Sitting of 2 July 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.—Class II.—SA-LARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPART-MENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Elementary Education Acts Amendment * [234].
First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order * [231]; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confimation (No. 2) * [232]; Public Records (Ireland) Act, 1867, Amendment * [233].
Second Reading—Drugging of Animals * [184].
Committee—Report—Pacific Islanders Protection * [182]; Bridges (Ireland) * [226]; House Occupiers Disqualification Removal (Scotland)* [210].
Considered as amended—Police Constables (Scotland) * [213]; Infanticide * [43].
Third Reading—Summary Prosecutions Appeals (Scotland) * [191], and passed.

NAVY—H.M.S. "DEVASTATION".

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has received any report as to the present state of Her Majesty's ship "Devastation" in respect to ventilation, and, whether he can give any information to the House as to the health of the crew?
  MR. HUNT: Sir, since the right hon. Gentleman put this Question on the Paper I have received a special report as to the ventilation of the Devastation and as to the health of her crew. It is more recent than the Report an extract from which appeared some time ago. I hold in my hand a letter from Captain Richards, of the Devastation, forwarded by the Commander-in-Chief on the station, and as the matter has attracted a good deal of attention perhaps I may be allowed to give a rather long extract. It is dated Ragusa, June 17, 1875, and states that—
  "As a matter of fact, the ventilation of the Devastation in harbour, or in ordinary weather at sea, is much the same as that of any other vessel, and it has not really been necessary for any consecutive 12 hours during the two and a-half years of the ship's commission to stop the natural circulation by closing the hatches. When it is necessary to do that in bad weather, the officers and crew are not subject to more inconvenience than would be experienced in a vessel of ordinary construction battened down under like circumstances; but, on the contrary, the comprehensive system of artificial ventilation by which fresh air is introduced into every part of the ship at once is an advantage which no other vessel would possess. Under the fine-weather condition of the present cruise in the Adriatic, with the tops of the turrets and all hatches constantly open, it was not necessary to use the fans, but for the additional comfort of the officers who sleep below two are usually worked at night, and in this respect the Devastation has the decided advantage over other ships in close or sultry weather, of having a fresh current of air constantly circulating below, and she is certainly the sweetest ship between decks I have yet served in. Herewith, I have the honour to enclose a nosological Return from the Staff Surgeon for the period included between the 5th of May and the date hereof (17th of June), which shows that the ship's company have enjoyed an immunity from sickness since the arrival of the ship at Malta, for which, I venture to say, it would
  872
  be difficult to find a parallel in the fleet. At the present moment, but for the five cases of contusions and sprains caused by accidents, there would not be a man upon the sick list."

EDUCATION—NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD (IRELAND)—DISMISSAL OF THE REV. J. M'KENNA.—QUESTION.
MR. LESLIEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the dismissal, by the Commissioners of the National Board in Ireland, of the Reverend J. M'Kenna, P.P., from the post of manager of a National School in the county of Monaghan; and, if so, whether it is true that an investigation on public grounds was asked for and refused by the Commissioners, and that, contrary to one of the written Rules of the National Board, the manager of a School was dismissed without investigation made and due notice given to all parties concerned?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, he had made inquiry respecting the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman and found there was no truth in the statements advanced. The real facts of the case were these—In March last Mr. M'Kenna was charged with having used his position as manager of a National School to induce the teachers of those schools to interfere in the election of Poor Law Guardians in contravention of one of the rules of the Commissioners. Mr. M'Kenna was informed that an inquiry would be held, and requested a postponement of the date fixed for it in order that he might obtain evidence from America. This request was granted, but an application for a further postponement was not acceded to, whereupon Mr. M'Kenna absolutely refused to attend the inquiry. As the Commissioners could hold no inquiry in the absence of the principal person concerned they dismissed him from the position of manager of the schools.

VALUATION OF PROPERTY (METROPOLIS)—QUESTION.
MR. HUBBARDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can explain the cause of the general increase in the valuation of property in the metropolis, which has occasioned so much discontent; and, whether the increased valuation has been occasioned by instructions from the

873
Local Government Board, with or without concert with the Inland Revenue Office; and, if such instructions have been issued, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he was not aware that there had been a general increase in the valuation of property generally, though he knew there had been complaints of an increase in many parts of the metropolis. The cause, no doubt, of those complaints was that the quinquennial period had arrived when, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, a new valuation of the property in the metropolis had to be made. The new valuation would not come into operation till the 5th of April next, and in the meantime all persons who thought themselves to be injuriously affected by the assessment might appeal to the Assessment Committee and afterwards to the Sessions Assessment Committee. No instructions had been or could be issued from the Local Government Office in the matter, because the Local Government Board had no jurisdiction over the valuation of the metropolis. Nor had any instructions, as far as he was aware, been issued by the Inland Revenue Department, though they might have documents in their possession of importance in their bearing on the question, seeing that they had a voice in the preparation of the lists which served as the basis of the assessment. His right hon. Friend had sent him some valuations made by a private surveyor, showing a great discrepancy between his notions of the value of property in certain districts of London and the valuations proposed to be assigned by the overseers of the parish. No doubt the opinion of such a valuer would go for what it was worth before the Assessment Committee. His right hon. Friend had also sent him a statement of rents and a comparison between them, and the rents actually paid. If such rack-rents differed materially from the valuations proposed to be assigned by the overseers, that, in his opinion, would be a good ground of appeal.
In reply to Mr. HANKEY,
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Papers had been submitted to him privately, and therefore he could not lay them on the Table.

CRIMINAL LAW—SALE OF CATAPULTS.—QUESTION.
COLONEL EGERTON LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any power to prevent the sale of catapults, or to take them away from anyone who might use them?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that the use of catapults was regulated by 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47. As to taking them away from those who might use them, their use would be an offence in any public place in towns; and by the "Towns Police Clauses Act," 10 & 11 Vict, c. 29, it would be an offence in any urban sanitary district to which that Act applied. It was also a punishable offence to use them anywhere within the Royal Parks.

PARLIAMENT—WITNESSES—INSPECTORS OF COAL MINES.—QUESTION.
MR. SERJEANT SPINKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, having regard to the provisions and intent of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 35 and 36 Vic, c. 76, s. 44, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Coal Mines should be permitted to attend as witnesses before Parliamentary and other tribunals, and to give evidence there, upon the terms of receiving special fees and remuneration in excess of the allowance for expenses out of pocket, and otherwise, ordinarily made to witnesses of that class; whether such inspectors are entitled, on occasion of giving evidence, to produce and use, without express permission from Government, maps, plans, surveys, and other documents furnished to or obtained by them in their official capacity; and, whether he will, if necessary, make and enforce regulations on the subject?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Coal Mines could not refuse to attend as witnesses before Parliamentary and other tribunals if they were summoned by the Speaker's Warrant or by subpoena. The same rule applied as in the case of an ordinary subpoena duces tecum to produce official documents in a Court of Law. When called to give evidence they might attend with documents obtained by them in their official capacity; but if, in the Secretary of State's opinion, it

875
was not for the benefit of the public service that the documents should be produced, instructions were given to the officer to state that circumstance to the Judge, who in such cases invariably refused to allow the production of the documents. The Inspectors of Coal Mines were not permitted to receive special fees and remuneration in excess of the allowance for their expenses as witnesses, nor were they permitted to use any special information they might have received in the course of their employment as confidential communications, whether such communications were in the nature of maps, plans, surveys, &c, required by the Coal Mines Regulation Act, to be kept secret or otherwise. He was not aware of the necessity of making any special regulations on the subject; but if the necessity were shown, he should do so.

IRELAND—CORK HARBOUR—REMOVAL OF DAUNT'S ROCK.—QUESTION.
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any plans likely to be practicable have been proposed for the removal of Daunt's Rock, off Cork Harbour; and, if further trials are thought desirable, whether the Government will carry them out during the present summer weather; and, whether any Report has been furnished of the trials already made, and to what effect?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that Questions respecting "Daunt's Rock," off Cork Harbour, ought to be addressed to the Board of Trade rather than to the War Office. He did not think it was in the power of anybody to state at present whether any plans likely to be practicable had been proposed for the removal of the rock. A Report, made by the officials engaged in the experiments was now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, and that Department would probably be able in the course of a few days to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman.

INDIA—THE GAIKWAR OF BARODA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as reported in the "Times of India," that since the deposition of the Gaikwar his legal
  876
  advisers have not been allowed access to him; and, whether application for such permission has been made by telegraph to the Secretary of State; and, if so, what reply has his Lordship returned?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I believe application has been made by the Indian legal advisers of the Gaikwar for access to him, and a similar request was made to the Secretary of State on Tuesday last by his legal advisers in England. The Secretary of State is at the present moment in communication with the Government of India upon this matter, and if the hon. Gentleman will repeat the latter part of his Question a few days hence, I shall then be able to communicate to him the decision which has been arrived at.

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

NAVAL COLLEGE FOR CADETS—REPORT OF THE "BRITANNIA" COMMITTEE—RESOLUTION.
MR. EDWARDS, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to inquire into the system of training Naval Cadets on board Her Majesty's ship "Britannia," and to the considerations which ought to govern the authorities in the selection of a site for the proposed Naval College; and to move—
"That, before establishing such College at Dartmouth, it is desirable to consider further the advantages offered by other places,"
said, that since his Notice had been placed on the Paper, the question of the fitness of Dartmouth for a Naval College had been discussed in "another place." He believed hon. Members would agree with him, that in selecting a place for a Naval College regard should be had first to the climate, and secondly, to the physical advantages offered for the training of cadets in their future profession; and he thought that any Government would pause before expending a large sum of money, if it could be shown that the place selected did not offer all the desired requirements. Now, in selecting Dartmouth as the site of the Naval College

877
for the training of cadets, the Government had without doubt selected what they thought was the best site, but he believed that a calm consideration of all the facts would induce the Government to re-consider their determination. There were several questions which demanded to be settled before the site for such a College as that now proposed should be erected. In the first place, the situation should be healthy; in the second, it should afford the cadets an opportunity for boating and shipping practice, and generally of familiarizing themselves with the details of their profession; and, in the third place, it should be centrally situated and should have ample railway accommodation to meet the requirements of cadets who come from all parts of the country. The place chosen by the Admiralty had not one of these advantages. The Report of the Committee appointed by the Admiralty showed that conclusively; and he would detain the House only a few minutes whilst he read a few extracts from the testimony of medical officers on board the Britannia before the Committee. Mr. Eugene de Merie, Surgeon, R.N., long resident on board the Britannia at Dartmouth, said, in answer to Question 218—
"What is your opinion of the climate of this place?—It is relaxing. I do not think it bracing enough. My friends and people I know coming from Torquay to see me here, say they find it more relaxing than Torquay.
"Q. 219. It is more relaxing than Torquay:—Yes. I believe that is because it is so much buried between two hills.
"Q. 220. Is there any difference in the climate or air on board the Britannia and the climate of the cricket-field?—There is.
"Q. 221. Is it apparent to you?—It is generally pretty apparent when you go on shore. It is much warmer there than it is on board ship.'"
The witness went on to say that when the boys went on shore for an hour's recreation, one-third of them simply sat about the beach. They did not care to go up the long hill to the playground. Dr. Dalby, R.N., said—
"There was an objection to the river, because the sewage of Dartmouth emptied itself into it; and, of course, with the tide it came up as far as the proposed site, and in that respect the river all the year round was objectionable."
He further said—
"Q. 527. With regard to the sewage of the town of Dartmouth, is it a fact it is drained by sewers opening into the river?—Yes.
"Q. 528. Are you sure of that?—Quite certain; there are few cess-pits. The sewer from
878
the Sick-quarters Hospital comes right down into the river.
"Q. 529. There is a drain into the river then?—The drains generally are carried into the river. There are very few cess-pits.
"Q. 532. Do you think that that could produce any sensible effect upon the water here?—I am inclined to think that it might."
Sir Alexander Armstrong, R.N., Medical Director General of the Navy, also said—
"Q. 2051. Have you formed any opinion as to the climate of Dartmouth, whether it is prejudicial or not to the cadets?—I should think that Dartmouth is not the place I would choose for a training ship myself, because I think it is in a harbour which is very much sheltered and surrounded by high land, and it has not the cheerfulness about it which would make it suitable for a training ship. I think it is relaxing, and that the whole of that part of Devonshire is relaxing.
"Q. 2052. You know, doubtless, that the Britannia was for some time at Weymouth?—Yes; she was at Weymouth, I know.
"Q. 2053. You would probably have no objection to the climate of Portland?—Portland, I should say, was very good.
"Q. 2056. Are you of opinion that the West of England generally is objectionable as a place for the training of cadets?—I think that better sites might be selected. I think that the West of England, as everybody knows, is a relaxing climate.
"Q. 2057. Is that relaxing climate, in your opinion, objectionable, in respect of health, to the boys?—I should think so, certainly.
"Q. 2058. Are there not differences of opinion as to whether the relaxing nature of the climate is bad for the boys, or not?—I think I should be disposed to put the boys in a more invigorating climate.
"Q. 2059. Have you any objection to the anchorage of Dartmouth in itself?—Well, I think, for the reasons I have stated, Dartmouth is not a favourable locality for a training ship.
"Q. 2060. That is because it is relaxing?—Yes; and I do not think that the sanitary state of the town is very favourable. I am not at all sure that the drainage is in a satisfactory state; there has been a great deal of isolated scarlatina and other disease amongst the people there; measles, smallpox, and so on. I believe that the drainage is defective in the town itself."
These opinions alone would be sufficient to condemn Dartmouth as a site for a Training College for naval cadets. Indeed, one was at a loss to see what special advantages Dartmouth possessed in any respect as a site for such a College. It was objectionable in its situation with regard to the sea; for at Dartmouth the cadets could have scarcely any proper facilities for making themselve acquainted with naval or maritime matters at all, there being hardly any opportunities for seeing either ships or commerce. It would have been better

