said: Sir, in moving that you leave the Chair, I will give an answer to the question which the hon. Member for Montrose addressed to me before the recess with respect to the arrangements to be made relative to the administration of the affairs of the Army. I imagine that there are two questions upon this sub- ject which engage the attention of the House—the one is the question of giving more immediate vigour and efficiency to the War Department, and the other relates to the arrangements to be made respecting the administration of all the various departments connected with military affairs. Now, Sir, with regard to the first point, namely, the more efficient administration of military affairs in time of war—it is, I think, to be collected from the general feeling, and it is the opinion of her Majesty's Government, that a Minister having the charge of the Colonial Department—bearing in mind the manner in which the business of that department has increased since the last war—is both physically and morally unable to give to the affairs of the War Department that great amount of attention, time, and labour which those affairs in time of war absolutely require. It is, therefore, the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the affairs of the War Department, instead of being united to the administration of the Colonies, as they at present are, should be separated from it. The next question regards the administration of the various departments which are connected with military affairs. The House is aware that these departments are several in number, and it is aware, likewise, that one of the principal Secretaries of State as Secretary of State for the War Department, takes the Queen's pleasure with respect to the amount of forces to be kept up for the year—takes the Queen's pleasure, also, with regard to any considerable augmentation to be made, and generally takes from Her Majesty those directions by which the military affairs of this country are regulated. The Secretary at War administers the financial affairs of the Army; the Board of Ordnance has, in the first place, the management of the artillery and the engineers, but it has likewise various other duties to perform which from time to time have been added to it. The Commissariat is a department by itself, and its duties are well known; and there are various other departments which are more or less concerned in, and connected with, the military affairs of the country. Now, Sir, in the year 1831–32 there was a Committee of the Government appointed, of which the Duke of Richmond was the head, and of which I had the honour of being a Member, and that Committee was of opinion that there should be a General Board, which should have the civil affairs of the Army under its control, but divided into different departments—one to lodge the Army, another to clothe the Army, a third to feed the Army, a fourth to furnish arms, and so on. Somewhat later a Commission was appointed, of which Earl Grey, who was then Secretary of War, was the head, and of which, also, I had the honour of being a Member, and that Commission was of opinion—at least, Earl Grey suggested, and the Members of the Commission concurred in the recommendation—that there should be greater concentration of departments, and that the Secretary at War should exercise many of the functions which are now discharged by the Secretary of State. The plan which I have first mentioned did not meet with the approbation, if I recollect right, of Earl Grey, who was then at the head of the Government; at all events it certainly was not persevered in any further. The second plan was laid before the Duke of Wellington, who stated to Lord Melbourne —who was then the First Minister of the Crown—such grave and, I think, such reasonable objections to the placing in the hands of the Secretary at War a control which properly belonged to one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, that that plan likewise was not proceeded with. Sir, under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the best thing to be done for the present would be to confine ourselves to the change of making a separate Secretary of State for the War Department, confiding to him a superintendence over all those matters which fall under the administration of military affairs in time of war. Having been a Member of both Commissions, I have no hesitation in saying that I was not at all satisfied, after hearing the objections of Earl Grey and the Duke of Wellington, that either of the proposed plans would have ensured the efficient and complete working of all the various departments connected with military affairs in this country. But a Secretary of State would have these departments under his immediate superintendence. He would have the control of the whole of them, and could say from time to time what improvements ought to be introduced, and could either introduce these improvements singly, or prepare some plan to be afterwards submitted to the consideration of the Government as a more general reform of the various military departments. This, I think, is all that it would be advisable at the present moment to attempt. To introduce greater changes — to derange and put into a state of confusion all those various departments at a time when we have but lately entered into a war—would, in my opinion, be a very rash and dangerous undertaking. I have been told, with respect to the most beneficial change which was made by my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty, when he abolished the Navy Board more than twenty years ago, that it took upwards of two years before that change was completely carried into effect so as to ensure the harmonious working of the new system. If that be so, it is obvious you cannot adopt in the first instance an entire plan, without the risk of producing, probably, a great deal more confusion than at the present time, more particularly, is to be wished for, and you would fail to ensure that harmony and unity which are so much desired. There are certain principles which I think should guide us with respect to this subject. It is easy to say, "Unite the various departments." But while there is the greatest benefit in having one head which can control departments and branches of the same kind of service, there very often will be very great disadvantage in uniting in one department what ought to be divided amongst several. The progress which has been made in society in general has been a progress made, not by uniting, but by separating different mechanical arts and manufactures which in early times were united together. is it not the same with regard to the immediate subject under our notice? If we were to desire the infantry to do the work of the cavalry, and the cavalry to be as complete as the artillery, that, evidently, instead of improvement, would rather produce disorganisation, and prevent the efficient working of those different branches. At the same time, everybody sees that it is unfit that the commander of the cavalry should have a separate command, or that the commander of the artillery should have his own mode of conducting operations, and that it is desirable all should be under one head and one commander. With respect to certain things, unity is desirable. With respect to others, separation is the best way of attaining that end. It appears, therefore, to the Government better to allow the Secretary of State, who is to be placed at the head of this department, to consider from time to time what is the best arrangement, and how improvements can be best carried out. It certainly appears that there are defects, which have been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and by others, in the other House of Parliament, as well as in this House, and no doubt very considerable improvements can be made. There is one change, however, which I must say I do not think we can consider in the light of an improvement. I mean the proposal that the patronage which is now vested in the Commander in Chief, and which is administered by him without reference to political considerations, should be taken from him and given to a political officer. I do not think such a change would be likely to give satisfaction to the public. It seems to me far better that patronage should continue to be exercised, as for a long series of years it has been and is now exercised, having regard to the benefit of the Army, totally apart from any considerations of which party is in power or in opposition. These are the only remarks which I have to make on this subject. It will not be necessary to have recourse to Parliament for any Bill to separate the Departments of War and the Colonies. That can be effected nearly in the same manner as the Home Department was separated from that of War and the Colonies. There will be, of course, some increased expenses; but the establishment now found to lie sufficient for both departments will be nearly sufficient for them when separated. An Estimate will be proposed for defraying the charges of the Secretary of State for the War Department; and the Secretary of State for the War Department, having his undivided attention given to the affairs of that department—never more important than at the present moment, or requiring more vigour and decision—will be able to serve his country in the manner it deserves.

