind was employed, but employed, it would seem, without the sanction of high authority. I may add, with reference to the protection to be afforded to British subjects in case of any strong measures being taken against the town, that communications have taken place with the Prussian Government, and the assurances which we have obtained on that head are satisfactory. But the Government of Prussia, I may repeat, deny having ever used or sanctioned any threat of bombardment.

  COMPULSORY CHURCH RATE ABOLITION BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. JASPER MOREsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for the City of Oxford, Whether it is his intention to divide the House on the second reading of the Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Bill?
  MR. NEATEsaid, that before replying to the Question of the hon. Member he wished to make a few observations, and to place himself in order he would move the adjournment of the House. He wished to remind the House of the exact position in which the question stood.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must inform the hon. Member that it was not competent for him, upon the Motion which he had intimated his intention to make, to enter upon the subject-matter of the debate on the Bill, because that debate was set down for a future date.
  MR. NEATEsaid, in that case he would beg to state that he meant to proceed to a division on the second reading of the Bill.

  PROPOSED REFORM MEETING IN HYDE PARK.—QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNE: Sir, as some anxiety prevails with regard to a meeting which has been extensively placarded in all public places as being intended to be held on Monday next in Hyde Park, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  1537
  the precise state of the case as to his relation to the Reform League. I wish further to know whether he has granted permission for that meeting to take place in the Park; and, if so, whether he will calm the anxiety of the public mind by stating what precautions have been taken for the preservation of the public peace?
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, my relations with the Reform League are simply the relations of a Secretary of State receiving a deputation from that body with reference to the painful circumstances which have recently taken place in Hyde Park. That is the answer which I have to give to the first Question which has been put to me by the hon. Gentleman. In answer to the second question, which is a very natural inquiry, not only upon his part but upon the part of any Member of this House, I have to state that I think I can show that a misconception of a most extraordinary kind has taken place with respect to the proposed meeting in Hyde Park on Monday next to which he alludes. There are those in this House, and there are others who were present at the interview which I had with the deputation from the Reform League, who know exactly what passed between us. Substantially, the statement on the point which is published to-day in the leading journal of this country is correct. What took place on the occasion was that I intimated to the deputation, after a statement had been made to me of a conciliatory character, that, as the main if not the only question which had given rise to the disturbances which have occurred was the alleged right, or claim to a right, of admission to the Park for the purpose of holding a public meeting, Her Majesty's Government would give every facility in their power for obtaining a legal decision on that question; and that while nothing was in the interval done in assertion, or in the way of an attempt at the assertion, of such a right on the one hand, nothing should on the other hand be done to prevent a determination upon it from being arrived at. It was then stated at the interview that one of the great causes of irritation was what was called the demonstration of large bodies of police, and it was intimated to me that if those large bodies of police were withdrawn from the Park the irritation would cease, and the disturbances come to an end. My reply was that there was, on the part of the Government, no desire to make any unnecessary demonstration either of
  1538
  the police or military force, and that if the gentlemen who addressed me would express their willingness to give, as far as they could, a guarantee that on the removal of the large bodies of police then in the Park they would themselves go to the Park and induce, at least as far as they were able, the people to retire from it peaceably, I would undertake, on the one hand, to remove all unnecessary demonstrations of large bodies of police, reserving to myself, however, the fullest power of calling out either them or the military force in the event of any danger arising to the public peace; while these gentlemen undertook, upon the other hand, if that were done, to do their best to put a stop to the unhappy and painful disturbances of the last few days. I think I should have neglected my duty if I had not availed myself of such an opportunity of bringing these unfortunate matters to what I hope will be a satisfactory conclusion. It was after this interview that two or three members of the deputation came into my room and asked the question whether the Government would allow a meeting on the subject of Reform to take place in Hyde Park on Monday next. In answer to that question, I distinctly stated that such an application, as it involved considerations of great importance, must be made to me in writing, that I must submit it to the consideration of my Colleagues, and that they should receive a reply to it in writing. It was stated in a placard which was afterwards posted in different parts of the metropolis, that an arrangement had been entered into to the effect that the meeting might take place on Monday with the consent of the Government. Now, I have not from the beginning of these unhappy transactions wished to use any language which might provoke irritation. I will abstain from using any such language even now; but I must say, that a more extraordinary misconception than that of what I said could hardly have occurred. The letter which was to be addressed to me by Mr. E. Beales — I mean the application for permission to hold the meeting—was actually not in my hands until near six o'clock yesterday afternoon, while the notices that the meeting was to be held with the sanction of the Government must have been printed at all events by that time, so that they were printed before it was possible for me to return any answer to

  1539
  the application. I do not know whether the House would care that I should read the letter which was addressed to me by Mr. Beales. [Cries of "Yes, yes!"j Well, his letter, which I received between five and six o'clock yesterday afternoon, is dated the 25th of July, and is in these words—
  "Sir,—I am requested by the Council of this League to most earnestly press upon you the advisability and even urgent necessity, as the most effectual means of putting an end to the state of dangerous exasperation now existing in the public mind, that you will offer no opposition to the meeting proposed to be held by the League in Hyde Park on Monday afternoon next at six o'clock, such meeting to be held on the general subject of the Elective Franchise and Reform, and to be with-out prejudice in any way to the decision of the question in Parliament or in a Court of Law as to the abstract right of the people to meet for political discussion in that or any other Park, the Council of the League undertaking on their part to do everything in their power to preserve the peace and prevent any act tending to riot or disorder.—I am Sir, with the utmost respect, your obedient, humble servant, EDMOND BEALES, President. The Right Hon. Spencer Walpole."
  That letter shows, I think, as distinctly as words can show, altogether independently of the affirmation I have already made, that the application which was to be made to me in writing was only so communicated to me upon the receipt of the letter, and I must also add that the answer which was to be given by me in writing had not been given at all yesterday afternoon, when the placards to which I have referred were printed. I might also appeal to witnesses who were present at the deputation. [Cries of "No, no!"] I thank the House for so readily believing my statement; but, in justice to a most able member of the Reform League, who is known to many Members of this House, and who was present with the deputation —I mean Mr. Holyoake—I must state that, in a manner which reflects infinite credit on him, he volunteered to come to my office to day. I was so busily engaged that I could not see him, but he saw my private secretary, who came into my room immediately afterwards, and told me what had passed between them, when I said—
  "The words which you say were used by Mr. Holyoake are so important, let me while they are fresh in your recollection take them down."
  The words so taken down are these—
  "He came to repudiate in the strongest terms Mr. Beales' proclamation. He perfectly understood Mr. Walpole to decline to sanction any
  1540
  meeting in the Park, and to ask that an application for that should be made in writing. He spoke to many Liberal Members last night, and also to Mr. Beales, when the proclamation was being posted."
  I may add that however unfortunately the misconception arose in the mind of Mr. Beales, I regret that it should have taken place, and I hear that he regrets it too. In order to complete the case I will read the answer which, with the assent of my Colleagues, was returned to the application of Mr. Beales after the first Cabinet Council which could be held subsequent to the receipt of his letter. The answer is as follows:—
  "26th July, 1866. Sir,—I have laid your letter of the 25th inst. before my Colleagues, and I beg to state that, pending the judicial decision (every facility for obtaining which will be afforded by the Government) as to the legal right of holding meetings in the Royal Parks, no permission for such meetings can be given. In the event of its being desired to hold an open-air meeting on the subject of Reform, no objection will be made on the part of Her Majesty's Government to such meeting being held on Primrose Hill. I have, &c., S. H. WALPOLE. E. Beales, Esq.."
  Thanking the House for the kind way in which they have received this statement, I have now simply, in conclusion, to express my earnest hope that those who were anxious to hold the meeting in the Park, with the view of bringing to a test the legal question involved, will not try to press the assertion of that right further by means of force; but, if they do, then I trust that hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they may happen to sit, will aid the Government in their endeavour to maintain those rights with respect to the Parks which as they have every reason to believe belong to the Crown, and with which they trust no attempt at interference which has not the sanction of the law neither can or ought to be allowed by those who have at heart the sacred interests of peace and order.
  MR. J. STUART MILL: Sir, I rise to make a statement which I believe will give satisfaction to the whole House. I have just had an interview with Mr. Beales and several leading members of the League, including all those who were present at the second interview to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I have full authority from them to say this, that so far as they are concerned there is no intention of renewing the attempt to meet in the Park. There has

  1541
  been no council of the League held, and they are not, therefore, in a position to I speak for the League. [Laughter.] That ribald laugh might well have been spared. Do hon. Members suppose that Reformers do not mean what they say? I tell them that they do. What I have to say is that these gentlemen regret exceedingly that a misunderstanding should have occurred with regard to the communication made to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. They are perfectly certain that the misunderstanding is in no way imputable to him. The interview left on them the most favourable impression of his feelings, disposition, and character, and there is nothing which they would more regret than to say anything which could in the slightest degree reflect on him. That being the case, it is unnecessary to enter into the circumstances, though I might state something that might, perhaps, account for this misunderstanding. But the misunderstanding having taken place, the same motives which induced them to exert themselves last night so as to prevent what they believed would have otherwise resulted in bloodshed, preclude them from taking any advantage of, or in any way acting on, what is now shown to have been a misconception. Whether they will accept the offer of Primrose Hill, or consider that on this occasion it is better to abstain from meeting altogether, I am not authorized to state, and probably they do not consider themselves authorized to decide on that offer without consulting the council of the League. But, so far as their influence goes, nothing will be done that can possibly afford cause for any further disturbance.

HELSTON ELECTION.—REPORT.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th July],
  "That according to the Law and usage of Parliament, it is the duty of the Sheriff or other Returning Officer in England, in case of an equal number of votes being polled for two or more candidates at an Election, to return all such candidates."—(Mr. Lowe.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he believed he was the only Member who ought not to speak
  1542
  on the Motion, because he addressed the House on it on a former occasion. He had waited in the hope that some hon. Member would have had something to say upon the Motion; if not, and as he gathered from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) that they did not approve of any opinion being recorded on the subject, he had no wish to press the matter forward, and he moved that the Motion be withdrawn. ["No, no!"] He had thought it his duty, as Chairman of the Committee, to bring the matter before the House.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it was desirable that the Question should be settled, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman's Motion was the only reasonable solution of the matter. It was very desirable that it should be recorded on the Votes of the House
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDconsidered there was great objection to the House settling the law by way of Resolution. If the law was settled upon the point, as he believed it was, this Resolution was unnecessary; and if the law was not settled it could not be done by Resolution. He approved of the withdrawal of the Motion.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHremarked that the Bill of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid), which took away the ordinary vote of the returning officer, and gave him a casting vote, would have afforded a fair solution to this question.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sure the House would think that the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) had not only performed his duty, but had done a service to the House in bringing this question before them. At the same time, he thought there was great force in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid). This was a question on which there was a law at present, although different opinions might be entertained as to what the law was. For his own part, he held it to be the law that where there was an equality of votes for two candidates there should be a double return; but that opinion might be wrong, and in the present state of matters the law of Parliament should be settled by an Election Committee of that House. On the other hand, if any one thought that the law ought to be made more clear, or that it should be altered, that exposition and that alteration should be made, not

  1543
  by Resolution, but by legislation. Therefore the course taken by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Goldsmid) in introducing a clause into his Bill declaratory of the law, was the proper course. But it was obvious that such a Bill could not be carried this Session; but as no case could arise in the course of the present Session, he did not see any inconvenience would arise from postponing the matter till next year.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, the Attorney General had remarked that no case could arise before the next Session of Parliament; but be (Mr. Locke) did not regard that circumstance as a reason for not agreeing with the Resolution of the right hon. Member for Calne. On the contrary, he was of opinion that the law regarding elections ought not to be left in doubt. But from the text books it appeared that grave doubts might arise in the minds of returning officers, and that, especially if they looked for advice to Rogers on Elections, they might think they were told a returning officer possessed a casting vote. Where was the difficulty of passing this Resolution? He hoped it would be passed, and then there would be a confirmation by the House of Commons of the decision pronounced by the Election Committee over which the right hon. Member for Calne had presided.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, his Bill for making the law uniform in the three kingdoms would come on at a later period of the evening. The Resolution of the right hon. Member for Calne he regarded as unconstitutional. If the law was clear it was not for the House of Commons to declare its clearness; if it was not clear, the doubt could only be removed, not by a Resolution of the Commons, but by an Act of Parliament.
  MR. PAULLwas strongly of opinion that the Legislature never intended to give the returning officer a casting vote. This was clear from the nature of the questions to be asked of every elector before giving his vote—whether he was the person described on the register, and whether he had voted before at the election. It was quite inconsistent with the second of these questions to suppose that the returning officer should have a casting vote. The Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman was therefore a very salutary one.
  MR. LOWTHERhoped the House would adopted the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 6: Majority 129.
  Resolution agreed to.