879
to select a place where the naval cadets could at least see a ship. From year's end to year's end Her Majesty's ships were never seen at Dartmouth. Not a merchantman approached. It was not even a boating place. The tides were strong, squalls very heavy, puffs of wind uncertain and sudden in the harbour, where regular little whirlwinds blew. If no accidents happened to the cadets, it was because the boats were half-decked, well-ballasted, and under-masted. He could not see the slightest benefit which could possibly result from establishing a College at the spot proposed, because there would be no chance of imparting to the students the practical knowledge they stood in need of. Again, to build a College at the extreme end of England would entail enormous expense upon the relatives and friends of those who were to enter, and that was an important consideration. Several high authorities, amongst them Lord Hampton, had asked the Admiralty to re-consider the matter, and he would point out that this was in no way to be regarded in the light of an ordinary school. Candidates for admission were required to undergo a medical examination before being sent to the Britannia. Why, after that preliminary examination, send down healthy lads to a place where their health would be undermined? The First Lord of the Admiralty said he had received suggestions as to the site all along the coast from the River Orwell to Penzance, and that a Committee of gentlemen had been appointed to inquire into the merits of the various places, the result being that upon official Reports four places were selected for the consideration of the Admiralty—namely, Portsmouth, Poole, Portland, and Dartmouth. [Mr. HUNT: It was not a Committee, but an official inspection.] At all events, four or five places had been spoken of; but he maintained that Dartmouth, which was the place selected, did not possess advantages superior to those to which any of the other proposed sites could lay claim. Portsmouth, being a garrison town and seaport, it was already felt there were circumstances rendering it undesirable that the training ship itself should any longer continue there, and those objections, it was almost needless to say, would be much stronger in the case of a Naval College. Neither the First Lord
880
of the Admiralty, who visited Poole during the Whitsuntide Recess, nor the Naval Lords, were favourably impressed with that place. Branksea Island could not be thought of, because the boys would be devoured by mosquitoes. Then they came to Portland, where it was said the sea was rough and the boys would get drenched if they went out. There was a convict prison there, and the country about was said to be so limited and unsuited for purposes of health or re-creation, that it was really the last place that could be thought of for the site of a great and important College. In fact, the College would simply be in the neighbourhood of a great quarry. Now no one would think of establishing the College at Portland, but it should be remembered that the harbour was landlocked, and that in going round the bay they arrived at Weymouth—the borough he (Mr. Edwards) had the honour to represent—[Laughter]—hon. Members might laugh, but the fact was that Weymouth presented everything that was desirable for the establishment of such a College. It had a most magnificent harbour, consisting of a wide, spacious, and open bay, extending to nearly 5,000 acres of beautiful clear deep sea water, upon which the boys could at all times enjoy boating, while at Weymouth they had a charming situation, and beautiful walks. It was said that when the Britannia was there before, the boys got drenched when in boats in the harbour; but that was 12 years ago, before the Breakwater was finished, and that state of things no longer existed. Weymouth had now one of the finest harbours in England, where the boys would have every opportunity of seeing Her Majesty's ships. The Channel Fleet sometimes went there, the Great Eastern was occasionally in the harbour, and there was every advantage that could be desired. Dr. Alexander Armstrong, while condemning Dartmouth altogether, declared in his evidence before the Committee that Weymouth was very good. He could not see, therefore, why Dartmouth should be taken with all its disadvantages, and Weymouth, with its fine harbour, should be neglected altogether. The convict establishment was on the extreme sea-side of Portland, and a man might live at Weymouth all his life without knowing it was there at all. It might as well be said there were convict

881
establishments in London. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty congratulated himself on having selected a site which had beautiful surroundings; but the College was to be 300 feet above the sea-level, and who could imagine naval cadets being placed in such a position as that. Why, it was eminently absurd. What had induced the right hon. Gentleman to adopt such a site for a Naval College he was totally at a loss to understand, and believing that a better site was to be found at Weymouth, he begged to submit his Resolution for the consideration of the House.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFseconded the Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "before establishing the proposed Naval College at Dartmouth, it is desirable to consider further the advantages offered by other places,"—(Mr. Edwards,)
—instead thereof.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that the inhabitants of Poole took considerable interest in this question, because they had been put into a flutter of excitement by more than one visit from the Lords of the Admiralty within the last few months. Notwithstanding, however, that a gift of land had been offered at Poole, the Lords of the Admiralty had determined not to go there—a decision which he hoped was not absolutely final. As to the sanitary question, why, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Christcburch, who represented one of the leading sanatoria of England adjoining Poole, whether the district was not renowned for its healthy situation? It possessed other advantages—ready access to the sea and an excellent harbour—which, if it were not for a slight obstruction caused by mud at its mouth, would be one of the finest harbours in the kingdom. Poole was also very handy in relation to the dockyards at Portsmouth, and, as far as railway communication was concerned, although not like Clapham Junction, it was infinitely more advantageously situated than was Dartmouth. The only particular objection that had been urged as against Poole as a site for the Naval College, was the great mosquito bugbear; but that was as groundless as the other objections,
882
for he could assert from his own personal experience that at Poole the mosquito was unknown, although in sultry weather there might be a few midges. The Admiralty had been offered a large gift of land at Poole, and the value of that might very well be applied to deepening the harbour, in lowering the bar which formed the obstruction at the mouth to which reference had already been made. In that way Poole might be made available not only as a site for a Naval College, but also for a harbour of refuge. If Poole were not to have the preference, he certainly thought Portland or Weymouth had higher claims than Dartmouth, that Ultima Thule which was 300 feet above the level of the sea.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he ventured to differ from the two hon. Members who had just spoken. Having seen a great many of his constituents on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the very best site that could be chosen for a Naval College was the Isle of Wight. The objections to Portsmouth would entirely vanish if the College were placed at the Isle of Wight, and he trusted that the Admiralty would give that site their best consideration with a view to its ultimate adoption. There was one site which could now be procured coming down to the water's edge, which would give the cadets an opportunity of seeing a deal of shipping from time to time, and the advantage, both with a view to healthiness and other matters, was most desirable. He was quite sure both the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the question and the hon. Gentleman who represented Poole had quite overlooked the advantages of the Isle of Wight.
MR. CARPENTER-GARNIERsaid, as he had the honour to represent the division of the county in which Dartmouth was situated, he could state that he had himself carefully inspected the proposed site of the Naval College, and he thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a place more thoroughly adapted to the object in view. It possessed the advantages laid down by the Committee. There was easy access to the water, it was near to a good anchorage with a close harbour, and it was removed from a large town. Already considerable expense had been incurred in providing buildings for the

883
use of the cadets at their landing-place, opposite to the Britannia, such as a gymnasium, a large fives' court, and bowling alley, a boat-house, and other buildings of a substantial character. The climate was satisfactory, and he would remind hon. Members that the East wind did not blow in Devonshire with that rigour and frequency observable in some districts, and that, especially in such weather as we had just gone through, was an advantage. The medical officers had reported that the health of the cadets at Dartmouth was good, the hospital being almost untenanted at present, and that the climate had had no bad effect on them, a fact of which the Committee in their Report made especial mention. The hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. Edwards) placed much reliance on Sir Alexander Armstrong's evidence; but the acquaintance of the latter with Dartmouth appeared to be of the slightest character. It appeared from the evidence, taken before the Committee, that he had only visited the Britannia three times, about an hour each time, and during the vacations, when the boys were not there, and could not be examined; and Sir Alexander had formed his opinion upon erroneous returns made to him. The corporation of Dartmouth since 1858 had spent upwards of £16,000 in the improvement of the drainage, and in other sanitary works, and the sewage of the town was carried out beyond low-water mark to the sea. The death-rate in 1872 was only 180 per 1,000. The town was small, containing only 5,000 inhabitants, and that again would be an advantage; in fact, the size of the place was the objection he had to Portsmouth, because in a large town the students would be subjected to numerous temptations which it would be better they should be free from. The objections raised to Dartmouth were founded on misapprehension, and the site was in every respect most favourable for a Naval College.
SIR LAWRENCE PALEdenied that the climate of Dartmouth was relaxing, like that at Torquay. There were greater differences of climate in Devonshire than in almost any other county in England. He could say from personal knowledge that the site at Dartmouth was by far the most beautiful and the healthiest that could be selected in the
884
whole kingdom. It was 300 feet above the level of the sea, with a magnificent view of the Channel up and down; it faced the south-west, and was bounded by the Dartmoor Hills, the climate of which was as bracing as any part of Scotland. The harbour afforded every facility for training the cadets, and at all tides, which could not be said for Portland; and besides that, it was far from the contaminating influences of large towns. The hon. Member for Weymouth, no doubt, had duly represented the sentiments of his constituents in this matter; but he (Sir Lawrence Palk) felt confident that what had been stated would in no way induce the Admiralty to alter the selection which they had been fortunate enough to make. There were facilities for obtaining 40 acres more of land if required. The railway accommodation to Exeter was very good. There were two fines from London to Exeter, and very shortly there would be a third, but no doubt the slowest train in the kingdom was between Exeter and Dartmouth, but nothing serious had yet happened from it. He hoped the Admiralty would persevere in their intention of building the College on this site.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, this was not a political question, not could it be said it had only two sides, for, as far as he could see, it seemed to be a four-sided question, the merits of which were advocated from all sides of the House; but he must bring it back to the special point of the responsibility of the Government in the important matter of the choice of a site. The right hon. Gentleman would have to balance the advantages of the four or five sites which had been suggested. He would have to show that the proposal to establish this institution at Dartmouth was wise in itself, and if he decided to adhere to Dartmouth, he would have to show that the opinions expressed by Sir Alexander Armstrong and the others with respect to the sanitary condition of that site were mistaken. He would also have to justify the establishment of a Naval College at an elevation of some 300 feet above the water, and generally the selection of such a place as Dartmouth in preference to the other sites which had been proposed. Objections had been made to the sanitary condition of Dartmouth, to its elevation above the sea, to its railway communications, and its

885
general want of facilities for training cadets as compared with other places which had been named; and, while meeting those objections, the right hon. Gentleman would have to substantiate his position that Dartmouth was still the best and most convenient site that could be chosen for the purpose. As to the suitability of Dartmouth, on the grounds mentioned by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Lawrence Palk), perhaps he (Mr. Childers) might describe Dartmouth in the language of poetry, slightly altered, as a place—
"Where every prospect pleases
And only trains are vile."
He believed there was no precedent for such a proposal. However beautiful the site might be, the place was exceedingly inconvenient. There was another important point to which he would call attention, and that was whether, on the grounds which had been stated, it was expedient to make the great change involved in establishing such a College on shore. The Duke of Somerset caused an inquiry to be made through Admiral Ryder, as to whether it would be convenient to substitute a College on shore for the Britannia; and, at that time, the majority of naval officers recommended that there should be an institution on shore for the training of naval cadets. The Duke of Somerset was, however, succeeded in office by Mr. Corry, who, above all men, had studied the question with the greatest care, and he arrived at a conclusion contrary to that of the Duke of Somerset. Acting under the advice of Sir Alexander Milne, the present First Sea Lord of the Admiralty, that conclusion was carried into effect, and upwards of £20,000 was spent in fitting up two ships for training purposes. [Mr. HUNT: £17,000.] The direct expense might be £17,000, but the gross cost, he believed, was between £25,000 and £30,000. It was inevitable that the Committee appointed to look into the arrangements should take evidence on this point, and those who advocated this building on shore were in favour of what they invariably called a College, to which were to be sent young men of 14, 15, or higher ages. In other countries—in France and the United States—these buildings were, strictly speaking, Colleges for young men of 17 and 18. But the Committee's recommendation was not that there should be
886
a "College," but an institution on shore to which youths should be sent as soon as they were 12 years of age—the nearer 12 the better—and where they should remain until they were 15; in other words, it was proposed to establish an institution for boys of 12, 13, and 14. Instead, therefore, of training the young men from the age of 15 to 21, as in other countries, this would be a preparatory or lower school for boys of the average age of 13. He asked the House whether—now that the Britannia, as a training ship, was working perfectly well—Parliament would be justified in putting the country to the great expense of building what would be a large preparatory school, similar to ordinary preparatory schools elsewhere, where boys went of 12 and 13 years of age? Such a course as that was not justified by one of the witnesses examined before the Committee. The scheme was almost certain to fail, and then there would be a large building thrown on their hands which could not be used for any other purpose. On these grounds he thought his right hon. Friend ought to wait before committing Parliament to what was at least a premature and ill-digested project.
MR. HUNT, knowing that Dartmouth had been disfranchised and that Weymouth, Poole, Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight had their advocates, had expected to stand alone, and had been agreeably surprised by the support of two hon. Members for Devonshire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) upon the Motion had raised the larger questions as to whether there should be a College on shore at all for the education of cadets, and as to whether the age at which boys were to be sent to that institution was the right age. For his own part, he certainly was not prepared to have those larger questions raised then, after the discussion which took place upon them when he moved the Navy Estimates. In that discussion, he dwelt upon the matter at some length, and he certainly thought the House had accepted the view that the training of cadets in the Britannia should cease and that there should be a building on shore. His right hon. Friend had alluded to the expense of building a College, but not to the expense of training cadets on board the Britannia, except as regarded

887
the cost of the ship itself. The Return moved for by the Secretary to the Admiralty would put the House in possession of the facts; but he might state that the gross cost of the ship was £35,000 a-year, which included the maintenance of the ship and of the ship's company, and also the instruction of the cadets on board, the present number of the cadets being 116, as compared with 100 last year. That was in addition to the £17,000 spent upon the Britannia. He ventured to think that the education, if conducted on shore, would be more economical than on board the Britannia. As to whether this was a school or a College, it seemed to him a question of terms. The school at Eton was called Eton College, and boys were sent there even at an age younger than that of the boys who were to be educated at the proposed institution at Dartmouth. Therefore, it was matter of little consequence whether it was called a school or a College. The real question was, whether these cadets ought to be trained on board ship or in a College on shore? No doubt there was a difference of opinion on the subject. A great many naval officers clung to the notion of a ship, but the majority of the younger officers had made up their minds that the education could be better conducted on shore, provided it was supplemented by training at sea on board ship. It was proposed accordingly, on the recommendation of the Committee, that during three summer months in their last two years the cadets should be sent to sea in a training ship. The question had been gone into with care by a committee of naval officers, medical men, and distinguished University men, who examined witnesses; and the unanimous conclusion of the Committee was that the Britannia ought to be given up and training on shore substituted. The combination of military discipline with school studies was too great a strain on youthful minds; and on that ground anyone who read the evidence would be satisfied that the Committee had come to a sound conclusion. When he paid his first official visit to the Britannia, the first thing that struck him was that the boys were kept at too great a stretch from morning to night, except during the comparatively short period they were allowed to go on shore; and the opinion of this Committee coincided with his impression
888
that the strain on the boys ought to be relaxed, and that they ought not to be subjected to the discipline maintained on board a man-of-war. For these reasons, he entirely agreed with the recommendations of the Committee that the Britannia should be given up, and that there should be established on shore a College, or—if his right hon. Friend preferred the phrase—a school. At first, he was not in favour of selecting Dartmouth as the site, mainly on account of its remoteness, and while he still held that to be an objection, he did not regard it as being insuperable. Every possible site between the Orwell and Penzance had been carefully considered, and he had come round to the belief that—as he stated in introducing the Navy Estimates—on the whole, Dartmouth was the best site that could be selected. Since the Navy Estimates were introduced, Sir Ivor Guest had, in a most handsome way, offered to present to the Admiralty a site for the College near Poole. He took an early opportunity of visiting the proposed site, accompanied by two of his non-Naval Colleagues, and the opinion he formed was that the site was not an advantageous one, on account chiefly of its distance from the sea. The Admiralty Yacht had to he out in a not very pleasant anchorage, and the passage into Poole Harbour was found to be a very tortuous one. Not caring to decide a question of this kind on the opinions formed by landsmen, he requested two of his Naval Colleagues to visit the spot, and, having done this, they pronounced a most decided opinion that the site would not be advantageous for the purpose. Next, his hon. Friend the Member for Weymouth (Mr. Edwards)—who in this matter most thoroughly performed his duty to his constituents—proposed the adoption of a site near Weymouth, which, he urged, would possess none of the disadvantages which had been alleged against Portland early in the Session. As the only object of the Government was to get the best possible site, he asked the opinion of his Naval Colleagues upon the one proposed by the hon. Member for Weymouth, and they pronounced it to be objectionable and unsuited to the purpose on account mainly of its close proximity to the town and its unsheltered position seawards. They considered it even inferior to the