said, he was glad to find Her Majesty's Government had made a beginning, but he hoped they would lay on the table some more definite statement of what this plan was. He was one who agreed with the noble Lord in thinking that individuals should be placed in a situation to perform separate duties, but united at the same time under one command. He never contemplated altering the powers of the Commander in Chief with respect to patronage, for he believed that the more political considerations were kept out of view in the promotions of the Army the better. What he desired to see was one head—a Member of Her Majesty's Govern- ment—who should have the opportunity of being consulted upon all orders that were given. He wished to see the artillery form part of the Army, and no longer be a strange body, unknown to the Commander in Chief. He wished to see men of experience appointed as aides-de-camp, to perform those most important ditties, instead of young men of two or three years' standing in the Army, who were too often entirely incapable. The arrangements he desired were arrangements which would not weaken but give strength to all operations. Although he considered the Treasury ought to check and control all departments, he thought it anomalous that the Treasury should have the management of that most important of all services in the field—the Commissariat. There should also be some arrangement with regard to stores. He did not wish to blame the Government, but while the manner in which the artillery and troops had been conveyed to the East was highly creditable to the country, it was utterly impossible there could be that efficiency which under a proper system might have been obtained. He was not dissatisfied with what was now proposed. but he wanted a little more to be done, and the sooner it was done the better. They did not know how long the war would continue, and they ought to be prepared at all points, for now that the country had entered upon war, they had a right to expect operations would be conducted with the greatest efficiency. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord laid upon the table a programme of what would be united and what separated, so as to promote efficiency in the different departments, it was impossible that the House would be satisfied or disposed to vote any money. He wished to ask whether it was correct that orders had been given for altering the clothing of the Army, and whether any arrangement had been made for separating the Ordnance Department from the artillery?

said, it would be very unfair to his noble Friend, who had announced this late change, if they were to mingle with their congratulations any observations which might seem to detract from the expediency of the measure just announced. At the same time, lest general assent might hereafter be taken to imply entire approval of that measure, he must say for himself his noble Friend's statement had fallen far short of satisfying him with respect to the arrangements which were about to take place. He wished, however, to correct one statement of his noble Friend. He (Mr. Ellice) was also a Member of the Commission of 1831, and neither he nor Sir James Kemp concurred in the Report which was made to the Government; and he very much doubted whether his noble Friend himself approved of it—at least, that was his impression at the time. There was, properly speaking, no Report; for though the Duke of Richmond produced the sketch of a Report, it was not sent in by the Commission, but what they generally agreed upon was that with respect to our military establishments there should be one head responsible to this House for the expenditure. He quite concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that it was the last thing to be desired that any political influence should be exercised with respect to the patronage of the Army, and he should be very sorry to see the discretion of the Commander in Chief interfered with by political parties; at the same time it had always occurred to him that whatever recommendations were made to the Crown should be in some respect under the advice and control of the Government of the day. There were various questions about patronage and promotions in the Army, which should be entirely controlled by a Minister responsible to this House for the expenditure of the Army. He would not trouble the House with a history of the anomalies on this subject, such as the Secretary at War being made responsible for departments over which he had no control. What lie submitted was, that there should be one superintending authority to control the parties having the management of different details. If it was intended that the new Secretary of State should only be employed in time of war, then, indeed, they would have made very little progress in improving their military administration. If it was intended to be a permanent office, not only to transact all affairs connected with military operations, but to conduct and be responsible for the whole military administration of the country, then he could see no reason why that Secretary of State should not be responsible for the whole administration, whether by the Master of the Ordnance, the Commissary General, the barrack master, or the officer who supplied the clothing. What he wanted was to have all those parties responsible to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State responsible to the House of Commons, so that the control of the House of Commons should be much greater over the military expenditure, for which they had to call upon the people to submit to taxation. The Commissariat was managed, as he thought most improperly, by the Treasury. But in making that statement he would guard himself from being supposed to think that the banking part of the Commissariat, should not remain with the Treasury. It was essential that the Treasury should control the whole expenditure of the country in every department, and in order to enable them to do that, they must not be undertaking the expenditure in detail of any one department. What the House appeared to him to desire, what all the Commissions had agreed upon, what all the Committees had always insisted upon, was, that there should be one authority, not to undertake the administration of the various departments, but one authority to which all those various departments could report and refer, and who, being the head of the military administration of the country, should be responsible to that House. He quite agreed with his noble Friend that they ought not to act hastily, without due caution, or without due preparation. If the Secretary of State now appointed was to have the power by degrees, as he saw expedient for the benefit of the public service, to bring into subjection to his own department such details of the administration as appeared to him might be better managed under such control, then he should be perfectly satisfied; but if, on the other hand, it was intended, for carrying on operations during the war, to appoint only a temporary officer (because he hoped they might look forward some time or other to the re-establishment of peace), then he did not think the country would be satisfied with this change.

said, that the proposal of the noble Lord had met with such general assent, that it would be unnecessary for him to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, declaring that the several departments for the administration of the Army required to be consolidated, economised, and simplified. He knew no possible ground why the Commissariat should be connected with the Treasury, and it was a notorious fact that it was the most expensive and ill-conducted of all the public departments. He rejoiced at the change which the noble Lord had intimated, and which the House had so well received, and he was prepared to give it every support.

said, he considered that much would depend upon who was to be the War Minister. He should wish him to be a military man, but he supposed a Minister of the Crown, who was also a member of the military profession, could not always be found. He did not think the Army had been sent to Turkey so efficiently as the country had a right to expect, and the Commissariat was extremely faulty. He believed at the moment the troops were moving on Varna they had no guns larger than six-pounders, the heavy artillery having only just left Woolwich.

said, he wished to know whether the new Secretary of State would sit in the House of Commons?

was understood to say, that two Secretaries of State would always sit in the House of Commons, and that the Secretary of War would be competent to sit there. Motion agreed to; House in Committee, Mr. Bouverie in the Chair.

said, he saw that the Vote included a sum of 2,000l., for replacing the present decayed farm buildings in Windsor Park. He presumed that these were the buildings in the occupation of His Royal Highness Prince Albert; and be thought that if His Royal Highness paid neither rent nor taxes, the cost of keeping such buildings in repair ought not to be paid by the public. He objected, also, to the public being charged, as they were in these Estimates, with the expenses of the offices and staff of the Ecclesiastical and Tithe Commissions. Such charges were most unjust, considering the immense property of the Church. He also observed that there were no less than eight cathedrals and abbeys kept up in Scotland at the public expense.