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

RAILWAYS.

  MOTION FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MAJOR JERVISsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying for a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the Railways of this country as regard their ability to fulfil their engagements to the public, having due regard to the interests of all parties concerned. Railway companies were bound to take measures to secure the public safety; but it was well known, and it had been stated on the authority of the Board of Trade, that on even some of the best lines the permanent way had been allowed to get into a condition which rendered it dangerous to travel upon. So long as a railway was under the direction of a Board of Directors some responsibility existed for its proper maintenance, although the Board of Trade, when once a line had been opened, could not enforce any penalties for improper management; but a very unexpected contingency had, however, arisen, for one of the chief lines had been placed under the control of a receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery, and the control of the revenue was thus taken from the Board of Directors. It was clear that with a railway in that position there existed no power which could oblige the Court of Chancery to expend a portion of the revenue on the permanent way, so as to keep it in good order. He believed a proposal had been made to protect rolling stock from seizure, so that the traffic might not be liable to suspension, but in that case there was the more need of securing the safety of the passengers. If the Board of Trade had already sufficient power to enforce this, he should be perfectly satisfied; but if, as he believed, they had not, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) would agree to the appointment of a Commission to investigate the matter, whereby he would obtain the necessary information without rendering

  1545
  it necessary to give too much publicity to the monetary affairs of the company. As was well known, a line of railway could not be opened without the certificate of the Board of Trade; but after this the Board of Trade took no notice of the line till an accident happened, and then they sent down an inspector, whose duty it was to report, but the Board had no power to enforce the recommendation of the report. When a line fell into the hands of the Court of Chancery, and a receiver was appointed, no money could be expended without an order of the Court. The consequence was that the order of the Master of the Rolls or a Vice Chancellor had to be obtained before any money could be expended on a line so circumstanced. But the Master of the Rolls or the Vice Chancellor could be no judge of the condition of the permanent way; and if they were, there were strong doubts whether, when a receiver was appointed on the part of debenture shareholders, they could pay any portion of the receipts in repairing the permanent way. In such a case what was there to carry on the line? At any rate, he thought that, considering the financial difficulties of some of the principal lines, the House ought not to separate for the recess without hearing the opinion of the right hon. Baronet on the subject.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the first word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the Railways of this country, as regards their ability to fulfil their engagements to the public, having due regard to the interests of all parties concerned,"—(Major Jervis,)
  —instead thereof
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he desired to urge on the right hon. Baronet, whose attention had already been directed to the matter, the importance of considering before next Session what could be done. In Ireland a railway company could be wound up, and this he believed had been done in some cases, but in England no such provision existed; consequently all the stores and rolling stock of a company were liable to seizure by the sheriff, and a receiver might be appointed in the interest of the
  1546
  bondholders, leaving the public to look out for themselves. The origin of the difficulty he believed to be this — that when railways were originally established the idea was that they were to be highways, as it were, upon which everybody was to take his own engines and carriages, paying a certain toll to the companies. Indeed, all railway Acts still contained a schedule of tolls to be paid by private persons. This was the theory; but, as a matter of fact, the traffic was entirely in the hands of the companies, subject to certain regulations by the Board of Trade, and it would be ridiculous for any person to put in practice the right to which he was theoretically entitled. Legislation, however, being based on this assumption, there was no guarantee for repairing the permanent way or for keeping up the proper supply of rolling stock. He was aware that one of the Vice Chancellors had placed the line of a particular railway company in the possession of a receiver, who had power to pay the necessary working expenses out of the gross receipts, and to apply the balance in liquidation of the company's debts; but it was disputed whether it was ever intended that a power so to deal with a railway company should be vested in the Court of Chancery. The question had become so serious that the President of the Board of Trade would be justified in considering whether some measures might not be taken for preserving at once the rights of creditors and the interests of the public. Even if he should not think the appointment of a Commission desirable, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take up the matter himself, and that early next Session he would bring in a measure for taking a railway out of the hands of a company that was involved in permanent financial difficulties, and for protecting the interests of those who had claims upon it.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he did not see how the appointment of a Commission to consider this question could render insolvent companies solvent. He had often called the attention of the House to the necessity of imposing some stricter conditions upon the Railway Bills passed by Parliament. The root of the present evil was, that Bills were obtained first, and companies founded afterwards; whereas the companies ought to be first of all in existence before the Bills were sanctioned.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, it was a matter much to be regretted that nothing had

  1547
  been done to carry out the recommendations of a Committee of that House, which had been drawn up after consultation with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in the other House, and with the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten). The root of the evil complained of lay deeper than was usually supposed, and the persons affected by it were not so much the creditors of these companies as the landowners through whose property the line passed, and who were often unable to obtain payment for the land taken from them. In the Court of Chancery that day, no less than five orders had been made against railway companies for payment for land taken for the purposes of their lines. Every case was undefended, the plea of the companies being merely that time might be granted to them to meet the claims, the correctness of which they admitted. In former days, it was required that persons taking compulsorily other people's land should possess the means of accomplishing the project they had in view; whereas, under the present system of merely requiring a deposit from the promoters of a Bill, the money was borrowed for the purpose of complying with the Standing Orders, and a Bill was passed authorizing the construction of vast works by a company that had neither shareholders nor money. It appeared from the evidence taken before the Committee to which reference had been made, that it was usual for a stipulation to be inserted in the contract between the parties promoting the Bill and the bank or the insurance company that advanced the money for the deposit, that the Bill, after it had been read three times by both Houses of Parliament, should not receive the Royal assent without the consent of such bank or insurance company was first obtained. So that a fourth authority had been introduced in those matters, with whom rested the power to withdraw a Bill which both Houses of the Legislature had, by passing, declared to be a wise and proper measure. In point of fact, the companies that promoted new lines consisted too often, in the first instance, of nothing more than a lawyer, a contractor, and an engineer. They obtained from a compliant Parliament privileges which enabled them to exercise compulsory powers over other people's lands. They made their profits out of the scheme, and the loss fell upon the public. He thought that if, instead of appointing a Royal Com-
  1548
  mission, the President of the Board of Trade would only bring into force the Resolutions of the Committee to which he had referred, a speedy and effectual remedy would be applied, and the object of the present Motion fully met.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was at a loss to understand in whose interest the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had spoken. They could not be advocating the interests of the public, because persons who constructed a railway conferred a benefit upon the public; and Parliament might well leave it to those who lent money to the promoters of Railway Bills to take effectual means for protecting their own interests. He might, however, point to one grievance under which landowners suffered, which was that they were not permitted to make a line at their own expense over their own land to join that of a railway company without the sanction of the latter. The Report of the Committee of the House which sat in 1863, explained the reason of the diminished value of railway shares and securities—and, in fact, that Report fully accounted for the occurrence of the late panic in the money-market. The question raised by that Report was whether the House would retain within its own hands the administration of its rules or would intrust a competent tribunal to discharge duties which now pressed so heavily upon its members. Of the best authorities upon such a question in that House, six had voted in favour of transferring the consideration of Railway Bills to the Board of Trade, or some other competent tribunal, while seven had voted against the proposition. The Committee of 1863 decided that competition should not be a ground of opposition to a new line before a Parliamentary Committee; but this Resolution was rescinded through the influence of the great railway companies. There was no similar instance of such a Resolution having been rescinded by a Committee after it had agreed to one half of its Report, and this instance was suggestive of the power exercised by the existing companies to prevent the free flow of capital for the construction of new lines. As a consequence, the modern system of financing was resorted to, and it was to this the monetary panic was to be traced. If the Report of the Committee of 1863 were referred to it would afford some valuable practical information on the subject. The evidence before that Com-

  1549
  mittee very clearly established one thing —that many towns and districts too poor to construct a railway for themselves, although it was urgently required, had had it constructed for them by the enterprize of promoters of new companies, who, when they had obtained their Act, were able to raise money upon the paper it authorized them to issue. If the company succeeded they made a profit, and a loss if it failed. The House must remember the expense of getting a Bill. He knew of one case in which £75,000 was spent in obtaining a Bill for the construction of only eighteen miles of railway. He maintained that no persons were more entitled to the gratitude of the community than this class of persons—the lawyers, the engineers, and the contractors, who had been the means of making hundreds of miles of railway that but for them would never have been made at all. As much as £3,000,000 had passed through his own hands in this way, to the immense benefit of the district in which the railways, thus rendered possible, were constructed.
  MR. GOLDNEYtrusted that the House would not be led away by the discussion of our system of railways generally, or of the causes of the panic on the money-market, from the point really at issue, which was whether some means should not be taken to prevent a railway falling into the hands of its creditors, and the consequent stoppage of the traffic. The safety of the public was imperilled by the relations of some railway companies to each other. It was only the other day that an accident happened on a branch of the Great Northern because that and another railway company disputed each other's liability to repair the permanent way, which consequently fell into disrepair, and thus gave rise to the accident.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEventured to hope that his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Jervis) would withdraw the Motion, as he did not see that any real object was to be served by the issue of a Royal Commission. At this moment a Royal Commission was engaged in inquiring into the whole question of our railway system and the control that Government ought to exercise over it, in view of the impending expiration of the period fixed by the Act of 1845, which would place the House in a position to deal freely with the subject; and it was obviously desirable to wait for the Report of this Commission, which might be looked for in November or
  1550
  December. With respect to the powers of the Board of Trade, while the Board had not much power to compel railway companies to set right what was wrong, it had full power to make investigation and examination; and it would do so on receiving a representation from any one, or even of its own motion, if there were reason to suppose that a railway was in a dangerous condition. Thus, if the Board of Trade had reason to believe or was informed that any railway in this country was falling into a dangerous condition, its duty was to inquire how the facts stood; and he could undertake to say that if his hon. Friend knew of any such case, and would call his attention to it, an immediate investigation should be made into it. During the recess the Government would take into consideration the financial and legal position of railway companies, and the mode of dealing with them. At present, a Bill was passing through the House of Lords to meet the case of a possible seizure of rolling stock. That would only be meeting a small part of the subject, and he doubted whether it was expedient to pass such an Act, at all events without some accompanying legislation, because taken alone it would endorse a principle which dangerously affected the security of creditors. The Committee of the House of Lords had also recommended a winding-up Act for railways, and probably it would be desirable next Session to deal with railway companies in some general Act on the subject. It would not be possible at the end of a Session to enter upon the consideration of such a question, but he should make inquiries on the subject, and should be very much guided by the Report of the Royal Commission with respect to it. With regard to the particular line referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, he believed the difficulty had been met by the appointment of a receiver. He had been informed that the matter had not been settled altogether satisfactorily, but there was no such urgency in the case as to render it necessary for him to interfere. He fully admitted the great importance of the question, and he promised that the attention of the Government should be given to it.
  MR. HADFIELDthought that the Government should also consider those clauses of the Land Compensation Act with respect to compensation to persons whose property might be lessened in value by the operations of a railway.
  MAJOR JERVISsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade, he should withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

