said, he objected to the clause. He was satisfied that no judicial member of the other House had seen and scrutinised the clause in question, which, it could not be disguised, referred specially to the case of Sir Thomas Wilson, who was the proprietor of Hampstead Heath, and who, it was stated, intended to enclose that heath. Now he (Mr. Whiteside) had a map of Sir Thomas Wilson's estate at Hampstead, and the farm, marked A and B on the map, was the site on which he proposed to build, but which farm was one mile and a-half from Hampstead Heath. Sir Thomas Wilson had previously granted to the parish of Hampstead a right to make a public road through his farm on one side, and a railway passed through it on the other side. All, therefore, that Sir Thomas wished to do was to build on the remaining portion of the farm. The opposition offered to Sir Thomas Wilson entirely rested on private grounds. The fact was, that a portion of the land on which he proposed to build adjoined the property and demesne of Lord Mansfield. Now, it appeared on the statement of Sir Thomas Wilson that in 1830 he received a letter from the late Lord Mansfield, saying that he should oppose Sir Thomas Wilson's building on that piece of ground; the fact being that Lord Mansfield wished to become the purchaser of it. The site in question consisted of about fifty acres. The present Lord Mansfield was equally anxious to be the owner of the ground. Both those noble Lords had been unceasing in their application to Sir Thomas Wilson to induce him to sell the property to them. It was quite clear, therefore, that the opposition to Sir Thomas Wilson entirely rested on private grounds. The solicitor of Sir Thomas Wilson had only that morning told him that Sir Thomas Wilson had no more intention of encroaching upon Hampstead Heath than he had of committing suicide. The introduction of such a clause as the one before the Committee into an act of legislation would be most unwise, impolitic, and mischievous, especially when the measure in other respects was a good one; he therefore begged to move that Clause 20 be struck out.

said, he had lived at Hampstead for several years, and he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman knew pretty well that Hampstead was chiefly inhabited by merchants connected with the City of London, and who were persons not to be influenced by any grand clique. That, however, was the first time he had heard that Lord Mansfield had any other objection to Sir Thomas Wilson's building on the property than that which any other persons entertained. It was well known that Sir Thomas Wilson several years ago commenced building operations, although in a small way, and that in the course of those operations he made some encroachments on the Heath itself, his chief building, however, being in a field adjoining the Heath. He had built a large bridge over a ravine, and had made a large brickfield for no other object, as it would appear, than to annoy the inhabitants; and there could be no doubt that his intention was to build on the Heath as soon as he should get the power to do so. Parliament was perfectly entitled to say that it would not delegate to the Court of Chancery, or any other Court, power to grant what it had itself on more than one occasion refused.

said, he objected that at that late period of the Session the subject of Sir Thomas Wilson's claims should be revived and discussed. The Bill in question was a general Bill and a general object, and it ought to be so regarded. The ground on which a leasing power to Sir Thomas Wilson was refused was the construction which the Judges of the land had put upon the will of the father of Sir Thomas Wilson.

said, if that had been the ground of the refusal it would have been quite right; but that was not the ground. The real ground was the preservation of Hampstead Heath for the benefit of the public.

said, that that would be on public grounds a very good reason for refusing the powers sought by Sir Thomas Wilson, but, then, if the public wished to have his property they ought to pay for it. That was the view of the case he should always entertain whenever Sir Thomas Wilson should think proper to apply to Parliament. The 20th clause was introduced into the Bill in consequence of its being stated to him that, unless the Bill contained some clause more explicity defining the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, it would be impossible to carry the second reading of the Bill. His reply was, that he would not consent to any clause being introduced to give the Bill the character of a private law passed against any individual. He thought the clause contained a correct and sound principle. Whoever was of that opinion let him vote for it even though the case of Sir Thomas Wilson should be included in it; but whoever was against it, let him vote against it upon general grounds, and not in reference to the case of that gentleman. Let Sir Thomas Wilson come again to Parliament, and if the Committee should be of opinion that a tenant for life ought not to be bound by the prohibition of the will under which he claimed, and that there was ground for relieving him from that prohibition, let the House of Commons grant that specific relief. It was to Parliament, whose judgment had already been raised upon the subject, and not to a Court of Justice, that that application ought to be made.

said, he felt bound to vote for the continuance of the clause, because he disapproved of the Bill altogether. As regarded Hampstead Heath, if the public wanted it they should buy it; and he objected to the assumption by any court of law of powers to alter the provisions of any man's will, as the Bill proposed to do. He was sorry to hear an imputation thrown out upon a nobleman who was not present, and who had therefore no opportunity of answering it. He (Mr. Barrow) would vote against the general principle of interfering with the wills of testators.

said, his objection to the clause being expunged was, that if it were it would enable a gentleman to do, by a side wind, what Parliament had prevented his doing on preceding occasions. If Sir Thomas Wilson chose to come before the House of Commons, no doubt the House would do him justice. He (Sir J. Shelley) did not consider that the refusal to Sir Thomas Wilson inflicted any hardship on him; and he was satisfied the testator knew what he was about in limiting the leasing powers under his will. The House of Commons had refused, on more than one occasion, to reverse the will; and he (Sir J. Shelley), therefore, objected to the powers being obtained through the Court of Chancery.

said, the principle of the Bill was the enlargement of the powers of tenants for life with regard to leasing and selling their property. That principle had been sanctioned by the House of Lords and affirmed by the House of Commons. Sir Thomas Wilson, being a tenant for life, would necessarily be entitled to the advantage of that principle; and the question before the Committee was narrowed to that point, whether there were any peculiar grounds why his case should be an exceptional case, and one which should be taken out of the purview of the Bill. He was a great admirer of Hampstead Heath, and should be exceedingly sorry to see it enclosed. It would, he believed, be greatly injurious to the public health. He entirely subscribed to the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, that instead of Hampstead Heath being enclosed, the full value of Sir Thomas Wilson's rights ought to be paid for, and the whole of the land purchased by the public in order to prevent its enclosure. But then the question arose, if it was thought fit to empower a Court of Equity to decide whether a tenant for life should have the benefit of the provisions of the Bill, whether the case of Sir Thomas Wilson in respect to Hampstead Heath formed a special case to be excluded from the benefit of those provisions? It appeared that the testator did give Sir Thomas Wilson power of leasing with respect to other property, but not with respect to Hampstead Heath. He thought there was not a better tribunal than that of a Court of Equity to decide whether that gentleman should have the same power with regard to his property at Hampstead which he enjoyed over his property at Woolwich and elsewhere. The only difficulty, in ordinary cases, was the absence of parties to oppose any application to the Court by tenants at will; but in the case under consideration the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. J. Forster) had shown that parties would not be wanting. He, however, wished to decide the question upon general principles, and he could not help thinking, upon the whole, that if the principle of the measure was right the exception which had been suggested was not to be maintained. On those grounds he objected to the clause as it now stood, and would wish to see it modified.