889
Portland site, which had been previously proposed and decided to be unsuitable. It therefore appeared to be impossible, in the teeth of that opinion, to accede to the proposal of his hon. Friend. A great deal had been said that night for Dartmouth, and with respect to the remarks which had fallen from his hon. Friend, he was struck with the adroitness with which passages in the evidence of some of the witnesses had been picked out to support the claim of another place; and in the evidence, too, of the same witnesses to whom he was himself going to refer as supporting the claim of Dartmouth, no sword dancer could have shown more agility than his hon. Friend had displayed in skipping between the questions and answers of the witnesses. On reference to the evidence of the same persons it would be found that one of them, Dr. Conolly, the surgeon of the Britannia, stated that the climate of Dartmouth was a little moist and relaxing, especially in the winter. He gave his hon. Friend the benefit of all that; but on the witness being next asked the question, whether the climate was so moist or relaxing as to be prejudicial to the health of the boys, his reply was—"Not to any great extent, and I do not think that the climate could be improved." His hon. Friend also quoted in support of his case the evidence of Mr. Dolby, another naval surgeon, who had served on board the Britannia; but if he had proceeded further with this gentleman's evidence he would have found that, in his opinion, based upon experience, the climate of the place was good. Such was the evidence of the witnesses which had been quoted in opposition to the building of the College at Dartmouth. Then, as to the Medical Director General, he was opposed to Devonshire generally on account of the relaxing nature of the climate, but in a Report since made by him on the subject, he now, without departing from that opinion, said that Dartmouth was the most suitable site that could have been selected for the purpose in the neighbourhood; the soil was of a light character, the position commanded a picturesque view of the harbour and of the surrounding country, the access was easy for boating purposes, and the distance from town was sufficient to prevent any evil effects that might be apprehended from the drainage,
890
while the elevated position of the site rendered the climate there less relaxing than it was in the valley. Two medical gentlemen, Mr. Busk and Dr. Vaughan, selected for the purpose because of their medical and scientific knowledge, surveyed the site, and their report was, as to climate, that it was in all respects suitable for the intended purposes, and appeared to afford the most perfect drainage, being widely remote from any apparent source of insalubrity; the water supply was abundant and good, and in a sanitary point of view the situation seemed to possess all the necessary advantages. Some objection had been raised to the site as being too elevated. He thought that objection was made by Gentlemen who had not visited the spot. He had been there twice, and the beauty of the situation could not well be exaggerated, and the access to the water-side was easy. When, however, doctors disagreed upon theories, it was desirable to turn to the evidence of persons of experience. He referred to that of two officers who had held commands on board the Britannia while she was lying in Devonshire waters, and who agreed in thinking the Dartmouth site the best that could have been chosen. One of them, Admiral Corbett, spoke of the Dartmouth site as healthy and desirable, and of the boating as safe. The former captain of the Britannia, Captain Foley, reported that no better site could be selected than that chosen at Dartmouth. He added that during his command he never thought that any sickness among the cadets was owing to the relaxing nature of the climate. Captain Foley also pointed out its advantages for boating, and concluded by saying that he knew no site in England that offered so many advantages. That was strong testimony, and, as his hon. Friend had done his duty, he would, he trusted, admit that the Admiralty had also done theirs in coming to the conclusion that, on the whole, Dartmouth was the best site for the new Naval College.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFcontended that the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty, had not met the case which had been brought forward on behalf of Weymouth or Poole. The reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman by no means sufficed to satisfy the House as to the superiority of Dartmouth.

891
The right hon. Gentleman had read several testimonies in favour of that site which had not been laid on the Table of the House. If those opinions were so favourable, why were they not laid before the House? He wished to call attention to the fact that Dartmouth was within 14 or 15 miles of Torquay, which was one of the most relaxing climates in England, and was now found to be too relaxing even for consumptive patients. He asked whether it was proper that on the evidence adduced an expenditure of this kind should be entered into, and an institution like this built in a remote part of England? He certainly hoped the Government would consider the matter very fully before they plunged into this expenditure, and satisfy the House, not only that Dartmouth was a better site than those mentioned by hon. Members, but that it was the best site that could be found for the purpose. If his hon. Friend would divide the House on the matter he would support him.
MR. FLOYERsaid, that there was unquestionably great difference of opinion in regard to Dartmouth, but that he had not heard one word said against Weymouth, even by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
MR. HUNTsaid, he had quoted the opinion of his naval advisers as to the unsuitability of the site.
MR. FLOYERsaid, he was not referring to the site, but was speaking on the score of health. As to communication, there was no town in the South of England which was so accessible as Weymouth; but, on the other hand, Dartmouth was further off, and very difficult to reach conveniently. He could not understand, from a naval point of view, how Dartmouth could have been selected in preference to Weymouth, because the safety of the roads at the two places would not bear comparison, the latter being protected in all weathers by the magnificent Breakwater at Portland, and he hoped, therefore, the Government would re-consider the matter.
MR. BRUCEsaid, that several hon. Members had tried to depreciate Portsmouth, and that showed that the advocates of the other sites felt that Portsmouth was the most formidable rival. They had not received evidence that either Dartmouth or any of the other
892
places were particularly suitable for a Naval College, and he believed it would be best if some site were selected in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, which had many advantages not possessed by other places. It had an excellent dock for building ships, and a harbour for training ships. It had all the advantages of a rural position, and it would not be open to the charge of having a relaxing climate. It was surrounded by fine scenery, accessible by railroads, and within easy reach of the dockyards. As to health, the mortality tables for Portsmouth were as low as those of any town in the kingdom. Several excellent and beautiful sites for a College might be obtained there, and among them was one opposite Stokes Bay. A large number of influential men in the neighbourhood were strongly in favour of selecting it as the site for a Naval Training College. Lord Anson strongly recommended it on account of the salubrity of the air.
SIR FREDERICK PERKINSput in a claim for Southampton. No town which had been mentioned in this discussion was equal to Southampton with regard to its advantages.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYthought our naval cadets should be trained in accordance with the traditions of our Navy. His native county had been the nursing-place of the greatest naval heroes of England. He was therefore glad that the Government had selected Dartmouth as the site for this Naval College, and hoped they would adhere to it.
MR. STACPOOLEsaid, he would vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. Edwards) because under the terms of it, Ireland, which had good ports, would have a claim to consideration. They would find no difficulty in getting a suitable site somewhere in Ireland, if they gave themselves the trouble to look for it.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was perfectly clear that if every hon. Member who represented a seaport thought fit to place his views on this question before the House a very considerable portion of the time of the evening would be absorbed. It appeared to him to be impossible for the House to judge which of the various places suggested by hon. Members was the best site for this College, because the evidence given to the House was only partial. He therefore

893
thought they ought to confine themselves mainly to considering the actual site chosen by the Government. If the House thought the Government had chosen the best site, it was the duty of the House to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for "Weymouth. If, on the other hand, the House thought the Government had not shown that Dartmouth was the best place, he thought the House ought to support that Motion. He was perfectly unprejudiced with regard to this matter, but, having heard the evidence pro and con, and especially the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, as regarded the salubrity of Dartmouth, he had come to the conclusion that on that ground the selection was not satisfactory. The evidence with regard to the relaxing nature of the climate had been uncontradicted; and it was very desirable that an institution of this kind should be placed in a bracing and healthy place. He would therefore vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Weymouth.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 135: Majority 12.

CIVIL BILL COURTS (IRELAND).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MELDON, who had a Notice upon the Paper to call attention to the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of amending the constitution of such Courts, with a view of making them more efficient and more suitable to the requirements of the country, and to report thereon, said, he was aware the Government had given some consideration to the matter, and were prepared to recognize the fact that some legislation must take place in order to afford the masses of the Irish people legal tribunals wherein they could assert their legal rights without an expenditure which virtually precluded them at the present time from availing themselves of the Courts of Justice of the country. He could not imagine a greater grievance for a poor man than to find that justice was denied to him because he was not rich; and he thought few subjects
  894
  could be discussed of greater importance, or which were more worthy the consideration of the House than the one which he wished shortly to call attention to. Why, he asked, should the representative of an humble man be denied the privilege of having discussed and decided by a properly constituted legal tribunal the rights of all interested in his assets, merely because they were not of sufficient value to enable those interested to appeal to one of the Superior Courts, which alone in such matters had jurisdiction at present? He considered it to be the duty of the Legislature to afford to the meanest and poorest of Her Majesty's subjects a cheap and easily accessible legal remedy and the means of asserting their acknowledged rights. This, under the existing law, was impossible, he asserted. No doubt, there would be some difficulty in extending the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland to the same extent as that of the County Courts in England; and his object in bringing forward the question at the present time, and under existing circumstances, was that they might know those difficulties in time to enable the Government early in the next Session to carry through some scheme for affording immediate relief in the direction indicated. He would proceed to contrast the Irish with the English County Courts. The Judges of the latter had a Common Law jurisdiction up to £50, and equitable jurisdiction up to £500; actions referred by the Superior Courts of any amount or description; in Admiralty cases jurisdiction up to £ 1,000 in amount; Bankruptcy Jurisdiction without any limit; and jurisdiction in respect of real property to the value of £20. Besides jurisdiction in these matters they had conferred on them certain special powers to which it was unnecessary to refer. The County Court Judges were not selected from barristers of eminence; indeed, the qualification for a County Court Judgeship was seven years' standing at the Bar, and the Judges were removable at the pleasure of the Lord Chancellor. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, on the other hand, only had a Common Law jurisdiction of £40 in personal actions and in remitted cases; with respect to real property to the extent of £20; in Bankruptcy without limit (provided the Court of Bankruptcy referred the case to them); very limited

  895
  Jurisdiction in probate cases, and in matters relating to the recovery of legacies, and certain special jurisdiction not necessary further to allude to at present. The Chairmen in Ireland were selected not unfrequently from men of the highest standing at the Bar and in large practice, and were entirely independent of the Crown, being removable only upon an Address from both Houses of Parliament. The Judges of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland, therefore, had no equitable jurisdiction at all, their Common Law jurisdiction in remitted cases and others was limited to £40, and in other matters referred to of a much more restricted nature than the English County Courts. In England there were 60 County Court Judges at a cost of £105,300 with a large staff to assist them in their business, consisting of 16 treasurers, with 13 assistant clerks at a cost of £16,898, a superintendent, with an assistant and 10 clerks, at a cost of £4,420; a registrar, a chief and second clerk, at a cost of £1,200; 601 registrars at a cost of £221,446; a large number of registrars for Bankruptcy matters at a cost of £29,500; and 395 high bailiffs at a cost of £112,358, besides a host of process servers and other minor officials. The total cost of the County Court establishment amounted to the annual sum of £399,658, exclusive of the Judges' salaries, whereas in Ireland the salaries paid to the Chairmen amounted to only £35,450, and to the clerks of the peace £37,250. In England each Judge had 18 skilled men to assist him in his labours. In Ireland there were 33 Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and the only assistants they had were 33 clerks of the peace or their deputies, notwithstanding that the Chairmen exercised almost unlimited jurisdiction in criminal matters, and had entrusted to them the entire business arising out of the Land Act of 1870. But the numerical strength of the administrative staff was by no means the most formidable grievance that the Irish Chairmen had to complain of. The filling up of the responsible office of clerks of the peace was entrusted to the Lords Lieutenant of the counties. It was scarcely credible, but that was, nevertheless, the case. He had been credibly informed that out of the total of 33 clerks of the peace 28 did not reside in their districts. Some lived on the Continent, in England, and
  896
  in India. Of the entire number of the clerks of the peace eight only had any legal training, 26 had their work done by deputies, and of these only three were professional men. Under the existing law he regretted to say the great majority of those acting as clerks of the peace were utterly incompetent to transact the duties which would be required of them if the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts was enlarged in the manner which he suggested. The method of appointing clerks of the peace should be at once changed, and the present deputies should be required either to discharge their duties efficiently, or to resign. The persons now holding the offices of clerks of the peace should be called upon either to discharge their duties themselves or to provide substitutes who should be thoroughly competent to do the work under the altered system. It might possibly be necessary to compensate some of the existing clerks of the peace who might be willing to discharge the duties themselves, but who were not competent so to do; but it would be found that the holders of those offices would prefer to resign when they found that something must be done for their large salaries. It could no longer be tolerated that the poor man in England should be cared for whenever he chose to have recourse to the legal tribunals, whereas in Ireland such justice was denied him. There was scarcely a member of the legal profession in Ireland who had not had experience of the hardship and injustice inflicted on the poorer classes by reason of the denial of justice to them. He knew several cases. Passing from this part of the question he called attention to the proposal which had been before the public for some time past—the advisability of making the Chairmen of the Civil Bill Courts resident Judges, and in order to do so, requiring them to give up their private practice. Nothing, in his opinion, would be more prejudicial to the interests of justice or to the administration of the law than this proposal if carried out. The necessary result of making the Chairmen resident Judges would be that they would be compelled to mix socially and become intimate with the gentry and landed proprietors resident in the districts where they would be called on to administer justice. Nothing could be calculated to diminish the confidence of the people in