IRELAND—COURT OF ADMIRALTY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. PIMsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the necessity of early attention to the reform of the Court of Admiralty in Ireland, and to the want of a summary jurisdiction in respect to differences about freight, demurrage, seamen's wages, and other matters where the amount in dispute may not be large. He questioned whether it was desirable to place the Admiralty Court under the jurisdiction of the Judge of the Court of Probate, and said that it was much feared in Ireland that this would be done.
  LORD NAASassured the hon. Member that the subject would receive the most careful consideration from the Government.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £4,970, Purchase of old Gun Metal to be employed in the construction of the National Memorial to His late Royal Highness the Prince Consort.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Although I have to make this proposition in the form of a money Vote, I am merely about to ask the Committee to give effect to a rule which was adopted at the desire of the House in respect of "old stores." Formerly any quantity of bronze in the shape of old gun metal might have been given from those stores without the leave of the House; but we have, and very properly, put an end to that system, and I have, therefore, to ask for a Vote of £4,970, the value of old gun metal to be given by the Government for bronze work in the memorial to the Prince Consort. It is necessary to obtain the consent of the House in this way, but the money will not leave the Exchequer, or, if it should, it will be at once paid in again. The right hon. Gentleman then moved a Vote of £4,970 for the purchase from the War
  1552
  Department of gun metal to be employed in the construction of the memorial—namely, seventy-one tons at £70 per ton.
  MR. AYRTONthought it was desirable the Committee should understand a little more clearly the nature of this Vote. Was it in addition to the £50,000 which the House had voted for the memorial three years ago? On that occasion some hon. Members desired to know what the character of the memorial was to be; but Lord Palmerston stated distinctly that the House were not asked to undertake the work—what they were asked to do was to grant a sum of money to Her Majesty towards enabling her to erect a memorial. As he understood, the House was absolved from all responsibility in the matter, and on that ground they were invited by Lord Palmerston not to enter into any discussion, but to leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty. As this was the first occasion on which the matter was brought up, he wished to have a clear understanding now whether it was intended that they would have to vote sums of money from time to time for the completion of the memorial?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This Vote has nothing to do with the sum of £50,000, which was intended to be the extreme and only sum this House should ever be called on to vote towards the memorial. But at the time that Vote was brought forward, the Government of the day promised that besides the £50,000 a quantity of old gun metal to the weight of seventy-one tone should be given for the bronze work of the memorial; and the noble Lord who was then Secretary for War made a specific promise to that effect. Upon those engagements all the estimates are based; and the work has now arrived at such a stage that the gun metal is required, and the Committee have made a demand for it; and as, under the new regulations which the House had made, I could not allow the metal to be given unless it were first brought before the House, I have caused this estimate to be framed and submitted to the Committee.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he distinctly remembered that the promise of the gun metal, in addition to the £50,000, was made by Lord Palmerston.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £77,744, to complete the sum for the British Museum Establishment.
  MR. LOWE: The Vote for the British

  1553
  Museum last year was £98,164; the total of the sum required for the year is £102,744, showing an increase of £4,580. In the item of Salaries there is an increase of £1,985; in House Expenses of £250; in Purchases, ordinary, of £1,247; in extraordinary of £2,400; and in "Miscellaneous" of £250. A gradual increase takes place in the salaries of the assistants; but the main cause of the increase under this head is connected with the retirement of Mr. Panizzi from the office of Principal Librarian. In consideration of his long and very valuable services, including not only his indefatigable labours as Principal Librarian, but also the service which he rendered as architect of the new reading room, the Trustees have recommended that he should be allowed to retire on full salary after a discharge of his duties for thirty-four years. That arrangement was made a year ago; but, at the request of the Government and the Trustees, Mr. Panizzi has consented to remain in office for another year; so that for the last twelve months the country may be said to have had the benefit of his services for nothing. It is creditable to his public spirit that he should have given us his valuable—or rather invaluable—services for a year after the time when he might have retired on full salary. The increase in the House Expenses has been caused by an increased expenditure for fuel, principally in consequence of a system of ventilation now in use at the Museum. The Museum has become possessed of many valuable acquisitions. From Mr. Woodhouse, who for some time was Secretary to the Governor of Corfu, we have received a large number of coins, of the estimated value of £4,000, and Mr. Christy has presented us with a valuable collection of ethnographical specimens. The Trustees have purchased for £6,000, 90,000 specimens composing Mr. Cuming's collection of shells, which I believe is a collection almost unique, and of the greatest value in the study of conchology. I will not detain the Committee further than to remind them that year after year the fine collection of objects in the British Museum is injured, lost, and buried, owing to the want of room. I think no one who moves this Estimate will do his duty who does not call attention to that circumstance, though, perhaps, he may do so to but little effect. I will just mention two or three instances in illustration of what I mean. The beautiful specimens from Halicarnassus
  1554
  and the tomb of Mausolus are now, as the Committee is aware, placed in a glass structure between the columns of the portico of the building—a most unsightly and unseemly spectacle to those who enter; and not only so, but the structure in which they are put away is by no means air-tight, but admits both damp and dirt, so that the specimens are receiving great and permanent injury because we cannot obtain grants in order to put them in a proper receptacle. Then, the collection of animals is another instance. The stuffed animals form a beautiful collection; but instead of being so displayed that they may be seen with ease and advantage they are arranged in squadrons, I do not know how many deep, and if you want to see an animal you have to displace four or five to get at it—to the great injury of the specimens every time they are moved. The third instance is that of Mr. Christy's collection, a magnificent gift, for which we are obliged from want of room to hire premises in Victoria Street—two or three miles from the Museum—to stow the specimens away, our main business being to find receptacles for the treasures acquired partly by the munificence of Parliament and partly by that of private donors. But that is not all the mischief that is done. There is besides the danger of fire, which no one can sufficiently be acquainted with. We had a fire lately in the bookbinders' room, and what would have been the consequences if the valuable collection of books had all been burnt? Besides, therefore, the difficulty arising from the want of means of stowing things away, and the difficulty of access, there is the greatest risk of their perishing by fire. Thus this beautiful collection of shells which we purchased at so large a cost we are obliged to put away in drawers, and no one will be able to see them except one who knows what we have done with them. The fact is, the munificence of the country supplies the Trustees with large sums with which we purchase valuable collections from year to year, and then they are put away in some hole or corner where nobody can see them. I hope this state of things will soon be put an end to.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURobjected to the statement of his right hon. Friend that the condition of the British Museum, as far as he regarded the location of the collections, was the fault of that House. The fault lay with a certain number of gentlemen who were determined to break

  1555
  up the British Museum into parts against the declared wish of the public and the House, as expressed on several occasions. These gentlemen desired to carry the Natural History Collection to South Kensington, and for that reason opposed all proposals for enlarging the building. That was the reason why the Museum was becoming every year more crowded, and those valuable marbles were perishing from the effects of our climate, and why we could not enjoy the advantage of the many collections stored away in the cellars, nor have the prints displayed. This question of location had been made a battle-ground between the various departments of the Museum; and the literary department, to which his right hon. Friend belonged, and at the head of which was Mr. Panizzi, were anxious to turn out the scientific department, which was anxious to remain where it was, and have more room for its collections. It would be a great pity to divide the collections. There was plenty of space to be had around the Museum, and the late Duke of Bedford, who owned the whole of the property surrounding the Museum, had most liberally offered the greatest facilities for providing additional room. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was for accepting the offer, but the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) and the right hon. Member for Calne refused it, and it was owing to his right hon. Friend and some other gentlemen that the public were not now enjoying those magnificent collections, unparalleled in the world, as they ought to do. There was a vast deal of room in the British Museum quite sufficient to hold a much larger portion of the collections than was exhibited at present, but those gentlemen absolutely refused to allow one penny to be spent upon these premises, in order that the want of space might appear every year the greater. He did not see why, looking to the difficulty of settling the question as to separating or keeping the collections together, the trustees should not put some of them, such as those of Mr. Christy, in one or two houses, which they might easily rent at a low rate near the Museum. That was a feasible plan, and he would recommend it to his right hon. Friend. With regard to the fire of which the danger was so imminent according to his right hon. Friend, why was it that this bookbinding establishment was fixed in the Museum itself? Assuredly the
  1556
  Trustees might remove that and other such preparatory establishments. Whatever decision was ultimately adopted by the House a considerable time must elapse before suitable buildings could be provided. Why, then, should not the Trustees make arrangement, at any rate for some years to come, for the temporary exhibition of those portions of the collections which might be least injured by moving? With regard to the stuffed animals, for instance, it would be extremely easy for them to hire a domicile for them near the Museum. He regretted extremely that this liability to interference with what had been the dream of Professor Owen's life should have deprived the public of his inestimable services for so long a time. The question of separation or otherwise ought to be brought to an issue; and, though he was in favour of keeping the collection together he was quite willing to be bound by a vote of the House, and would never after that raise the question. It bad been urged upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that if the property surrounding the British Museum were bought for the purpose of enlargement it need not all be pulled down at the same time; the process of conversion might be gradual, and meanwhile the rents of the houses left standing would yield a considerable interest upon the outlay. The adoption of such a course would get rid in the first place of all difficulty as to site, and the House would hear no more of the British Museum question for a long time to come. A settlement so desirable had only been defeated by those who were anxious to make a sort of science and art town at Kensington. His right hon. Friend, he hoped, would rise again and state the course which he was prepared to recommend, or at least give an assurance that there was some prospect of the Trustees agreeing among themselves upon a scheme to be recommended to the Government as a final settlement of the question.
  MR. NEATEthought that the department of Art had better be separated from the Museum. He thought means might be taken to increase the interest of some of the contents. For instance, the Museum contained a most valuable collection which, he was sorry to say, he had never seen. He thought these might be placed in a separate gallery, and the choicest of them exhibited in monthly rotation, giving novelty and variety to what was to be seen within the building.
  MR. AYRTONcomplained that the old irregularity of moving the British Museum Estimates from the Opposition, instead of the Treasury Bench, had been repeated. His right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) could not be responsible for any course which the Government might take, and therefore it was idle for the Committee to discuss the very interesting question he had brought under their notice. When the right hon. Gentleman who had usually moved these Estimates (Mr. Walpole) became a Member of the Government a very desirable opportunity of terminating this inconvenient practice was afforded; but on the present occasion the right hon. Gentleman was not even present, and with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, of course, had nothing to do with these Estimates, the Government were not present. What, therefore, was the use of continuing the discussion, since there was no one to inform Members of the intentions of those who sat on the Treasury Benches? But he did not address himself merely to the existing Government. On the occasion when this subject was last under consideration the attention of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was called to the expediency of rendering the National collections available as much for the instruction and enjoyment of the humbler classes as of persons of wealth and station. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) then stated that he thought the question one eminently deserving the consideration of the Government, and held out expectations that at no distant day measures would be taken to accomplish so desirable an end. But from that day to this nothing further had been heard upon the subject; no results had manifested themselves of the promised investigations and deliberations. It was deplorable to think that the National collections were locked up and put out of sight when they might be made available for the gratification, instruction, and amusement of thousands who were closely occupied all day. Private persons having anything to exhibit found no difficulty in holding an exhibition in the evening; and at South Kensington they found that, even in a Government establishment, the enterprize of the general Superintendent had enabled him to deal successfully with a problem which at the British Museum was insuperable. The objection of additional
  1558
  expense was put forward whenever evening exhibitions were suggested; but, properly handled, these additional opportunities of seeing the collections were really opportunities for diminishing the charge on the Exchequer. Society always included a number of persons who would never think of visiting an exhibition that was free, but would flock to it eagerly when an admission fee was demanded. Yielding, therefore, to the caprices of such people, by establishing pay-nights they could be made to defray the cost of admitting others gratuitously, on the well-known principle that "a fool and his money are soon parted." Nothing could be better than to make the vanity of the rich pay for the necessities of the poor, and he did not see why that principle should not be applied to the British Museum.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had listened with much pleasure to the remarks of the hon. Member for Poole, and also to those of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, with whom he concurred in regretting that the Vote was not moved from the Treasury Bench. He had hoped the House would have received from the right hon. Gentleman some satisfactory information as to the course that had been determined upon for providing accommodation for the National collections which were now heaped together at the British Museum. The Select Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) had inquired especially into this subject, when Mr. Oldfield, a most experienced officer of the Museum, submitted a plan by which, at a moderate cost, the Trustees would have acquired the space necessary for the enlargement of the Museum. He should like to know whether there was any intention of carrying out that plan? There was another subject on which he desired information. There was at present at the South Kensington Museum a very valuable collection of coins. It was collected, he believed, by a gentleman who was an officer of the British Museum. He offered it, in the first instance, to the Trustees of the Museum, by whom it was declined; and it was afterwards purchased by the South Kensington Museum. Now it seemed to him that the managers of our great public collections ought not to be in the position of bidding against one another. There ought to be a particular Museum for each particular class, or, at any rate, the purchase of articles of each particular class ought to be confided to a single authority.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, the collection of coins to which the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) had referred was sixty-four in number. Those coins, which had been purchased for £63, consisted of sixty-one Greek and Roman coins and three Italian coins, of the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, and were in circulation for the purposes of art education, and, if he was correctly informed, was in possession of the South Kensington Museum before he had any connection with it. Since then a gentleman (Mr. Brook), in a patriotic spirit, made a present to the department of a vast number of curious objects, among which were thirty watches manufactured 200 or 300 years ago, and his collection of coins, and of course they were joyfully accepted.
  MR. GOLDNEYwould suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, as the representative of the Trustees of the Museum, that a portion of the houses at present occupied by the officers of the establishment might be appropriated to the purposes of the collections, and that a great deal of valuable space for the accommodation of the collection would thus be obtained. The displaced officials would, of course, be provided with residences elsewhere.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKhoped that the House would at length deal in some effectual mode with the subject, and would rescue the collections from the discreditable position in which they were at present placed. It was shameful to the country that, having such splendid collections in natural science and art, we should not know what to do with them.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he believed the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bruce) was mistaken in supposing that the coins to which he had referred were now in circulation. If he was not misinformed, they were coins of a very high order, and the South Kensington Museum had paid no less than £300 for them.
  MR. BRUCEadhered to his previous statement. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) seemed to hold that medals and coins were the same thing. The collection he referred to was a valuable collection of medals illustrative of the art.
  MR. LOWE: There are both coins and medals at South Kensington Museum, and are most legitimately there as being works of art. The coins, too, are in circulation, but not in the sense in which my hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) spoke. People do not think they can spend them; they are
  1560
  in circulation in the sense that they are sent round the country with other objects in order that people may learn something about ancient coins. The general principle my hon. Friend lays down with regard to the departments is quite incontestable. It is the imperative duty of the two departments mentioned not to bid against each other for the possession of any collections. There have been times years ago when this happened, but we have taken most elaborate precautions against anything of that kind in future. I can hardly say that it is not possible that such proceedings can ever occur again; but whenever anything comes to the knowledge of either of the departments trenching upon the limits of the other, we always confer with each other, and arrange matters so that the collision which my hon. and learned Friend said was so detrimental shall not take place. I will now proceed to answer the numerous questions which have been asked, to the best of my power. The notice given me having been very short, I have not been able properly to prepare myself for the task. I had also been under the impression that my right hon. Friend the present Secretary for the Home Department would have moved the Estimates. An hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Seymour) has put a question to me as to the necessity of doing the bookbinding on the premises. Now, as a matter of discipline and precaution, it is very undesirable that valuable articles of this kind should be moved out of the control of the officers of the establishment; and we believe also that there are legal objections to doing so. The Act of Parliament requires that when once we have possession of a thing we must keep it; and we have no power to remove or lend anything, or send anything out of the Museum for any purpose. This observation applies also to the suggestion of hiring houses in the immediate vicinity. Were this to be done it would be attended by great relaxation of discipline, and the danger of fire and theft would be increased; and there would further be great difficulties in the management and discipline of the persons removed from the building to separate places. I do not mean to say that many things ought not to be done if we are to look upon the present state of things as a permanent one. But I refuse to look at the matter in this light, for I do not believe the people of this country wish us to go on piling all these magnificent treasures one upon the other,