said, His Royal Highness Prince Albert paid for the farms which he occupied the same rent as would be charged to any ordinary tenant, and the amount of that rent was carried to the public credit. His Royal Highness, it was well known, was a great improver, and had carried "high farming" to a point of great perfection; but whenever he had proposed substantial or permanent improvements, and those improvements had been carried out, they had been paid for in the same way as they would have been in any other case, one half by the Crown, as landlord, and the other half by His Royal Highness, as tenant, He thought that, upon the whole, they were rather more strict in dealing with His Royal Highness than they were with an ordinary tenant. With reference to the other observations which the hon. Gentleman had made, he could only say that if Commissions were appointed for important public purposes, they must be provided with offices, and those offices must be furnished. With regard to the abbeys and cathedrals in Scotland, mentioned by the hon. Member, they were kept up as specimens of the architecture of their respective ages, and he believed there would be a very general disinclination to allow them to fall to ruin.

inquired what was the number of acres which His Royal Highness Prince Albert occupied, and in respect of which this 2,000l. was to be expended?

said, as the arrangement with his Royal Highness was made when he was at the Board of Works, he might perhaps be permitted to explain that, with respect to the farms which Prince Albert occupied and farmed, he was treated in precisely the same way as any ordinary tenant of the Crown; but that with respect to the dairy farm, that was considered an appendage to the Castle, which ought as much to be kept up as the kitchen or any other part of Her Majesty's establishment. He imagined that this 2,000l. was required in order to carry out a plan which was in contemplation when he was in office, for putting the buildings on the dairy farm into suitable condition. Their state was certainly not such as any nobleman would like the buildings on his own dairy farm to be in.

said, that this sum of 2,000l. which was now asked for was required for the purpose of completing the new farm buildings on the dairy farm, as stated by the noble Member for Totness (Lord Seymour).

said, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that the dairy farm was an appendage to the Castle, and had no objection whatever to its being made as perfect as possible; but the explanation just offered differed very materially from that which had been before given by the Secretary of the Treasury.

said, the explanation was this. Improvements on the dairy farm were paid for wholly by the public; on the other farms His Royal Highness paid one-half, as any other tenant would do, and the public paid the other.

said, he considered the reference of the Estimates to a select Committee as the only effectual means of bringing them into a satisfactory state. This year the Miscellaneous Estimates alone amounted to 5,000,000l., while Mr. Pitt's Estimates for 1792–93, only amounted to 5,256,000l. for Army, Navy, Miscellaneous, in short, for every charge but that of the debt. However, taking this Vote as it was, he found a charge of 595l. for the Military Knights' houses at Windsor Castle, although it was stated that there were several thousand pounds which ought to be applicable to that purpose; a charge of 4,694l. for liabilities incurred under the Act 11 and 12 Vict., for improving the approaches to the Castle and town of Windsor, although no less a sum than 85,000l. had been paid by two railway companies, which ought to be available for carrying into effect the provisions of that Act; charges for the British Museum and for the Royal Mint, although there was a separate Vote for each to be afterwards proposed; and no less a sum than 20,158l. for the rent of houses occupied as public offices, although there was a piece of ground in Downing Street which had remained unoccupied for years, and upon which, with other property adjoining, for which an estimate had been obtained, he believed that buildings might have been erected at a very moderate expense, according to a plan which had been laid upon the table of the House, and all the different departments of public business have been brought together under one roof.

said, he must explain that of the 4,694l. proposed to be paid in discharge of liabilities at Windsor the first Vote of 2,6641. was mainly for professional services performed antecedently to the passing of the Act; the other sum of 2,030l. was required to put the roads in proper order before the charge of maintaining them could be transferred to the respective parishes, and, he believed it would be the last sum that would be asked for for that purpose. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the private houses which were rented by the Government and used as public offices were unfit places for the purpose, and that great advantage would result from bringing the different depart- ments together into one suitable building. He had caused plans to be prepared, and should be happy to propose that they should be acted on, if he could prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sanction the necessary expenditure.

satd, he thought, as the expense of the Post Office and Custom House Establishments were for the future to be the subject of Vote, it would have been well if the amounts required by those establishments for the repair of their public buildings had been included in the present vote. He had heard with great pleasure the opinion expressed by his right hon. Friend against the occupation of private houses as public offices, for he felt that such places were not only most inconvenient, but that they involved the employment of a large number of persons as messengers and doorkeepers, and in other subordinate capacities, whose services might easily be dispensed with, if the various public offices were grouped together and brought under one roof. The arrangement, therefore, would lead to a considerable saving of expense.

said, that the Bill for effecting the proposed change in the Revenue Departments not having yet become law, the Votes for repairs in those departments could not be included in the Estimates which were now before the House. Next year the course suggested by the noble Lord would be adopted. Vote agreed to. (2.) 19,437l., Buckingham Palace.

said, that something like 1,500,000l. had been expended on Buckingham Palace, and he should like to know of this was to be the last vote on account if that building?

said, the sum now asked for was a portion of a former vote, and he hoped it would include all that was necessary to be done to that building. Vote agreed to. (3.) 66.585l., Royal Parks, &c.

said, the public had the advantage of admission to Bushy park and gardens; but there was a large park of several hundred acres in extent, called the Home park, which was totally unused except by the deer. He could not see why it should not be thrown open to the public. Richmond Park had been recently fully opened to the public, and he saw no reason why the Home Park at Hampton Court should not be placed in a similar position. He understood that at present only a few privileged persons had the right of entrée to it. It would also be a great improvement to restore the ancient fountain in Bushey Park, which, besides being an ornament, would remain as an historical memorial of the times of William III.

said, with regard to the park alluded to by the lion. Member, there were certain rights of the ranger connected with that park recognised by Statute, and he did not see how they could be controverted. He would, however, consider if anything could be done in the matter. He believed the restoration of the fountain would be attended with considerable expense.

said, he trusted that on the appointment of the new ranger an entrance to the park would be secured to the public.

said, he thought every park to which the public money was voted should be thrown open. There was an item of 11,002l. for the Royal Botanical Gardens and Pleasure Grounds at Kew, which, under the superintendence of Sir William Hooker, had been very greatly improved. During last year there had been 331,210 visitors to these gardens, and no one could doubt the great benefit which had been conferred upon the public by their unrestricted opening. He highly approved of throwing open Kew Gardens on Sundays, and any person present on such occasions could not fail to be struck with the orderly and decorous conduct of the thousands who visited them. He should be glad to see all public places thrown open on a Sunday, as he believed it was the most humanising and instructive course of proceeding that could be adopted.

said, he had frequently witnessed the happy results which had accrued from the unrestricted opening of the gardens at Kew and the Palace at Hampton Court. With regard to the fountain in Bushey Park, he had naturally supposed that the sum of 1,200l. granted under that head last year, and 1,900l. asked for now, had sonic reference to repairs going on for the purpose of restoring that magnificent work of art. The subject had been referred to no less than fifteen years ago, and at that time Mr. Gordon, who was then Secretary to the Treasury, promised that the restoration should be attended to.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the large sum of 13,866l., for keeping St. James's Park, the Green Park, and Hyde Park in repair. He wished to know whether of the sum of 66,5851. for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens no portion was taken from the Crown lands?