said, there was a general power in the Bill to tenants for lives to lease for twenty-one years, and Sir Thomas Wilson was not exempted from it. He (Mr. I. Butt) would never have consented to a personal exception, as in the case of Sir Thomas Wilson, only that a public principle was involved in it. The Bill was the last of a series of Estates Bills, and the question was, whether the case should be decided by Parliament. If he could have seen any grounds for resisting the strong public principle in question, he would not support the exclusion of Sir Thomas Wilson from the operation of the Bill. The principle of the Bill had been misrepresented. Unless the clause was allowed to stand it would lay the House open to the imputation that legislation for a particular case was intended under cover of a general law. The Bill, as it stood, left Sir Thomas Wilson exactly where he was before.

said, the decision of Parliament had been given less against Sir Thomas Wilson in the former Bill than in favour of the public. He (Sir D. Norreys) could not conceive how a greater injustice could be done than had been done to Sir Thomas Wilson; and he believed that if the testator could have foreseen the extension of the metropolis in that direction he would not have omitted leasing powers from his will in respect to his Hampstead property. Sir Thomas Wilson had been unjustly treated, because that House had not moral courage enough to oppose the desires of the public to possess Hampstead Heath. He thought, therefore, the clause ought to be omitted.

said, the clause placed the Committee in great difficulty. He was not enamoured of the Bill, still leas of the clause. The former Bill had been rejected on the ground that it was opposed to the will of the testator; but the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. J. Forster) had put that matter in a new point of view, and showed what injustice the House had been led to commit, with regard to Sir Thomas Wilson. It also appeared that the land in question was situate one mile and a quarter from Hampstead, and it was said that there would be no objection to allow that being built upon, provided that Sir Thomas Wilson would come to some stipulation with regard to his land which abutted on the Heath. If the Committee was to come to a decision in the present case and prevent Sir Thomas Wilson from building on his land situate one mile and a quarter from the Heath, there would be nothing to prevent him going to the Court of Chancery with reference to his land abutting upon the Heath, so that the present clause, if agreed to, would not effect the object which hon. Members had in view. If the Court of Chancery was the best tribunal to decide those cases, then no exception ought to be made of a matter because Parliament had before dealt with it. They would, by the present clause, under the pretence of its involving a general principle, inflict an injury on a particular individual, and, under those circumstances, he felt bound to vote against it.

said, that it would be very convenient if they could disconnect the name of Sir Thomas Wilson from the Bill, but that, apparently, was impossible, as it had been sent down from the Lords—he would not say with the intention of its meeting that gentleman's case, yet such would be its effect. He had been informed that it was Sir Thomas Wilson's intention to have introduced, during the Session, another Bill for the purpose of directly attaining his object, but as the Judges to whom that Bill was referred were hostile to it, it was not proceeded with, and now the present Bill, which met his case, had been brought in. That was hardly a fair proceeding, and fully justified the insertion of the clause. There were also public rights over that property which it was considered that Sir Thomas Wilson ought not to interfere with, as he had attempted to do by previous Bills. The Bill had been allowed to pass its second reading, on the distinct understanding that the present clause should be inserted, otherwise the Bill would not have been allowed to pass, as it did, in its early stages.

said, the object of the Bill was to rectify the powers in wills which were effected by an unskilful construction of those instruments. He was no party to any understanding that the case of Sir Thomas Wilson should be excepted on the second reading of the Bill. Sir Thomas Wilson had no intention to enclose Hampstead Heath, nor could he do so without the consent of every commoner having rights of commonage on that Heath. Sir Thomas Wilson wanted to build only on the fields beyond the turnpike in the Finchley road, which could not in the slightest degree interfere with Hampstead Heath. To refuse him the power of building on that property was to do Sir Thomas Wilson the greatest injustice. The Court of Chancery, and not the House of Commons, was the proper tribunal for judicial decisions on the rights of property. There was no more reason why Sir Thomas Wilson should not build upon his land beyond the "Spaniards" on Hampstead Heath, as far as a view of that Heath was concerned, than on his land at Woolwich. There were plenty of houses already overlooking Hampstead Heath; why should Sir Thomas Wilson alone be prevented from building houses overlooking the Heath, when he did not interfere with the rights of commonage? Why should Sir Thomas Wilson alone be selected to encounter all the expense of coming over and over again to Parliament for powers to lease when it was proposed by the Bill to give jurisdiction to the Court of Chancery to confer those powers upon any other tenant for life in the same predicament? The Bill purporting to be a general Bill, he would rather stop it altogether than be a party to such erroneous legislation as went to exclude one individual from its operation. He therefore gave his most strenuous opposition to the clause.

said, he must deny being under the influence of popular clamour on the present occasion, as no tumultuous meetings had taken place on Hampstead Heath—at least since it had ceased to be the scene of the Middlesex election. As a Member of the Committee he had objected to the Bill on account of its importance, and of the lateness of the Session; but he had withdrawn his objection on the suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the clause in question should be introduced for the purpose of preventing cases which had been adjudicated upon by Parliament from coming before the Court of Chancery for decision. He must deny also that the Metropolitan Members had been actuated by a prejudice to do Sir Thomas Wilson injustice. The House of Lords had rejected Sir Thomas Wilson's application five times; the Judges had been uniformly against it; and only on one single occasion had it been entertained by the House of Commons. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) had opposed the application on the same grounds as the Judges—namely, that it was for powers contrary to the intention of the testator. It was upon the same grounds he supported the clause in the Bill then in question. As regarded the imputation against Lord Mansfield, he (Lord R. Grosvenor) had had a great deal of communication with that nobleman on the subject of Sir Thomas Wilson's estate, and he declared upon his honour that he had never heard anything fall from him which could justify the slightest imputation.

said, he objected to the Bill, as giving too extensive powers to alter wills to the Court of Chancery. He was of opinion that the Houses of Parliament were safer in regard of wills than any Judges. To pass the Bill with the clause in question would be a violation of the general principle which was laid down as the basis of the measure. He thought the Bill ought not to pass at all; but if it did pass, the 20th clause ought to be expunged from it, as preposterous and unjustifiable.