  1561
  and in reality burying many of them so that nobody can be the better for our possession of them. I can only say that if that were the wish of the people, I, for one, would not take the time and trouble I do in looking after this institution. This could not be expected of any man unless the public would fairly do their part and give a suitable place for the storing of these things. It is absolutely necessary that something should be done. I will now proceed to give an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour.) It is quite true that if we were to pull the building about from top to bottom, altering a staircase here, and pulling a partition down there, and throwing out some excrescence in another place, we might cram more things into the premises; but I think that in following such a course we should not be acting wisely. It would not be judicious to spend large sums of money for a temporary object, which could only stave the thing off for a year or two and give no satisfaction. I have been asked the opinion of the Trustees on this matter. Now, the Trustees have been charged unjustly, I think, with standing in the way of effecting improvements. The Gentlemen who say so greatly over-estimate the power of the Trustees. I am not entitled to give any opinion on behalf of this body of gentlemen. There was a division some years ago—long before I was a Trustee— in which it was carried by a very small majority that the collection should be separated; but I am not able to say what is the opinion of the Trustees on this subject at the present time. The House of Commons have taken it into their own hands, and some years ago a Committee was appointed, which presented a Report upon the matter. The Trustees know their duty too well to attempt to set up their own opinions against those of the House. It was their duty to point out to the House the difficulty which beset them owing to want of adequate space, and it was then the duty of the House to decide what provision it would make. My hon. Friend greatly exaggerates the influence and the powers of the Trustees if he believes that they either can, or desire if they could, to set up their views in opposition to those of the House. They would cheerfully acquiesce in any method the House thought desirable to adopt to remove the present scandal. There are different opinions among us, as there are among any
  1562
  other body of men meeting together for a public object. It is therefore mere nonsense to lay the blame on the Trustees. If my own opinion is desired, I may say that it would be impolitic to spend £50,000 for an acre of land in the immediate vicinity of the Museum, when you can get it, probably, for something like one-sixth part of the value in a place where you could do justice to the whole of the natural history collection. [An hon. MEMBER: Where?] At South Kensington. This is my individual opinion, and I have had a great deal to do with these matters. I say again, it is for the House to come to a decision in the matter, and then it will be our duty to give all the assistance which we are able in making that decision as efficient and beneficial as possible. All I say is, do something. Do not leave these valuable treasures to be buried and to perish before your eyes. Then an hon. Gentleman (Mr. Neate) has most justly complained that a collection of most beautiful engravings cannot be seen. They are exhibited in the Library of King George III., the only place available, and are changed occasionally so as to give the public a fresh sight. But we ought to have a room where they can be exhibited on a large scale; it does not exist, and we have no means whatever of providing it. At present there is, in fact, no room for showing engravings; what we have is but a pis aller. Another hon. Gentleman has observed that the residences of the officers take up a great deal of room. There is an advantage in the present arrangement in that respect, because it increases the security against fire, theft, and disorders of various kinds. This was fully shown in the case of the recent fire, when a very heavy national lost was averted by the activity of the officers resident within the building. A fire of a few minutes would be sufficient to destroy a million pounds worth of property in the British Museum, and which no amount of money could replace. We do not, however, believe it to be the wish of the House of Commons that we should turn out the officers and appropriate the room they at present occupy. With regard to the question of moving the Estimates dwelt upon by my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), who says I have no business to make the Motion, I can only remark that I by no means coveted the duty, and that if he will persuade the Trustees or the Government to believe this I shall be very much obliged to him. I do

  1563
  not suppose that any one who has had much to do with moving Estimates would be particularly covetous of the task. The hon. Member, however, does not seem to understand the exact position of the matter. He says we have no power to propose the Estimates; but the statement is not precisely correct. We have just the same power over our Estimates as any department of the Government has over the Estimates connected with it. A Finance Committee prepares the Estimates; they are submitted to the Treasury like the Estimates of other Departments, where alterations, if deemed necessary, are made, and then they are presented to this House. I have just the same power of proposing anything as the head of any Department who is a Member of the Government; the difference is that the Trustees are not responsible to Parliament. It may be very proper—I do not say it is not—that a Member of the Government should move this Estimate; but if this were to be determined on, you would either have to find a Member of the Government who would give up his time and be at a great deal of trouble to master all the details of the British Museum, or else you would have the Estimates moved by somebody who knows nothing about them. Nothing would be easier than for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the Estimates, but it would be impossible for him to answer questions as to details or give the required information. The business of the Museum might be made a Department of the Government, and perhaps that would be a beneficial change; but then the individual who moved the Estimates, unless he were such a person as the present Home Secretrary, would require at his elbow a Trustee to prompt him—which could not be a very satisfactory state of things. Therefore, as long as the present arrangement exists we do well in having the Estimates moved by a Trustee; though I should readily acquiesce in any decision the House might come to on the matter. As to opening the Museum in the evening, in speaking upon that subject I feel that I am treading upon somewhat delicate ground. The remarks of my hon. Friend on this point are founded on a misconception of the object of the Museum. I hold it to be a place neither for exhibition nor for education; it is a receptacle for curious, scarce, and valuable objects, collected for the promotion of knowledge in the higher branches of scientific inquiry. Its function is quite
  1564
  different from that of the South Kensington Musuem, where the collection is infinitely less precious and costly. The object of that institution is undoubtedly the advancement of popular education and instruction, and everything is arranged there with that view. This is not the case with the British Museum. I think that if we give facilities for inspecting the collections intrusted to our keeping to those who really can understand and appreciate them, we do our duty. I do not think it is consistent with the main end of all such institutions as the British Museum to make what is called great places of popular instruction of them, merely for vast masses of people to come in and look at the collections, and then pass out. Under these circumstances, I hold that it is not desirable to open the British Museum in the evening; but, whether it is or is not desirable, I am sure it cannot be done at present. We tried the experiment once on a summer evening between six and seven o'clock, in order to give the working classes an opportunity of visiting the Museum if they pleased; but nobody came. Mr. Braidwood, I may add, the very able head of the Fire Brigade, who lost his life three or four years ago in attempting to extinguish a fire in the Borough, reported in the strongest manner against lighting the present building at night, inasmuch as to do so would, in his opinion, be to incur the greatest danger. I therefore think that it would be inexcusable on our part if, in order to meet a plausible popular cry, we were to expose these inestimable collections to the risk of being destroyed by fire. It is quite true that any new building might be lighted like the South Kensington Museum in an improved manner, but until we have greater means of security than are at present possessed, I think that it would be most unwise to make such an experiment. The Trustees have no policy of their own, except to suggest the purchase of land for the erection of a new building, which will relieve the present collections from their dangerous and inconvenient position. I am sure, whatever differences of opinion may exist on this subject, they are all merged in the one desire that the Government and the House of Commons would take some step to remedy this great scandal, and do away with the absurdity and folly of locking up wealth of this inestimable kind, when by the expenditure of a mi-

  1565
  serable pittance of a few thousand pounds it might be turned to the greatest profit and made subservient to the public interests.
  MR. CORRY: The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck) has said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) knew nothing about the collections at South Kensington, and that I knew less. I do not know what ground he has for coming to that conclusion. I may not indeed have arrived to such a high standard of information as my hon. Friend, but I now hold in my hand the Returns from which I spoke.
  MR. BENTINCKexpressed his regret at having said anything calculated to offend the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not intend that his words should convey the meaning put upon them.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOUR,in answer to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, that land at South Kensington might be purchased at one-sixth the price of land in Bloomsbury, said, that the land at South Kensington was, as a matter of fact, a good deal dearer than at the latter place, and that when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of procuring land at a cheaper rate at the former place, he must have had in view the land which was at the disposal of the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition, which was public property, but which they were no doubt willing to give up on very moderate terms. But he (Mr. H. Seymour) had frequently asked the question, without receiving a satisfactory reply, why the land in South Kensington was not sold to advantage, and the money arising from the sale appropriated to the purchase of the additional land required in the neighbourhood of the British Museum? There was no reason why, so far as he could see, the Trustees of the Museum should not remove some portion of the collections there to some of the houses in its immediate vicinity, which would, for all practical purposes, be as convenient as some portions of the existing building itself. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had not given the House the benefit of his opinion on the subject, and he would appeal to him to say whether he did not think a Bill might not be introduced and passed before the close of the Session, carrying into effect the suggestion which he had just made, and thus giving Professor Owen room to realize a large portion of his plan.
  MR. LOWEdesired to explain one thing. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the land in the hands of the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition to which he had referred as being public property, was absolutely the property of the Commissioners, and was entirely at their disposal for the purposes of science and art. Originally, a sum of public money was advanced to the Commissioners to enable them to purchase the land, but it had been long repaid, and they owed the public nothing.
  MR. WALPOLE: I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) that I am quite delighted the duty of moving this Estimate has devolved upon him, for I know of nobody better calculated — I will say so well calculated—to deal with a question which bears upon the interests of science and art. I differ from him in many points, but I quite agree with him on one — that some decided course must be taken on this matter. There are but two ways of dealing with the subject. You must either determine to separate the collections now in the Museum or buy more land in Bloomsbury. The argument for keeping the collections together is that it is desirable they should be all under one roof, so that persons wishing to study them might have an opportunity of doing so without going from one place to another. In favour of the separation of those collections it is, upon the other hand, urged that they would by that means be fairly and properly distinguished from one another. For my own part, I have always been for keeping them together, while my right hon. Friend has been an advocate for separation. I am, however, perfectly willing to take either course, provided you do not heap those stores on one another as at present in such a manner as to render them really not as available as they ought to be to those who wish to make them objects of study. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Poole wishes to know what course the Government have made up their minds to adopt, and appeals to me to say whether some measure on the subject might not easily be passed through both Houses of Parliament, even at this period of the Session. Opinions on the subject, however, are so divergent, and the difficulty of reconciling them is so enormous, that you may depend upon it it will require a very long time indeed