said, there was a large increase in the Civil Service Estimates from year to year, but there was a constant process going on of paying into the Consolidated Fund the revenues and fees which had in former years been expended on the parks. The receipts from the various parks amounted to 5,220l. With regard to this Vote, every source of income was paid into the Exchequer, and every portion of the expense was voted by the House.

said, the increased expense for the parks arose from the increase in the price of materials and labour. It was necessary also to employ a considerable number of officers for the preservation of order.

said, he trusted the right hon. Baronet would turn his attention to the subject of the fountain at Bushey Park. A work like that ought not to be destroyed for want of sufficient repairs.

said, that, with regard to the fountain in Bushey Park, he would have a new estimate made of the cost of restoring it, but while some hon. Members were calling for these improvements, others were complaining of the expense. Vote agreed to. (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum not exceeding 141,294l. be granted to her Majesty for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament to the 31st day of March, 1855."

said, he wished to inquire whether any settlement had been come to with Sir Charles Barry, for superintending the works at the Houses of Parliament?

said, that the whole circumstances of the case had been gone into, and the Treasury had come to a conclusion as to what would be a fair amount of remuneration. A communication had been made to Sir Charles Barry on the subject, but he demurred, and there the matter stood at present. He understood that Sir Charles Barry was preparing a statement in support of his own views.

said, he hoped the Government would not consent to pay Sir Charles Barry anything until the accounts were made up. Before a stone was laid the Committee, over which Sir Robert Peel presided, came to the conclusion that 25,000l. should be paid in the shape of remuneration, in order to remove any inducement to increase the estimated expenditure, and each of the competing architects who sent in plans was furnished with a copy of that decision.

said, he would be glad to know what sum had been paid to Sir Charles Barry?

said, that speaking from recollection, he believed about 40,000l. The original estimate for the works, included in which Sir Charles Barry was, as arranged by Lord Besborough, to receive 25,000l., was 600,000l. or 700,000l. Upon the additional work, Sir Charles Barry had been paid a commission in a proportion similar to that arranged for upon the original estimate.

Is there any work unmeasured or unsettled?

said, that all the work was measured up to the end of last year, and he believed that as the work had been completed since, it had been measured and paid for.

said, that the additional sum paid to Sir Charles Barry had been paid contrary to agreement, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be called upon to refund it. He must complain that much expense was caused by the architect building, and then pulling down and rebuilding portions of work. It was his belief that the Houses of Parliament would not be completed in his lifetime.

said, he could not acknowledge that any blame was due either to himself or to his predecessors for anything defective in the arrangement for the construction of the New Houses of Parliament. It must be remembered that Parliament had never effectually committed the responsibility for these works to the Executive Government. For himself, he wished it had. Last year a desire had been expressed that a final estimate should be prepared, and a communication was made from the Treasury to Sir Charles Barry, requesting that such an estimate should be made. The Government were not yet in possession of that estimate; but it was only justice to Sir Charles Barry to state that his serious illness must have caused the delay. He agreed that it was desirable to know the end of this expenditure. It might be thought at first sight that 40,000l. was an extravagant remuneration to the architect, but a little consideration would show that that sum was greatly below what Sir Charles Barry was entitled to claim. It was now twenty years since the fire, and the new works had been spread over nearly that number of years. It must not be supposed that the sum paid to the architect could he regarded as not profits or receipts. Sir Charles Barry was subject to very heavy expenses, and he believed that his outgoings in the New Houses of Parliament for establishment and assistants averaged from 1,200l. to 1,500l. a year. If the Committee applied that sum to the number of years during which this expenditure had been going on, they would see that it amounted to a very large sum. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was incorrect in saying that Sir Charles Barry was paid for pulling down and altering his own work. A great deal of work had certainly been un- done and done over again, but many of the changes that had been made in that, and especially in the other House of Parliament, had been undertaken against Sir Charles Barry's opinion, and had exposed him to much additional labour. He understood that the various alterations made had compelled the architect to undertake three times the labour of the reconstruction of his design—an amount of toil which very few Members of that House were able to appreciate.

wished to know upon whom rested the superintendence of the expenditure, and begged to call attention to the fact that Mr. Gurney had expended but 80l. in removing the apparatus of Sir Charles Barry and Dr. Reid for ventilating the House which had cost 240,000l., and had by doing so made the House healthy, and effectually ventilated it.

said, that it was not fair to lay to the charge of Sir Charles Barry this expenditure of a quarter of a million for ventilation, because he had strongly protested against the adoption of Dr. Reid's system. There was no doubt a large outlay had been made for works which had been subsequently altered in the construction of the House. For instance, it had been found absolutely necessary to reconstruct a great portion of the lobbies and to make many improvements in the interior; but those prior works were in the nature of experiments, which were found inefficient; and, considering the House a national monument, he did not object to seeing it made a building worthy of the nation. He agreed that it was desirable to have a final estimate, but he should not be surprised if that estimate were found to he much larger than had been anticipated; for he thought, when the House was finished, nobody would be satisfied with the south side of Bridge Street, and other places, including the courts of law, immediately adjacent to the building. He thought some accommodation for sheltering the horses of Members was very desirable, and hoped that object would not be lost sight of.

said, they had heard the Government had no control over the works. Who, he asked, had any control if they had none? They were going to vote away a considerable sum of money this year; and was the same kind of thing always to go on without any responsibility attaching to the officers of the Government, or any others, in respect to the expenditure of that money? He hoped they would have some direct answer from the Government as to who, in future, would have the control; for last year, when the Secretary of the Treasury was pressed upon the subject, after admitting the accounts were in a very unsatisfactory state, he promised they should be fully investigated before the Estimates for this purpose were laid on the table; but now there was a complete renunciation, on the part of the Government, of any responsibility whatever.

said, the Office of Works had carefully examined the matter. No works now remained unmeasured, but, as the work went on, the account was sent in to the Office of Works, and paid; therefore that office was responsible for the amount executed, but they did not determine what should or should not be done.

, said, the right hon. Baronet had not exactly answered the question which had been put to him. He had told them all the work was measured out; but he had been asked if it had all been paid for, and, if not, whether the present grant would pay for it?

said, that a long correspondence on the subject of the accounts had been laid on the table; and, since that time, the rule laid down was, that Parlia- ment should decide, every year, what sum of money should be devoted for specific works, and that it should not be left to the discretion of the architect or any other person to employ the money for any other purpose. That was the principle upon which they were now acting.

said, he thought the best course for the Committee to adopt would be to postpone the Vote until a Committee had been appointed and sat to ascertain who was really responsible. With the assistance of the paper named, and having before them the particulars of what was intended to be done in order to complete the building, they ought to be able to ascertain the probable cost. He thought that they would never act properly unless they dealt with the House as if it were private property, and he should vote against the grant of a single shilling until he knew who was responsible for its proper expenditure.

said, he begged to ask if it were true, as had been reported, that Sir Charles Barry had been requested to give in designs for the new bridge, so that it might be constructed in unison with the architecture of the House; and, if so, whether any agreement had been made with Sir Charles Barry as to his remuneration?

said, the bridge had been intrusted to the engineer of the Department of Works, and Sir Charles Barry had been so kind as to give him his opinion of the design of the work. No agreement had been made with Sir Charles Barry, but he had furnished a design, so that, if possible, the architecture of the bridge should be in harmony with the Houses of Parliament.

wished to call attention to the stone work on the terrace and walls, which was in a very defective state. He did not object to the Vote, but wished that in future no stone should be used except that which had been inspected by proper authorities.

said, he had been informed that no proper precautions had been taken to procure the selection of good stone, which could only be done by sending persons to the quarry to examine each block. A very slight inspection of the base mouldings would show that they were already in a state of decay.

said, they now had a plan of what was to be done, in which the specific work was indicated. For that work certain sums were to be voted, and he was at a loss to know why hon. Members should complain of those votes unless they were too much influenced by the proceeding of former years.

, said, he must complain that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Molesworth) had not answered any question of importance which had been put to him. Two questions in particular had not been answered—the first was, whether any future payments were to be made until the accounts were submitted to a Committee; and the other was whether they were to persevere in using stone which was not durable. These were two important questions, and the House ought to have a distinct answer to them.

said, when the question was put to him some time ago with regard to the stone, he made inquiry, and he was informed, on good authority, that the stone, on the whole, was very good, and that there were not more imperfect stones than were usually found in such a large quantity. He was also informed that the contractor employed a person at the quarry to select the stone. At the same time, it was excessively difficult to get a quality of stone which would resist such an atmosphere as that of London.

said, that a Committee upstairs had recommended that no public works should be undertaken without an estimate of their probable cost, and that Votes should then be taken, year by year, for the expenditure considered requisite by the architects, and he was desirous that that principle should be adopted in the case of the works connected with the Houses of Parliament. He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should postpone this Vote until a complete estimate of the total amount likely to be required was laid before the Committee.

said, he hoped the Committee would be informed whether the new bridge at Westminster was to be constructed of stone or of iron. He felt some anxiety on this subject, for he considered that the new Palace at Westminster was one of the most magnificent public buildings in Europe, and was admirably adapted to the purposes for which it was intended. He thought few persons would deny that it would be a pity to mar the effect of such a building from any paltry economical motives, and he considered that an iron bridge, of whatever shape, could scarcely be made consistent with an edifice in the Gothic style.

said, that this subject had been brought before the Committee which sat last Session, and the Committee determined, after much deliberation, that the bridge should be composed of iron. It would be a handsome structure, and quite congruous with the architecture of the Houses of Parliament. Sir Charles Barry approved of the design; although, no doubt, that gentleman would have preferred a stone bridge instead of an iron one; but a very large sum of money would be required to pay for a stone bridge, and more than the state of the Bridge Estate Funds would be able to afford. That was the reason why an iron bridge had been decided upon; and, when finished, it would, he believed, look remarkably well. It would be very much wider than the existing structure.

said, that as one of the Members of the Committee which sat upon the question of the rebuilding of Westminster Bridge, he could confirm the statement of the First Commissioner of Works as to the inadequacy of the funds of the Bridge Estate to build a stone bridge, although they would be able to furnish the means for building an iron one.

said, with regard to Sir Charles Barry's remuneration, which had been alluded to, that it would not be consistent for the Government to give a pledge on that subject in the terms suggested, and for this reason—that the Government were not yet able to bring to a conclusion what they conceived to be their own duty with respect to Sir Charles Barry. What they said, and what they ought to say, was this —that they would be responsible to that House for making no payments to Sir Charles Barry, with respect to which they were not perfectly certain that it would be within any sum which that House would award. Of course they would not commit the House to anything of a doubtful character, or make any issue to Sir Charles Barry, excepting that which that House would be likely to sanction. They had not yet arrived at the time for forming a judgment on that subject, and when they had brought the matter as near as they could to a proper train for that purpose, then would be the proper time to recommend the House to deal with this question. He hoped the Committee would not divide upon this Vote, because it referred to a matter of contract with regard to which it would not be well to create a doubt under the circumstances stated by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), and, above all, for this reason, that this was not a question for controlling the Executive Government —the question was about establishing an efficient control, and especially a verity of control; and for that object the Executive Government was most desirous of co-operating with the House.

said, he had heard with satisfaction the first part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, but still thought that the Vote ought to be allowed to stand over until the Committee had a plan of all the work that was yet to be done, and an estimate of the total cost. He should therefore ask the Committee to negative this Vote if it was persisted in.

said, he quite agreed that the Government could not postpone a Vote with regard to which a contract existed, but he believed it possible to prepare a plan and estimate next year.

said, he would support the Vote, but thought the time had come when they ought to see what further works were to be sanctioned for these buildings. There need not be much difficulty in making an estimate, as the architect must have made up his mind how high he would carry the two great towers, for instance, and could therefore calculate how much it would cost to complete them. They had already consented to lessen the head-way of the Thames to accommodate Sir Charles Barry, and thus seriously injured the navigation of the river; and he, therefore, thought to make it now a question whether the bridge should consist of iron or of stone, as regarded the effect upon the river, was like straining at the gnat after swallowing the camel. Question put. The Committee divided: — Ayes 57; Noes 35: Majority 22. Vote agreed to. (5.) 10,000l., Stationery Office. In reply to a question from Mr. HUME,

explained, that the object of this Vote was to enable the Government to consolidate the whole of the enormous mass of printed and unprinted papers in one building, which are now kept in the printer's warehouses at a very heavy cost for rent. By this means the expenses of management would be reduced, and the saving in rent alone would more than pay the interest upon the proposed outlay. Vote agreed to, as was also the following:— (6.) 100,000l., General Repository, Public Records. (7.) 155,486l., Holyhead Harbours. (8.) 237,000l., Harbours of Refuge,

said, he thought that the expense incurred on account of the works at Alderney was very useless. It appeared to him that it would be far more advisable to expend the money in the construction of works on the coast of England.

said, that one of the items in this Estimate was for the works at Portland. Now, the works at Portland were chiefly carried on by convict labour, which was remunerative to the country. The only prisoners who paid the expenses attending them were those at Portland. There were more than 800 convicts confined there, and they paid the country by their labour upon public works, by which the country profited. He wished, therefore, to impress upon the Government the propriety of applying convict labour to other public works, especially to those in the nature of harbours of refuge, on which they might be employed without coming into contact with independent labour. If nothing was done on this important subject, he should in another Session bring it under consideration, in order that the opinion of Parliament might be taken upon it.

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) that it was most desirable that convict labour should be employed on public works, in order that the public works might be remunerative on the one hand, and be carried on in a way consistent with the best discipline on the other. The works at Portland had received the sanction of Parliament, and it would be wise economy to have them finished with the least possible delay; and-for this purpose the number of convicts employed upon them had been greatly increased. About 1,000 convicts were now employed there. The vote proposed to be taken for the works at Dover was 34,000l., in order to complete the existing contract. It was intended to extend the sea wall, which would be done by contract, but it was not intended to take any vote this year on account of the extension. With regard to the works in the Channel Islands, he had visited them in company with Lord Raglan, Sir John Burgoyne, Admiral Dundas, Sir Baldwin Walker, and the respective engineers; every possible investigation had been made on the spot, and subsequently they assembled at the Home Office, along with the Secretary at War, for the purpose of coming to a decision respecting these works. It had been determined that the works at Guernsey should not be carried into immediate execution; those at Jersey would be finished this year, and those at Alderney would be proceeded with; but at Holyhead it was intended to depart somewhat from the original plan, with the view of inclosing a larger area of deep water. At a comparatively small additional expense, great advantages would be derived from this extension.

said, he hoped the Committee would be furnished with a return of the number of vessels that visited either Guernsey or Alderney in the course of a year. He did not think a harbour of refuge was necessary at Alderney, but one was certainly necessary on the north-east coast of England, where numerous vessels had been wrecked during last winter for the want of such a place. At the entrance of the Tyne no fewer than twenty-five or thirty vessels had been lost. He hoped, therefore, that protection would be given to our own coast, rather than spend money uselessly on the Channel Islands, for it was quite time something was done on our north-east shores.

said, he cordially approved of this suggestion; and he would add that the shipowners on the Tyne and the corporation of Newcastle had agreed, the former to tax themselves to the extent of 10,000l. a year, and the latter to surrender rights worth 7,000l. a year, if the Government would undertake the construction of the necessary works. There was not a harbour of refuge on the whole of the north coast, and he would suggest that if one were constructed at the mouth of the Tyne, it might be useful, in the event of war with any of the northern Powers, as a station for our ships. He hoped that next year the Government would lay some proposition before the House on this subject.

said, it was natural for his hon. Friend to feel a preference for the entrance of the Tyne; but he had been requested to consider also the claims of Hartlepool, and the mouth of the Tees. He had also been assured that the Yorkshire coast was better than any other place yet suggested for a harbour of refuge. If one were to be established be- tween the Humber and the Forth, it would therefore be necessary carefully to consider the site; but at present it appeared to him wiser to finish sonic of the larger works in hand, on which considerable sums had already been spent. He had been advised, in respect to war with any of the northern Powers, that it would be an error to build a harbour of refuge either upon the Tyne or the Tees. Nature had done all that was necessary at Leith, on the Forth, and on the Humber. These places possessed all the facilities that could be desired under such circumstances. With regard to the great national harbour at the Humber, he had recommended a considerable outlay.

said, he hoped the Government would not be induced to embark in any more expensive harbours of refuge without due consideration. A large sum had been already expended upon them, and it would be desirable that the Treasury should take care, in future Estimates, to show the sum required for the completion of the works, and whether or not the original plan had been strictly carried out.

said, that full information on those matters was contained in a separate paper which was upon the table of the House.

said, that the works at Alderney could be of little use in cases of distress, because it would be most dangerous for ships in stormy weather to approach the rocks surrounding that island.

said, he had never yet found a single person who believed that the expenditure upon the works at Alderney was judicious. He was not in favour of building up structures and pulling them down again, but he questioned whether in this case it would not be better to stay progress altogether, for the country was not likely to be benefited to the amount of 1,000,000l. expended upon the barren island of Alderney. Vote agreed to. (9.) 676l., Port Patrick Harbour.

inquired what was the necessity for this harbour, now that the packet service was discontinued between it and the harbour on the opposite coast?

said, that expending sums on the harbour was a total waste of money, for it never could be made valuable for any purpose whatever. Among the items he saw a sum of 300l. awarded to the late Mr. M'Neel, Secretary to the Harbour Commissioners, on surrender by his executor of papers relating to the harbour. He understood that that gentleman had received 200l. a year for twenty-five years, and only did six hours' work a year; and as to the papers, for which 300l. was given, they properly belonged to the Commissioners, and were, when delivered up, found to be worth nothing.

said, it was undoubtedly true that the harbour was no longer used as a packet station, but the Government thought it would be extremely unwise, for the sake of saving 300l. or 400l. a year, to allow so valuable a harbour, for commercial purposes even, to fall into decay. With regard to the 300l. awarded to the late Mr. M'Neel, he had much rather not have seen the item in the Votes, for he considered that the papers belonged to the public, and the executor was bound to give them up; but as he refused to do so, it was thought wiser to pay the 300l. than to incur an expensive and uncertain litigation.

said, he did not think that the money voted for the harbour was lost. In the south-west of Scotland, and the north-east of Ireland, a strong feeling prevailed that there should be some harbour by means of which the passage between the two countries might be shortened. He hoped that in the next Session a much larger vote would be proposed; for there was a prospect of a railway being formed from Dumfries to the neighbourhood of Port Patrick. Vote agreed to. (10.) 26,118l., Public Buildings, Ireland.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the cost of that miserable mockery of Royalty, the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. These Estimates contained items to the amount of no less than 50,000l. connected with this institution. It was perfectly absurd to maintain, in connection with this "mock Royalty," the same description of officers as were in attendance upon the Queen. There were items for the "State Steward's house," "Chamberlain's house," "Comptroller's house," "Gentleman Usher's house," "Clerk of Disbursements' house," "First Aide-de-Camp's house," &c., all of which it certainly could not be necessary to maintain in order to carry on the Government of Ireland. The charge for the Secretary for Ireland was quite sufficient for all the purposes of Government, and that officer ought to discharge all the duties that were required. His opinion was, that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be abolished.

said, that the Encumbered Estates Court was very inconveniently situated. An inquiry had been made as to whether it could not be combined with the Four Courts, but no suitable building could be found. There was a public office which was available, but the cost of alterations, at the most moderate estimate, was 12,000l., and it was doubted whether so large an expenditure should be incurred for a Court which had only two years to run. For his own part, he hoped the Court would he continued by Act of Parliament, and, if so, he had no doubt a proper building would be provided for the Commissioners. But in the present state of the matter it would be premature to lay out a large sum to accommodate the Commissioners.

said, that in consequence of the Court being so far from the general courts of law, a small and peculiar bar only attended it, and the suitors were deprived of the benefit of being able to choose from the entire bar and obtain the best professional assistance. As to the office of Lord Lieutenant, this was not the proper time for discussing the question of its continuance, but his opinion was, that a Secretary for Ireland would never have that weight and influence which attended the old time-honoured office of Lord Lieutenant.

said, the general impression in Ireland was, that no one practised in the Encumbered Estates Court except a very select few among the bar, and so strong was the feeling against the inconvenient position of that Court, that last autumn a protest was signed by every barrister in Dublin against that Court being kept separate from the other law courts. The people of Ireland, having once tasted the sweets of a cheap and speedy mode of sale for encumbered estates, would require its continuance, whether vested in the present Court of Commissioners or in any other court, so that it would be necessary to provide additional buildings, which should be accessible to the whole bar.

said, he considered it absurd that a court which had such powers conferred upon it, which had distributed millions of money, and had sold hundreds of thousands of acres, should transact its business in two small houses—one on each side of the street—at a rent of 300l. a year.

said, that his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Williams) had not made it so much an objection of expense as a matter of policy when he suggested that the office of Lord Lieutenant for Ireland should be abolished. The question was, whether Ireland would not be better governed without a Lord Lieutenant than with one? He (Mr. Hume) had expected before this to see that office abolished. It had been condemned by large minorities in that House. Twenty-five years ago he moved its abolition, and he believed he should have carried it if he had not mixed up with the Motion other offices connected with the staff at Dublin. With regard to the location of the Encumbered Estates Court, the argument urged by the noble Lord (Lord Naas) for its continuance and removal to a more central spot, on the ground of its affording cheap and speedy justice, was a good argument for abolishing the other courts. And as it seemed desirable that the Secretary for Ireland should have something to do, let him bring in a Bill at once to put an end to the existing tedious, dilatory, and expensive system, and permanently establish the Encumbered Estates Court.

was of opinion that the Encumbered Estates Court was the most revolutionary tribunal which had been established during the present century. He did not think that its working was attended with practical advantage, and he certainly hoped that it would not become one of the permanent institutions of the country. Vote agreed to. The next Vote was 13,370l. for Works and repairs at Kingstown Harbour.

acceded to the proposition of Mr. H. HERBERT to postpone this Vote. Vote postponed. The following Votes were then agreed to— (11.) 83,076l., Houses of Parliament. (12.) 29,561l., Law Charges. (13.) 55,146l., Her Majesty's Treasury,

asked whether any determination had been arrived at with respect to the changes which had been suggested in the mode of the admission of candidates to fill offices in the Civil Service?

said, that the Government had not come to any final decision upon the subject, and, as he had previously intimated, as they did not think there was any prospect of being able to secure a fair discussion of it in Parliament this year, nothing would be done during the present Session, but they would resume the consideration of the question during the recess. Vote agreed to. (14.) 27,552l., Home Department.

said, he would recommend that all the fees which were charged by the various departments of the Government in the course of transacting the public business should be abolished as soon as possible.

said, he thought that independent Members of Parliament ought to have the right of consulting the counsel who received a salary of 2,000l. for drawing Bills for Parliament, with respect to the Bills they wished to introduce, as well as Members of the Government with respect to Government Bills.

said, it would be utterly impossible to carry the hon. Member's proposal into effect without employing a number of counsel. MR. WALPOLE said, he wished to put rather an important question to the noble Lord the Home Secretary with reference to the announcement which had been made by the noble Lord the Member for London, to the effect that a new Secretary of State for the War Department was to be appointed. The Committee would bear in mind that the different Secretaries of State exercised co-equal and co-ordinate powers with reference to the duties they had to discharge, except so far as those duties were conferred on them by Act of Parliament. He wished to ask whether any alteration was likely to be made with reference to the superintendence and management of the militia, which was now vested in the Secretary for the Home Department? He hoped there was no intention of depriving the Home Secretary of the management of the militia, as he believed that such a measure would be detrimental to the public service.

said, he believed that his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), in the early part of the evening, had stated generally the intentions of the Government, but had declined at that moment to go into any details as to the intended arrangements. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel that it would be more fitting that all the details connected with those arrangements should not be stated until they had been finally settled, and could be laid before the House by his noble Friend.

said, he must express a hope that some improvement would be made in the present system of the management of the militia. Vote agreed to. (15.) 72,372l., Foreign Department.

said, he wished to inquire what steps had been taken to render the department efficient, for the purpose of providing persons properly qualified to serve the country in the diplomatic service? In other countries there was a course of study pursued in the Foreign Department which provided a constant succession of public servants, and enabled them to discharge efficiently the duties which might be cast upon them. It was true that there were some great diplomatists in the service of this country, but in the subordinate departments there was no other country in the world so badly served, simply because no means whatever were taken to train persons in the knowledge which was absolutely necessary to enable them to perform the duties which might devolve upon them in the foreign service of the country. He believed that the clerks in the Foreign Office were chiefly occupied in the manual labour of copying letters, and were men totally uneducated.

said, that the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been directed towards providing an arrangement for the purpose of subjecting to some previous examination those persons who were to be appointed to diplomatic situations in the service of the country; but he did not believe that as yet anything had been decided upon the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman imagined, he believed, that a system ought to be established by which persons employed in the Foreign Office should supply the vacancies in the diplomatic service abroad. Such a system, however, did not exist in the service of any country. Each had his separate duties, and it was essential, no doubt, that each should be properly qualified for the performance of those duties. It was a great mistake to suppose that the clerks in the Foreign Office had nothing to do but to copy papers. They had very important duties to perform, which required great activity of mind, great attainments, and great experience; and he must say that he be- lieved there was no department of the State in which there were persons better qualified than the clerks of the Foreign Office for the performance of their very arduous duties. He certainly had been greatly indebted to them for the valuable assistance which he had received from them during the time that he had been at the Foreign Office. With regard to our foreign diplomacy, of course, every man was at liberty to entertain his own opinion; but, without making any personal comparisons as to the particular ability or attainments of particular individuals, he would venture positively to assert that there was no Government in Europe that was better served by its diplomatic agents than the British Government both had been and now was. There was one obvious reason for this; and it was, that independently of the merit of individuals, every man in the British service knew that the way to recommend himself to the head of the department was to give a faithful and accurate account of what he saw, what he heard, and what he observed, and that, whether the account which he gave tallied or not with the previous wishes and opinions of the chief of his department, provided he fulfilled his duty faithfully and with intelligence, he would be sure to obtain praise and promotion; whereas in the service of some foreign countries, if a person represented anything in a manner not conformable with the views of his Government, he was more likely to obtain censure and removal than praise and promotion.

said, he must still contend that in the Foreign Department it was peculiarly necessary that there should be an examination of the persons employed, because no one could be found efficiently to serve the country without some knowledge, not only of the routine of the department, but of law and languages, which could only be obtained by a considerable amount of study. Though the Bill to reform the Civil Service had not yet come before Parliament, he thought that some regulation might be adopted in the Foreign Department which would ensure that there should always be a sufficient number of persons trained both in theoretical learning and in the practices which qualified men to serve the country in diplomatic offices.

said, it was a rule long established that persons who were appointed as unpaid attachés on first entering the service must have attended at the Foreign Office for a certain number of months in order to acquire that previous information to which the hon. Member referred.

asked if there would be any objection to throw open the library at the Foreign Office to the public?

said, the library at the Foreign Office consisted of a certain number of works connected with history and international law for the use of that department, and also of despatches written and received at the Foreign Office, which were at the end of each year bound into books and put aside on the shelves of the library. After a certain period, say ten or twelve years, these records were transferred to the State Paper Office, where they remained under the custody of the Keeper of the State Paper Office. Now, with regard to the library of the Foreign Office, if any one wished to see printed books there, or large blue books that were not to be found in the British Museum or any other library accessible to the public, they, of course, could be seen; but, with regard to many of those books, and the manuscripts of despatches sent and received, they were documents which of course from their nature could not be shown to everybody who might express a desire to read them. Vote agreed to, as was also (16.) 40,550l., Colonial Department. On the Vote of 68,600l. for the salaries and expenses of the Privy Council,

said, that the clerk of the Council had in 1853 received a salary of 2,000l., but for the present year it was put down at 2,500l. If he was rightly informed, the gentleman who held the office had it by a grant in reversion, and he presumed the salary was then fixed. How, then, was it that this addition of 500l. had been made?

said, the original salary was 2,500l. a year, but it was only 2,000l. during the time that the gentleman held another appointment, in connection, he believed, with the colony of Jamaica. On the giving up of that place the salary reverted to its original amount—namely, 2,500l. Further explanation being required, Vote postponed. The House resumed.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that he had only recently heard that the measure would be received with any opposition, and he hoped that such opposition would be able to be removed by some slight alteration in the clauses. One objection was, that the Bill was not stringent enough, and another objection was, that it was too stringent, so, perhaps, it might be possible to steer clear of both of these objections by taking some middle course. With respect to the 9th clause, relative to clerks to justices in petty sessions not practising in their own courts, he begged to state that he meant no disrespect to those gentlemen in any way. The object of the Bill was, by allowing prisoners accused of minor offences to plead "Guilty" and receive their sentences at petty sessions in open court, to spare prosecutors and their witnesses the trouble and expense of attending at the assizes, and to rescue youthful offenders from the contamination to which they were exposed in the weeks and mouths which they were not unfrequently obliged to pass in gaol between their committal and their trial. All the objections which had been made to the Bill could, he thought, be dealt with in Committee, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would now give its assent to the second reading. Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

said he thought that, so far from the Bill being calculated to lessen the expenses of criminal prosecutions, it was very likely considerably to increase them. He quite agreed that the object of the Bill was a praiseworthy one, but he thought it might be carried into effect nearly as well under the existing law as by the Bill of the hon. Member. Great injustice, he believed, would be done to persons thus suddenly called on to plead before the magistrates, and, while the Bill would not shorten the time which youthful offenders would have to pass in gaol, it would have the effect of giving great offenders lesser punishments than they ought to receive. All that numerous class of offenders who, having been convicted once or twice before, stood in great dread of being sentenced to transportation or penal punishment, would be almost encouraged by this Bill to the commission of small offences during that season of the year when they could get no employment, knowing that if they pleaded "Guilty" before the magistrates, they would only be punished by a slight imprisonment. Then, again nothing was more frequent than for mistakes to be made by justices and clerks of the peace in the offence for which they committed men; committals were often made out for larceny when the real offence was embezzlement or obtaining money under false pretences, and what an unpleasant position a Judge would be placed in who found himself called on to sentence a man for an offence to which he had pleaded "Guilty," but which he had never committed. Another objection he entertained against the Bill was, that, as a prisoner after having pleaded had a right to retract his plea, it would be improper to compel a Judge to hold a man to the plea put in before the justices. The Bill would have the effect of giving facilities to crafty offenders of obtaining smaller punishments than their offences deserved. He agreed that it was desirable to have a mode of shortening the duration of punishment awarded to prisoners desirous of pleading "Guilty" to offences of a minor description, but the magistrates already possessed greater powers than they generally exercised in that respect. Upon the grounds he had already stated, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "Upon this day six months."

said he should oppose the Bill on the ground that the Legislature would be dealing with the subject without due regard to the proper administration of justice. Although economy was a matter to which every attention should be paid, the fair and satisfactory administration of justice was an object of far greater importance than the saving of a few pounds. If the Bill were agreed to, there would be a danger of effecting a saving of expense to prosecutors at the risk of having haphazard sentences.

hoped the House would agree to the second reading of this Bill, which was intended to remedy a great and serious evil.

said, the Bill of the hon. Member professed to deal with that which required a remedy. There might be imperfections in the Bill, but they were capable, he considered, of being remedied in Committee. He therefore recommended the House to give the Bill a second reading.

thought that a great deal of injustice would be perpetrated under the Bill for the sake of saving money.

said, he doubted whether the Bill would work, and whether it would be accompanied by such a saving of expense as the hon. Member (Mr. Aglionby) seemed to suppose.

said, as a chairman of quarter sessions, he had received numerous complaints of the number of cases sent to trial under the present system, and was glad to find that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Aglionby) had introduced a Bill which proceeded in the right direction. He did not altogether approve of all its provisions, but he thought such amendments might be made in Committee as would remove the objections which he entertained.

, in reply, said, the feeling was generally in favour of amending the Bill. He had listened with great attention to the various arguments, and he should endeavour, as far as he could, to meet the views of parties, while at the same time he hoped the most efficient parts of the Bill might be retained.

said, the improvement suggested in the present measure had been tried with great success in Scotland. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 9: Majority 50. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read 2°. The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.