  897
  the impartial administration of justice more than to see the Judge the intimate friend and associate of the upper classes. In cases under the Land Act the proposed system would work very badly. What the people wanted was a sound lawyer, not a man half a lawyer and half a country gentleman, to adjudicate upon their cases. He believed that the Chairmen as a body would feel that if residence in their districts was necessary, they would be placed in a most painful and embarrassing position. Their decisions would not carry the weight which would be essential to the proper administration of justice, and the people would look with suspicion upon the action of Judges whom they would see in the closest social communication with the rich and the powerful. In Ireland they were justly proud of many of the Judges of the Civil Bill Courts. The position was sought for by the leading members of the Bar. It was a great mistake to suppose that the conferring of a more extensive jurisdiction must have the effect of withdrawing Chairmen from their practice, or forcing them to reside in their counties. Under the existing state of the law much time was lost in adjudicating upon undefended cases. Great loss of time also occurred in the hearing of paltry cases which might be adjudicated upon by magistrates sitting in petty sessions. It was manifestly unjust that a suitor seeking to recover 5s. or £1, or a trifling sum, should be called on to pay as much for the support of the Court as a suitor who recovered a large sum. Jurisdiction to hear undefended cases ought to be given to the Registrar with an appeal upon the lodgment of costs to the Judge. All cases involving questions of trifling value ought to be adjudicated on by a petty sessions Court, held before, or presided over, by a competent stipendiary magistrate without the imposition of any stamp duty. These alterations would relieve the Chairmen from a great deal of labour, and enable them to exercise the enlarged jurisdiction without driving them from practice. Any measure for enlarging the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts must necessarily fail unless a staff of efficient and properly paid officers be first created. The Committee, if appointed, could very easily devise a scheme whereby the Chancellor of the
  898
  Exchequer would be relieved from all anxieties, and his frustrating influence dispensed with. At the present time the Civil Bill Courts yielded to the Exchequer about £20,450. If all claims for—say, less than £5, were freed from all duty, and an additional fee of 6d. was charged on every Civil Bill process, and an increased ad valorem stamp imposed, as in England, the result would be that the system would be self-working, and very little, if any, assistance would be asked for from the Treasury. He had said quite sufficient to prove that there was abundant matter for inquiry on this subject. A few days would suffice for the inquiry, and he asked that the Government would be in a position to deal with the matter at the commencement of next Session. If this Committee took place, the Government would be able to carry out a useful and substantial legal reform, the greatest benefit would be conferred on the country, and a measure creditable to the House would be passed into law. The most feasible scheme that could be adopted would be to extend the jurisdiction of the Chairmen, and make it analogous to that of the English County Court, give to the petty sessions Court, presided over by a competent magistrate, jurisdiction in all cases under £5, appoint a competent staff of registrars, chosen from professional men, reserve power to the Superior Courts to remove any case of sufficient importance, and reserve to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the power of making such rules and regulations for the conduct of business as he might consider advisable. There were many other suggestions that would be made to a Select Committee. His principal object in calling attention to this matter was to hasten the granting of a boon to the poor of Ireland such as for many years had not been granted to them. The Civil Bill Court in Ireland was essentially the "Poor Man's Court," and everything that was done to make litigation there cheap and easy, must necessarily be an immense benefit to the mass of the people.
  MR. BIGGARsupported the views of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare. The present system was not the most desirable for the administration of the law in Ireland. The Government ought to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, the present aspect of the House, there being only a few Members present, did not show that much interest was felt by Parliament in the question. He considered that his hon. and learned Friend who brought forward the subject had gone much beyond the question in which the people of Ireland felt most interest, inasmuch as the Quarter Sessions in Ireland was the tribunal which most concerned the masses of the people. If any tribunal was popular in Ireland and enjoyed the confidence of the people it was those Courts, for they were known as the "Poor Man's Courts," and he should be sorry to see the English system introduced into them. The Court of Quarter Sessions was certainly a most important Court in Ireland; and here he would say that there was no country in which the law was more cheaply administered than in the Quarter Sessions Courts in Ireland. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that the jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions in Ireland required to be extended; but while the Act was more limited in its jurisdiction than similar Courts in England, it was yet a most important measure. For his part, he could not see any occasion for inquiry into matters with which all interested in them were perfectly well acquainted. A more efficient, high-minded, and honourable body of men could not be found in Ireland than those who discharged the business of Quarter Sessions.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, his hon. and learned Friend had not advanced any argument against the administration of the law in Ireland to show that the people had not confidence in the tribunal of Civil Bill Courts in Ireland. "With regard to the extension of the jurisdiction of the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland, he concurred with him that it was desirable; but he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, and that he would be satisfied with the pledge given by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that he would, if possible, bring in Bills in the ensuing Session of Parliament to deal with this and other questions relating to Ireland. In the Bill to be brought in, when time allowed of its being dealt with, the points raised as to the position
  900
  of clerks of the peace would not be overlooked. There was no necessity for the inquiry asked for, and he hoped the hon. and learned Member would facilitate the passing of the Bill when it was laid before the House.

FRANCE—DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. O'CLERY, who had a Notice upon the Paper to move for—
"An Address for Copies of the Instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to the Earl of Clarendon and Lord Cowley, relative to the signature of the Declaration, dated the 16th day of April 1856, annexed to the 23rd Protocol of the Conference of Paris; and, of the Correspondence which passed between Her Majesty's Government and other Governments during the year 1856, relative to the aforesaid Declaration of Paris,"
said, the subject was one of great importance, and the interest taken in it by the public was, he believed, on the increase. It was a matter of fact that the Crown had never ratified that act, and that Parliament had never authorized it. The sooner, therefore, Parliament was informed by whose authority the Declaration was made on the part of England the better. A great Constitutional question was involved, for what guarantee had we that similar acts would not be done at some other time? They all knew that it was the right of the people of this country to know by whose authority the Treaty of Paris was made. He therefore asked for the production of the Correspondence. Hitherto it had not been produced, and he was at a loss to know why it should not have been. A distinguished statesman had attacked the Declaration of Paris, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also attacked that Declaration. Lord Clarendon did not approve of the Declaration; yet he showed an inconsistency in saying they were bound to carry out the policy. An act was done in Paris on the 15th of April, 1856, which involved the dearest interests of other countries; but the act had never been ratified by Parliament, and Parliament had never directly sanctioned the act. It was said that this country had induced many other countries to take part and join in that act, but he did not believe that the people of this country had taken any part in it, and the Declaration

901
to this moment had not been sanctioned by the Crown. The Declaration, then, was like that of a will without a signature. If the Treaty was of importance, the Prime Minister should recommend the Crown to sign it. Many of the actors of that time had passed away, and other Governments had come into prominence in Europe, so that the production of the Correspondence would not, in any manner, affect State affairs. If he were asked of what use the Correspondence would be, he would reply that this was only the initial step to a movement for the restoration of the right of search in this country. The effect of the Treaty in the late war between France and Germany was most disastrous to France, whose fleet was ineffective in consequence of it; and if this country were engaged in a war her fleet would be rendered as helpless by the operation of the Declaration as the French fleet was. France, in her war, was told that she must abide by the Treaty of Paris. He would say, in conclusion, that he knew he was precluded by a Rule of the House from formally moving for the Correspondence; but he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not make any objection to produce it.
MR. BOURKEsaid, that the whole policy of the Declaration of Paris had been already discussed that Session, and therefore it would have been inconvenient, and, he believed, irregular, if the hon. Gentleman had proceeded to discuss the subject at any length. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know by whose authority the Declaration of Paris had been signed. He (Mr. Bourke) had stated before that the Plenipotentiaries had full power to sign it, and he made that statement upon the authority of Lord Clarendon. A higher authority could not possibly have been produced, because Lord Clarendon was at the time not only Plenipotentiary, but also Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; so that the fact was Lord Clarendon was both the person who gave the instructions and who carried them out. When he stated that the Plenipotentiaries had full power to sign the Declaration, he had in his mind a statement made by Lord Clarendon himself, who, in speaking on the subject in the House of Lords, used these words—
"Lord Cowley and myself did not hesitate—of course with the consent of Her Majesty's Government
902
—to affix our signatures to a Declaration which changed a policy that we believed it would be impossible, as well as against the interests of England, to maintain."—[3 Hansard, cxlii. 500.]
The hon. Gentleman asked who were responsible for the Declaration of Paris? Why, the Government of the day were responsible for it. He also stated that if England had refused to be bound by the Declaration of Paris, Austria and Turkey would also have refused. But Austria and Turkey were parties to that Declaration; and there was no reason to suppose that either of those nations had repented having appended their signatures to it. But it was said the Declaration had not been ratified; he could mention many other international engagements that had not been ratified. The Declaration with regard to the independence of the Islands of the Pacific and many commercial and postal conventions had not been ratified, and many other international engagements. With regard to the first part of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention, as to the
"Instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to the Earl of Clarendon and Lord Cowley, relative to the signature of the Declaration, dated the 16th day of April 1856,"
there were certain Papers produced at the time. Certain Papers were produced in 1856, and 19 years had elapsed since then. If it was undesirable to produce Papers at that time more than were produced, he thought it would be undesirable to produce them now. Another reason against Her Majesty's present Government laying them on the Table was, that the proper persons to produce Papers were the Ministers of the Crown, who were responsible for them; and the Papers alluded to were of a very confidential character. Lord Palmerston himself said, in that House, with regard to these Papers, that on account of their special character they could not be laid upon the Table of the House. After a declaration of that kind from such an authority, he was not going to take the responsibility of promising to lay them on the Table. With regard to the
"Correspondence which passed between Her Majesty's Government and other Governments during the year 1856, relative to the aforesaid Declaration of Paris,"
that Correspondence had never been produced; but he should have no objection

903
to produce the Circular sent to various European Governments on the question of the immunity of all private property at sea, with the names of the countries which had assented to the Declaration of Paris, with the qualified assents or dissents in a tabulated form, in order to save expense. Among the three or four dissentients were the United States.
MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he thought it somewhat hard that the English people, when they asked by whom their maritime rights, which were their right arm, had been given away, should be told at the time that the Papers relating to the subject were confidential and could not be produced, and that 20 years after precisely a similar statement should be made. It might be that Lord Clarendon had declared in the House of Lords that it was with the consent of his Colleagues he had signed the Declaration in question, and nobody, indeed, could for a moment suppose that he had done so without their consent; but, then, the Papers now moved for were the written instructions to the Plenipotentiaries of England at Paris, and he maintained that those Plenipotentiaries were sent there to make peace with Russia, and were travelling out of the record when they sought to bind this country for the future by signing the Declaration. It was, under the circumstances, but natural that it should be asked how far the honour of the country had been pledged in the matter, and why such instructions had been given to those Plenipotentiaries.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEresumed: He regretted very much, therefore, that after a lapse of 20 years the Government did not deem it right to produce the Papers. It was quite right that this country should look with extreme jealousy to the question of honourable engagements entered into, and not rashly get out of the Declaration of Paris; but he thought he could suggest to them an escape from it without in the least compromising the national honour. There were two ways by either of which the country could get out of this Declaration. First, it never having been ratified, it could not at any rate be held as binding as a treaty duly and
904
formally ratified. Now, if a Treaty of Peace which had been duly signed and ratified could be torn up in a time of peace, a Declaration which had not been ratified could not be more binding on the nations who were parties to it. There was another way, and perhaps a more regular and formal way, out of it, for the Declaration was, and could be, only a strongly-expressed opinion on the part of the Plenipotentiaries relative to new rules in case of war, and, unless all the other nations of the world equally signed it, the Declaration could not be binding on any of them. He believed that the Government of Switzerland and Saxony had agreed to the Declaration; but how much weight did the opinion of 30 or 40 petty inland States like these carry when compared with the United States, which had a seaboard as large as that of all Europe, and which refused to concur in the Declaration? Were the Government, moreover, quite sure that Prance, which felt the pinch of the Declaration in the last war, would not be exceedingly glad to get out of it? and if the United States still refused to join in the Declaration, and if England and Prance said they had had enough of the engagement, it ought not to be difficult to get out of it. Twenty years had been exhausted in endeavouring to induce dissenting nations to agree to it; and, therefore, it might without much strain be argued that the Declaration had become void through lapse of time. He hoped the matter would meet with attention on the part of the Government.
SIR PERCY BURRELLsaid, that the answer given by the Government would not be regarded as satisfactory by the country.

OFFICE OF WORKS—PAYMENT OF SURVEYOR.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DILLWYN, in rising to call attention to the mode in which the Surveyor of Works is paid, partly by salary and partly by commission, said, it was a most objectionable system, as it opened the door to the purchase, for Government purposes, of more land than was actually necessary, in order that surplus space might afterwards be sold at an enhanced price, owing to its being improved by the presence of Government buildings on the adjoining

905
area, so that the Surveyor might receive a double set of fees—one on the purchase and the other on the sale of the land. He thought, too, it was highly objectionable that such an officer should be allowed to engage in private practice and be at the head of a large firm. He had no doubt that the gentleman who at present held the appointment rendered the best services he could to the Government, and that when he purchased more ground than was absolutely required it was with the object, not of getting larger fees, but with the design of selling the surplus at such a profit as would materially reduce the cost to the State which the Government required. He would mention a few instances. A site was some time since required at Liverpool on which to erect some Courts. All that was required was 2,000 yards, at £10 per yard, but Government purchased 3,600 yards, and so paid £36,000 instead of £20,000. On that the Surveyor had his commission. They afterwards sold the 1,600 yards surplus, and on that sale he had also his commission. Another illustration of the undesirability of the practice would be found in what occurred a few years ago. The Metropolitan District Railway Company, by whom the services of the Surveyor of Works were engaged, purchased from the Office of Works a piece of land fronting Bridge Street, and immediately opposite the Houses of Parliament, upon which to erect their station. A portion of the land was subsequently re-sold by them, and the St. Stephen's Club, an ugly and objectionable building, which had been generally condemned, was erected upon it, thus obstructing the view of the Clock Tower from the Thames Embankment, upon which large amounts of public money had been expended. In this case the public had suffered very severely by losing the advice and assistance of the Surveyor of Works in the arrangements which were originally made. In 1870–1 a new site for the Mint on the Thames Embankment was offered to the Government, but was not adopted by Parliament. The land belonged partly to the Metropolitan Board of Works and partly to the District Railway, by whom the Surveyor of Works was employed. He (Mr. Dillwyn) considered it most objectionable that a system should exist under which this officer became so largely interested
906
in the advice which he had to give to the Office of Works. These eases all illustrated the pernicious nature of the present system, and he hoped his noble Friend would take steps to come to some better arrangement. He understood that the Surveyor when first appointed was paid by salary only, and received £1,000 a-year, but that subsequently, when the New Law Courts were decided upon, the salary was reduced to £750, and payment by commission was introduced.
MR. LOWEsaid, that as the person responsible for the existing relations between the Board of Works and the Surveyor, he thought he had some right to complain of the conduct of the hon. Member for Swansea in having failed to give Notice of the matter which he had brought before the House. To find fault on general principles with the acts of a Government—which was all the Notice on the Paper indicated he would do—was one thing, and to allege specific instances in which he imagined mischief had been done, and which could not be answered offhand, was another. However, he could not suppose for a moment that his hon. Friend would have made charges of that kind without previously communicating them to the First Commissioner of Works, so as to allow him an opportunity of answering them. Certainly, if that had not been done, he could imagine no course more unfair than that which the hon. Member for Swansea had adopted. The facts of the case were these—in 1869 he (Mr. Lowe), as the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, appointed a Treasury Committee, including in it Mr. Austin, the Secretary of the Board of Works, Sir William Stephenson, and the late Mr. Hamilton, the Secretary to the Treasury, and their Report was to this effect. Mr. Hunt, they said, was appointed Surveyor of Works in 1856 by Sir Benjamin Hall, and he was, in every respect, to be a consulting Surveyor, and not, in any sense, an executive officer. It was no part of his duty, as a Surveyor, to examine plans; but all the architects' certificates passed through his hands, and he advised the Board on the contracts made. He was to attend one day in the week, and in consideration of these services to receive a salary of £1,000 a-year. Besides, however, attending one day in the week, Mr. Hunt gratuitously devoted a large