  1567
  for Parliament to deal with the question. All that I can say on the part of the Government is, that they are fully alive to the importance of the question, and that it is one which will have their serious attention during the recess. More than that I do not feel justified in saying. Before I pass from this subject I may be permitted to pay a tribute to a gentleman of extraordinary talent, who has devoted almost the whole of his life to the promotion of the advantages of the institution over which he had lately presided—I refer to Mr. Panizzi. It would ill become me to allow these Estimates to pass without paying the tribute which is so well deserved to the extraordinary powers of mind of this gentleman and which have been entirely devoted to the institution of which he has had charge.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £133,928, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
  MR. BENTINCKrose to call attention to the Vote for the new permanent buildings at South Kensington; to the revised plan and Estimates for them which had been submitted to the Treasury. Every year brought a great increase in the Estimates for this Department. The Estimate for 1861 was £94,000; in 1864–5 it had risen to £135,580; in 1865–6 to £162,000; and the present Estimate was for £174,000. It would be difficult to say where this large increase was to stop. In addition to that £174,000 it was now proposed to expend the sum of £420,000 to complete the plans for the New Buildings, though in the Report a modified plan estimated to cost £220,000 only was suggested. The case made out was this:—In 1860 the Committee recommended the plan of Captain Fowke, estimated to cost £214,000. Of that sum £93,000 had been already spent, £39,000 was being expended, and £82,000 remained to be laid out. That expenditure, however, was only to cover a space of 6,000,000 cubic feet; but it was now proposed to cover 13,000,000 cubic feet, with permanent buildings, at a total cost of £482,000. He, however, could see no reason for taking this step. Even if the space were required, he contended that the work should be done at a less extravagant outlay. If the buildings were wanted at all they might be of a plain character; but supposing it was desirable that they should be of a highly ornamental character, he considered the plan now
  1568
  adopted was not one which would secure a satisfactory result. Captain Fowke was not an architect, and did not possess the necessary knowledge for designing a building of this important character. He objected to the dilettante system of architecture in vogue at the Kensington Museum —to erecting a bit of one style here, another there—so that anything like harmony was out of the question. If it was intended to have a building of great architectural pretensions an architect of eminence should be employed, and his design should be submitted to the House before asking for the money necessary for its adoption. He wished to know what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this expenditure, and whether they intended to adopt the plan estimated to cost £420,000, or the modified plan at £220,000; and, if the latter, whether the expenditure would be kept to that amount, and not increased to the £420,000 at some future period, and whether, if they adopted a design of great architectural pretension, they would lay the plans before Parliament before asking it to vote the money?
  MR. CORRYsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) had commenced by complaining that he had not introduced this Vote by a preliminary statement; but he believed it was not usual to make any preliminary statement on proposing the Vote in relation to Science and Art; although it was usual to do so on introducing the Education Vote as he had done two nights ago. He would now, however, give some explanation of the increase in this Estimate as compared with last year. The first item of increase was one in which he took considerable interest —namely, £2,800 for the School of Naval Architecture; but that was a mere transfer from the Navy Estimates; and it involved no additional charge. The next item was £3,000 for the National Portrait Gallery, which had given so much gratification to the public, and it was expected that the whole of the expense would be recouped by payments for admission. Then there was £3,200 for institutions in Ireland in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory.) The next item was £1,500 for re-painting and lighting the Geological Museum, which was to be thrown open to the public at night. These, with some smaller items of a similar character, made up the increase of £12,087. Then there was the esti-

  1569
  mate for building at South Kensington. He was asked what were the intentions of the Government in that respect; but it could hardly be expected that, having so recently taken office, they could have yet been able to turn their attention to this subject. The late Board of Treasury had sanctioned an additional expenditure of £195,000, which was £205,000 less than the estimate for the completion of the whole of the general plan proposed by Captain Fowke. The whole question would be considered before preparing the Estimates for next year, and the Government would be at liberty either to adopt the scheme of work sanctioned by the late Government, or any modification of it they might think proper. He could not agree to refer the plans to a Committee. He did not know of any building erected in London of late years which appeared more suitable for its purpose or in better taste than the quadrangle at Kensington Museum, and he thought they had every reason to lament the premature death of the gallant and distinguished gentleman who had designed it.
  MR. BRUCEthought it would not be out of place if he gave to the Committee a short history of the establishment at South Kensington. In 1856 the sum of £15,000 was voted for a temporary iron building. Then there was voted £10,000 towards removing the offices and schools from Marlborough House to South Kensington. In 1857, £3,500 was voted for accommodation for the Sheepshanks Collection, in value about £60,000; and in 1859, £12,198 for the Vernon and Turner Collections. For these temporary objects the sum of £40,698 had from time to time been voted by Parliament. In 1860 the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), then administering the Department, applied to the Treasury for a grant of money to erect permanent buildings, the valuable collections of pictures and works of art placed in these temporary buildings not being securely housed. The Government hesitated about the permanent extension of these buildings until the policy of erecting a museum at South Kensington had been thoroughly investigated. In consequence of that determination the right hon. Gentleman moved for a Committee. It was very impartially chosen, and, after fully considering the subject, they reported unanimously in favour of establishing a museum. A plan was laid before them, in which the brick
  1570
  buildings, already built, were brought into use. The Committee recommended a further expenditure of £44,000 for buildings of urgent necessity. The Report stated that the museum was in course of formation. The Committee thought it unwise to commit the country to the heavy expense in anticipation of its wants, and they recommended that any plan which should be adopted for the buildings to be erected should be capable of being worked into a general plan, which would "at once fully occupy the ground, and be susceptible of a proper amount of decoration." Captain Fowke's plan, submitted to the Committee, was roughly estimated at £214,000. The Department was feeling its way. This was a new work, and it was impossible to foresee the direction and extent of its possible development. As matter of fact, several departments had sprung up in connection with the institution. The Science Department had been founded since the Report of the Committee, and was working very successfully and economically. The School of Naval Architecture had also been placed there. A most valuable educational library had been collected chiefly by gifts from publishers and private contributions, where the best books on education could be consulted in almost every modern language. There was also a magnificent Art library — probably the finest in the world. These things could not be foreseen; nor could it be anticipated how far private liberality would extend. Twice it had fallen to his lot to move for grants of £20,000 to extend the permanent buildings on plans which had been submitted to the Select Committee, but which had neither been specifically approved by them, nor submitted to Parliament. On moving the Estimates last year, he had undertaken to furnish the House with a distinct statement of the intentions of the Government with respect to the buildings, and Captain Fowke had been directed to prepare a plan completely occupying the ground. This he had done. The plan submitted to the Select Committee in 1860 was estimated to give about 6,500,000 cubic feet of building at a cost of £214,000. That prepared in 1865 provided 13,072,456 cubic feet at a total estimated cost of £520,000. It was a plan of great beauty and skilful arrangement, but the late Government considered it to be larger than was required for the immediate wants of

  1571
  the Museum, and proposed to execute only about three-fifths of it at a cost, including previous expenditure, of £314,000. The sums already voted amounted to £99,000; the Vote asked for the present year was £20,000; and it was proposed to extend the expenditure of the remaining £195,000 over six years. The correspondence on this subject with the Treasury had been printed in the Report of the Science and Art Department for the present year, and he should have been prepared, had he continued in office, to have asked the sanction of Parliament to act upon it. ft was, of course, competent to the present Government to adhere to Captain Fowke's original plan, but he earnestly hoped they would not do so, as it would be totally inadequate to supply the present requirements of the Musuem. No public buildings of any pretensions to architectural beauty had ever been built on so economical a scale as those now in progress at South Kensington. The British Museum had cost £1,100,000, at a cost of 1s. 6d. per cubit foot. The cost per cubic foot of the Royal Exchange had been 11 d., while that of the Houses of Parliament had been between 2s. and 3s. The estimated cost of the buildings at South Kensington, which had been tested by experience to be correct, was only 9d. per cubic foot.
  MR. AYRTONthought that any one reading the Report would have concluded that it was intended to commit the House by the present Vote to an expenditure of £434,000; but it was satisfactory to learn that, at present, no such scheme had been embarked in. With respect to the School of Naval Architecture, which had been established in the most inconvenient place in the metropolis, he wished to know the number of pupils, the mode of admission, and the fees paid by them.
  MR. BRUCEreplied that the number of pupils whose fees were paid by the Admiralty was twenty-six, in addition to eleven private students. During six months of the year the Admiralty pupils pursued the practical part of their education in the dockyard, receiving the scientific part during the other six months at South Kensington. For this latter object the School was very conveniently placed.
  In answer to Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR,
  MR. BRUCEexplained that the Principal and Vice Principal had fixed salaries, the other officials being paid by fees.
  MR. AYRTONcould not understand why twenty-six youths should be educated at the public expense and at a cost of £100 a year each.
  MR. CORRYbelieved that no sum of money included in the Estimates was more profitably expended. The £2,800 was not for the mere benefit of these twenty-six Admiralty pupils, and of the other pupils admitted, but also for the general advancement of the science of naval architecture. There was no other way of giving apprentices in the dockyards the scientific part of their education but by the establishment of a School for Naval Architecture, without which our ships would be built, as was once the case in this country, by what was vulgarly called the "rule of thumb." The consequence of the want of scientific instruction at one time was that our ships were a disgrace to the country, and during the great war we were always glad to get a French vessel and build one like it. When a member of the Board of Admiralty, many years ago, under the Government of the late Sir Robert Peel, he (Mr. Corry) had been instrumental in establishing a School of Naval Architecture at Portsmouth, to which selected pupils were sent from the other dockyards for instruction, and this school had produced very valuable results—as a proof of which he might say that Mr. Reed, the present Chief Constructor of the Navy, was educated there—but some years afterwards his unfortunate School was suppressed by Sir James Graham, on his return to the Admiralty as First Lord—since that time there had been no School of Naval Architecture until the establishment of the School at South Kensington; and it was of the highest importance to this great naval and mercantile country that we should have a supply of young men, scientifically educated as naval architects, in order that our ships might compete with those of other nations.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he did not think the education of twenty-six youths justified so large an expenditure, and inquired why all the apprentices in the dockyards did not receive scientific instruction.
  MR. CORRYsaid, that the general run of apprentices who became working shipwrights did not require such a scientific education, but that the most promising pupils were selected in order that they might become naval architects.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKthought that,

  1573
  when so many millions were spent for warlike purposes, the most liberal construction ought to be put on anything that was done in the way of education.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he thought the money would be much better spent at the dockyards in giving the rudiments of a scientific education to all the apprentices. He could not see why Professors should not give scientific instruction at dockyards to all who wished to receive it.
  MR. BRUCEpointed out that the services of many of the most eminent men could only be obtained in London.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he saw no necessity for a certain number of youths being educated at the public expense, for if the Government required the services of persons possessing particular qualifications they had only to announce the fact and plenty of candidates would present themselves, the best of whom could be selected. The present system was most extravagant and tended to secure incapacity instead of capacity, a principle which seemed to be peculiarly predominant in the navy.
  MR. WATKINsaid, the question was whether a country like this should have a School of Naval Architecture, and whether, if so, £2,800 was too large a sum to be devoted to that purpose. The expense last year was £4,000, so that the cost had been reduced, and the School was the nucleus of a system of instruction with reference to shipbuilding, the advantage of which was apparent from every discussion on the Navy Estimates in that House. He was glad to see the expenditure on the South Kensington Museum increased, because money could not be spent more beneficially than in providing the means of educating the people.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he approved the practical view of the subject which had been taken by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin.) The question under discussion was of importance, not only to the Royal Navy, but also to the mercantile marine, who derived the greatest benefit from the institution. The late Admiralty had acted most advantageously for the interest of the country in establishing the School of Naval Architecture. Sir James Graham most unfortunately did away with the old School of Naval Architecture, and the want of which had ever since been greatly felt, as the maritime interests of the country absolutely required the existence of such an institution. A
  1574
  complaint had been made that the School was established at South Kensington instead of at the dockyards; but it was impossible to expect that the eminent gentlemen who attended at South Kensington should be able to go down to lecture at the dockyards. Moreover, the pupils only attended the School at South Kensington during the winter months, so that they were at liberty to devote themselves practically to their profession during the summer.
  MR. BENTINCK,after expressing his thanks for the explanation that had been given by the right hon. Gentleman, wished to ask a question as to the sum of £700 for pictures that had been purchased during the past year for the South Kensington Museum. He thought there should be no competition between that institution and the National Gallery with reference to the purchase of pictures, and that as to ancient pictures the proper place for them was the National Gallery.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he had seen every picture that had been purchased for the South Kensington Museum during the past year, and he could therefore state that, with the exception of a few water colour pictures, the greater part of the money was expended in order to add to the Sheepshanks Collection, for the purpose of giving a more complete illustration of contemporaneous English art. The few ancient pictures that had been purchased from time to time had been bought because they exhibited some peculiar style of decoration or some curiosity of costume.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £254,130, to complete the sum for Public Education in Ireland.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, he regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not been able to make this Vote satisfactory to the clergy of Ireland. He hoped that before the Estimate was proposed next year some arrangement would be made whereby the Protestant clergy of Ireland would be dealt with more satisfactorily.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the object he had in view in intruding himself on the Committee was to ascertain, for the information of the House and the country, what was the nature of the education imparted to the Roman Catholic population by the Roman Catholic schools maintained by grants from the State. He believed that money granted for other purposes had been devoted to convent schools.