said, if the case of Sir Thomas Wilson had not been suggested, the clause would not have been objected to. He would suggest, however, whether it would not be as well to let the House take a ride to Hampstead Heath and enjoy themselves as to compel it to discuss a Bill which no one could hope would pass in the present Session. He thought the Bill a useful piece of legislation; but he did no think it of that urgency to require passing until next Session.

said, if the clause were rejected he was so bound by his engagements with hon. Members who had agreed to the second reading, lat he could not proceed with the Bill. He considered the Bill one of the most valuable measures of the Session in respect to the amendment of the law, and he should, therefore, abandon it with regret.

said, he thought the importance of the Bill required more time than was before the Committee; and he considered, therefore, that it would be a very great advantage if it stood over until the following Session.

said, as the general opinion was that the Bill should be withdrawn, he would move that the Chairman report progress, and sit again that lay three months.

said, he wished to know what would be the position of the public in case Sir Thomas Wilson died in the interval? His successor would lave the power which he did not possess. The present, therefore, was the time for a compromise. He deprecated the imputations cast upon two noble Friends, the late and present Lord Mansfield, for it was his confident belief that neither was capable of the conduct imputed to them.

said, the agent of Sir Thomas Wilson had distinctly alleged that Sir Thomas Wilson was bound by the statements in the letter, and the accident of its concerning those noble Lords he (Mr. Whiteside) could not avoid.

Sir, I am almost afraid the Committee will consider any interference in this matter, on my part, to be, if not impertinent, at all events intrusive, as this Bill deals with professional matters, of which I may be supposed not to be cognizant. My excuse for troubling the Committee must be that I, together with my right hon. friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), have taken a deep interest in law reform as connected with the Court of Chancery, and I am bound to say I regard the present measure with considerable anxiety. I have some offences, as a member of the Commission, to answer for with respect to the Court of Chancery. I allude to the abolition of the offices of the Six Clerks, and the compensation given them, which I now consider was to an injudicious and exorbitant amount. As a member of the Chancery Commission, I also recommended the abolition of the office of Master in Chancery, and Parliament concurred in that recommendation, and granted to the Masters a liberal allowance—no less than their salaries for life on their retirement. It was believed by the Commission and by Parliament that a great benefit would be effected if the judicial powers exercised by the Masters were transferred to the Judges of the Courts of Equity, and if in Chambers the duties of the chief clerks of the Masters were performed by the clerks of the Judges. The danger of the change was this, that, under another designation the chief clerks of the Judges would perform the duties of the Masters. I have with great anxiety watched the working of this change, and I can safely say that, on the whole, it has been efficacious and salutary. Both in Chambers and on the Bench proceedings have been conducted in a most satisfactory manner, with greater promptitude and at less cost than heretofore, and in these Courts, combined with the Courts of Appeal, business has proceeded with great rapidity, without any sacrifice of efficiency. I must, however, say that I think such a change as the proposed measure contemplates is to be regarded with great jealousy. At the same time I should not be doing justice to the eminent persons who are connected with the administration of justice in these Courts if I did not state that I have been in communication with them, and that I have reason to know that this measure meets with the unanimous approbation of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls, and the Vice Chancellors. The Lord Justice Turner is of opinion that the 1st and 2nd clauses of this Bill are judicious, and is desirous that they should become law. The first clause empowers the Judges of the respective Courts to appoint an additional number of junior clerks. I am informed that, although in the Courts themselves there is no growing arrears of business, yet that in Chambers there is a considerable arrear. I am also informed, on the best authority—that of the Law Society—that at the present time in Chambers an appointment or adjournment before the chief clerks cannot be fixed in less than from two to five weeks, and that these arrears arise, not from any want of junior clerks, but from the senior clerks being overwhelmed by work. It is quite clear, however earnest the Judges may be to prevent the accumulation of arrears in Chambers, that it is but natural they should devote the largest portion of their time and attention to the business in their respective Courts which must be regarded as being of primary importance. These learned, assiduous, and able men, throughout Terms protracted beyond those of the Common Law Courts, devote day after day, from ten in the morning until four in the afternoon, to proceedings in open Court, and night after night they have to prepare themselves at home for coming judgments in the causes which they have heard. This is their primary business, in addition to which they undertook to transact in Chambers the duties of the Masters on the abolition of the Masters' offices. The great object of the change of 1852 was that the Judges should, from the commencement of a cause to its final adjudication, have it under their notice and control in all its stages. To effect this it was absolutely necessary, however irksome it might be, that, in addition to the leading features, the minor details of the cause should be attended to by the Judges. The arrears of business in the Courts have been kept down by the exertions I have mentioned, but I am bound to say that the most assiduous of the Judges have given less time to the business in Chambers than I think is desirable. Their practice has been to go to Chambers after four o'clock, and to devote occasionally an hour, or an hour and a half, to business there. [Mr. MALINS: They generally go to Chambers after three o'clock.] Still that is at the fag end of the day, when the mind is exhausted and oppressed with a sense of duties awaiting them at home, hardly less important than those of the Bench; and this practice of devoting occasionally not the whole but a portion of a day to the business in Chambers is, I think, to be regarded with jealousy and apprehension. In order to give the Committee some idea of the business which is got through, I may state that during the last year 12,000 ordinary summonses have been heard, which were before heard by the Masters' head clerks; that 5,000 orders have been made, which were before these alterations made by the Masters; that 3,500 orders have been issued, which before required a motion or petition to be made in open Court; and that there have been 500 summonses in the nature of decrees for execution, which formerly required a bill and the attendant expenses. Anticipating this increased business, and anxious to avert the accumulation of arrears, the Chancery Commissioners, in their Report, used these words—

"The judicial business which has hitherto occupied the attention of the Masters would thus, in effect, be transferred to the Court, and the duties not discharged by the Judges themselves would be transferred to officers immediately attached to the several branches of the Court, which officers should possess similar qualifications and perform similar duties to those of the present Masters in Chancery."

And then came the anticipation to which he wished to call attention—

"If experience should prove that the business of the Court cannot be sufficiently transacted without an addition to the number of Judges, we trust this necessity will be promptly met by the Legislature."