907
portion of his time to the public service in the various missions on which he was sent to Liverpool and other places in connection with important public business; so that, instead of giving a sixth of his time—to use Mr. Hunt's own words—he devoted one-third of it, his desire always being to discharge his duties in the most efficient manner possible. That was from the Report of the Committee. The Committee further said that, comparing Mr. Hunt's salary with his services, they thought he should not be debarred from the benefit of transacting business on commission; his knowledge and capacity were reasons for his being retained in the public interests; and they strongly recommended that, on public grounds and in justice to Mr. Hunt, the Treasury should sanction the arrangement. Mr. Hunt, the House would bear in mind, was at the head of his profession, and, therefore, when the public abstained from using his services, they deprived themselves of the best professional assistance which it was in their power to obtain. It was upon the strength of that Report, which expressed the sense entertained by the Committee of Mr. Hunt's services, that he (Mr. Lowe) had made the change involved in reducing Mr. Hunt's salary as Surveyor to the Board of Works from £1,000 to £750, and allowing him to act as an executive officer in the matter of surveying. The public had no reason, on the score of expense, to regret the proceeding. The result was that Mr. Hunt had received for six years £750 a-year, or in all £4,500, and he had received for his services as a practical surveyor and executive officer, £1,889, so that the public had gained £1,500; for if Mr. Hunt had not received the £1,889, it would have been paid to some one else. As to what had been said about the rejection of the proposed site for the Mint, that was done by a snap division taken without Notice; it was one of those misfortunes which occasionally occurred in the transaction of business, and he had no hesitation in saying it was a misfortune which involved a costly remedy. Mr. Hunt was the best official he had ever come in contact with; he gave perfect satisfaction in every transaction; and he could not imagine from what source the hon. Member had derived the statements on which he based accusations so inconsistent with the impressions
908
of Mr. Hunt received by all who had had anything to do with him at the Treasury, where he was held in the highest estimation. [Mr. DILLWYN said, he disclaimed making accusations, he merely stated facts.] He should like to know where the facts came from. However, he came prepared to argue an abstract question, and not particular instances. But passing from that, he thought it was rather hard that a gentleman like Mr. Hunt should, after having gone through long and honourable service, be accused of things which were without a shadow of foundation, and were all the more galling on that account. He believed Mr. Hunt was above being influenced by the pecuniary interest he might have in any transaction, because he was a man of large property acquired by his own industry. He had no more pecuniary interest in the advice he gave than any solicitor had in recommending legal proceedings; and how often did solicitors dissuade a client from resorting to litigation? He believed the Treasury acted wisely, and he was sure the public had been gainers.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University had gone out of his way to attack the hon. Member for Swansea. There was no other Member in that House who devoted his time and abilities to Public Business so entirely and so well as that hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn). The country and the House ought to be proud to find such close attention given to the affairs of the country, and there was no question that could be raised of greater importance than that which the hon. Member for Swansea had raised—that relating to the mode of remunerating the Surveyor of "Works, for it was most objectionable to pay a public servant by commission as well as salary. It was far better to increase the salary to any amount that the services might be worth, than to allow an officer to have even in appearance interests which were opposed to those of the State. He (Sir George Balfour) must call special attention to the grave fact that, while the accounts of the Office of Works set forth £50 as received by the clerk for collecting the tolls of a bridge, there was no entry of the sums paid to Mr. Hunt in the form of commission; and if he received commission from public funds,

909
the fact ought certainly to appear in the accounts. He made no imputation against Mr. Hunt; but the mode of paying him for his public services was likely to be detrimental to the public service, and before next year he trusted that this objectionable mode of remunerating this officer would be remedied.
SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, it was not to be expected that the whole services of a first-class professional man of this kind could be secured for £750 a-year, or double that sum.
MR. WHITWELLthought that a public officer ought to receive a sufficient salary for his services, and not be driven to the necessity of eking it out by engaging in private work.
MR. FIELDENwas of opinion that it was all-important that a public officer should devote the whole of his time and services to the work for which he was paid. He thought that public officials were much underpaid. He would give them full value for their services—what could be obtained for them in the open market—and no superannuation. From his own knowledge he found that wherever this mixed system of remuneration had been adopted in local boards, the public business was neglected for the private business of the official.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he did not complain of the hon. Member for Swansea for bringing the subject before the House. On the contrary, he was glad that the opportunity had been afforded of vindicating a valuable public servant from charges which he could not have conveniently answered when they were first made in the form of a series of Questions—a mode of proceeding that was very unfair towards Mr. Hunt. After the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowe), anything that he could say about transactions of which he had no official knowledge could have very little weight with the House. He would not, therefore, enter into the general question; because, a Committee composed of three excellent public servants eminently qualified to deal with the matter having been appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and having come to an unanimous Report upon it, he could not, after a short official experience, be expected to reverse the decision at which they had arrived. The hon. Member for Swansea
910
said Mr. Hunt formerly received a salary of £1,000, without fees, and now he received a salary of £750 and was allowed to take fees from the Office of Works. Now during the last six years the average amount of the fees paid to Mr. Hunt was £870, and in some years he received no fees at all. The Committee came to the unanimous conclusion to give him £750 a-year, with fees. The country had been a gainer in money by that arrangement, while Mr. Hunt and the firm to which he belonged had been losers, because his firm—one of the largest in London—undertook no business whatever which could in any way be deemed to act antagonistically to the interest of the Office of Works; and, of course, if Mr. Hunt were to revert, as he would personally be glad to do, to the old system, under which he had a salary of £1,000 and no fees, that understanding would come to an end and his firm would be great gainers. The hon. Member for Swansea had not communicated to him (Lord Henry Lennox) any of the items of the charges which he intended to bring before the House on that occasion; and, as the hon. Gentleman had referred to transactions which occurred long before he was connected with the Office of Works, it was impossible for him to follow him into their details. With the case of the Liverpool County Court, however, he could deal, because it occurred very shortly after he succeeded to that Department. The purchase of the property in that case was made entirely on his authority as First Commissioner of Works, and upon due consideration, looking not only to the immediate present expenditure, but to the prospective advantage to the public that would accrue in view of possible changes of jurisdiction some years hence. In that particular instance Mr. Hunt's charges were very considerably less than those which, if they had been made, he should have felt it his duty as Chief Commissioner to have sanctioned. The Committee of 1869 gave Mr. Hunt credit for his liberality on that occasion. Although hon. Gentlemen had disavowed any other than public grounds for their criticism, yet a vein of inuendo ran all through their remarks which made it difficult for him to answer them in detail. But after their general disclaimer of any intention to cast a slur on the character of a public servant he would, in conclusion,

911
only ask the House to justify him in not attempting in the first year of his office to reverse the system adopted by so distinguished an authority as the right hon. Member for the University of London, which had, as far as his official experience went, worked extremely well, and which he should find it exceedingly difficult to replace by another system that would answer as satisfactorily for the interests of the public service as the present arrangement with Mr. Hunt had done.
MR. COWPER-TEMPLEwished to add his testimony, from official experience, of the great value of the services of the Surveyor. The Committee who recommended that Mr. Hunt should act both as consulting Surveyor and also as executive Surveyor must have considered that they were justified by the peculiar circumstances of the case. Still, he thought such an arrangement would not, as a general rule, be a wise one. The Board of Works, while he presided over it, had two Surveyors. One was the consulting Surveyor, who gave professional advice to the First Commissioner during the consideration of a question, and a successful private practice was a guarantee of the competency of the Surveyor to give good opinions. A fixed salary precluded the possibility of any pecuniary bias in the decision to be arrived at. The other Surveyor was executive, and was not consulted as to whether a work should be executed or not. He was paid by a commission on the cost of the work. This was the best and safest arrangement under ordinary circumstances. As to requiring persons to give the whole of their time to Government business, such a rule would exclude the most efficient men, and would not conduce to the real interests of the public.

CIVIL SERVICE INQUIRY COMMISSION—CO-OPERATIVE STORES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERS, in rising, pursuant to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the absence from the Reports of the Civil Service Inquiry Commission of any investigation into the complaints made against the system of Trading now carried on by the servants of the Crown under the guise of Co-operative Stores, said, that last year,
  912
  when he put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman declined, and very properly declined, to give any positive answer while the Commission was still pursuing its inquiry, and until its Report was presented. He was surprised, therefore, to find, in an answer to a Question he (Sir Thomas Chambers) put to the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago, that there was no fresh information upon the subject worthy of his attention. That answer was confirmed by the fact that they had now the Report before them, and the absence of any reference to that most important subject had naturally and inevitably led to very great and general disappointment, not unmixed with surprise. There was overwhelming evidence to show that the Civil Service Stores were not, in fact, co-operative stores, but gigantic joint-stock trading companies, with some singular distinctions to which he would presently allude. There were no fewer than 4,500 subscribers or partners in one of these concerns; 15,000 tickets had been issued to outsiders; and the business was carried on just like that of any ordinary joint-stock trading company. It was the greatest sham that ever existed; and he maintained that, both on general principles and on grounds of public policy, Civil Service trading ought to be forbidden. So long ago as March, 1849, a Treasury Minute was issued affirming the right of the Government to the whole time of the Civil servants, and that they could not be allowed to accept office as directors of companies; but the gentlemen against whom the Minute was levelled did not do one-tenth of what the directors of the Civil Service Stores were now doing. So much for the general principle; but what had been the policy of the Government on this subject? The evils against which that Minute was directed were much more serious at the present moment. Very recently another Minute had been issued forbidding Civil servants becoming directors of a company which had undertaken a publication which was much engaged in discussing subjects connected with the Civil Service. The Minute set forth that gentlemen in the Civil Service taking upon themselves editorial duties could hardly fail to render themselves liable to misrepresentation, and pointed out that their acceptance of such positions must necessarily

  913
  disturb the confidential relations which ought to subsist between members of that Service and their official superiors. The National Chamber of Trade, having that Minute in view, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire whether the authorities of the Civil Service would not forbid their servants engaging in trade under the guise of co-operation. To that communication the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied by saying that the cases of Civil servants engaging in editorial duties and in co-operative societies did not appear to be exactly parallel. Such pursuits, however, were not parallel, but they were analogous, for they were strictly alike, because they infringed the principle that the Civil Servants were bound to give their whole time and energy to the country. He did not complain of co-operation—what he complained of was joint-stock trading with certain signal distinctions between the honest, ordinary, bonâfide joint-stock trading, and that which was carried on under pretence of co-operation; and it was a question for the Government to decide whether this Civil Service trading was to be permitted to be carried on. The dockyard workmen were precluded from engaging in any other occupation; so were the police, while postmasters were absolutely forbidden even to sell newspapers. Those facts and regulations proved that the Government perfectly understood that the principle of the contract between the Civil servant and the State was that the whole of the man's time should be given to the State. Further than that, these large joint-stock trade associations, which were carried on under the name of Civil Service Co-operative Stores, turning over millions in the course of the year, had several advantages over ordinary trading firms, inasmuch as by registering themselves as provident and industrial societies they escaped the payment of income tax, and to some extent stamp duties. It was a double fraud. It called itself co-operation when it was simply a joint-stock trading society, and it availed itself of the advantages allowed to provident societies because they were conducted by the poorer classes; yet they were not tidewaiters, or clerks, or porters at Somerset House, but Civil servants of the higher grades, who were just about to divide £400,000 out of their profits. On the whole, therefore, he hoped Her
  914
  Majesty's Government would take the subject into serious consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the rather abrupt manner in which he had answered his Question on the subject the other day. He had just referred to the speech he had made on this question last year, and he found that it was substantially what he thought it was. He had said that in dealing with this subject there were two questions to be considered—first, how far this system of Civil Service trading was one which ought to be checked in the interest of other traders as being in the nature of an unfair competition with them; and secondly, how far it ought to be checked in the interests of the Government, on the ground of it not being advisable that their servants should engage in these pursuits. He had also endeavoured to point out the difficulties which the Government had to encounter in attempting to deal with the matter from the point of view taken of it by those whom the hon. and learned Gentleman represented, and he had endeavoured to show how difficult and unfair it would be for the Government to lay down principles with regard to the Civil servants which would exclude them from the privilege and the right of co-operation, and how very difficult it would be to draw a line between co-operation and trading. The upshot of his remarks was that he could not upon the grounds mentioned see his way to any interference with the system. At the same time, however, he was always ready to accept and to listen to representations which might be made as to any unfair advantages that might be taken of their position by Civil servants who were engaged in this kind of business, and, therefore, he should take care that the allegation that the Co-operative Stores contrived to escape the payment of income tax and stamp duties should be inquired into, because such associations had no right to put themselves into such a position as to give themselves an unfair advantage over all other traders. Upon the other points of this question, the Report of the Civil Service Commissioners might throw some light. It was difficult to say where the line should be drawn with regard to what branches of business Civil servants might engage in, and he did not know that the Report of

  915
  the Commissioners at present had thrown much light upon that point. Their labours were, however, not yet concluded, and the Government had not taken any steps upon their Report. They would, no doubt, in a short time have to take the Report into consideration, and probably some steps in consequence, and it might be that they would have to go into the question as to the employment of Civil servants in the manner referred to in connection with the general subject. One such question arose the other day in reference to Captain Tyler, and he only referred to it to show that it was difficult to lay down general rules to govern all cases that might arise. His hon. and learned Friend said that the Government had dealt with the question, and asked them to carry out the same principle with regard to all Civil servants, and he referred to the Treasury Minute with respect to contributions to newspapers by Civil servants, and the entering upon other employments by dockyard labourers. His hon. and learned Friend must, however, have been misinformed. Dockyard labourers were not forbidden to enter upon any other engagement. They were only restrained from becoming keepers of public-houses or marine stores, and from entering upon any business of that sort in which it was thought that mischief might arise from temptations to which they might be subjected in respect of Government stores. Then with respect to newspapers, the step was taken not to prevent undue competition between one editor or publisher and another, but to put a stop to a practice which was found to be productive of mischief and scandal to the public service. From time to time letters, paragraphs, and articles appeared in certain newspapers which were obviously written by persons who had obtained official information which ought not to have been made public, and it was therefore found necessary to issue a Minute prohibiting such communications being made and warning the contributors that they would be held responsible in the event of official information being improperly communicated. With respect to the general question, he could only say, as he did last year, that he must draw the line between two different considerations. As regarded the question of competition with private trade, it was a difficult matter to interfere, and interference
  916
  must be limited to prevent any unfair advantages existing on the one side, such as exemption from income tax or stamp duties. That branch of the question should have his best attention. The other question related to the employment of Civil servants in the manner complained of, and having had their attention more or less directed to it, it would be their duty to consider whether some regulation should not be made or some expression of opinion given in reference to it.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he concurred generally in what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While in office he had stated more than once, in answer to his constituents who took a great interest in the matter, that he considered it unfair that Civil servants should be placed under restrictions which did not apply to those who were engaged in other walks of life. Civil servants were, no doubt, paid out of the public funds, but they were as freely entitled to make use of their leisure in any way they thought fit as were any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be impossible to hold out any hopes to the tradespeople of the metropolis that the competition they complained of could be put a stop to, save so far as the preferences to which reference had been made, and which ought most rigorously to be examined and removed. The second branch of the subject—namely, how far, from the point of view of the public service, it was right that Civil servants should be allowed to engage in those operations—remained to be considered. There could be no doubt, however, that they were under the same limitations, both as regarded their time, strength, and honour, as the servants of private companies. As a matter of course, it would also be unfair that they should be allowed to take advantage of official information for their private benefit in their relation to those societies. If a gentleman were, for example, engaged in the Government Contract Department, it could not be tolerated that he should use his special information of the effect upon the market of Government operations to promote the interests of a co-operative society with which he might happen to be connected. They must, he thought, rely upon the good sense, right feeling, and honour of the