  1575
  The only object he had ever had in calling attention to the Maynooth and other similar grants was that information should be obtained as to the real nature of Roman Catholic education in Ireland. One of the results of that education was seen in the Fenian conspiracy. ["Oh, oh!"] He could not recognize that interruption as a legitimate one. What he maintained was, that the Roman Catholic priests either were the originators and supporters of Fenianism or they were not. If they were the House was directly responsible for every shilling which was voted to be placed under their control, and thus, in fact, for stimulating the chronic disaffection of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. If the priests were not supporters of Fenianism, then how was it that, with the means of education in their hands, and with the vast influence which they possessed over the people, they did not discountenance or prevent it? The House systematically refused to make any inquiry into this subject, often as he had urged it. But he desired to call the attention of the House to a publication prepared by the Rev. Mr. Magee, and which that gentleman had forwarded to the late Attorney General for Ireland for presentation to the House. Some of the statements in this petition were very remarkable. He referred to certain Papal documents called bulls, and he gave the names of some of them, such as that Super Soliditatem, Unigenitus, Excommunicatus, Pastor Bonus, and others. It was of these documents that Dr. Doyle once said that in any country where they were in force nothing but confusion could possibly happen—"bloodshed" and "slaughter," and "streets running with blood," were some of his expressions, and Dr. Doyle discovered that these documents were then, and they are now, in full force in Ireland, and are practically the law under which the Roman Catholic hierarchy administered their authority. He was not expressing his own opinion only when he said that Members returned from Ireland acted not from Imperial interests, but in the interest of a foreign Power antagonistic to principles, civil and religious, recognized in this country. He would go further, and say that it appeared, from the example of Dr. Pusey and his followers, that there was no reason why a person professing the Roman Catholic religion should not remain in the Church of England.
  MR. W. ORMSBY GORErose to order, and wished to know whether the hon.
  1576
  Gentleman was speaking to the Question before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough had introduced a new subject, and appealed to him to consider the convenience of the Committee and the advanced period of the Session.
  MR. WHALLEYthought that the Committee would see that what he said did bear on the question under discussion. What he objected to was the recognition of a foreign Power, which, as far as it went, was fatal to the peace and in antagonism to the Constitution of this country. They were really granting this money for the teaching of principles which were embodied in the bulls of the foreign authority to which he had referred.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXrose to order, and desired to know whether the offensive remarks of the hon. Member towards Roman Catholics were in order?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he could not say the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough were not in order; but whether they were relevant to the subject before the House was another question.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he should not trouble the Committee further on this question, but he could not sit down without asking whether the Government did not inquire into the nature of the education given under this Vote?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that it appeared that in the English education the expense of management was 12 per cent, while as regarded the Irish education it was little over 4 per cent. The difference in the number of inspectors in each country was not so great, and he should like to know whether the payment in Ireland secured sufficient inspection?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the hon. Member had overlooked certain items which affected the totals, and made the percentages of the cost of administration nearly identical.
  MR. MONSELLtestified to the efficiency of the inspection.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £730, Commissioners of Education (Office Expenses), Ireland.
  (6.) £5,793, to complete the sum for the University of London.
  (7.) £14,857, to complete the sum for the Universities in Scotland.
  (8.) £1,452, to complete the sum for the Queen's University in Ireland.
  (9.) £2,250, to complete the sum for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland.
  (10.) £700, Royal Irish Academy.
  (11.) £1,000, to complete the sum for the National Gallery of Ireland.
  (12.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the Belfast Theological Professors.
  (13.) £11,892, to complete the sum for the National Gallery.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know whether the present Government proposed to carry out that plan for the erection of an improved National Gallery which had met with the approval of their predecessors?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the present Government intended to adhere to the general plan adopted by their predecessors, for the erection of the improved National Gallery; but if the hon. Gentleman would give notice of a Question upon that subject he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be prepared to give more detailed information with respect to it.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £650, to complete the sum for the British Historical Portrait Gallery.
  (15.) £5,059, to complete the sum for Magnetic and Meteorological Observations, &c.
  (16.) £10,000, to complete the sum for the Universal Exhibition at Paris.
  (17.) £2,300, Learned Societies in Great Britain.
  (18.) £1,810 17 s. 7d., Deficiencies in Civil Services for prior years.
  (19.) £2,000, Monument to Viscount Palmerston.
  (20.) £10,000, Works at Landguard Point.
  (21.) £22,000, Temporary Commissions.
  (22.) £43,635, Miscellaneous Expenses formerly defrayed from Civil Contingencies.
  (23.) £3,052, Household of King of the Belgians.
  (24.) £5,000, Vaccinators.
  (25.) £95,489, Constabulary of Ireland.
  (26.) £3,500, Merchants, Gold Coast.
  (27.) £1,920, Treasury Chest.
  (28.) £4,230, British Columbia.
  (29.) £5,824, Emigration of Coolies.
  (30.) £14,000, Inland Revenue Department.
  (31.) £10,000, Instalment on a Ship to be built on the design of Captain Coles.
  (32.) £5,926, Increased Pay and Allowances (Medical Officers, Royal Navy.)
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it was at present extremely difficult to obtain properly qualified medical officers for either the army or navy. The medical officers of the army and navy appeared to be taken out of the body of young medical men in this country, no provision being made providing a special education suitable to the services with the exception of a few months' training. He had felt it his duty to read very carefully the evidence taken by the Committee appointed to consider the case of those officers; and it appeared to him that they did not complain so much of the inadequate amount of the pay given to them as of their rank and status in the services; and, consequently, they generally looked forward to retirement on pensions after fifteen or twenty years. Now, it could not be satisfactory to the body of combatant officers that the medical officers, who entered the service at about the same age as they themselves became lieutenants, should receive so much higher pay, and should be able to retire at an early age on so much better terms. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, that during the recess they might consider whether, instead of taking their chance of selecting from a body whose ideas of remuneration and early retirement were pitched so much higher than those of the combatant officers, it would not be wiser by early education to train up a body of medical officers who would look to the army or the navy as their profession for life.
  GENERAL PEELthought that if there was one thing more desirable than another in connection with this subject it was to obtain for the army and navy the best medical men they could procure. In 1858 a warrant was issued regulating the rank and position of these officers, and very soon after it underwent an alteration in consequence of the dissatisfaction which was expressed with it. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) now appeared to be dissatisfied with the amended warrant; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman how could they possibly expect medical gentlemen to enter the army or the navy if it was announced to them that their status was going to be altered?
  MR. CHILDERSbegged to say that his suggestion did not apply to gentlemen

  1579
  who had entered. It was entirely prospective.
  GENERAL PEELwould remind the hon. Gentleman that under the existing warrant direct inducements had been and were still held out to medical students to qualify themselves for the army and navy. The result of the alteration made in the terms of the Minute had not been to attract the number of candidates anticipated, for at the present moment there were actually more offices to fill, he believed, than candidates for those positions. The effect of the proposal now put forward he understood to be that instead of inviting the services of members of the profession generally a set of young men were to he sought out from some special Government establishment. He had not enjoyed the opportunity of considering the proposal as it might affect the navy; but it certainly ought to be the object of the House of Commons to secure for the army and navy the best men that could possibly be got.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, as far as he could gather from the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers), it was proposed that young men should be attracted to the service by some scheme of early retirement. In that case young men would learn their business in the army or navy, and, as soon as they knew it, would be enabled to retire and earn more money elsewhere.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman exactly reversed the effect of his proposition.
  Vote agreed to.
  (33.) £18,000, for completion of Her Majesty's Ship Northumberland.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise to call for an explanation as to a matter of fact with a view to remove misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) in the early part of the evening stated that the Vote of £4,970, which he then proposed, was in redemption of a pledge given by the Government of Lord Palmerston.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: By Lord Palmerston himself.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman draws a distinction between a pledge given by Lord Palmerston and a pledge given by the Government of Lord Palmerston.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was correcting your words merely.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has been so reported to me. I beg, therefore, to state that no such pledge was given by the Government of Lord Palmerston in any shape; and as to Lord Palmerston, though I am informed that when first the subject was mentioned to him he was favourably disposed towards it, on further consideration he altered his mind.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The statement which I made was made after reading a letter written by Lord Palmerston, in which he says that, although objections were made by some of his Colleagues, he was still prepared to propose the Vote. I am further authorized in saying that the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for War also approved the Vote, and expressed an opinion to that effect in the other House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Secretary for War is not the organ of the Government for such a purpose, and he is able to express no binding opinion as to the grant of public money. This is a grant of public money. To obviate misapprehension, what I wish to state, without entering into further details as to the Vote in which the House has acquiesced, is this—that it never was a Vote adopted by Lord Palmerston's Government, and that Lord Palmerston himself did not approve the Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish there should be no misunderstanding on this question. The statement I made was that this was an engagement on the part of Lord Palmerston. I have seen a letter from Lord Palmerston, written at a period subsequent to the original engagement, in which he says that objections had been urged against the Vote by some of his Colleagues—or by a Colleague—but that he still was prepared, if required, to propose it. On the faith of the original undertaking, and of that subsequent statement confirmatory of the original undertaking, the Estimates were made on which the Committee of the National Memorial to the Prince Consort acted. And it was in consequence of that understanding that a requisition was made by the artist, and that this proposition has been brought before the Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There was no distinction between the Colleagues of Lord Palmerston and Lord Palmerston. The whole of the Colleagues of Lord

  1581
  Palmerston and Lord Palmerston himself were of the opinion I have stated.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow at Twelve of the clock.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 221.]
  (Mr. Gathorne Hardy, Mr. Earle.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Registrar of Births and Deaths may be superannuated.)
  MR. HENLEYthought it was a great hardship to throw the charge for registration upon the real property of the country.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Limits imposed by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101 and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 105 withdrawn.)
  MR. HENLEYentertained considerable objection. At present, a workhouse child could not be sent away beyond twenty miles from the union, but this clause did away with the limit altogether.
  MR. NEATEsupported the clause, the advantages of which would, he believed, greatly overbalance the inconvenience pointed out by his right hon. Friend.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYwould be willing to limit the distance to fifty or fifty-five miles.
  MR. HENLEYknew the inconvenience of fixing an exact limit. All he sought was that the children should not be so placed as to lose all sight of their connections.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the matter was well considered in the Committee, and the reasons there given were considered fully to justify the change of the law, and it was assented to by the whole Committee.
  MR. HENLEY: All he asked was that the relations of the children should be communicated with.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that in London the best thing that could be done for the children would be to separate them from their connections.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  LORD BINGHAM,in moving the insertion of a new clause providing for the education of pauper children in the religion to which they belong, said, his object was to do a simple act of justice to a large section of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, many children belonging to whose faith were at present, there was good reason to suppose, brought up in London workhouse schools as Protestants. In support of his proposition, he desired to read a statement contained in a letter from the Hon. Charles Langdale, narrating the circumstances connected with the case of the children of a woman named Mary Sarsfield. The statement was as follows:—
  "Mary Sarsfield died in Milbank Prison on the 6th of April, 1865, having three children in the workhouse, where they were taken at her imprisonment. Previously to her death, she requested a paper to be written, and which she signed (not knowing how to write) in the presence of two of the female officers in the prison, who likewise affixed their signatures, leaving these three children to my care in order that they should be brought up Catholics—her own religion. On her deathbed the prisoner expressed her satisfaction that the faith of her children was thus secured to them. Upon inquiry, I found that these children had been sent to the district school at Southall. I applied, therefore, to the Marylebone Board of Guardians, laying before them the paper signed by the mother in the presence of witnesses. The Board agreed to take the case into their consideration—my offer being to take these children, support, and educate them at my own expense. On my visiting the Board the following week, they declined to let me have the children, or hear any further observations from me."
  To meet cases of this kind, and in order to secure that pauper children unconnected with the Established Church should be educated in the faith to which they belonged, he begged to move the following clause:—
  "That if the parent, step-parent, or nearest adult relative of any child not belonging to the Established Church, relieved in a workhouse or in a district school, or in the case of an orphan the god-parent of such orphan, make application to the said Board in such behalf, the Board may, if they think fit, order that such child shall be sent to some school established for the reception, maintenance, and education of children of the religion to which such child shall belong, and duly certified by the Poor Law Board under the Statute of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 43; and the guardians of the union or parish to which such child shall be chargeable shall, according to the terms of such order, cause the child to be conveyed to such school, and pay the costs and charges of the maintenance, lodging, clothing, and education of the said child therein, and all the provisions of the said Statute shall thenceforth apply to the said child."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  COLONEL HOGGsaid, he saw no possible use in this clause. He believed that the guardians of the metropolitan workhouses showed a very great respect for the religious convictions of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. They kept registers showing the religious denominations to which each pauper child or adult belonged, and those registers could be seen by the Roman Catholic priest and the Dissenting minister, who had every facility afforded them for giving spiritual instruction. As a Poor Law Guardian of St. George's, Hanover Square, himself, he must say he had never heard of a case of proselytism; and if he had would have exposed it. He saw no necessity whatever for the provision moved by the noble Lord.
  MR. REARDENthanked the noble Lord for proposing that clause, and alleged that a system of religious proselytism was carried on in certain London workhouses, particularly instancing that of St. George's, Hanover Square.
  COLONEL HOGGprotested that he never knew of a single case of proselytism at the Board of Guardians of that union while he had been connected with it, and that if he had ever seen anything of the kind attempted he would have been the first to oppose and discountenance it.
  MR. REARDENsaid, he entirely acquitted the hon. and gallant Member of any participation in the acts of proselytism to which he had referred.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, no hon. Member would desire that children placed in workhouses should be under a different system from what they would be if placed in industrial schools. The educational system should be denominational, and if Wesleyans or Baptists desired their children to be educated in their own tenets they had a right to have them so educated. If those workhouses were in the hands of Roman Catholics, and they had their chaplains appointed for the purpose of educating the children in them, he should think it a great hardship that Protestants should not be allowed to remove their children to a certified school where they might be taught their own religion. For that reason he was prepared to give his hearty assent to the proposal which had just been made by the noble Lord behind him. He had not, however, thought it right to make the proposal himself, inasmuch as it would
  1584
  have the effect of placing in his hands a power different from that possessed by his predecessors in office. The Committee ought not, he thought, to regard the question as one between antagonistic religions, nor was it a new one. The original Poor Law Act provided that every care should be taken to prevent children in workhouses from being brought up in a faith different from that of their parents, and in 1859 a set of articles were drawn up by his right hon. Friend Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt in reference to the subject, which were confirmed by Lord March, now the Duke of Richmond, who succeeded him at the Poor Law Board, and which provided for full and fair freedom as to the religious instruction to be given. He had been pressed to introduce a larger scheme dealing with the matter, but he had felt it to he his duty to decline to do so at so late a period of the Session. He had, at the same time, looked carefully into it, and wishing that all religions and all denominations should be placed on a fair footing, in the way proposed by the noble Lord, he hoped the Committee would not refuse to accept his very moderate suggestion.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was matter of perfect indifference to him in what principles of religion children were brought up. Now, so far as regarded the principles of religious liberty, there could be no objection to that statement; but it was made in the interest of children who were claimed as Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman ought to reflect that he was increasing the number of those who by the Constitution of the country and by the doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic religion were undoubtedly a danger to the State. The Bill had been fully considered in the Committee, and he considered that the clause had been brought forward for the purpose of stealing a march upon Parliament without discussion. He should move "That the Chairman report Progress."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he must certainly excuse himself from answering the peculiar views of the hon. Member for Peterborough. He readily acknowledged the liberality and kindness

  1585
  of the noble Lord who had taken up this matter, and of the Government for adopting his suggestion, but the clause was not all that Catholics could wish. What they desired was set forth in the Report of the Committee of 1864. Unions differed in their practice, but that of many was what every liberal and fair man, whether Protestant or Catholic, would reprobate. This was proved by evidence given before the Committee in 1864 by representatives of large London unions, who openly avowed that they did not recognize any children as Catholics, never instructed them as such, and would not allow a priest to visit any under the age of fourteen or fifteen. The conductors of a certified Catholic orphanage had requested twenty one unions in London to allow Catholic children to be taken into its schools, but the answer in every case was a refusal. These facts proved that the rights of Roman Catholics were refused.
  MR. CANDLISHpointed out that the clause was defective in not meeting the case in which the surviving adult relative of a child was not of the same religion as its parents, and in assuming that all children had god-parents—sponsors being dispensed with in most Dissenting baptisms.
  MR. NEWDEGATEdeprecated the remarks of the hon. Member for Peterborough, who, he said, made Protestant feeling appear ridiculous; but, at the same time, he opposed the clause, which he said was calculated to promote proselytism by Roman Catholic priests, by opening the door for the assertion of claims which it would be impossible to test.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the proposed clause was entirely consistent with the 19th clause of the original New Poor Law Act, the principle of which clause had been neglected for a long time past. Nothing was more clear than the intention that the religious opinions of the inmates of the workhouses should be respected; but the Committee which sat on the subject of Poor Law Relief recommended that such a clause as the one proposed should be accompanied by others requiring, among other things, a book to be kept, accessible to people out of the workhouse, describing the religious faith of the inmates. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed alarmed lest the proposed clause might favour proselytism by Roman Catholic priests; but he could assure the House that there was abundance of evidence that proselytism was going on in
  1586
  the other direction. Many guardians actually believed it to be their duty, when they found a child without friends or next of kin, to bring it up as a Protestant, without regard to what might have been the religion of the parents; in some unions the religion of Roman Catholic children was ridiculed, and the children made ashamed of it. This caused great pain to the relatives of the children, being Roman Catholics; and the clause now proposed would meet that case.
  MR. AYRTONobjected that the clause gave the right of interference to the nearest relative of a child, and enabled him to decide in what religion the child should be educated. He might be no more than a tenth cousin to the child, and it was absurd to invest him with such an important influence upon the child's future career. Under this clause, too, a man might desert his whole family, and yet assert the right of regulating the manner in which his children should be educated. He wished to know whether there was any limit put to the charge of maintenance for these children. The clause was inadequate to carry out its proposed object, and the right hon. Gentleman should take into consideration the means of carrying out his own views. The inevitable consequence of this clause would be to transfer the charge of these children from the local authorities to the Consolidated Fund.
  MR. HENLEYthought this clause right in principle. Children in the workhouses being Roman Catholics or Presbyterians, or of any other form of faith, should if there was a school of that character be sent to it. But he objected that the clause was not sufficiently clear and distinct in carrying out this, which he supposed was its object. Under the clause as it was at present worded the case might arise of a child whose father was a Roman Catholic, and whose mother was a Presbyterian; and supposing that the father died, would it be open to the mother to come forward and claim that the education of the child should be in the Presbyterian faith. How could the Poor Law Board settle the point? It did not seem they had any means of requiring proof.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYexplained that he had introduced nothing controversial into the Bill, otherwise it would have no chance of passing this Session. The whole question of the religious standing of different denominations in workhouses and schools required consideration,

  1587
  but he accepted the proposed clause as one of a provisional character. In reply to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), he would point out that the sum to be paid for a child was not to exceed the cost of maintenance in the workhouse, and no proposal was made to grant anything from the Consolidated Fund. As to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), he could only say that the workhouse authorities would be bound to take the best means in their power of ascertaining the religion of the parents of the child. He did not think these difficulties could occur.
  MR. WHALLEYcomplained of what ho said was the "impertinence" of the hon. Member opposite in imputing to him Jesuitism.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he never stated that he believed the hon. Member was a Jesuit.
  MR. WHALLEY: I rise to order. What the hon. Gentleman did say was that I was not a Protestant.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwas glad the hon. Member had retracted his previous assertion as to the expression he had previously attributed to him (Mr. Newdegate).
  MR. WHALLEY: I have not recanted.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: He had objected to the mode in which the hon. Gentleman carried on his advocacy of the principles to which he (Mr. Newdegate) was attached, which he considered highly injurious to the cause which the hon. Member appeared to espouse.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 8: Majority 59.
  On the Motion of Mr. HENLEY, words were introduced to the effect that proof should be given of the religion of the child.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Order for Committee read.
  Account No. 46 of the Finance Accounts [presented 31st May] referred.
  WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there be issued and applied to the Service of the year ending
  1588
  the 31st day of March 1867, the sum of £767,600 2s. 4d., being the Surplus of Ways and Means granted for the Service of preceding years.
  2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £19,661,630 15 s. 3d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

  DOCKYARD EXTENSIONS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN PARINGTON, Bill to extend the duration of the Dockyard Extensions Act (1865), ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN PARINGTON and Lord HENRY LENNOX.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 246.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Land Drainage Supplemental (No. 2) * (224); Overseer of the Poor (Small Parishes)*(225); Parochial Buildings (Scotland) Act Amendment * (226); Colonial Branch Mints * (227); Tramways (Ireland) Act Amendment * (228); Inland Revenue* (229); Court of Session (Scotland)* (230).
Second Reading — British Columbia * (213); Rochdale Vicarage (204); Land Tax Commissioners' Names * (179); Militia Pay*; Drainage and Improvement of Lands Act (Ireland) Provisional Order * (217); Public Works, Harbours, &c.* (219); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (220); Paupers (Scotland) * (223); Oyster and Mussel Fisheries (212); Foreign Jurisdiction Act Amendment (165).
Committee—Oyster Bed Licences (Ireland)* (205); Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) (193).
Report—Consecration of Churchyards (No. 2) (231); Ecclesiastical Commission (232).
Third Reading—Standards of Weights, Measures, and Coinage* (150); National Gallery Enlargement * (171).
Richard Baron Cremorne in that Part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, having been created Earl of Dartrey of Dartrey in the County of Monaghan—Was in the usual manner introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer Lytton, Baronet, having been created Baron Lytton of Knebworth in the County of Hertford—Was in the usual Manner introduced.
Sir William George Hylton Jolliffe, Baronet, having been created Baron Hylton of Hylton in the County Palatine of Durham and of Petersfield in the County of Southampton—Was in the usual Manner introduced.

THE REFORM LEAGUE AND THE HOME SECRETARY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Seeing the noble Earl the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, I take the liberty of asking him a Question. There have appeared upon the walls in various parts of the metropolis and upon the Park gates a very long and grandiose proclamation signed "Edmond Beaks." I shall be glad to know from the noble Earl, Whether the contents of that proclamation are correct, and whether it contains an accurate statement of what has taken place between the Reform League and the Home Secretary?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am very much obliged to my noble Friend for the opportunity he has given me of disabusing your Lordships and the public with regard to the communications which have taken place between the Council of the Reform League and Her Majesty's Government within the last twenty-four hours. After the discussion in the House of Commons the other night, the Council of the Reform League communicated with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, stating that they had heard with great satisfaction the statement made by him last night as to the state in which he conceived the law to be, and were gratified by the conciliatory tone in which he had spoken; and stating that they were very anxious to have the opportunity of conferring with him next day, if he would receive a deputation. In consequence of this request my right hon. Friend, about two o'clock yesterday, received a deputation of the Council of the League, who expressed their great regret at the scenes which had taken place in Hyde Park. Of course, they had their own view of the matter as to the violence used by the police. That was not a question which it was necessary to discuss; but they expressed a great desire to do everything in their power to put an end to these outrages and to prevent any further damage being done in the Park, and they represented to my right hon. Friend that, if they were allowed to go into the Park without interference by the police or the military —without any demonstration of force by the
1492
authorities—they thought that they might be able to persuade those people who were still doing more or less mischief in the Park to retire quietly to their homes. Some conversation took place, which, as far as I can understand, is very accurately reported in The Times of this morning; and certainly, after reading the terms of the understanding and the proposal made by my right hon. Friend, I must say that nothing can be more directly opposed to the statement in the placards to which my right hon. Friend has referred, than what actually did take place. What my right hon. Friend did state was this—
"If you will assure your friends that the Government will give you every opportunity of trying the legal right, and facilitating the determination of that right, and that they ask of you in the interim not to insist on that right until it is determined one way or the other; that in the meantime you will convey to your friends that the Government wish to meet them in the fairest and frankest manner, as to the opportunities they may have of discussing public questions, in places which are recognized as places where the police would not be ordered to interfere;—if you will only do that, I think I see the solution of the present difficulty. In that case I will undertake to say that, unless any mischief arise to-night, unless any disturbance be created, unless property be attacked—which it is my duty to defend—there will be no demonstrations of either military or police."
The conditions, therefore, were that they should be permitted to address their friends who might be remaining in the Park to induce them to withdraw, and that every facility should be given them to try, if they were disposed, the legal right of the public to admission into the Park at all times and for all purposes. Every facility for the trial of this right was to be given upon the condition that in the interim there should be no attempt made to insist upon the exercise of the alleged right. This conversation took place between two o'clock and half past two. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted entirely upon his own responsibility and without communication with his Colleagues. Between four and five o'clock he informed me of what had taken place. I then expressed to him my doubts whether the influence of the Council of the League would be sufficient to effect the object they had in view, but I quite agreed with him that they should be permitted to try. Certainly, nothing could be greater than my astonishment when I found a placard posted up all over the neighbourhood of Hyde Park, stating directly the reverse

1493
of that which my right hon. Friend had said; not that in the interim no attempt should be made to insist upon the supposed right, but, on the contrary, setting up an agreement between the Government and the Council of the Reform League, and proposing to hold a Reform meeting in Hyde Park at six o'clock on Monday evening next. My right hon. Friend was just as much surprised as I was. The fact is that, after the deputation left him, Mr. Beales and one or two more personally returned to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would consent to a meeting being held in the Park on Monday night next. My right hon. Friend gave the only answer he could—namely, that the question was one of far too much importance for him to take the responsibility singly of coming to a decision upon it. He also said that, in order to prevent the possibility of mistake on so important a matter, the request must be made in writing, and that after he had had an opportunity of consulting his Colleagues an answer should be given in writing. This was between two and three o'clock. About half past six my right hon. Friend received from Mr. Beales a letter, of which I have a copy—
"The Reform League. Manhood Suffrage and the Ballot. 8, Adelphi Terrace, London, July 25.
"Sir,—I am requested by the Council of this League to most earnestly press upon you the advisability and even urgent necessity—as the most effectual means of putting an end to the dangerous state of exasperation now existing in the public mind — that you will offer no opposition to the meeting proposed to be held by the League in Hyde Park, on Monday afternoon next, at six o'clock; such meeting to be held on the general subject of the Elective Franchise and Reform, and to be without prejudice in any way to the decision of the question in Parliament or in a Court of Law as to the abstract right of the people to meet for political discussion in that or any other Park, the Council of the League undertaking on their part to do everything in their power to preserve the peace and prevent any act tending to riot or disorder.—I am, Sir, with the utmost respect, your obedient humble servant, "EDMOND BEALES, President." "The Right Hon. Spencer Walpole."
To that letter, up to the present time, no answer has been returned. Yet within half an hour of the sending of that letter a placard was posted all over the Park intimating that the Secretary of State, on the part of the Government, had given his consent to the holding of a meeting at six o'clock on Monday next. One of the members of the deputation was Mr. Holyoake, and having seen the placard, Mr. Holyoake this morning came to the Home Office to
1494
repudiate, in the strongest terms, Mr. Beales' proclamation. He perfectly understood Mr. Walpole to decline to sanction any meeting in the Park, and to ask that any application for that should be made in writing. He spoke to many Liberal Members last night, and also to Mr. Beales when the proclamation was being posted. There is, therefore, on the part of one of the deputation themselves, on the part of one of those who asked for the meeting, a distinct repudiation, and a declaration of the absolute falsity of the placard. My right hon. Friend thought it necessary to refer this question to his Colleagues, and I hope that your Lordships will approve the answer, not yet sent, but determined upon by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have directed Mr. Walpole to acquaint the Council of the League that they have no disposition whatever to interfere with a meeting held in any proper place for the purpose of discussing Reform or any other political question; but that it is impossible they can give their sanction to the holding of a meeting for that purpose in any of the Royal Parks; at the same time, they are quite ready to give the Council or any other person every facility for trying the alleged legal right; but, in the meantime, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to sanction that which they believe to be a violation of the law. It is added that if they desire to hold an open-air meeting no objection will he raised to their meeting, as on former occasions, on Primrose Hill; but a meeting in any of the Royal Parks will not be sanctioned. That is the answer which will be given; and I hope the good sense of the leaders of this movement, after fully considering all the consequences of their action on Monday last, the serious damage done, the alarm excited in the minds of quiet persons, the injury which has been done, not to property only, but in some cases to persons also, and the impossibility of their being able to answer for the conduct of those who do not belong to them, but who follow in the train of a monster procession, will show them that they are incurring very serious and grave responsibility. If, after the warning which has been given—after the voluntary offer to permit a meeting upon Primrose Hill, they persist in that which we believe to be a violation of the law, they must be held responsible for all the consequences which must follow from such a reckless course of procedure.

ROCHDALE VICARAGE BILL—(No. 204.)
(The Earl of Chichester.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Chichester.)
THE EARL OF POWIStrusted, that when in Committee, their Lordships would see that a clause was inserted in it empowering the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make provision for the appointment of two or three curates to assist the Vicar of Rochdale. Such assistance would be absolutely necessary, if the vicar's labours were to be fruitful. Much had been said respecting the large amount of detail work with which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were saddled. He thought it would be better if estates were managed by local trustees, subject to the examination of the Commissioners, in the same way as charity trustees managed estates under the supervision of the Charity Commissioners.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for To-morrow.

CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS (No. 2) BILL—(The Lord Redesdale.)

  (NO. 193.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD REDESDALE,in moving that the House should resolve itself into a Committee, said, that he had been in communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury in respect to the measure; and, as the most rev. Prelate had raised objections to a portion of its provisions, he did not mean to proceed further with it until the Members of the right rev. Bench should have an opportunity of stating their views upon the subject.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that he and his right rev. Brethren had felt much obliged to the noble Lord for having taken up the subject. It was, no doubt, very desirable that the expense of consecrating additions made to churchyards should, as far as possible, be diminished. But the question was one of a complicated nature; and, without entering into its details, he would state that a very large portion of the expenses were incurred not in connection with the performance of the ecclesiastical rite, but from the difficulty of proving the title to the ground, and then transferring it for the purpose. He had ascertained
  1496
  that in the diocese of London the mere consecration charge did not amount to more than £14 10 s. within the limits of the metropolis, and £18 for those districts lying beyond the metropolitan radius. The Members of the Episcopal Bench were anxious that the expense should be as far as possible reduced, and any means that the noble Lord could devise would be favourably considered by the right rev. Bench; but he doubted whether the present Bill would provide the best mode of attaining that object.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYremarked, that his information led him to believe that the expenses of consecration often amounted to £70. He knew of no valid objection to the Bill, and would be glad to hear from the right rev. Bench on what grounds they opposed its progress.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPobserved, that the principal expenses in connection with consecrations arose from the investigation of title; but he did not see anything in this Bill to meet the case of a complicated title. He thought it would be better to defer legislation till they could pass a measure of a more comprehensive character.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not see why their Lordships could not proceed with the consideration of the Bill, and hear any objections which the right rev. Bench might have to urge. It appeared to him to be a very simple and effective measure.
  LORD REDESDALEremarked, that his first Bill was certainly of a more simple character, inasmuch as it merely declared that any addition made to a churchyard should be considered to form part of it without any further consecration; but he had felt bound to meet the objection that it would seem to institute a consecration by Act of Parliament. The present Bill was directed to meeting legal difficulties, and in no way interfered with episcopal authority. He would ask their Lordships to go into Committee on the Bill, with the understanding that the objections of the most rev. and right rev. Prelates should be considered before the measure was passed.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONshould be quite ready to enter into the difficult questions which, in his opinion, would arise on the preamble and other parts of the Bill; but he thought it would be a wasting of their Lordships' time to do so. He might observe, however, that in the preamble things were taken for granted which, so far from being at all settled, were the subject of grave question. Again, he did not

  1497
  think the Bill afforded sufficient security that ground to be added to churchyards would be conveyed in perpetuity. This was an important point, because the expense of consecration depended, on a very large degree, on the investigation of title.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that if it were intended to dispense with consecration in any case, the language used upon that point ought to be most explicit.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the preamble of the Bill very clearly explained the intention to which the clause subsequently gave effect. The principle was clearly established, that any additions to a consecrated building became likewise consecrated by the mere fact of being attached to the original edifice. The principle, he thought, was one which might still more fairly be applied to ground than to buildings.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee; an Amendment moved, and negatived; Bill reported without Amendment; an Amendment made; Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to be printed as amended (No. 231).

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERIES BILL. (No. 212.)—(The Earl of Belmore.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREexplained that the object of the Bill was to further the formation and maintenance of oyster and mussel fisheries on the shore of the bed or sea or estuaries. The Bill authorized the Board of Trade on a memorial presented by any person or persons to make an order for a several fishery of that kind. The fishery having been established, the Bill made provision for its preservation, for enforcing the rights of the undertakers, and for the reservation of the rights of others that might be injuriously affected. A Commission which had sat upon the subject had recommended the adoption of those provisions. The Bill also provided remedies for all persons whose rights should be affected, and, on objections being made to the Board of Trade, that Board might send down inspectors to hear complaints, which would certainly be a much cheaper means for redressing such grievances than those hitherto in use.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL. (No. 232.)—(The Earl of Chichester.)

  REPORT.
  Amendments reported (according to Order.)
  THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that as there were certain clauses in this Bill which would lead to a great deal of controversy in another place, in order to facilitate other clauses, to which no objection could be taken, he moved that the Report be now received with the omission of the clauses he had first adverted to.
  Further Amendments made.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that with regard to Clause 25, he believed that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Chichester) intended to move an Amendment. He hoped, however, that he did not propose to strike out the whole of the clause, seeing that it had been very carefully considered by the Select Committee. Its object was to enable the Commissioners to raise the salary of certain officers connected with the Cathedral.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he would not detain the House by again stating to their Lordships the objections he entertained to this clause. He moved that after the words "minor canon" the words "schoolmasters and organists" should be struck out, as well as that portion of the clause following "vicars choral and lay clerks."
  LORD TAUNTONheld that Cathedral schools were very useful, and that nothing should be done to discourage the schoolmasters. They were as much entitled to consideration as other officers.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERobserved, that the clause in question was no part of the original Bill, and had been introduced by the Select Committee against the desires of those best informed on the subject. The pupils of the cathedral schools were to a large extent choristers, and the masters had been provided for by the Commissioners, who had shown no desire to stint them.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the officers proposed to be excluded by the Amendment while they remained in connection with the Cathedral ought to be amply remunerated. Had the clause been compulsory there might have been some objection to it; but, as the Commissioners were to be given discretionary power, he hoped the clause would be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF POWISsaid, that the clause had received the approval of two most rev. Prelates, and one right rev. Prelate, as well as that of the noble Earl lately at the head of the Government. It appeared to him that the noble Earl (the Earl of Chichester) had struck out certain classes of officers from the clause in a most capricious manner, for, besides schoolmasters he proposed to erase organists and choristers. He trusted the noble Earl would not persevere in his Motion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were empowered by this clause, if they should think fit, out of the income of the Cathedral to make adequate provision for all those persons who were essential for the proper services of the Cathedral. He could not understand how the Commissioners could decline to take this discretion upon themselves, and as the clause had been sanctioned by the Select Committee, ho hoped the noble Earl would not give the House the trouble of dividing.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, his objection was that after the Commissioners and the Chapter had agreed between themselves to make sufficient provisions for all these different officers, then Parliament should step in and say that out of the funds which had already been devoted to another purpose further provision should be made for the same object.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause merely provided that when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in receipt of any income accruing to the Dean and Chapter, they should be at liberty out of such income to make adequate provision for these various officers. There was nothing compulsory here. At present the maximum salary of the minor canons, who did nearly all the work, was £150. Now, why should not the Commissioners be free to exercise their own judgment in giving remuneration to those persons who were required for the proper service of the Cathedral?
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause 27 (Cathedral and Collegiate Chapters may prepare new Codes of Statutes) struck out.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow, and to be printed as amended (No. 232.)

FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT AMENDMENT BILL—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 165.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, this was a Bill introduced by the late Government. Under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, Her Majesty was authorized to exercise any power or jurisdiction which she possessed in countries out of her dominions in the same way as if that jurisdiction had been acquired by cession or conquest. It was considered important to confer an appellate jurisdiction upon the High Court of Bombay in cases arising at Zanzibar and other places; but it was doubted whether that jurisdiction could be given. The late Law Officers of the Crown thought that the Foreign Jurisdiction Act did not give this power, and the Bill was consequently introduced. He thought they were right in this opinion, and therefore moved the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.