Now, how can you meet the present accumulation of business in Chambers? If you seek to give effect to the principle—which I am satisfied is a good one—that the Judges only should themselves exercise their judicial functions with respect to a case from its beginning to its close, then it is absolutely necessary that the Judges should not give a small portion of a day, but that they should at least devote a day in each week to Chamber business. I will not now go into the question of additional Judges, nor into the question of the Testamentary Courts, nor matrimonial jurisdiction, which I trust will early next Session meet with the attention of Parliament, and which will give rise to the question of the appointment of one or more additional Judges, who, if not in immediate attendance on the Court of Chancery, will be in connection with it. I am afraid in the appointment you propose of junior clerks you are, in this change, beginning at the wrong end, and my fear is, that these junior clerks will do the work of the Masters' clerks, and that you will erect into a new power the clerks of the Judges, who will do the work of the Masters, and the Judges will no longer be responsible for the business in Chambers. I am apprehensive that, under these proposed appointments, the abuses which have heretofore been rife will arise under a new term, but in an old shape, and that the measure of 1852, which has been so advantageous, will be sapped to its foundations. I need not say that I have the utmost confidence in the Master of the Rolls and the present Vice-Chancellors, but there is in the clauses of this Bill an evil which the Committee ought to regard with jealousy. It is the infirmity of human nature that when a man is overburdened with work his natural desire is to transfer a large portion of it to his assistants, and there is inherent in the Judges, although they may not know it, a desire to increase their share of patronage. The clauses we are discussing are vicious in both these respects; they will tempt the Judges to transfer duties to their subordinates, and then hold out the inducements of a considerable increase of patronage. The necessity for the first two clauses of this Bill is very doubtful—they are objectionable in principle and likely to be vicious in effect. I should prefer the direct proposition of the appointment of additional Judges in order to prevent an accumulation of Chamber business, and I am sure that if such a course were adopted there would be a saving rather than an increase of expense, and that the public would benefit much more by the application of the remedy which I have suggested than by that which is proposed under the present measure. I am not, perhaps, competent from my experience to deal with this question, but I am certain that, both with regard to the friendly feelings which I entertain for some of the Judges, and also the part I have taken in this question, I am justified in stating my views frankly to the Committee. If the Committee should not agree with me, and should think I am not justified in the apprehensions I entertain, still what I have said may have the effect of causing the House of Commons and the Government to bear in mind that which I think will be found to be the most efficacious remedy of the evil now complained of. I could also have wished, had time admitted of my so doing, to have commented on the other clauses of the Bill. I doubt whether it is wise to increase the salaries of the clerks of the records, as the Judges already have power, should they think fit so to do, to transfer to those clerks any additional duties without any increase of salary. The 10th clause, which provides that public practitioners may take affidavits, I consider is most objectionable and indefensible. Then, again, the clause empowering the sale of Southampton-buildings directly and essentially affects the question of the site of the Law Courts. All these are questions of importance which I know cannot receive at this late period of the Session the attention which they deserve, but I have felt it my duty thus to state my views, and although we cannot hope to proceed far with the Bill to-day, still to pass it over without a discussion would be, I think, treating it in a manner wholly unworthy of its importance.

said, he apprehended that after the remarks of the right hon. Baronet it was very doubtful whether any progress could sbe made with the Bill that Session.

said, the country should feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) for the attention he had given to that most important subject. He (Mr. Malins) could corroborate the right hon. Gentleman's view that it would be difficult to imagine greater improvements in the practice of the Court of Chancery than had been effected by the alterations of 1852. The former practice of the Court was to defer decision; the practice since 1852 was to accelerate decision. Formerly cases were referred to the Master for decision; now they were decided on affidavit, under the immediate supervision of the Judge in Chambers. With regard to the statement of the right hon. Baronet as to the mode of transacting business in Chambers, there was a great deal in his suggestion. Every Judge was occupied on an average six hours each day in open Court, during which some sixty to eighty matters were often disposed of. That a Judge should have, after that, to go to Chambers was undoubtedly an evil, which, however, the appointment of an additional Judge, to enable the Judges to sit a day each week in Chambers, would not remedy. One of the advantages of the alteration of 1852 was that of getting rid of the arrears in the Court of Chancery. Vice Chancellor Stuart had risen on the 27th of July, having disposed of every cause and every petition in his Court, except one, which stood over on agreement. The other Chancery Judges had also disposed of every cause set down for hearing, so that there were only six weeks' arrears at the utmost. As regarded the delay in appointments at Chambers, he was very much surprised to hear the statement of the right hon. Baronet. He was assured, on the contrary, that the present staff, of two chief clerks for each Judge, was amply sufficient if the Bill passed giving additional junior clerks. He could not think that the appointment of another Vice Chancellor would be of any good; but rather the contrary. While, if an additional Judge was to be appointed to each Court, besides the unnecessary expense which it would cause, it would not effect the purpose. The present chief cherks were perfectly competent persons, and they had stated to him that the presence of a Judge more than a couple of hours twice a week was unnecessary.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Address had been presented to Her Majesty praying for the revival of Convocation, and whether any answer had been given to such Address: and if he had any objection to lay copies of the same on the table of the House?

Sir, an Address was transmitted to me not long ago from the Upper House of Convocation, praying that Her Majesty would be pleased to grant Her licence to Convocation to consider and agree on a canon or constitution to be submitted for Her approval for the purpose of modifying the representation of the clergy in the Lower House of Convocation. That Address had been laid before Her Majesty, and an answer had been returned to the Archbishop of Canterbury. There would be no objection to produce the Address of the Upper House of Convocation and the reply thereto. But he might state that Her Majesty had not been advised to comply with the prayer of the Address.

objected to the alteration, and thought it far better that the Board should elect their own Chairman as originally proposed.

also disapproved of the Amendment, which he thought would tend to diminish the responsibility of the Board without giving any real power or responsibility to the Home Office.

said, he approved highly of the Lords' Amendments, almost all the material ones among which were in accordance with views he had himself pressed upon the House. As some of these Amendments, however, related to pipe drainage, he would take the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the remarkable report of the surveyors of the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers with regard to the working of the pipe drainage in the metropolis, which had just been distributed to Members. And he did so, on account of its being not only upon the much-controverted question of pipe drainage, but also upon the personal conduct and character of the chief engineer of the Commission. The term, "pipe drainage," had been identified with the principle of using for the conveyance of sewage drains of dimensions calculated with reference to the quantity they had to convey, instead of with reference to the stature of man; because, for the drainage of all houses, without exception, of ordinary streets, and in some cases, of the whole of a small town, this principle had led to the laying down of pipes of from four inches to rather more than a foot in diameter, instead of constructing, as formerly, all house-drains and sewers of a minimum size of something like a yard in diameter, to allow of the passage of a man for the purpose of cleansing or repairs when required. He used the word therefore in this sense, though the strongest advocates of pipe drainage quite recognised the necessity of having recourse to brick sewers, whenever the quantity of sewage to be conveyed was too large for pipes to carry it off. Pipe drainage, taken in this sense, had been pronounced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to combine the greatest degree of efficiency with the greatest degree of economy, as indeed it had been proved to do by the experience of many places for several years. Unhappily, however, several engineers, most eminent in other branches of the profession, had pronounced against it; and following in their wake, Mr. Bazalgette, the engineer to the Commission of Sewers, had latterly made himself conspicuous by his hostility to it. It appeared from the Return on the table of the House, that some time last year a number of pipe drains were opened and examined secretly in the dead of night by Mr. Bazalgette, and were then found, or rather were stated by him to have been found, either wholly or partially choked up in the manner graphically represented in the plates at the end of that Return. It would be for the House, after hearing the sequel, to attach to Mr. Bazalgette's unsupported assertions such weight as they might seem to deserve; but it should be remembered that Mr. Bazalgette had taken care that no producible witnesses—and least of all, any of the engineers of the Commission—should be present at these extraordinary nocturnal examinations. Still this Report of Mr. Bazalgette's for a time had produced a considerable impression on the public. A few months since, however, a second examination into the condition of the same drains was ordered by the Commissioners, and, unlike the other, was carried on publicly by the district engineers of the Commission, Mr. Bazalgette being specially invited by them to attend. This time, by a strange and most suspicious coincidence, the drains represented as choked or choking up more than a year before, had—not in one, but in dozens of cases—somehow run themselves so clear in the interval as to be working most satisfactorily, instead of choking up entirely, as might have been expected; in short, their condition, as seen by various competent witnesses, was what is represented in the other sections of the same Return. Mr. Bazalgette had previously made some most unfavourable Reports, since laid before the House, about the working of the new system of drainage in several provincial towns. The engineers of these works had, however, answered Mr. Bazalgette's Reports, and had most conclusively demonstrated their gross unfairness—to use no harsher term. In one particular case, that of St. Thomas's at Exeter, he (Lord Ebrington) himself had had an opportunity of ascertaining, by personal inspection, the utter disingenuousness and untrustworthiness of Mr. Bazalgette's Report. As to the system itself, its proved advantages were too great to be resisted, notwithstanding the weight and influence of some of its opponents. Town after town was adopting it; and even in the metropolis, the Commissioners of Sewers, though by no means originally predisposed in its favour, had adopted it extensively, and were adopting it more and more in spite of the strenuous opposition of their own chief engineer. He (Viscount Ebrington) had therefore no fears for the system. But it was a serious thing to have an officer in so responsible a position, conducting himself as those official documents showed Mr. Bazalgette to have done. He however rejoiced to feel that one of the operations of the present Bill, when it became law, would be to cut short this officer's tenure of office.

said he would now move according to notice for a Select Committee to inquire into the Government of the Navy. Though the Motion was for a Committee he did not move for one in expectation that it would be operative during the present Session, but in the hope that one would be appointed next Session. His object was not to detail individual cases, but to attack the system. There were present three right hon. Gentlemen, who had held the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, and all of them must be convinced that the system of promotion at the Admiralty was not satisfactory, and that the pressure of political influence clogged the dispensation of patronage in a way which he hoped they could not approve. For his part, he had long condemned it, and he defied the Government to show that during the time he had occupied a seat in that House he had ever asked for the smallest favour. He might observe that there were in that House only ten or eleven sailors, while there were upwards of a hundred military and militia officers, and about as many lawyers, and he thought naval officers ought to be allowed to call attention to any defects which, in their opinion, existed in that branch of the public service with which they were connected. He was afraid that many hon. Gentlemen advocated Administrative Reform only with respect to the civil service; but such reform was at least as much required in the military and naval services. Within the last four or five years there had been four First Lords of the Admiralty, so that it was impossible the gentlemen who occupied so important a position could have acquainted themselves fully with the duties of the department, or have carried out on an extensive scale any of those reforms which were so much needed. There were at present ten or twelve gentlemen living who had been political Secretaries of the Admiralty, from the time of Mr. Croker to the present Secretary, but they knew scarcely anything of naval affairs; while, during a period of thirty years, there had been only three second Secretaries—that office not being a political one—including the present Secretary, who had held his appointment for a very short time. He must say that merit was not fostered in the navy, although during a war some gallant officers might force themselves forward, and obtain that promotion they so well deserved. Every naval officer, however, was perfectly aware that, under ordinary circumstances, no man in that service could expect advancement unless he possessed family or political influence. Not long ago a noble Lord, who had held high office, expressed his opinion, in another place, that if the military service was conducted in the same manner as the naval service it would be nothing but a system of jobbery and trickery. If naval officers would speak for themselves—which they dared not do—the House would hear enough of malediction of the system. He did not wish to attack the aristocracy, and was quite willing that if an officer had merit the fact of his belonging to the aristocracy should not in the least degree tell against him. If he had not merit, then birth or connection should give him no advantage. With respect to the constitution of the Admiralty, he would refer to some authorities, which he conceived would have more weight with the House than anything he could say. After Sir George Cockburn's decease a paper was found with his will, containing opinions which he never uttered while alive with respect to the system. That gallant officer was a Lord of the Admiralty for seventeen years, and had found himself so shackled that he allowed things to go on as they did without attempting to put them right, but he left his opinions on record, and since his death they had been printed in a pamphlet. Sir George Cockburn therein stated, that he had no hesitation in saying, that he considered the present system of the Board to be most unsatisfactory, and the least efficient for the purposes of the service that could be devised, and he added, that the annoyances he was subjected to while at the Admiralty—from First Lords not understanding naval affairs—kept him in a continual state of anxiety and difficulty, and that it required him to exercise the greatest forbearance in order to remain in the situation. The remedy he (Captain Scobell) would suggest was, the abolition of the Board of Admiralty, the transference of the management of the navy to a naval Commander in Chief, assisted by two naval officers who might or might not be in Parliament. His own opinion was, that they ought not to be in Parliament, but that there should be a Member of Parliament for the controlling of the financial expenditure of the navy. When the present Commander in Chief of the army was appointed, he was informed by, he believed, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) that his duties were exclusively professional, and as no one would interfere with his patronage of the army he would alone be responsible. The first Lord of the Admiralty ought to be able to feel himself in the like position. Dispensing as he did the patronage of a service numbering 4000 officers, he ought to be able to say—what he was afraid he could not—that no political influence was mixed up with his patronage. The noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown was also an authority on the question, because he was sure the noble Lord would not deny that what he had said with respect to the army was equally applicable to the navy. The noble Lord said, and the statement applied in all its force to the navy, that "it would be fatal to the character and spirit of the army that its discipline should be committed to the charge of mere citizens, and that to allow the patronage of the army to be dispensed by the Government was open to grave and serious objections." Now if the noble Lord was prepared to carry those sentiments into full effect, he would as soon as possible divest the Admiralty of its political character, and would not sanction the dispensation of patronage upon the part of the Treasury bench in the case of the naval profession. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had also stated in that House that—

"He saw no reason whatever why we should apply to the navy rules different from those which were acted upon with reference to the sister service; so far from it, he was of opinion that everything should be done to make the navy as efficient as possible."

The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to assure the House that the attention of the Derby Government had been directed to the subject, and that they were only waiting for the Report of the Committee to take more active steps with respect to it. The question was one, therefore, the importance of which had been admitted by very high authorities in that House; and having said thus much upon that point, he should now proceed to state to the House what the result of the present system of naval administration was, so far as the officers were concerned. He should commence with the admirals, of whom, in the year 1800, there were ninety-nine, when we had 167 sail of the line. There now being only forty sail of the line, we had 272 admirals and 40,000 seamen and marines, instead of 120,000, which was the number in the year 1800. Now, of these 272 admirals, almost all were from sixty to eighty years of age. Since the 1st of January, 1850, there had been thirty-seven captains made active admirals, and many of them were old men when they had got their appointments. Since the same date 113 captains had been made retired admirals because they had not gone through those six years' service as post captains which was required, it being impossible from want of interest they could have complied with the regulation. Such was the result of the present system so far as the admirals were concerned; and he could assure the House that it had been felt to act in many instances with considerable severity. To take individual cases of promotion in the navy, he might mention that the late Captain Christie had been thirty-one years in the service before he had attained the same rank as that at which Admiral Dundas, now in the Baltic, had arrived in nine years. Now, to refer to the captains' list, he should inform the House that during the years 1847, 1848, and 1849, there had been fifty captains promoted, and of that number thirteen had served a period of from two to five years only as commanders. During those very three years, however, he found that there were others who had served as commanders from ten to twenty-six years. Now, was not that, he would ask, an instance of the hardships to which officers in the navy were subjected, and which ought to induce the House to institute an inquiry into the facts upon which the inequality of promotion, which he had just pointed out, was based? There was no corresponding inequality in the system of promotion in the army. In that service, at all events, men advanced, though slowly, by seniority in the regiments. There was at the bottom of the captain's list another list, which was that of the retired captains. They consisted of 100 officers, whose half-pay in the first instance amounted to 10s. a day; and would the House believe that when they retired they received only 6d. a day in addition to that sum, although they ranked with colonels in the army? He should next take the commanders, of whom there were, in the year 1800, 386. Now, there were 549 active commanders, and of that number 220 had been from forty to fifty years in the service; while we had 570 retired commanders of about fifty years' service, and many with medals, making a total of 1119. Of the active commanders there were 196 employed, while 353 were upon half-pay. Hon. Members could not fail to see how the present system worked when we had such a large number of half-pay officers upon the list. The fact was that there was no encouragement held out in the navy; and his belief was that there was more of pining and of heart-burning among the officers in that service than among any equal number of men in the Queen's dominions. He should next advert to the lieutenants, whom he should contend were the most ill-used body in the navy. He had known men who through political or family influences had obtained high rank in the service before they could possibly be fitted to discharge the duties of that rank; while, upon the contrary, he was aware that there were crowds of lieutenants who had been in the service for thirty or forty, and even fifty years, who perfectly understood their business, and yet who never had been enabled to obtain the promotion which upon every ground they deserved. Of those who were lieutenants in the year 1840, there were thirty-two who still retained the same rank, while others, of the same year, who had not entered the navy until long after, were now post captains. At present there were 1713 lieutenants upon the retired list, notwithstanding that they were the class of officers whose services were now most required. Three lieutenants had lately been promoted for gallant conduct in the Sea of Azoff; but when men were promoted for gallant conduct, they were usually placed upon the half-pay list, and their services, from not having family interest, became lost to the country. Of these three officers to whom he referred, one had been twenty years in the navy, and the others had each served twenty-five years. There were now about twelve first lieutenants of line of battle-ships who have been longer in the navy, and seen far more service, than some political favourites who are post captains. He thought he had made pretty sure that the House would take some interest in that body of men. He had no wish to fix the form of inquiry; if a Commission was preferred to a Committee of the House, he should have no objection to it, as all he wanted was to see the facts inquired into. There was another point he must draw attention to before he sat down, and that was that too many cadets were allowed to enter into the navy, because, under the existing system, out of the large number that entered every year, those only with interest could get on. His objection, on that head, applied as much to what was the practice before the war began as to the present time. The entries were vastly disproportioned to the promotions, and that was one of the great causes of the evil. He had troubled the House with figures, but he believed they were the best arguments for his case; and he hoped, as they were so irresistible, the Government would say that a Committee shall be appointed next year. At all events, he had no alternative but to leave the matter in the hands of the House in the full hope that ultimately some remedy would be applied to those evils, either in the way of limiting the mode of promotion to merit and service, and by extending the system of retirement with a step of rank, as in the army, with the half pay of that rank, and there should be an age fixed, varying in the different classes of officers, at which they should necessarily pass to the retired list. The safety of England depended upon the command of the sea, and, therefore, it was of vital importance that her navy should have fair play, which it could not be said to have had for a long series of years. He was an advocate for an efficient but a small army, and with such assistance the navy would always be able to defend the country against her enemies.

said, he should second the Motion. He hoped that the House would assent to the proposition of his hon. and gallant colleague, for it was of the greatest importance to the country that the navy should be upon a satisfactory footing. Upon a subject of such a technical nature it was hardly possible that he should go into any detail; that, however, was not a matter of importance after the statement which his hon. and gallant Colleague had made. An opinion was growing up in the country that the Minister in whom the superintendence of the navy was vested ought to be chosen independently of political exigencies; to discuss that, however, would raise a great constitutional question into which that was not the time to enter. He trusted that the Government would make no objection to the Motion, for much benefit would, doubtless, accrue to the country from it. The House would recollect that, in 1848, a Committee, known as Lord Seymour's Committee, inquired into the matter, and the result of that Committee's Report was admitted on all hands to be highly satisfactory.

said, he was prepared to do full justice to the motives of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in bringing such a subject under the consideration of the House. But, while he honoured the motives which had actuated the hon. Gentleman, he was not prepared to consent to the Motion which he had brought forward. The subject into which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to inquire had already been most fully considered by as able a Committee—a Committee presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) as had ever been appointed. That Committee had offered certain suggestions, all of which had been carried out with the exception of one, which was that power should be given to the Government to appoint Admirals by selection instead of by seniority. If old officers were appointed to posts of authority, then the complaint was made that the talents and energy of younger men were overlooked, but if younger men were appointed, then the outcry was that the old and meritorious officers were slighted. The problem to be solved was how they could best promote the efficiency of the service, coupling that with the regard which was due to the claims of old and deserving officers. Now, no persons could form a sound opinion upon the question unless they looked at the state of the Navy Lists from the time of the last war. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Scobell) said there was a great number of old and meritorious officers who had been passed over. That was perfectly true, but it was quite inevitable. The House of Commons was very apt to take at one time a view totally different from that which it took at another. At one moment it could not do enough for the members of the naval profession; great promotions were asked for; and, consequently, great charges entailed, while some time afterwards the House of Commons would, perhaps, complain of those charges, would call, perhaps not unnaturally, for their reduction, and would require the Executive to check the number of promotions. At the end of the war there were 855 captains, 816 commanders, and 3,982 lieutenants. That was an immense number of officers—more, of course, than could possibly be employed, but fifteen years afterwards, there were 851 captains, 905 commanders, and 3,580 lieutenants. The House of Commons naturally took exception to so large a number, and complained that after fifteen years of peace the list of officers should be as large as it was at the end of the war. The promotions during that time had of course gone on just as if the war had continued, and the House complained very justly of the heavy charges entailed upon the country. Yet, notwithstanding the promotions had been kept up in that way, there were still during that time complaints of the destitute state of old and meritorious officers, and of the number whom it was impossible to employ. At the beginning of 1814 there were 3,285 lieutenants, of whom 1,600 were employed; in 1817 there were 3,982 lieutenants, of whom 405 were employed; so that in the first of these years one half, and in the second only one-tenth, of the whole number on the list were on service. What on earth could any Government do under such circumstances? Would his hon. and gallant Friend have them commission ships for the sake of employing officers? What would have been the case if employment had been given to those officers in rotation? At the end of 1817 there were in round numbers 4,000 lieutenants, of whom 400 were on service. The ordinary term of a ship's commission was three years, and at that rate it would have taken about thirty years before all those lieutenants could have filled their term of service, and the last 400 employed would have been twenty-seven years on shore. His hon. and gallant Friend could not be of opinion that those would have been men whom it would be for the interests of the public service to employ, and that, therefore, would explain why it was inevitable that a large number of lieutenants should be left unemployed for a great part of their lives. It might, therefore, very well happen, in the way he had explained, that there might be at this moment lieutenants who were at Trafalgar, and who possessed a medal, but whom it was perfectly impossible ever to employ again. At the end of the year 1817 there were 791 commanders on the list, of whom forty-two only were employed; and thus, if the Government had promoted lieutenants, they would only hare been encumbering the ranks of unemployed commanders. How, then, could any Government avoid the complaint that a great number of officers were left on half-pay? Since the time he had mentioned the number of officers had been much larger than could be employed. The Committee presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour) recommended that the list of lieutenants, commanders, and captains, should be reduced to a certain number, and that until that number was reached the promotions should be limited to one in three. That rule had been adhered to up to the present moment, but neither the list of commanders nor of captains had as yet reached the number recommended by that Committee. He considered, therefore, that it was unnecessary to pursue the subject further. He had already shown the circumstances under which a greater number of officers remained upon the lists than could be employed, and the inevitable consequence was that a large number of officers of the lower rank must necessarily remain in that lower rank. The recommendation of the Committee had been closely adhered to, and it was impossible to prevent a large number of men from remaining unemployed. It was proposed to limit the number of lieutenants to 1,200, and the number of commanders to 450; and it followed naturally that the whole of the lieutenants could never be promoted to the rank of commander. The hon. and gallant Gentleman acknowledged that at the present moment only one-third of the active list of commanders was afloat. There must, therefore, be a certain number of commanders who would never become captains, and also many captains who would never become admirals. In all the higher ranks there must necessarily be a certain number of persons who would never be employed or promoted. If any man could devise a better system of promotion than that which now existed he would be a great public benefactor, for at all times the selection of men for appointments was a most disagreeable and painful duty. Ten or a dozen able men could always be found well qualified to supply any vacancy that might occur, and it was a most painful and responsible task to select from that number one particular individual. In many cases great complaints were made of partiality. No military man thought himself too old for service, and no admiral thought himself too old to go to sea. Entertaining such an opinion, it was natural, when one officer was promoted over another, that the officer passed over should imagine that some other motive than a proper appreciation of the talent of the officer appointed had decided the appointment, and at all times it was very difficult to assign reasons why commander A had been selected and commander B passed over. He had not been very long at the Board of Admiralty, and consequently he had not had many appointments to make, but nevertheless several accusations had already been made against him in regard to the appointments which had been made. The very first appointment that he had made, was the appointment of an officer to command a sloop of war. The officer selected was recommended to him by his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Berkeley) and other gentlemen as an old officer of the highest character, and well fitted to command a ship of war. As far as he (Sir C. Wood) was concerned, he had never heard of the officer in question before, but soon after the appointment was made he received a letter, charging him with having appointed his own relation. He was certainly astonished at such a charge, knowing at the time that the only relative he had in the navy was a youth of some thirteen years of age, and on inquiring into the matter, he found that the name of the officer appointed was Francis Wood, which fact alone had been considered sufficient to justify the imputation which had been made against him. A week afterwards he made a second appointment, and a day or two afterwards a letter appeared in The Times, headed, "Another Malappointment," stating that Mr. Haslam, a mate in the Black Sea Fleet, who had greatly distinguished himself, had been rewarded with a lieutenancy, and soon after appointed to the command of a ship on the coast of Africa. The letter concluded by saying, "How long will the people of England suffer such atrocious mismanagement to degrade them before all the world?" That officer had distinguished himself in the Arctic expedition, and the inquiries he had instituted satisfied him that he was a gentleman of the highest character. The appointment was made simply on the ground of merit, yet he (Sir C. Wood) had been accused by the public Press, of having been guilty of the most atrocious abuse of his patronage. It was very easy to make charges of that kind, but he was anxious to show how utterly unjust they were in many cases. He had been told the other day by an intimate friend that a noble Lord had complained that he (Sir C. Wood) had refused him a naval cadetship, and that the appointments to those cadetships were made upon political grounds. He did not remember having received any application from that noble Lord, and on referring to his letters he could not find such an application. He then looked at the list of naval cadets who had recently been appointed, and he found that of eight, six had been appointed in consequence of their connection with distinguished naval and military officers, and only two upon the recommendation of Members of that House. One of those Members sat on the opposite side, and he believed had never given a vote in favour of the present Government. A complaint was made by his hon. gallant Friend (Captain Scobell) that young men sometimes obtained promotion very rapidly. Undoubtedly that was the case, but the consideration which weighed with the Admiralty in making those promotions were how the country could best be served, and if it was desirable that officers should attain the rant of admiral at a comparatively early period of life, it was indispensable that young officers should be promoted for distinguished services. The Committee, which was known as Lord Seymour's Committee, had stated that the efficiency of the naval service must depend, in a great measure, upon the mental and bodily vigour of the officers who were intrusted with commands, but as a general rule that union of mental and bodily vigour was only to be found in men who were comparatively young; and unless, therefore, young officers were promoted it was impossible that they could have admirals who, according to the opinion of the Committee, would be fit for active service and for important commands. In 1851 the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) established what was called the reserved list, upon which officers were placed after a certain period of service. No doubt, as his hon. and gallant Friend had stated, that regulation operated with some inequality, for there were admirals on the reserve list who Were perfectly capable of rendering service to their country, and there were others on the active list who were utterly unfit for active duty. He did not think it would be advisable to adopt the plan suggested by his hon, and gallant Friend—that all admirals should be removed from the active list at a certain age, for no two men were equally strong, and some were more vigorous at the age of sixty than others were at fifty-five. It appeared from the Report of 1848 that there were at that time only six admirals under the age of sixty upon the active list, but there were now seventeen under that age upon the list, and of these nine were below the age of fifty-five. In reply to the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend that all naval officers who were promoted early in life owed that promotion to family, or political, or Parliamentary influence, he might observe that, although three of the nine admirals under fifty-five might possess some aristocratical or political influence, he must deny that such was the case with regard to the other six. If they took the aristocratic names in the navy it would be found that, with the exception of Lord Dundonald, they were almost exclusively on the retired list, while the great majority of persons actively employed possessed neither family nor political influence. The rule laid down some years ago by his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth had worked admirably with regard to admirals, and had been the means of enabling them to get younger men for that part of the service, and he must say that in the case of the lower ranks something might be done, though the subject was attended with very great difficulties. Twenty years ago, when he was Secretary to the Admiralty, a suggestion was made whether, in order to obviate the evils which existed, it would not be wise to introduce a system of sate and purchase in the navy. It was obvious that the system of purchase, such as existed in the army, offered facilities for young men entering the service, but it was doubtful how far such a system was practicable in the navy, and, if it were so, whether it would receive the sanction of that House, in which complaints were not unfrequently heard of the existence of the practice in the army. He must again deny that family or political influence had that weight in regulating promotion as had been alleged by his hon. and gallant Friend, and the fact that every service had been performed in a manner which conferred credit upon those employed and glory upon the country was the beat answer to any assertion which might be made that merit was not sufficiently acknowledged. Not a Russian vessel dared to show itself in the presence of our navy, the recent services it had rendered in the Sea of Azoff had been properly acknowledged, and he must again repeat that there was no rank in the service, from that of admiral down to that of cabin boy, but was equal to the execution of every service which it was called upon to perform.

said, he was glad that his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Scobell) had brought forward the subject now under discussion, inasmuch as it had afforded the First Lord of the Admiralty an opportunity of defending his conduct in connection with the department over which he presided. Sir George Cockburn had complained that he was overruled during his services at the Board, and that his recommendations had not been attended to; but the fact was that that gallant officer had never submitted any project to the House, and had opposed the Motions of Sir Charles Napier and other gallant officers when they were submitted to the House. He could not imagine who had overruled Sir George Cockburn at the Board, and the only hon. Member now present who could enlighten the House on that subject, was the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. FitzRoy). The present Board of Admiralty was a vast improvement over former Boards, when the majority were of the lay and civil class, and when naval officers were almost excluded. There was nothing to complain of now with respect to the Board, except the system. With respect to patronage he believed that political influence was too powerful, and that some change ought to take place. He could recommend that the sum paid for the conveyance of treasure should be brought to the public account, and applied under the direction of the Admiralty. In regard to the employment of Admirals on the retired list, when he applied for a ship he was informed that the timber was not cut to build the ship, nor was the sheep killed whose skin was to supply the parchment on which to write his commission. Many officers were unable to obtain ships, and thus to comply with the regulations required to be fulfilled before they became admirals, because they had no influence to enforce attention to their wishes. With regard to the coast-guard service, he must complain that, while the officers employed on that service were certain of promotion if they were so fortunate as to come in contact with smugglers and kill half a dozen of them, they received no promotion at all if they had saved lives and property from wrecks. As to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty had certainly made a great many explanations which it was well should be known, but it would be very satisfactory to the service if the right hon. Gentleman would concede the inquiry asked for.

Sir, I will not detain the House at any length, because it occurs to me that the arguments which have been adduced for and against the Motion before it, have been fully sufficient to enable the House to arrive at a right decision; and, moreover, were I to enter into detail of my own views and opinions they would approach in many particulars to a recapitulation of those already spoken. If the hon. and gallant Member for Bath determine to press his Motion to a division, I shall be found in the same lobby with him, satisfied, as I am, that if a Committee were appointed the decision would be beneficial to the service, and most certainly could not be injurious. The First Lord of the Admiralty had said that any man would be a public benefactor who would devise a means by which the present system of patronage could be got rid of, and it occurred to him (Admiral Walcott) that he could point out a means by which a more beneficial system could be introduced—namely, by constituting the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, in fact, and reality the responsible Counsellors of their Political Chief with regard to the employment, promotion, and decorations of honour given to naval officers, as those best fitted to sympathise and to encourage, to deal gently with the disappointed, and to award justly the successful; in a word, to propose to themselves but one motive of thought and action to secure the welfare of the whole profession, and to consult without partiality for every individual member in it. If such a system were adopted great satisfaction would be given, and the service would feel full confidence that merit would be its own patron, and good, gallant, and meritorious service the only effectual recommendation to employment, promotion, and recommendation to the Sovereign for decorations of honour. The hon. and gallant Admiral, the Member for Brighton, had animadverted in terms of disparagement in the selection of a naval officer to preside at the Admiralty in the Derby Government; I cannot but regret his having done so, nor will I forbear to offer my tribute to that naval officer (the Duke of Northumberland) for the able and energetic manner in which he endeavoured—and with success—to provide for the efficiency of the service; in so doing I but speak the testimony, in that particular, offered to the House by his successor, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, and the feelings of many gallant officers.