  917
  Civil servants to see that no stone could be thrown at them in that respect. Then, again, came the question of interference with their capacity to serve the State, which was their first duty. It would, he thought, be improper to allow persons who were placed in high position, and whose energies, freshness, and health were vital to the proper discharge of their duties, to take any great share in the management of those companies. As an illustration he might mention that the point was brought under his notice in a peculiar way when he held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty. There was a most eminent Civil servant who was also an eminent director of one of the co-operative societies, one of its founders, and the life and soul of the society. He worked hard at the Admiralty and also at the society, and it appeared that the strain on him was so great as to threaten his health. The question of promotion arose, and he was recommended for promotion to a higher position than that which he enjoyed. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Goschen) pointed out to that gentleman that if he could give his whole time to the fresh post, he should consider him an eligible person; but that if he continued the other work and the strain was too great upon him, he should decline to promote him. That gentleman adopted the course of resigning his lucrative post in the co-operative society, and received the promotion to which, as being most eligible, he was entitled. In taking that step he (Mr. Goschen) thought he was discharging a duty he owed to the public.
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to make an inquiry into the subject, and unless he had done so, the public would think he did not consider it worth his while to do so, and was content to let matters remain as they were. Now, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made up his mind on the subject, it was desirable that the public should know what the Government intended to do. Traders did not object to co-operative societies. If Civil servants combined to buy goods wholesale and sell them to themselves at the wholesale price, traders could have no objection; but what they did object to was, that Civil servants should form themselves into a society for the purpose of competing
  918
  with tradesmen. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. Civil servants were paid by salaries taken from the taxation of the country, and the public had a right to expect that their whole time should be devoted to the performance of their public duties. Now, it was well known that the whole time of the chairmen and directors of co-operative societies was not given to the public. Another objection was that Civil servants were sometimes able to obtain information with regard to duties which enabled them to make advantageous purchases while the other trades were entirely in the dark, and were unable to do so. General traders were therefore placed in an unfair position, as compared with co-operative societies.

INCREASED VALUATIONS (METROPOLIS.)—OBSERVATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASER, in rising to call attention to the practice of Overseers of Metropolitan Parishes delivering the notice of alleged increased value (the said notice requiring an appeal within twenty-five days of the date thereof) late on the evening of the 24th day, said, he could not help thinking that the overseers had consulted an attorney on the matter, and, if so, it might be true that they were within the law in what they did; but if this were so, their conduct weighed very harshly on the public. The notices were delivered so late that practically there was no power of appeal, and in many cases doubtless the persons served would pay upon the increased assessment rather than undertake the trouble and expense involved by the unduly late service of the notice. He wished, therefore, to ask the President of the Local Government Board, Whether such practice is approved by the Board; whether it does not tend to fraud on the part of the overseers; and on what data the fictitious statements of the alleged increased value are made? He did not bring the matter forward as a personal question, although he had been among the sufferers, but as a matter affecting the ratepayers as a body. It placed them in a very hopeless position, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to prevent this nefarious proceeding. He should

  919
  be glad to hear the principle on which this increased charge had been made. It seemed to him that a considerable value was put down beyond the real and the money value.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was clear that his hon. Friend had been made the victim of a very great wrong owing to an undoubted miscarriage of justice. If his hon. Friend had placed the documents in his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) hands before bringing the matter forward, inquiry should have been made as to the accuracy of his allegations, although the Local Government Board had no control either over the overseers or the vestries in the performance of the duties imposed on them under the Metropolitan Valuation Act and by the assessment committees. If the overseers had served notice on his hon. Friend under the circumstances which he had stated, they had acted wrongly, and he might get satisfaction if he consulted his legal advisers. He thought the practice to which his hon. Friend had referred did not prevail generally throughout the metropolis. It was not his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) duty to supervise the action of the overseers of the metropolis; but if his hon. Friend would give him the particulars of the matters of which he complained, and the documents connected therewith, he would be happy to make inquiries, and he had no doubt the overseers of the parish in which his hon. Friend resided would furnish all the information they could. No doubt the object of the Metropolitan Valuation Act was that the value of the property in the metropolis should be valued every five years, and as that value was constantly on the increase, of course the assessments were increased from time to time. In effecting that object it was desirable that the proper ratio of increase should be secured, and in order to discover it the rent actually paid must be a criterion. He thought that Act was an admirable model for the framing of a measure hereafter with regard to the valuation of the country generally. If there was no remedy in such a case as his hon. Friend had called attention to, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) admitted that a remedy ought to be provided, and the matter should be inquired into for that purpose.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, "put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  MR. DILLWYNmoved an Amendment to the effect that no portion of the sum should be applied to an increase of salaries. The hon. Member said, that Mr. Rylands when in Parliament obtained the admission from Government that a portion of the money had been applied to increasing the salaries of Queen's messengers. He (Mr. Dillwyn) did not think that was a proper application of the money.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Question, the words "provided that no part of this sum shall be applied to the increase of Salaries."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, a few years ago the sum asked for Secret Service was £30,000. Then it was reduced to £25,000, and now £24,000 was asked. He wished to know whether the Government could not reduce the sum to £20,000?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, the hon. Baronet, being a great authority in the City of London on matters of financial administration, must know that certain occasions arose which prevented a limitation of the amount of expenditure. His hon. Friend, when serving the office of Lord Mayor, had entertained an Emperor, and no doubt he found the entertainment was more expensive than an ordinary entertainment. And so, with regard to the Secret Service, the expenditure under that head was very much larger some years than in others. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea, he might observe that the very name of this Service showed that, under certain circumstances, no limit should be placed on expenditure.

  921
  This fund was administered with the greatest care and without any attempt to interfere with the due control of the Crown over any of its servants. He hoped the hon. Member for Swansea would not press the Amendment, which if it were adopted would improperly interfere with the administration of the fund.
  MR. W. H. SMITHalso said that of late years no part of the fund had been applied to the increase of salaries.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,852, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue."
  SIR ANDREW LUSKwanted to know who was the Lyon King-at-Arms? In regard to another item, he had never heard any reason why there should be a Bible Board at Edinburgh. Then he objected to the sum of £199 for the Queen's Plate. The previous Government was very great in some instances and in others very small. It did away at one time with the £199, and then because some one asked them they restored it. He asked the present Government to have the courage to do away with the item entirely. The money was thrown away; and, besides, it was not their duty to provide funds for races. In several places there were no horses to run, and in other cases there were "walks over." He begged to move that the £ 199 be deducted from the Vote. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The sum is £218.] The balance was for shooting with bows and arrows. They did not meddle with that.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £99, for the Queen's Plate, Edinburgh, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Sir Andrew Lusk.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the fees for armorial bearings exceeded the cost of the Vote, and if they did away with the Vote they would abolish the
  922
  fees, and such a result would not be satisfactory to the economical mind of the hon. Baronet. The Bible Board was an ancient institution for the purpose of securing an accurate edition of the Bible. It was formerly paid for out of the hereditary revenues, which were surrendered to the State, and he therefore thought it ought to be maintained. The question of Queen's Plates had been frequently discussed in that House. The money was omitted from the Vote in 1870 by the late Government; but in 1872 a very strong representation was made by the Scotch Members, and at their instance the Vote was restored.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsuggested that the money should be handed over to the Highland Society, when he thought it would be productive of considerable good. At present the expenditure did not tend to improve the breed of horses.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, when the Scotch Plates were abandoned it was hoped that the Irish Plates would be extinguished too.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that if the Scotch Members did not wish for the Vote nobody else would object to its being discontinued. The Scotch and Irish Plates ought to be dealt with together, and he would suggest that in Ireland the Plates should be consolidated into one sum, to be run for at four places in alternate years.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked how any reasonable man could imagine that they were encouraging the breed of horses by a Vote of £99? The amount should either be increased or withdrawn altogether.
  MR. MACGREGORwas in favour of the retention of the item in the Vote.
  MR. RAMSAYstrongly supported the proposal to withdraw the Vote. He did not think the people of Scotland generally took such an interest in racing as to care for the sum in question.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that until the Members for Ireland asked to have a similar sum omitted from the Votes the Committee had no right to complain. He hoped the Government would adhere to the Vote as it then stood, and not give way to certain Scotch Members' notions on the subject of horse-racing.
  MR. CONOLLYcalled upon the Committee not to support the hon. Baronet

  923
  the Member for Finsbury in his absurd proposition. Ireland was united in wishing to retain a similar Vote for that country, because she did not wish to give up any of her national pastimes, and he thought that although Scotchmen knew the value of a "bawbee," there were some amongst them who liked to keep up the exciting competition of horse-racing for "the Queen's Plate." If this item was withdrawn, there would be a scramble amongst Scotch Members for the bawbees to be applied in prizes for cattle or sheep or pigs.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 154: Majority 111.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £9,567, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board, Scotland.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that in 1824 an Act was passed allotting the small sum of £3,000 per annum for the improvement of piers and quays and the small fishery harbours of Scotland, and that this grant might be said to be a part of the payments under the agreement made at the time of the Union—at all events, it had been passed by Parliament as a part of the public policy of that period, to create openings for employing the then almost starving seafaring population on the coasts of Scotland, by providing for the fisheries of Scotland convenient havens to which boats engaged in fisheries could resort, or in which, in case of gales, the boats could find protection or refuge; and from 1829, when the first grant was paid under the Act of 1824, up to 1844, the money had been applied to the purpose for which the Legislature intended, and if not honestly and with entire success, at all events with some benefit to the very defective places, to which boats employed in the sea fisheries resorted, on the exposed coasts of Scotland. In that year the small grant was first appropriated to the construction of a harbour of a general trading character, and not one for purely fishery purposes, and for many years this fund was used for the extension, or rather construction, of the harbour of Dunbar, and he complained of this as the first considerable misappropriation of this portion of the
  924
  Vote. No doubt to other places on the coast of Scotland grants had been made out of this small fund of £3,000, and no one could fail to think, on seeing the names of the owners of these fishing places, so aided, that influential parties had influenced the authorities in making grants to these favoured harbours; but it could not be denied that such places, so aided, were fishery havens, and within the Act. When the annual grants to Dunbar ceased, apparently in 1864, then the harbour of Anstruther, in Fife, was the favoured harbour, and since then the whole of this grant had been annually used for this one harbour; whereby, as he (Sir George Balfour) contended, this fund which had now for many years been applied to the improvement of the harbours of Dunbar and Anstruther, had thus deprived the many small harbours for fisheries of that and which they so much needed to adapt them for fishery purposes, and to which they were entitled. This misapplication could not have taken place if the Act of 1824 had been enforced in accordance with its provisions. This Act required that each locality receiving and out of the £3,000 should contribute one-fourth the outlay on the harbour improvements; and so long as the Fishery Board of Scotland were left free to decide on applications for money assistance out of the £3,000 grant, the contributions had been regularly paid, even by poor fishermen, who readily clubbed their earnings for the improvement of this little harbour. But this condition had been evaded in the application of this fund to the extensive and expensive improvements carried out at Dunbar and Anstruther, which had not supplied this portion of the expenditure required by the Act. It was true that funds were used in and of the grant from the Fishery Board; but these were borrowed monies from the Government or in the locality, and not of the description required by the Act of 1824; and he earnestly hoped the Government would take the whole matter into consideration, in order that the money that had been misapplied out of this special grant for so many years might be refunded, with a view to effect those improvements which the fishery havens of Scotland so much needed. He made these remarks not with a view of objecting to the harbours of Dunbar and Anstruther having

  925
  been aided by public money, but merely with the view of pointing out that a very small fund of £3,000, specially applicable by law to the special object of creating facilities for our poor fishermen in carrying on their dangerous employment, had been used for a purpose different from that for which it was intended. He urged that Scotland had as just a right to have harbours provided out of public monies as England, and the harbours of Dunbar and Anstruther were fairly entitled to be looked at as works of general utility needed for our general trade and for our shipping; but these improvements ought to have been carried on by special grants voted by Parliament. He must also point out that the public money spent on harbours in the two countries, out of grants specially voted by Parliament, were in great contrast. Between 1840 and 1867, a period of 27 years, upwards of £5,000,000 was spent on the harbours of England, while in the same time only about £100,000 was spent upon the harbours of Scotland, though there was much more necessity to improve and maintain the Scotch harbours than there was the English ones, because Scotland had not the same manufactures as England had, and necessarily not the same wealth and commerce by which the harbours of England could be improved, extended, and maintained. But the most objectionable feature in respect to the misapplication of this Fishery Grant of £3,000 was, that practically it was more than covered by the fee that was now paid by the fish curers for the brand applied by the officers of the Fishery Board to the barrels of herrings intended for exportation. Under the old bounty system of encouraging trade and fisheries, and by which the herring trade of Scotland was largely subsidized from the Imperial Exchequer, a fee was formerly paid to the fisheries of the United Kingdom, on the export of herrings made to the Continent; but after discontinuing this bounty for some years, the policy was reversed, and a fee was levied in 1859, on the recommendation of Sir John Shaw Lefevre, on the brand to the herring barrels, which, after the payment ceased, had been continued to be affixed to the barrels of Scotch herrings. So productive had that fee proved that in 1874 the sum of £8,625 was raised from the Scotch
  926
  herring fisheries, or nearly three times the amount of the grant for the improvement of the fishery havens, and the whole of this money was paid into the Exchequer as a part of the income of the year. Since 1859 these fees had amounted to close on £80,000; whereas the £3,000 grant for the improvements to Scotch fishery havens had only been about £48,000, nearly all of which had been spent on general harbours for commerce and trade, instead of, as the law required, on fishery havens. He would also contrast the exceptional prodigality, lately attempted to be shown by the Government towards Dover Harbour, on which it was proposed to lay out £1,000,000 sterling, and the rigid economy enforced against Scotland. The harbour of Wick, for instance, had been repeatedly reported on as deserving of public and, particularly by the Royal Commission of 1860, but no such and had ever been granted; whereas on harbours of England, such as Dover and Alderney, millions had been spent, and more money was yearly proposed to be spent, and, no doubt, would be laid out, whilst the many places in Scotland which, with only a fraction of the sum already spent on English harbours, could be usefully made into safe harbours, had been neglected, and the vast resources in fish in the adjacent seas, and better calculated than the land to yield wealth to the people of Scotland, and to extend industry and comfort amongst a large mass, had not been reaped, and all this loss owing to the withholding of pecuniary and.
  MR. MACGREGORsupported the Vote. He thought the money spent upon Anstruther and Dunbar Harbours had been well spent, and he urged the Government to give more encouragement to small fishing harbours, both in Scotland and Ireland, by the advancement of small loans.
  MR. W. H. SMITHobserved, that the Vote had been chiefly applied for the improvement of Anstruther Harbour; but that work was now drawing to a close, and the amount would be appropriated to another harbour for fishing purposes. He believed the hon. and gallant Gentleman was incorrect in saying that there had been any misappropriation of the Vote. There was every desire on the part of the Government that the funds intended for small

  927
  harbours and fishery purposes should be properly applied to that object.
  MR. BUTTapproved the Vote and called attention to the mode in which the Scotch Fishery Board managed matters in having fishery officers at the various stations round the coast of Scotland, who taught the people the best mode of fishing. He regretted that the Fishery Board which Ireland once possessed had been abolished. This Vote, though nominally £12,000, was actually reduced to £3,000 by the small fee which had been imposed in 1856 for "branding" herrings, which produced no less than £9,000. Although the Vote was comparatively inadequate for Scotch requirements, it was larger and placed on an infinitely better basis than the sum applied to Ireland. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give the same assistance to Irish fisheries and the same protection as was afforded to the Scotch fisheries.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDhoped that the Government would review the Vote, and that the claims of Wales would not be forgotten.
  MR. M'LARENthought the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had somewhat misunderstood the state of affairs in Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a Board superintending the deep-sea fisheries; but the Fishery Board which existed in Scotland only took charge of their herring fishery. It was an unpaid Board, while, he believed, most of the Boards in Ireland were generally not unpaid. The only use of the Board was to appoint and direct the officers to superintend the herring fishery, and see that the herrings exported were packed in a particular way, and if they were so packed, that they should be branded; and those receiving the brand on the cask had to pay a fee. The whole expenses for the brand was a little over £6,000, while the receipts were about £9,000, thus showing a large surplus—Parliament, in fact, gained £2,300. But there were other items included in the £12,000. There was £3,000 for piers, and smaller sums for cruisers and cutters. These latter sums were not in any shape or way a charge for the fisheries of Scotland. They were for what he called the police of the sea. Boats came from France, Holland, England, Ireland, and the Isle of Man, and it was necessary there should be some power to keep
  928
  them in order. When these sums were deducted there only remained some £3,000 for piers, while £9,476 was given to the Irish Fisheries. He had no objection whatever to the Irish Vote, but he denied altogether that Scotland received more than she contributed for the fisheries
  MR. BUTTsaid deliberately that Ireland did not receive the benefit that Scotland did, and said what they wanted in Ireland was not a paid Board, but a Board of Irish gentlemen. Give Ireland an unpaid Board and a system of branding, such as Scotland had, free for 10 years, and then she would be able to compete with Scotland on something like equal terms. From the Scotch Union up to 1856 the Scotch fisheries had the and of the Government.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, if Scotland really derived any great advantage from the Board and the branding system there would be force in the argument for extending it to Ireland, and perhaps to England and Wales also. The truth, however, was that the system had been condemned by three successive Royal Commissions, who had come to the conclusion that it was a bad system, and that the success of the Scotch fishing was not due to the branding at all, but to other causes. There was an immense export of herrings from the East Coast of England carried on without any branding system whatever.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that at one time there was a bounty offered in Scotland for the curing of herrings; but whether it was due to that fact that the herring fishery made such progress and became so developed he could not say. He thought the system of branding was of very great advantage to Scotland, and knowing something about the herring trade, he was prepared to state that it could not be practically carried on without that system. A number of curers tried to do away with it after a charge was made for the brand, but they found it did not succeed, and there was a much larger portion of herrings branded now than was formerly the case. As regarded the Fishery Board, he did not put too much confidence in them, because they took no interest in the catching of the fish. One other matter to which he referred was that of the two cruisers. An opinion prevailed that they

  929
  might be of much greater service than they were if they spent most of their time in harbour instead of cruising at sea. During a recent storm, when some of the fishermen lost their valuable nets, they were asked to go and see if they could find them, but they said their orders were to be confined to saving life. Now, seeing that they were there, he thought the Admiralty ought to instruct these cruisers that under the circumstances he had named they should give some little assistance to the fishermen.
  MR. RAMSAYthought it was due to the officers of the Revenue cruisers to say that he met this week with a gentleman from the North of Scotland, where there was a very active branch of the fishery trade prosecuted during the summer months, and he assured him that these vessels rendered very important services to the fishermen, and on many occasions had been the means of saving their nets at sea and towing the small boats into harbour during a storm. As regarded the question which had been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), he begged to say what the Scotch Members complained of was this—that the Votes for Scotland, taken in the aggregate, did not correspond either with the population of the country or its taxation, and that there was a very undue proportion given to Ireland and to England also. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at his statement; but the truth was when they were called upon to deal with economy and retrenchment by their constituents they were met with the assertion, which they could not deny, that the Votes taken in the aggregate for England and Ireland, and for any branch of the public service, exceeded in amount and proportion those given to Scotland.
  MR. DILLWYNobjected to the practice which was growing up of discussing Votes, not with reference to the amount required for the public service, but with reference simply to the question of how much Scotland, Ireland, England, or "Wales might happen to be receiving under the same head. The simple question they had to decide was, whether the Vote now before the House was good for Scotland or not, and it had nothing whatever to do with Ireland.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £4,460, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
  (5.) £5,045, to complete the sum for the General Registrar's Office, Scotland.
  (6.) £60,235, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision and Public Health, Scotland.
  MR. GOSCHENasked whether the large increase in the Vote was due to the allowance of 4s. per head given for lunatics; also, whether that sum represented the whole of the Vote required for lunatics in Scotland, or only a part?
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTinquired whether the 4s. was given for the lunatics in workhouses as well as in asylums?
  SIR ANDREW LUSKasked if the Government were taking care that the money granted was properly applied?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the amount asked represented the whole of the normal Vote for pauper lunatics in Scotland for the year. All pauper lunatics were under the control of the Board of Lunacy, and the amount put down in the Vote was the maximum allowed per head. It did not follow that the total amount would be either required or expended; but it had been thought wise to put the full amount in the Estimate. There was no Estimate or payment made for pauper lunatics in workhouses in England, but there was in Scotland. In the case of the Irish Vote for the same purpose which had to be submitted, it represented only three-fourths of the annual amount.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the grant was only given to lunatics under the control of the Lunacy Board, and that by no means embraced the whole of the lunatics in Scotland. He complained that the Scotch grant had been commenced 60 days later than the English grant, and thus Scotland had been deprived of £10,000. Injustice was consequently done to Scotland in that as in many other respects.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, that he had had a good deal of communication with the hon. Member, and consequently had agreed to recommend the allowance being given for Scotch lunatics, though it would not be given in the case of England. The hon. Member now made another complaint that the grant did not commence till 60 days after the English Vote; but

  931
  then if this scheme ever came to an end, the Scotch would get paid for 60 days extra at the end of the period.
  MR. RAMSAY, speaking in the name of the Scotch people, thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had done in the matter, and said the more thoroughly he understood it the more convinced he would be that he had done what was right.
  MR. M'LARENthought there was some misunderstanding on the subject. It was a mistake to suppose that all lunatics in Scotland were paid for. No pauper lunatic was paid for, unless he was under the control of the Board of Supervision.
  MR. PELLsaid, that by means of exceeding importunity Scotland appeared to have obtained a concession which placed her at an advantage as compared with England, and that that fact ought to serve as a hint to English Members to proceed in the same way.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked why the grant of 4s. per head for lunatics in Scotland should not be extended to Ireland and England?
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTsaid, that it appeared that in Scotland the lunatics in union workhouses were paid for at the rate of 4s. per head, and he thought it high time for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the three countries on the same footing in that matter. That concession ought either to be withdrawn from Scotland or given to England and Ireland.
  MR. GOSCHENwished to know, as a matter of fact, whether anything had been given to Scotland which was withheld from England and Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUERsaid, the original proposal of the Government was to make a grant of 4s. a-head in respect to all lunatics under the charge of the Lunacy Commissioners; and it was made under the impression that it would work in the same way in all parts of the, United Kingdom, but that it would not apply to lunatics retained in the workhouses and not under the Lunacy Commissioners. That proposal was made with reference to England. Then it was brought to their notice from Scotland that there were many classes of lunatics there which did not exist in England. The lunatics in Scotland were classified in a different way from that adopted here,
  932
  and were under the Lunacy Commissioners where that was not the case in England. The system being different in that respect, there was a difference in the payment. He did not think their English friends would be prepared to adopt the Scotch system and to have the same supervision by the Lunacy Commissioners as existed in Scotland, otherwise the case would be very much altered. Were they so, the Government would be prepared to give the grant to the same class of lunatics.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that if Scotland was dealt justly with, that was all she required. Now, as regarded medical grants, some years ago the grant for Scotland was fixed at £10,000, and it had never been since increased, while the grant for England was £157,000. Now, if England got her due proportion as regarded population, she ought only to receive £65,000. Then as regarded pauper lunatics, England received £357,000, while Scotland only got £61,000. Such figures as these could be multiplied in other cases, and they showed that Scotland had good ground for complaint.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £5,360, to complete the sum for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
  MR. ANDERSONobjected to that part of the Vote which related to Queen's Plates in Ireland. It was pointed out in the evidence taken before Lord Rosebery's Committee that the money for Queen's Plates was absolutely thrown away, so far as the breeding of horses was concerned, and that they neither amused the people nor improved the breed of the horses. It was promised last year that before another year this matter would be re-considered, in order to ascertain whether the money could not be devoted to a more useful purpose. He did not want to take the money away from Ireland, but he did desire that it should be devoted to some more useful purpose in connection with the improvement of horses.
  MR. CONOLLYhoped they would be spared these vexatious interferences on the part of the Scotch Members in matters which did not concern them at all. ["Oh, oh!"] They did not understand the question, and they cared less about

  933
  it. There was a large body of Irish people who loved racing, but the Scotch were different. Their blood did not run so fast as that of the Irish, and he altogether objected to the interference in this House of Scotch Members in matters purely belonging to Ireland.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the question of principle had been decided by the division which had already occurred that evening. He had been in communication with several hon. Members, and with some of the leading men on the Irish Turf on the subject, and they had been unable to suggest any mode in which the money could be more usefully distributed than by means of these Plates. Any practical suggestions that might be made by Gentlemen possessing local knowledge which would lead to an improvement in the breed of horses in Ireland by otherwise distributing this money would receive the careful consideration of the Government.
  MR. M'LAREN, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly), said, the Members who were elected in Scotland were not elected for Scotland alone, they were elected to the Imperial Parliament, and as Members of that Parliament, they had a perfect right to interfere in the affairs of the whole nation. He had as much right to interfere in anything appertaining to the constituency of the hon. Member, as the hon. Member would have a right to interfere in anything affecting the constituency of Edinburgh which was brought before the House.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsuggested that some of the money which was given for Queen's Plates should be devoted to offering premiums for the best stallions.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, if Scotch Members had nothing to do with Irish affairs, how came it they were allowed to vote upon them? If votes in this House were confined to nationalities, the Scotch Members would manage things a great deal better than was done at present.
  MR. WHITWELLobjected to money being wasted in Queen's Plates.
  MR. R. POWERwas sorry to hear his hon. Friend who had just spoken object to Queen's Plates, because he had seen him on the back of a racehorse, though he admittted it was a broken-down one.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he would apologize to the Scotch Members if he had said anything offensive to them.
  GENERAL SHUTEhoped that that House would not refuse a Vote, the object of which was to preserve and improve the excellent breed of Irish horses.
  MAJOR O'GORMANhad just one word to say. He hoped the Government would never give premiums for the breeding in Ireland of cocktails. Another thing he would like to see—the races for the Queen's Plates run faster, and he suggested that they should not get the money unless they did the distance in a given time.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £20,165, to complete the sum for the offices of the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  (9.) £265, to complete the sum for the Boundary Survey, Ireland.
  (10.) £1,621, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
  MR. MELDONcomplained of the way the Commissioners were at present appointed, and expressed a hope that the Government would institute a change.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £82,355, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board, Ireland.
  (12.) £4,221, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office, Ireland.
  (13.) £14,331, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland, &c.
  (14.) £16,600, to complete the sum for the General Survey and Valuation of Ireland.
  (15.) £25,692, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

IRELAND—PEACE PRESERVATION ACT—CASE OF PATRICK CASEY.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYmoved for Copies of Memorials and other Papers addressed to the Irish Government praying for the release of the prisoner Patrick Casey, confined under the provisions

  935
  of the Protection to Life and Property (Ireland) Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, Copies of all Memorials addressed to the Lord Lieutenant or the Irish Government, praying for the release of the prisoner Patrick Casey, confined under the provisions of the Protection to Life and Property (Ireland) Act:
  Of all special Medical Reports in the case:
  Of all special Minutes made by the Lord Lieutenant relative to the prisoner:
  And, of any application made by him for liberty to marry; and of any answer thereto."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHopposed the Motion, stating that all special Minutes and Papers relating to cases arising under the Westmeath Act had always been regarded as confidential. He could conceive no useful object to be gained by acceding to the Motion.
  MR. BUTTridiculed the notion that any documents which gave absolute power to the Lord Lieutenant to commit an innocent man to prison should be considered confidential and kept secret.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 5: Majority 57.

NORWICH ELECTION.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  The Lords acquaint this House, That Her Majesty has appointed Tuesday next, at Three o'clock, at Windsor Castle, to be attended with the Address of both Houses of Parliament on the late Election for Norwich; and that The Lords have appointed the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Steward to attend Her Majesty therewith on the part of their Lordships; and that The Lords do desire The Commons to appoint a proportionate number of its Members to go with them.
  Ordered, That Four Members of this House do go with The Lords mentioned in the said Message, to wait upon Her Majesty with the said Address.
  Ordered, That Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Secretary Hardy, and the Comptroller of the Household do go with The Lords mentioned in the said Message.
  Message to their Lordships, to acquaint them therewith.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RATHBONE, Bill to provide for the filling up of casual vacancies in School Boards in certain cases by such Boards without Public Election, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. ARTHUR
  936
  MILLS, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. SALT, and Mr. MORLEY. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 234.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Ecclesiastical Fees Redistribution * (161–187).
Committee—Report—Salmon Fishery Act Provisional Order (Taw and Torridge) * (156).
Third Reading—Registration of Trade Marks * (167); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, Barnsley, &c.) * (147); Local Government Board's Poor Law Provisional Orders Confirmation (Oxford, &c.) * (150), and passed.

NORWICH ELECTION.
The Lord Steward acquainted the House that Her Majesty had appointed Tuesday next, at Three o'clock, at Windsor Castle, to be attended with the Address of both Houses on the Norwich Election. A message sent to the Commons to inform them thereof, and that the Lords had appointed the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Steward to attend Her Majesty therewith on the part of this House, and to desire the Commons to appoint a proportionate number of its members to go with them.

ROYAL NAVY—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in rising to call attention to the subject of Promotion and Retirement in the Royal Navy, said, that as their Lordships were aware, great alterations had recently been made in the system of officering the Service, and that system was still in the process of development. The change effected was a change of principle—the details were very far from being worked out, and would require to be watched most carefully by the Admiralty and Parliament for years to come. The first object which the Admiralty must have in view was, of course, the requirements of the Service, but it was also necessary to take into consideration the position of the present officers under the system which formerly existed. The evil of non-employment in the Navy was felt so forcibly previously to the year 1870, that in that year the Government then in office brought forward a scheme of retirement which had, he believed, on the whole, worked successfully. Comparing the Navy List for the 1st of April, 1870, with the List as it stood on the 1st of June, 1875, which were the latest Returns, he found that while at the former time there were 81 flag-officers unemployed there were now only 38. At the former period there were 199 captains on half pay; now there were only 88.
862
There had been a reduction in the number of commanders and lieutenants also. These figures were satisfactory, except in respect of the last-named grade; but the truth was the lists of the junior officers were very much over-crowded in 1870. They were much less so now, and in these lists he hoped there would be a further improvement. He found that whereas in 1870 there were 1,134 sublieutenants and officers of other junior ranks; now there were only 755. It might, perhaps, be thought that those lists had been too much diminished; but it was not difficult to show that such was not the case. As regarded lieutenants, there was no reason to suppose that for some years, at least, the list would be reduced under 700. That, however, was a point for the future, and he was fully alive to the fact that the lieutenants were the backbone and strength of the Navy, and preferred looking forward to the list as it might be some years hence, rather than dwell on its present position. Some two years ago, Mr. Goschen devised a scheme for the employment of lieutenants in navigating duties. He set aside a number of them to be employed in those duties, with the idea that at a future time it might be possible to abolish the distinction between them and the class of navigating lieutenants. He would like to hear from his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) how the experiment had worked, and whether the present Board of Admiralty had any intention of abolishing the distinctive rank of navigating lieutenant? There was another point to which he desired to direct attention. As it was necessary to reduce the number of officers on the Active List, it would be necessary that as many as possible of those retained on the list should be combatant officers, and he could see no reason why the duties of secretaries and paymasters should not be discharged by combatant officers, as in the Army. He could not but think it was desirable to reduce, as far as possible, the non-combatant branch of the Service. Besides the system of retirement one of promotion was inaugurated, in 1870. The latter could not be applied to the higher grades of officers for years to come; and, till this was the case, the Admiralty would have to contend with crowded lists of officers in the superior grades. It

863
appeared that in the year 1873, five captains were promoted to the rank of admiral; seven commanders to that of captains; and 18 lieutenants to that of commander. In 1874, three captains to be admirals; eight commanders to be captains; and 15 lieutenants to be commanders. In the period of 1875 already-expired, 4 captains to be admirals; four commanders to be captains; and 14 lieutenants to be commanders. The working of the new system had, therefore, produced some good; but he was prepared to admit that with the present lists there was a great want of promotion in the Navy, and that want of promotion tended to produce discontent among the officers. He believed it had been stated in "another place" that the Admiralty had another scheme for the mitigation of the evil under consideration, but thought it was not quite time to promulgate it. He hoped that whatever they might do they would not interfere with the principle of the scheme of 1870. All things considered, he did not think the promotion under that scheme had been very inadequate, but he thought that something should be done with reference to commanders and captains. He believed it to be desirable that there should be a minimum of promotions for the present to the ranks of commander and captain. In the same ratio as there was an addition to the promotion in those ranks there would be a greater want of employment, but it appeared to him that of the two evils a want of promotion in those ranks was the lesser one. He was, however, aware that if the rank of navigating lieutenant were abolished it would be necessary to some extent to increase the establishment of commanders and to a slight extent the establishment of captains. With regard to the permanent measures to be adopted, he hoped the number of cadets would be kept down. He thought that up to the present time the present Board of Admiralty had exercised a wise discretion in this respect. This year they had entered more than they did last; but for that he thought he could see reasons—but the inevitable tendency was to enter too many cadets, and this ought to be guarded against. He hoped the Admiralty would continue, as a permanent measure, to permit lieutenants to retire from the Service irrespective of age. It might at first sight appear to be a rather extravagant
864
plan to allow officers to retire after only eight or ten years' service; but he thought it was for the interest of the public, as well as of the Service, that it should be allowed. Their Lord-ships would remember that it was proposed that the number of lieutenants should not be at any time less than 600. The number of commanders would not be more than 200. How were 600 lieutenants to be promoted into those 200 posts? It was impossible that they could all come to the rank of commander, and there was still less chance of their reaching that of captain. By allowing retirements a better chance would be left for men who were determined to remain in the Navy and make it their profession. He was completely in favour of the abolition of the privilege of "haul down vacancies." The promotions which used to be made under these privileges were much better in the hands of the Admiralty. He was convinced that in a short time it would be necessary to introduce selection in the making of Flag officers. Only within the last three or four years, two or three officers possessing high claims had been lost to the Service because that system was not in force. He would quite admit that even under a system of selection good officers must occasionally be lost; but he contended that seniority alone ought not to determine who was to be an Admiral, and that whether a man should be Admiral of the Fleet ought not to depend on the age at which as a captain he attained his promotion. He further believed that in course of time the feelings of the officers themselves would be in favour of selection. There was a dislike on the part of officers to go on the Retired List. That disinclination arose from a commendable feeling, and had its origin at a time when there was scarcely such a thing as a Retired List; but now that retirement in all branches of the public service had become a necessity, and that some of the most distinguished officers were on the Retired List, and that the change from the Active List to the Retired List was only one in name, there was no longer the good reason for that feeling which existed at a time when retirement was justly regarded as a reproach. He felt obliged to their Lordships for having listened to his statement; but he felt that in their Lordships' House no apology was necessary

865
for having brought forward such a question as promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he entirely concurred in the closing remark of his noble Friend; but their Lordships would bear him out when he said that promotion and retirement in the Navy were very old themes. The want of employment in the Navy and the consequent discontent among the officers were also very old themes, and had been many times discussed in that and the other House of Parliament during a great number of years. From the time of the Battle of Waterloo, which gave us 40 years of peace, till the war in the Crimea, Parliament heard constantly of the discontent of naval officers, arising from the same cause. After the close of the Crimean War, the same cry commenced again; and though successive Ministries had attempted to grapple with the difficulty and had devised various schemes for putting an end to the discontent, he must own that it existed at the present moment, and in all probability would continue to exist after any other scheme that might be devised hereafter. To show their Lordships for how long a time and how constantly this subject had been discussed in Parliament, he might mention that as far back as 1833 a Committee was appointed to consider it; in 1840 there was another such Committee, presided over by no less a personage than the Duke of Wellington; and in 1863 there was another. But of these several Committees nothing very practical had been the result. But to come to 1870, in this latter year a scheme was promulgated by the late Government which it was very natural that his noble Friend should praise, and which, it was promised, was to have relieved us very much from the complaints to which he had referred. Nobody would have been more glad than himself if he could say that the scheme of 1870 had proved entirely successful, and that the discontent of the officers of the Navy and the want of employment in that Service had ceased; but he was sorry to say that was not the case; and Her Majesty's present Government were again obliged to consider whether any better arrangement could be made. They were actively directing their attention to the subject—of that he could assure their Lordships—but he was not prepared to say what their scheme
866
would be. They had not only to contend with the difficulties arising from the grievances of the officers, but also with the difficulties of the financial aspect of the question. Whether in respect of the arrangements for the Army or of those for the Navy, finance was an element which the Government of the day must ever keep in its consideration. One thing at least was certain—that if there were increased facilities of promotion there must be an increased military expenditure in time of peace. The calculation which the Government had made as to the progress of promotion was certainly not promising. At the present rate the list of captains could not be brought down to 150 before the year 1885, and in the lower ranks the progress of reduction would be still slower. He entirely concurred in what his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown) had said as to selection in the case of Flag officers. Of course it would be impossible to convince officers who had been passed over that the promotion had been given to better men than themselves; but promotion by selection was inevitable in the Navy. It must be so in the Army too, now that the non-purchase system had been adopted. In a time of peace the country could not pronounce its verdict as to the results of selection; but if war should break out it would require that the best men should fill the important posts. What it would require was that apparently the best men were selected, and he believed that whatever Party might be in power, the Government of the day would, without favour, appoint the men who appeared to be best fitted for the duties they had to perform. The question put by his noble Friend as to the appointment of combatant officers to discharge the duties of Secretary and those of Paymaster was one which he could not answer without notice. He agreed with what his noble Friend had said about cadets; but if the Admiralty did away with navigating lieutenants a few more cadets must be entered. He said that the noble Earl had done good service to the Navy by drawing attention to the subject, and by reminding Her Majesty's Government of some points which the Admiralty desired should be carried out.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he hardly knew what object his noble Friend below him (the Earl of Camperdown) had in calling attention to this subject

867
at the present moment, seeing that he approved the course which was now being pursued. For himself, he had no fault to find with the course which Her Majesty's Government were pursuing. He desired to point out that it was impossible for Parliament to lay down the number of captains and commanders and lieutenants who should be on the establishment at any given time. That must be left to the Department. We had made great alterations within the last few years. When he was at the head of the Admiralty we had a "little war "with China; and when he sent out vessels to take part in that war there was a want of lieutenants; consequently he was obliged to increase the number of cadets in order to bring in lieutenants. Since then a few large iron-clads had been substituted for a greater number of other vessels, and by reason of that change fewer lieutenants were required. It was impossible to lay down what must be the number of officers in time of peace. We must have too many officers in time of peace in order to have officers enough in time of war. Wars sometimes broke out suddenly, and a lieutenant could not be made under five or six years. As it was impossible to avoid a superfluity of officers at all seasons, so at some we must have a certain amount of discontent and dissatisfaction. That was an unfortunate thing, but it could not be avoided. All the Admiralty could do was, from time to time, to devise some scheme to provide for the redundant officers. He did not believe that any scheme of the kind would last for very long, and he thought it would be idle for him or anybody else to lay down any self-acting scheme with the idea that it could be made permanent. It must be left for the Admiralty of the day to deal with the difficulty they found on their hands, and to devise such schemes as the occasion might require.
LORD DUNSANYsaid, he agreed that the noble Earl had done good service by drawing attention to this important subject; but he did not quite agree with him that it was desirable to offer great encouragement to retirement. If it really were the case that retirement was merely a change in name, he would concur with the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) that officers might adopt it without repugnance: or if it was a fact that an officer on the Retired List
868
might be called on in time of war, then no harm could be done by retirement; for it was impossible in the present experimental state of the service to fix the exact number of officers that might be required. The time must come when we should have a large force of gun-boats, and these would afford considerable employment. He hoped, however, that care would be taken to prevent those boats from going to not when they were not on active service. About 200 were built at the time of the war in the Crimea; but they were scarcely ever heard of after. Looking at what had been done by the gallant Gentleman who established the Corps of Commissionaires, and who by his private efforts found them employment, he would suggest whether the Government might not, in the Civil Service, find something to do for officers who were on the retired lists of the Army and Navy.

ECCLESIASTICAL FEES REDISTRIBUTION BILL—(No. 161.)
(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
ECCLESIASTICAL FEES REDISTRIBUTION BILL—(No. 161.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 6 (Payments out of Pee Fund).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it had only just come to his knowledge—for there were secrets connected with the fees in question, which it took some time to discover—that there was a sum of £1,200 which under an Act of Parliament was available from certain ecclesiastical fees, now waiting at the office of the Bounty Board for some one to claim it. He intended, therefore, on the Report to bring up an Amendment inviting their Lordships to give authority to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to appropriate this sum of £1,200 for the purposes of the Pee Fund mentioned in this Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  An Amendment moved, and, on Question, resolved in the negative.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 187.)

METROPOLIS—HYDE PARK CORNER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD REDESDALEasked the Lord President, Whether it is intended to make the road from Piccadilly to Grosvenor Place (the model of which has been deposited in the House of Commons) during the present year? The subject was one, he said, of considerable importance to the inhabitants of the metropolis generally, and nobody, he thought, could have witnessed the stoppages which were constantly occurring at Hyde Park Corner without feeling that something ought to be done to remedy the daily inconvenience which they created. The road which was proposed in accordance with the plan which had been laid before the House of Commons was one which would run from Piccadilly at the end of Hamilton Place under Constitution Hill to Grosvenor Place; and that road, if carried out, would take away from the block at Hyde Park corner the whole of the traffic coming down Hamilton Place and that along Piccadilly, proceeding to Belgravia. He could not, he might add, understand why the plan should have for so long a time been placed before the House of Commons without any steps having been taken by those by whom it had been suggested to carry it into execution. The expense of doing so had, he believed, been estimated at £12,000, which, as the distance could not be more than about a furlong, would be at the rate of £96,000 per mile; but he could not think it would cost so much, as there would be nothing to be done beyond the work of excavation and the building of a bridge, and placing iron railings on both sides of the road—for the land which would be given up by the Crown would cost nothing. He hoped that the road, if constructed, would be a public road without gates. He was aware that another plan had been suggested by the Duke of Westminster, who, of course, was deeply interested in the approaches to a part of the town where he held such valuable property. The gist of that plan was to carry another road to Piccadilly on the other side of the arch on which the statue of the Duke of Wellington was placed, widening Grosvenor Place below the arch. Now, the objection to that plan was that it would not remove the traffic from Hyde Park Corner.
  870
  He therefore thought the plan proposed by the Government was the preferable one. It offered great advantages for the public convenience; it had now been before the public a sufficient time for opinion upon it to have matured; and it would be much to be regretted if steps were not taken to carry out the improvement before they came together again next year.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDbelieved that the model which had been placed in a Committee-room of the other House had been very generally approved. It was thought that the execution of the plan would afford the relief to the traffic which was no doubt required. As to the question of expense, he was not prepared to enter into that. The noble Lord had said the cost would be about £12,000.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he understood that was the estimate at the Board of Works.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: As soon as the model had been finally approved and adopted as the mode of meeting the difficulty of the enormous amount of traffic in that quarter, it was the intention of the Government, before the end of the Session, to take a Vote this year for the purpose of making the road, which would be commenced in the autumn, and he hoped that at an early period next year it would be opened to the public. Of course, it would be unwise to commence such a work as that until there were fewer people in London, which would be the case in the autumn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock.