said he felt bound to oppose the second reading. He thought it very necessary for the reputation of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster that public inquiry should be made into the matter for common report, or something more said that they had made it the price of their withdrawal of opposition to the Bill, that the Westminster Improvement Commission should first of all buy the land which they intended to clear for the purpose of opening the abbey, and then that they should re-sell it to them, and that they should be allowed to erect buildings, which they had already erected. But it would be almost impossible to believe, if one were not convinced by ocular demonstration, that those buildings not only shut out the west front of the abbey, but actually crossed the line of communication to effect which the Westminster Improvement Commission had been formed. He had last year, towards the end of the Session, asked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cowper) to grant an inquiry before a Select Committee, so that, by the aid of the information which might then be collected, and by the intervention of the Government, a satisfactory termination should be put to that which had now lasted a great number of years. The right hon. Gentleman said, in reply that it was a common building society, and that it would be most inexpedient and wrong for Government to set an example for such an inquiry into such matters. Now, he (Sir William Gallwey) would endeavour to show that it was no common, but rather an uncommon building society, and that it ought to be dealt with, not through a private Bill, but that the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee up stairs. First of all the miscalled Improvement Commission came out as a Royal Commission. It was inaugurated, he believed, under the auspices of a noble Lord then in the Government, a great after-dinner orator of the Whig party, who opened the proceedings at a magnificent feast. But that was not all. It should be remembered that though the Commission was to confer a public benefit still it was formed for private profit. Well, Government began by granting to the Commission a sum of £50,000 as a gift, and they added an advance of £30,000, which from the want of security had become a gift; for he believed—and the right hon. Gentleman would set him right if he was wrong—that the Government had never received one sixpence of that advance. Now, he thought that the House would agree with him that they could not call a Commission for the purpose of improving an important portion of the Metropolis, and sustained by Government with £50,000 of public money and an advance of £30,000, a private building society. But that was not all. By the 10 & 11 Vict., c. 131, clause 68, in return for the money thus advanced, the Government, by the then First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, very properly required that a most stringent and detailed account should be furnished to the Government half-yearly, for the purpose of showing how this public money was spent. That, he thought, was a reason why the matter should engage public attention and receive public inquiry. Now, he had inquired very strictly into the whole business, and he found that the unfortunate bondholders, who might be said to have lost all their capital, attributed it entirely to the neglect of the Woods and Forests. He believed that the enactment which provided that the account should be rendered to the Woods and Forests, by a clear inference rendered it incumbent on Government to have carefully audited those accounts. But that was never done. Then, in 1852, a Bill was passed through that House—and how such an iniquitous Bill should be passed he could not understand—which gave an additional power to the Westminster Commissioners to issue any amount of bonds they chose, resting on no security whatsoever, and he believed he was right in saying that they made the most prodigious use of that power. A short time before, having acquired by Act of Parliament that right, they issued double the amount of bonds which they ever previously issued; and not only that, but he was told that they sold them by public auction, and that they had allowed the bonds to be put up as securities guaranteed by Government. Now, the Bill before the House recited that a committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman on his right (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) was chairman, recommended that the Commission should be wound up; but the Committee specially recommended in its Report that the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests should either himself be a commissioner, or should appoint one of the commissioners to watch over the public weal. Now, they would find by the Bill that no such commissioner was to be appointed. It was true a commissioner was to be appointed by the Metropolitan Board, but he did not think the House should agree to that change. He should therefore move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Motion.

said, he thought that the Bill ought to be read a second time and then referred to a Select Committee. He feared the bondholders had lost the whole of their money; but there was no use in looking back upon the past upon that occasion. The question was what should they then do in the matter; and he believed that the object of the measure was to enable certain Commissioners to deal with the property and to put an end to the present state of things.

said, he thought if this Bill were not read a second time it would be a public calamity, and therefore he trusted the House would not object to do so.

said, he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, that it was a matter which the Government ought to take into its own hands, as it would do if it were to appoint a commissioner of its own. It was quite true that £50,000 had been granted out of the public funds for the purpose of making a great public thoroughfare; but the Government had no control over the management of the money, nor could he find any trace in the office over which he presided of any accounts having been ever rendered to it. He considered the Bill one which might be safely read a second time, and sent up to the Committee on Private Bills, and should therefore oppose the Amendment. He had not heard, however, any reason why the Bill should not be sent to a Committee.

said, he had been Chairman of a Select Committee which had to consider a Bill on the subject some time ago, and they found the whole Commission in a state of hopeless and inextricable difficulty. The Commissioners had not fulfilled one of the obligations imposed upon them, and the opinion of the Committee distinctly was, that the matter was deserving of the most serious consideration of Parliament. The Commission had squandered at least £700,000 —he had heard it stated as high as £1,000,000—and there was no hope of any extrication from the difficulty while the matter remained in the hands of the present parties. Moreover, the interests concerned were so divergent and contradictory in their nature, that their reconciliation was impossible. Under these circumstances the Committee threw out the Bill, and recommended that a proposition for a new body to whom the differences should be referred, should be laid before Parliament. But the proposal now made did not in any way correspond with the recommendations of the Committee, lie thought, however, it would not be right to stop the Bill at this stage, but that, considering the multitude of interests concerned, and the inextricable difficulties and complications which surrounded the matter, the only proper thing would be to refer it to a Select Committee of five Gentlemen to be named by the Committee of Selection. He hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he protested against the Bill being sent before a Select Committee, as he thought that private individuals ought not to be compelled to incur heavy charges in connection with the matter. He complained that Government had parted with the money without exercising any control over its expenditure.

expressed his regret that the Government had not taken the matter into their hands. But as the Bill had been brought forward he thought it ought to be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee.

remarked that he concurred in what had been stated, that the question partook of the nature of a public matter, and ought to be dealt with by a public and not a private Bill.

said, ha would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government considers that the 87th Section of the Act 3 & 4 William IV., c. 85, which enacts—

"That no Native of the said territories (India), nor any natural born subject of His Majesty resi- dent therein, shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the said Company."

Is applicable only to the admission of Natives into the service of the East India Company and not into the service of the Crown; and whether Her Majesty's subjects residing in India have or have not the same rights now as they had under the East India Company, and which Her Majesty's subjects possess residing elsewhere?

Sir, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend I have to state that my opinion on the question which has been put is that the claims of Her Majesty's subjects in India for employment in the public service have not been in any way affected by the transfer of the Government of India from the East India Company to the Crown.

said, he wished to ask the President of the India Board, If any and what arrangements have been made, or are intended to be made, for the payment, in this Country and in Ireland, of their shares of the Prize Money to the Officers and Soldiers who were engaged in the late Indian Campaign, and are resident in the United Kingdom?

said, he could not give a very satisfactory answer to the question of the hon. Member, because the time for the distribution of the prize money here depended, to a great extent, on the payments in India, and also on the circumstances of the persons who were to receive it in this country. Until the Government knew to whom the money was to be paid, and where the persons entitled to it might happen to be it was impossible for them to make any arrangement on the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been turned to the Endowments in the hands of the University of Durham, and the educational results shown by a Return recently presented to this House; and whether it is intended to take any steps in consequence?

said, his attention had been drawn to the subject, and the information he had received led him to believe that the endowments connected with the University of Durham were almost practically wasted. He hoped shortly to be able to give notice of a measure for appointing a Commission for Durham University similar to those which had been appointed with reference to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

said, he rose pursuant to notice to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend Parliament to visit any Constituencies which have been of late, or may be hereafter convicted of gross bribery and corruption, with the same punishment as has already been awarded to the now disfranchised Boroughs of Sudbury and St. Albans?

said, the House had made an order, in the case of the boroughs of Gloucester and Wakefield, that no writ should be moved for without a week's notice, and, therefore, it was competent for any one, who wished that those boroughs should proceed to elect Members, to give notice and make a Motion for the issue of a writ. In the absence of any such notice, however, the franchise of these boroughs would be suspended. With respect to the borough of Berwick-on-Tweed, which had been lately reported upon, he had made a reference to the Law Officers of the Crown, to ascertain whether they would recommend that any prosecution should be made consequent on that Report.

said, he wished to ask a Question relative to the Royal Commission recently appointed to inquire into the custody and management of the Funds of the Court of Chancery. In that Commission there were included two Cabinet Ministers; a Member of that House, highly honourable, but an unflinching supporter of Her Majesty's Government; a registrar of the Court of Chancery, a clerk in the Treasury, and two solicitors; and were it not for the name of Lord Kingsdown, which appeared on it, that Commission might be looked at with unmodified apprehension. Would the Government inform the House of the object of this Royal Commission?

said, the right hon. Gentleman had inserted into his Question—which by a skilful construction of language might carry a note of interrogation at the end of it—a strong opinion on the nature of this Commission, which he said but for the name of Lord Kingsdown would excite unmodified apprehension, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt the advisability of its containing the names of two solicitors. It certainly included the names of two solicitors, and its construction might form a proper matter for discussion in that House, though not at the present moment. The object of the Commission was twofold. In the first place it had reference to questions of great public interest connected with the custody and management of the funds of the Court of Chancery, and which bad formed the subject of inquiry before Committees of that House. The right hon. Gentleman was himself a member of what he might call a strong Committee, which made important recommendations to the House in respect to the management of those funds. Those recommendations had remained—he forgot whether wholly or in great part—without effect, and this appeared to the Government to be a proper subject for further consideration. The Government had also seen the Report of a Commission on what was called the concentration of the law courts in the neighbourhood of Lincoln's Inn Fields. That Report contained recommendations of great importance, and among others, one with respect to the appropriation of the funds of the Court of Chancery; and the Government were of opinion that the appropriation of those funds could hardly take place without entailing certain public liabilities in connection with the Consolidated Fund or in some other form, in connection with the erection of the new law courts. That being a matter of great public interest it was thought desirable to institute inquiry regarding it. There were also interests connected with the suitors which it was desirable should be inquired into, so that care might be taken to do full justice to them in this transaction. It was for these purposes that the Government had come to the resolution to appoint this Commission.

said, he rose to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether it is his intention to introduce any measure in the present Session on the subject of the Registration of County Voters in Scotland?

said, the subject was under the consideration of the Government, but he was not prepared to give any pledge upon the subject.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are of opinion, that now that the first Italian Parliament have assembled for the transaction of business, and have unanimously voted to the King of Sardinia the title of King of Italy, there is any reason or necessity for the appointment of any Congress, as has been suggested by the French Government, to settle the internal affairs of Italy?

said, he would beg to state, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that there was no proposition emanating from any of the Governments of Europe for a Congress on the Affairs of Italy. When such a proposition was made it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider it.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received intelligence by the last China mail of the occupation of Woosung (in the port of Shanghae) by the rebels; and whether such occupation will induce Her Majesty's Government to modify its policy, and cause it to adopt and carry out the principle of non-intervention as between the Insurgents and the Imperial Government of China?

said, Her Majesty's Government had received no authentic information by the last China mail of the occupation of Woosung by the rebels. The only letter received by the Government was from the hon. Captain Foley, at Shanghae, and that contained no mention of the occupation of Woosung. With respect to the latter part of the hon. Gen- tleman's Question, whether Her Majesty's Government would modify its policy for carrying out non-intervention between the insurgents and the imperialists in China, he could only say that the Government had never varied their policy of neutrality, and they had no intention of deviating from it.

said, he rose to ask the Under-Secretary for War, What course the Government intend to take with respect to the Retiring Allowances to Barrack-Masters, and to call attention to a recent Warrant concerning their position? The barrack-masters had important duties to fulfil, and he thought their case was one which the Government ought not to overlook. At present they were neither considered as civilians nor military men, and consequently no fixed rule could be applied which would secure them sufficient compensation on retirement, and induce them to do so whenever they became unfit to perform their duties. There were numbers of barrack officers unfit to perform their duties who ought to be allowed to retire upon suitable pensions. It was true that the War Office had recently issued a warrant to define their position, but the whole barrack department, in fact, required reconstruction, and was in a most inefficient state. The subject of barrack drainages and other complaints had often been brought before the House. He trusted that the Government would not object to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject. It would be well if those barrack-masters who were disabled by age or long-service were put in receipt of retiring allowances, and more active men employed to fill their positions. But they were generally chosen from those who had served in the army, and many had been highly distinguished, but they entered the barrack department late in life, in consequence of having spent the earlier part of it in the service; and, unless they were allowed to reckon a certain portion of their military service, they could not be expected to retire, when they became unfit for duty upon the pension awarded in proportion to their period of service as barrack-masters. If they were confined to the same rules as regulated civil retirements, where men entered the services early in life. A proposition had been made to give barrack-masters commissions, but he thought that would be a provision of very doubtful expediency. Were it proposed to give them with that rank any power of command over troops within the barracks to which they were attached there would be a manifest inconvenience, but he did not see any in giving them that same honorary rank which was at present conceded to store-keepers and other civil officers connected with the army. He (Colonel Dunne) felt unwilling to claim through the House of Commons the justice that should be effected in the department, but if the War Department neglected these serious subjects, or were incompetent to deal with them there was no other remedy but for the House to interfere, and if the War Department did not deal satisfactorily with the question he should feel himself under the necessity of moving for a Committee on the subject.

said, he trusted that when the Government considered the claims of the barrack-masters they would take into consideration the much harder case of the quartermasters. The adjutants had 10s. a day, and the quartermasters only 5s.; while the adjutants had besides various allowances in excess of those of the quartermasters. When the adjutant died his wife had a pension, and his children a claim upon the Compassionate Fund, while the family of the quartermaster had no such advantages.

said, he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork for directing attention to the case of the quartermasters, because the House must see from the instance he had quoted that it was very difficult to consider the pay and allowances of any one class of officers without taking into account those of others. His noble Friend the Secretary of State for War would be the last man to depreciate the important services of the barrack-masters, who were responsible for the proper occupation of barracks and the due consumption of the stores, and were also accountants to a considerable extent. The question of pay and allowances to barrack-masters had been recently considered at the War Office, and on the 7th of February, 1860, a warrant for increasing their rates of pay was issued. Before that warrant the barrack-masters were paid after seven different rates, varying from 5s. to 10s. a day. They were now divided into four classes, receiving from 8s. to 25s. a day. The barrack-masters were only eighty in number, and, as an aggregate increase of £3,000 had been made to their pay, it was evident that they had received a considerable individual increase of income. He could not, therefore, say that it was the intention of the Secretary of State for War to propose any increase in the pay of barrack-masters, who stood in no disadvantageous position if their pay and allowances were compared, for example, with those of the adjutants of Militia regiments. The pay and allowances of a barrack-master of the first class was £433 5s., so that he could not be said to be ill-paid, as compared with other officers of similar rank. The proposal that they should have commissions as barrack-masters was under the consideration of his noble Friend, and if it should be found that it did not involve an increase of expense the Secretary of State would be inclined to concur in the plan. His noble Friend in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Colonel Dunne) on a former occasion, stated that barrack-masters, as respects retirement, were under the Superannuation Act, but no pledge had been given that their retiring allowances should be taken into consideration.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, If Her Majesty's Government are prepared to bring in a Bill to give effect to the repeated recommendations that have been made for the Abolition of Passing Tolls? The payment of passing tolls by shipowners had long been felt as a great grievance, since it was a payment in exchange for which they obtained no benefit whatever. It was, therefore, by no means a nominal grievance. Twenty years ago the matter was referred to a Select Committee, who made a report condemnatory of the impost, and recommending that it should be done away with. Nothing, however, was done. In 1852 the subject came under discussion in the House, and a general opinion was expressed, in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) concurred, in favour of abolishing passing tolls. A Royal Commission was then appointed to consider generally the local charges on shipping. The Commissioners visited the various ports and made a strong report in favour of doing away with passing tolls. A Bill was afterwards in- troduced by the then Vice-President of the Board of Trade of a somewhat comprehensive character, which did not obtain the support of the House. No one, however, spoke in favour of passing tolls, and a general opinion prevailed that if the Bill had been confined to that subject it would have passed the House. In 1857 a Bill, introduced by the same right hon. Gentleman, was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, but nothing came of it. Looking then to those various recommendations he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government were prepared to bring in a Bill to give effect to them?

said, that some evenings ago the hon. Member for Sunderland asked whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure to give effect to the recommendations of the Merchant Shipping Committee that sat last Session. He (Mr. Gibson) bad stated in reply that the Government had prepared two Bills, one of which would deal with many of the recommendations of that Committee, and the other would deal, amongst other subjects, with the question to which the hon. Gentleman now especially referred. That was not a fitting occasion to discuss either the justice or policy of passing tolls, or to explain to the House the provisions of the measure about to be introduced on the subject. Therefore, he would simply say that in the course of the next week he would give notice of the day on which it was his intention to ask leave to introduce a Bill for the purpose of dealing with the question of passing tolls.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), When it is his intention to bring the Motion which stands in his name, respecting National Education in Ireland before the House? More than a year ago a most decided opinion had been expressed in every part of Ireland in regard to the question on the subject of National Education. He was aware, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was opposed, or indifferent, to public opinion in Ireland on the question. The right hon. Gentleman had thought proper to make some paltry concession in regard to the Educational Board, in the hope, if possible, of putting a stop to the agitation; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing but a sweeping change in the whole system would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland.

said, he believed he was giving utterance to the opinion of the majority of the people of Ireland when he said that the course adopted by the Government on this subject was very unsatisfactory. The small concessions alluded to by the hon. Gentleman would only go a short way, if any way at all, to satisfy the people of Ireland in regard to the administration of the National System of Education. It was very desirable that a discussion upon the subject should take place as soon as possible; and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would select an early day for the purpose.

said, he was much obliged to the hon. Member opposite for putting the question, inasmuch as it would give him an opportunity of again expressing his anxiety to bring forward the question at the earliest possible moment. He had given notice for a day that had now passed by. He was, however, advised to postpone his Motion in consequence of the absence of the majority of Irish Members at the commencement of the Session. He had moved for Returns at the close of last Session, which he deemed of great importance, as tending to throw light upon the working of the system of National Education in Ireland. For some reason or another those Returns, although moved for so far back as August, had not as yet been laid on the table. He had given notice of his intention that evening again to move for those Returns, in the absence of which he should be unwilling to introduce the subject to the House. The hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had suggested to him to postpone his Motion until that hon. and learned Gentleman had had an opportunity in the first instance of stating the course he advocated in connection with this subject. The House would recollect that the Estimates were under discussion at an unusually late period of the last Session; and from a desire to give the hon. and learned Member for Dungarvan the opportunity he sought for, he (Mr. Butt) had been unable to secure a day for his own Motion. He hoped, however, to obtain a day before Easter to submit his question to the House. But if it should be found inconvenient to discuss the matter then he should certainly take the earliest opportunity, immediately after Easter, of bringing it forward.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the frequent recurrence and magnitude of Colliery Accidents, and to the importance of the fittest persons being on all occasions selected as Colliery Inspectors; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Candidates for the Inspectorships of Coal Mines are subjected to a competitive examination as to fitness for such office; and, if so, whether Mr. J. P. Baker, the recently appointed Inspector of Collieries for the district of South Staffordshire, was subjected to such examination and pronounced qualified for the office by the examiners? These appalling accidents did not appear to be very generally diminishing in number, and, therefore, be thought it worth inquiring whether that result might not to some extent be traceable to the improper mode of appointing inspectors. The annual average number of accidents had not very much varied for many years, and amounted to 1,000 or 1,200 colliery accidents of all kinds. The majority of these accidents were not connected with explosions of firedamp, but with the falling of roofs, stones, and with other causes which might be prevented to a certain extent by caution and good regulations. The most appalling accidents, however, were those which arose from explosion of firedamp, which were, unfortunately, too frequent every year, and to diminish the frequency of which he confidently asserted that scientific knowledge on the part of inspectors was most desirable. During the last twelve months, he found that the explosions from fire-damp alone had occasioned the deaths in the district of Yorkshire of 13 persons; in that of Northumberland, 76; in that of North Staffordshire he had not ascertained the number; in that of Monmouthshire, 142 men were lately killed in one explosion, since which in other districts 20 more were killed, and in February last 7 men were killed. As a proof that these accidents were preventible to a certain extent he would show the average number of deaths to the number of tons of coal obtained from the different pits. In Northumberland and Durham there was one death to every 114,262 tons of coal raised; in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Leicestershire, one death to every 87,203 tons; while in Staffordshire and Shropshire the average was one death to 37,693 tons of coal. So that in Staffordshire and Shropshire there were three times more persons killed than in the northern collieries in proportion to the amount of coal obtained. He did not say that the inspectors were to blame in Staffordshire and Shropshire for this great ratio of fatal accidents, as the depth of the pits and other circumstances must tend to increase the number of deaths in those districts. The prevention of accidents from explosions of fire-damp certainly did require considerable scientific knowledge. Those intrusted with the management of collieries should be well acquainted with the construction and form of furnaces, and should also be good chymists. It must be remembered, moreover, that colliery inspectors had to a certain extent to lay down rules for the conduct of colleries in a whole district, and to communicate their knowledge to others, which, of course, required higher attainments and a better education than what would be required for the practical management of a single colliery, and this being the case it was essential that these gentlemen should be selected with the greatest care and forethought. He was not himself in favour of the present system of colliery inspection, which he thought might be much amended. But he was bound to admit that the inspectors were placed in a very awkward position. Their districts were too large, and they were burdened with too many duties. He believed that in some of the districts—particularly those in South Wales—the pits were so numerous, that it was impossible for the inspector to visit the whole of them in the course of a year. Another important consideration was that the appointment of inspectors had a tendency to relieve the owners of collieries from a portion of the responsibility which ought fairly to rest upon them. The less Parliament or the Government meddled with the management of pits by a system of inspection the better, as it had a tendency to relieve colliery proprietors and managers from the responsibility of working their pits properly. He was afraid, too, that in some instances, the inspectors had shown too great a desire to court popularity, while in others they had rather neglected their duty to please the large proprietors. Some regulations were however, he freely admitted, necessary, and what he would suggest was that, in all cases coalowners should be absolutely required to have their pits worked by underground overmen, and that those officers should pass an examination, and prove themselves thoroughly competent for the performance of their duties. Captains of vessels having on board only a few men, were obliged to pass an examination, but the management of a pit charged with dangerous gases, which would readily explode, in which 200 or 300 men were sent to work, was frequently entrusted to an ignorant, uneducated man, and hence, he believed, many of the accidents which occurred in different parts of the country. But, as long as the present system existed, it was most desirable and important that the very best men should be selected for the office of inspector, and that no favour should be shown to one man in preference to another. Now, if what he had heard were true, he was afraid that favouritism had been exercised in a recent appointment. He had derived his knowledge of the case from parties who did not wish to have their names brought before the House, from a belief that it might injure them in their private business; but, the facts he was about to mention were widely circulated and generally believed, and the appointment to which he alluded had created profound dissatisfaction among both coal-owners and coalworkers. Several gentlemen were nominated as candidates for the office of inspector in the district of South Staffordshire. Mr. J. P. Baker was one of the number. There was a rumour current to the effect that Mr. Baker got some promise of the appointment, but, however that might be, he alone of all the candidates was examined for his office. The Civil Service Examiners, not feeling themselves competent to examine Mr. Baker in the practical duties of his profession, called in a practical scientific man of the greatest eminence to assist them, and the result was, that Mr. Baker was rejected upon examination. It was found that he was not at all acquainted even with the very elements of mining science. Nothing more was heard of the matter for a little time, and then Mr. Baker quietly received the appointment. He was now colliery inspector in South Staffordshire, the district where of all others the greatest care and skill were required, and the utmost dissatisfaction prevailed among the coal proprietors and the colliers themselves. Such were the facts of the case as generally reported and believed. They were not very creditable to the parties concerned; but they might have no foundation in truth, and in that case it was due, both to the coalowners and coalworkers in South Staffordshire, and to Mr. Baker himself, that a correct statement should go forth to the public; if, however, they were true, he thought he had a right to ask from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, an assurance that in the case of future appointments of colliery inspectors the fitness of candidates for the office should be duly tested, and those only appointed who were found to be properly qualified for it.

said, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary Of State for the Home Department to the circumstances under which Mr. Stirling, the Senior Wrangler at Cambridge in the year 1860, has declined to compete for a Trinity Fellowship. Everybody who knew anything of Cambridge was aware that the senior wranglership was the highest academical honour that could be obtained in the University. Mr. Stirling had been at Trinity three years; he took a first class every year; and having obtained a scholarship, wound up with the high distinction of Senior Wrangler, only to be gained for proficiency in the highest branches of mathematical knowledge. In all the colleges at Cambridge such a degree was followed by the gift of a fellowship without examination, but at Trinity College it was given by examination; but there had been only one instance in which a senior wrangler had failed to obtain a fellowship. Mr. Stirling, therefore, might be as sure of a fellowship as any one could be in the uncertainty of human affairs. Mr. Stirling, however, happened to be attached to the Presbyterian Church, the service of which Her Majesty always attended when in Scotland. The Presbyterian Church did not differ in doctrine from the Church of England; and Mr. Stirling frequently attended the service of and communicated with the latter Church. But he did not wish it to be supposed that he was willing to sacrifice his religious principle for emolument, and therefore he declined to go in for a fellowship. Now, a Trinity fellowship was valued not so much a stipend for the discharge of particular duties, but as a reward for past attainments; and it had been enjoyed by many very distinguished men—by Lord Macaulay, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Wensleydale, the present Chief Baron and a great many others. It might be said that Mr. Stirling had no cause of complaint, since he knew the laws of the college before he matriculated; and that moreover, his high abilities and proficiencies would inevitably make up shortly for the loss which he had sustained by not obtaining a fellowship. But he (Mr. Urquhart) wished to call the attention of the House to the circumstance, not so much for the sake of Mr. Stirling as of Trinity College itself—the college to which he had himself belonged, and for which he entertained a strong feeling of respect and affection. Was it possible, he asked, that Trinity College could maintain its preeminence in literature and science if it dispensed its highest rewards in so narrow and exclusive a spirit? He believed that the case had been submitted to the Cambridge University Commissioners, and that their answer was that they had no power to interfere in the matter. The Times said last year that the time might come when it would be necessary to give the Commissioners increased powers, and he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether he did not think that that time had now arrived?

said, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question, he trusted he might be allowed to state what he knew of the case. After the hon. Member for Westmeath called attention to it last year, he had made it his business to inquire into the circumstances, and he had been informed by Mr. Stirling's friends that for years he had been a communicant of the Church of England, that he had regularly attended its services, and it was believed by his friends that he would have gone forward for a fellowship, and as a matter of course have taken it. But, he was told, such was the feeling of Mr. Stirling after the hon. Member for Westmeath last year called the attention of the House and the public to the subject, that, as a man of honour, he was unwilling to come forward for the fellowship lest it might appear that he was actuated by unworthy motives. These, he was assured, were the facts of the case.

said, he would now beg to call the attention of the House to the appointment of Mr. Andrew Jopp to the office of Distributor of Stamps for the Aberdeen District. It was a somewhat remarkable fact that on the Motion for the adjournment of the House that evening two private Members should have felt it their duty to direct attention to recent cases of the exercise of patronage by the Treasury. It seemed to him to afford an extraordinary commentary upon the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in which he entirely concurred—in favour of competitive examination. The case which he had to lay before the House might also serve as a commentary on the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government who had said that any Government which based its strength upon patronage would soon descend into its grave "unwept, unhonoured, and unsung." The office to which he referred was worth about £800, and when Mr. Jopp, who was a young man remarkable for no peculiar qualifications, received his appointment, two gentlemen of mature and long experience in the same department of the Inland Revenue were candidates for it. Under ordinary circumstances he could hardly conceive it possible that they would have been passed over for a young man who was entirely unknown to the public. The county of Aberdeen had, however, been for six weeks or two months agitated by an election contest of peculiar bitterness, in the course of which there had been riots at three of the polling places, and several constables and other persons had been seriously injured. In that contest the person appointed was an active partisan; and, without saying that he had countenanced those riotous proceedings, they were certainly directed in favour of the persons with whom he was acting. His father was the head election agent of the district; and, putting these circumstances together, the public would certainly draw the inference that the appointment was given in acknowledgment of valuable services rendered. A Government was undoubtedly justified in rewarding its political adherents: but, taken in connection with the system of outrage which had prevailed at many Scotch elections, such an appointment as he had referred to was calculated to exercise a bad moral effect. He would not trouble the House with details, but he had received several letters complaining of violence at the hands of the mob, and that voters had not received that protection from the police which they were entitled to expect. He trusted the Secretary of State would be able to give good grounds for the appointment, otherwise he thought there were grave reasons why it ought to be cancelled.

stated that he was wholly ignorant of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart); but, assuming the case to be as he had stated it, it merely exemplified the operation of the existing law, according to which any person not a member of the Established Church would not be eligible for a Trinity fellowship. The House had recently legislated on the subject of the University of Cambridge, and a Commission had sat by which important changes had been made in the constitution both of the Colleges and of the University, and it was quite open to any hon. Gentleman who considered the present state of the law inexpedient to bring forward a Motion for its Amendment; but he must say that he did not think anything was gained by merely calling attention to a case which illustrated the existing law. With regard to the case of Mr. Baker, he regretted that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had made so many apologies for introducing the subject, for had he put the question directly, without approaching it with such circuity, he would have found him ready to return a direct answer, and to state all be knew of the case. The hon. Gentleman had said that in making the appointment he was influenced by favouritism—

denied that he had imputed any such motive to the right hon. Gentleman personally.

Well, then, some person not named had been influenced by favouritism. But, as far as he himself was concerned he was totally unconnected with Mr. Baker he had never heard his name till re commended to him for the office, and he was not quite sure that he had even seen him. About a year ago or less one of the twelve milling inspector ships fell vacant, and a memorial was forwarded to him, signed by Mr. Foster, Member for South Staffordshire, Mr. Hartley, the Mayor of Wolverhampton, and several other gentlemen owning iron-works, collieries, gas-works, and other large concerns, in which Mr. Baker was recommended for his ability and practical experience as a suitable person to fill the vacancy; and testimony was borne to the fact that he had for twenty years been engaged in opera- tions of a similar character, and was fully qualified for the position. The application was supported by Lord Hatherton, the Lord Lieutenant of the county; and, his knowledge of the gentleman being confined to these representations, he appointed him to be one of the inspectors of mines. The office was not one for which any examination was required; it was not one of those included in the terms of the Order in Council; but after Mr. Baker was appointed he thought that, as he had no personal knowledge of him, it would be desirable that he should undergo an examination. Accordingly the Civil Service Commissioners, on his communicating with them, requested Mr. Smyth, the Professor of mining and mineralogy in Government schools, to examine Mr. Baker, which he accordingly did, and made an unfavourable report, stating that Mr. Baker had no sufficient scientific knowledge of his employment. He subsequently ascertained that Mr. Baker was a person who rose from a rather humble station in life, and had not received any very perfect scientific or literary education; but for a great part of his life had been employed in mines, and possessed a good practical knowledge of his duties. But, remembering that neither the conditions of the office nor any previous statement made to Mr. Baker required that he should undergo an examination; and remembering, also, that he had been most highly recommended, he did not think he was justified in refusing to allow him to enter on the office, and to prove, if he could, by experience that he was fit to discharge its duties. Since July or August last he had been performing those duties, and he had not received any complaint with regard to him; on the contrary, his information, some of which was embodied in letters from persons of eminence, led him to believe that he had given satisfaction to the persons in whose district he was situated. In the event of any future vacancy in the mining inspectorships taking place during his term of office, he would take care that arrangements were made for securing a due test of the scientific attainments of the candidates; and, to show that he was not unfavourable to the principle of competitive examination, he might mention that he had in two instances required clerkships in the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be filled up by candidates who had undergone that preliminary test of their ability.

said, that he wished to recall the attention of the House to the observations that had already been made on the subject, the appointment of inspectors of mines and to express his conviction that it was exceedingly difficult for any Government to appoint a competent Board of Examiners—persons qualified to ascertain by competitive examination whether the inspectors proposed were able to perform the duties of the office efficiently. The difficulty consisted in this, that all the scientific knowledge in the world would never enable a man, unless he had practical knowledge, to form a correct judgment upon the state of a colliery or of the qualifications of an inspector of such works. So slight were the indications of danger from several causes, especially from the presence of gases and the condition of the atmosphere underground that, although a man might be able to conduct a most elaborate inquiry into the chemical components of earth, air, and water, he might be perfectly unable to form and act promptly on an opinion as to the presence of and the means necessary to avert danger in a colliery unless he had practical experience of such works; and he would be equally incompetent to judge whether due precautions had been taken and applied with promptitude when requisite. He trusted, therefore, that great care and attention would be bestowed upon the mode in which these appointments were provided for, and that no person would ever be appointed without its being ascertained that that person possessed a sufficient practical knowledge of the subject with which he had to deal.

said, that the objection of his hon. Friend (Mr. Steuart) to Mr. Jopp's appointment rested on two grounds—first, that there were other candidates better qualified; secondly, that there had been riots at the Aberdeenshire election. He did not think that either of these objections were tenable. The distributor of stamps was a collector of revenue. He required to be a person of respectability, and had to find security to a large amount. The office held by him was not one, so far as he (the Lord Advocate) was aware, which it was usual to fill by promotion, nor was it one to which the competitive examination system applied. His hon. Friend could not deny the respectability or position of Mr. Jopp, or his qualification for the office, and the appointment was clearly within the discretion of the Go- vernment. What complaint had his hon. Friend to make against him? On a former evening his hon. Friend asked him whether he had received any information in reference to the riots at the Aberdeenshire election, and whether any steps had been taken in consequence of those riots? He (Mr. Steuart) not only omitted to give him notice of that Question, but refused to do so. He told him that he had a question to ask him, but when he (the Lord Advocate) asked him what it was he would not tell him.

said, he must beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What he stated on the occasion referred to was, that he would not state exactly the information which he had received.

said, that if his hon. Friend had been a little more explicit, he might have telegraphed for information on the subject. He had, however, inquired since, and he found, with regret, that there had been riots of rather a serious description in Aberdeenshire,—one at Huntly, a place forty miles from Aberdeen, and one at Inverary, where one of the voters died. He believed, however, that the death in this case was caused by diptheria, and not directly by the riots. If his hon. Friend had given him earlier intimation of his question, he might have obtained more information, but he could assure him that as soon as intelligence of the riots reached the authorities, and before the hon. Gentleman made an inquiry on the subject, active measures were taken to prosecute the rioters, five of whom had already been committed. To connect Mr. Jopp with riots that took place at a distance of forty and sixteen miles from Aberdeen would require some stronger grounds than any put forward by his hon. Friend.

said, he had received a more distinct account of the not at Inverary than the Lord Advocate seemed to have obtained, and it was the opinion of everybody in the neighbourhood that the man died from the injuries he had received. The deceased was an an elder of the Church in the district to which he (Sir James Elphinstone) belonged; he was highly respected, and his death would be a great loss to the neighbourhood. He was seized upon by a brutal mob, and so much injured as to become ill immediately afterwards; and, though the immediate cause of death was said to be the contraction of the glands of the throat, yet one of the medical men who attended him, a person of great eminence, was ready to take his oath that the man died of the ill-treatment he had received.

held in his band an Aberdeen newspaper, which flatly contradicted the statement made in Aberdeen and repeated by the learned Lord Advocate, that the death of this person was caused by diptheria. Dr. Davidson, one of the first medical practitioners in Aberdeen, had addressed the following letter to the editor of the Aberdeen Journal:—

who attended the deceased, also addressed the same journal in these words:—

said, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that a document, headed, "The immediate payment required," calling for payment of Property and Income Taxes due at Christmas last, and suggesting the dis- charge in advance of taxes due on the 20th of March next, has been issued in certain districts in London, and by whose authority such a document has been circulated. A few days ago a very singular document with that heading was sent to him and to many other hon. Gentlemen. The body of the paper informed him that the collector had positively, under severe censure, been called upon by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to collect all the Income and Property Taxes due up to Christmas last, and requested the person to whom the circular was addressed to send the amount to the collector's office on or before the 8th of March, or to be prepared to pay it when the collector called on a certain date after that day, as it would be impossible for him, in the time allowed, to make a second personal demand. It then expressed his readiness to receive in advance payment of the quarter due on the 20th March. He was somewhat surprised that the offer of a liberal discount did not follow this last suggestion. He had no complaint whatever to make of the manner in which the demand had been made. The tax collector of the district was a most respectable man, had been in his present position for thirty years, and asked for what he wanted so blandly that if tax paying could possibly be made an agreeable operation the collector was likely to succeed. When he (Sir Minto Farquhar) asked him whether this circular was his own idea he replied in the negative, adding that he had put it forward upon the instructions of the Local Commissioners in Red Lion Square. It appeared, then, that this year, instead of having to pay the Income Tax due on the 20th of December in the following April, they were asked to pay it immediately, and that a suggestion was given to them to pay in advance the Income and Assessed Taxes which would become due in March. Last Session his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the taxed public paid their taxes without murmur. He doubted that they would continue to do so if the circular were acted on. The remarks being made were to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be very "hard up," and that the exigencies of the State must be great indeed, when people were asked to pay their taxes out of the ordinary course and in advance, in order that they might be brought into account before the 31st of March.

said, he was very much obliged to his hon. Friend for having mentioned the matter to the House, and for having mentioned it to him personally on the previous evening, for although he was not able to give him a full explanation of the matter, for reasons which he would tell him presently, he could tell him with precision for how much of the document the Government, and he might say, the Legislature, was responsible. In the first place, he might say that of the document as a document they knew nothing whatever. His hon. Friend was aware that under the system at present prevailing in the country the direct taxes, with a certain number of exceptional cases, to which it was not necessary to refer in detail, were assessed and levied, not under the authority of the Queen's Government, but under local and independent authorities. It was, no doubt, under the instructions, the immediate instructions, of those independent authorities that this circular had been issued. His hon. Friend, he thought very judiciously requested from one collector an explanation of the circular; and the collector, he thought with perfect propriety, said he had received it from the Secretary of the Local Commissioners in Red Lion Square. If his hon. Friend wanted accurate information, it would be necessary for the Government to do that which they had not yet been able to do—namely, ascer-certain the instructions issued by the secretary at Red Lion Square, who was a local, and not a Queen's officer. The substance of his hon. Friend's complaint was that a demand had been made on him for a quarter's income tax due on the 20th of December, instead of the collector waiting for the half-year's collection, which would be made in and from April next. The hon. Baronet was aware that so far that was a proceeding taken under instructions from the Revenue Department, those instructions being strictly in conformity with a law passed last Session. It must be in his recollection that a statement was last year made to the House as to the amount of money which it was requisite to raise by means of the income tax, and that in order to secure that amount within the proper time the method by which it was to be raised was also suggested. His hon. Friend stated with great frankness and simplicity, and in a manner that must command the sympathy of every man in that House, that it was not agreeable to be called on for payment of a quarter's income tax three months earlier than usual. The alternative was not, however, whether the tax should be collected a quarter earlier or a quarter later. What was wanted was a sum equal to 7½d. in the pound income tax. The 7½d. might have been collected in one half-yearly payment or in three quarterly payments, but the mode of three quarterly payments was the one adopted; and, though it was not agreeable to pay in January instead of in April, yet it was certainly more agreeable to pay in January than in the previous August. As to the courteous invitation of the collector to whom the hon. Member referred to pay the fourth quarter in advance, he begged to disclaim all responsibility for that act. He knew nothing whatever of the matter; neither was anything known of it at Somerset House. The collection of the Queen's taxes in advance would be contrary to the order of proceedings, and to the spirit of the financial arrangements of that House. He regretted that such a suggestion should have been made by any local officer, as it could only tend to confusion. His conjecture was that the collector, in this instance, had adopted a practice which was sometimes pursued for the purpose of saving trouble in regard to the collection of local taxes in London. He had had applications for the payment of poor rate in the same way, the collector intimating that he was ready to receive what was in reality not due. It was quite possible, therefore, that the collector of the income tax had made his application in perfect good faith; but he would promise that the matter should be inquired into.

said, he desired to put a Question to the Chief Commissioner of Works on the subject of the Royal Commission appointed to examine into plans for Embanking the River Thames within the Metropolis. When he read the announcement in the Gazette of the 26th of February, that the Lord Mayor and Colonel Jebb and others were to be Her Majesty's Commissioners for that purpose, it occurred to him that it was a subject which required some explanation in that House, because he did not think that money should be taken from the pockets of the taxpayers generally and applied to the improvements of the Metropolis. The Commissioners appointed in 1844 re- ported that nothing could be done in embanking the Thames. In 1845, a Select Committee was appointed on the subject of metropolitan communications, and they reported that until a comprehensive metropolitan authority were established to give effect to all improvements little could be done. Now, it was quite clear that the Committee were of opinion that works of this description should be entrusted to a Board of Works, and not to the Government. Moreover, they were of opinion that the costs of public improvements should be defrayed out of a local rate, to be levied upon the metropolitan districts. The House had also received the Report of a Select Committee on the Thames Embankment which showed that certain Commissioners had spent £8,836 in preparing plans and doing other things without arriving at any result, for eminent engineers pronounced their plan to be utterly impracticable. The new Commission would only arrive at the same result. He objected, however, to their appointment, as being at variance with the principle that London ought to be at the expense of its own improvements. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon Gentleman, On what ground he had been induced to sanction the appointment of a Royal Commission, and whether the expenses of the Commission would be defrayed from the Imperial Treasury?

The remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) may encourage the desire of some hon. Gentlemen in this House to resuscitate the ancient country party, and in antagonism with the towns and the Metropolis. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no ground for the objection be has made in this instance. If my hon. Friend means that no Commissions should issue but those that are of universal application to the whole of the country, that is a proposition which is unsupported by past or present custom. For instance, the last Commission had reference to the salmon fisheries of England, and I will ask whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents care more for the interests of those who possess salmon fisheries than for a great improvement and convenience to the Metropolis. Most of the Royal Commissions, although they have reference to matters of public importance, have objects of a limited and local application, such as medical charities, public roads, universities, and harbours. With regard to this Commission, there can be no doubt that it is a matter of very great public importance, although it is partial in its application. Last year a Committee of this House was appointed to consider the embankment of the Thames. They recommended the source from which the funds for its construction should be derived—namely, the continuation of the coal duties; and they recommended that the works should be executed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. But, although the Committee investigated all the plans submitted to them for making an admirable embankment, they expressed no opinion as to which was the best, and they naturally felt themselves unfitted for the very difficult and delicate task of deciding upon the plans in detail. Now, it seems to me that a body of scientific engineers and of other well qualified persons to examine into the best plan of embankment is just what is required to complete the labours of the Committee of last year. This Commission is not to be expensive, because these gentlemen, highly competent as they are, have given their services gratuitously. The expenses of the Commission will, therefore, be confined to the ordinary expenditure of a secretary and the necessary stationery. There are special reasons why a Commission should be appointed in the present case, because the property required for the embankment is to a great extent Crown property. The foreshore is the property of the Crown, and about one-third of the frontage of the proposed embankment also belongs to the Crown. Before, therefore, the Crown can be asked to accede to the proposed embankment it is not unreasonable that means should be taken to ascertain that the plan proposed is the best that can be adopted. I do not think it follows as a matter of course that, because previous Commissions have failed, the present should not succeed. On the contrary, I have observed that one inquiry frequently prepares the way for the success of a future one. So the last Commission led to an improvement upon the plans of Mr. Walker, Mr. Page, and others, proposed in former years. The evil to be dealt with has been experienced by every Member of this House who has had occasion to pass from Charing Cross to the City and has found the great thoroughfares so blocked up that it is quicker to go on foot than in a carriage. If, therefore, Borne plan can be suggested whereby a spacious thoroughfare can be supplied; if we can obtain a great im- provement of the navigation, and if we can place the low level sewer so as not to cause obstruction to the traffic of Fleet Street, these are matters of sufficient importance and public interest to justify the slight expense of this Commission. I agree with the recommendation of the Committee that the execution should be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that the payment of the works should be made out of some local funds. It will be necessary, of course, for this House to intervene for the execution of any plan. The Government must intervene, because Crown property is taken; and where that is the case the matter is always more or less brought under the responsibility of the Government. The Commissioners will, I have no doubt, select a good plan; and we shall then, I trust, find no difficulty in carrying out this great public improvement.

said, bethought the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bentinck) deserved the thanks of the House for bringing the subject under notice. He did not approve of the manner in which it had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper). The arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman were, he thought, quite indefensible. One reason which the right hon. Gentleman had given for appointing the Commission was the fact that the property in the foreshore belonged to the Crown; but he seemed to have forgotten that, two years ago, an Act of Parliament took the foreshore out of the Crown and placed it under the charge of the Conservancy of the River Thames. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Crown had property on the banks of the river, but that was leased to parties, in many cases, for long periods. The Crown was, therefore, only in the position of an ordinary landowner, and ought to have left the question to the local administration. It appeared, however, that the right hon. Gentleman, for the gratification of the office of the Board of Works, was anxious to wrest from the local administration that authority which Parliament had taken from the Board of Works because it had shown itself unable to discharge it. The Committee of last year had recommended that this question should be left to the local administration. [Mr. COWPER: No; only the construction.] The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the Metropolitan Board of Works were only to be the board of masons to carry out his ideas. It was, however, of the essence of local administration that it should have the initiation of such projects, and that they should not be driven against their will into the adoption of any fanciful project. The adoption of what was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be the reversal of the whole policy towards which the House has been tending with great advantage for some years past, and a return to the wretched system which prevailed some years ago. And could anything be more mischievous than to refer an important subject of the kind to a mere dilettante Commission, who were not to be paid, and who, therefore, would have no responsibility? A Report would be issued by them, and then thousands of pounds would be paid to engineers and scientific men for their opinions upon how it should be carried out, and then it would end, as such matters always did end, by it being declared that the plan sanctioned by the Commission was utterly worthless and impracticable. It should be remembered, too, that the Thames embankment was but one of many works involving in the whole an amount of something like £15,0O0,0UO; and the inhabitants of the Metropolis who had to pay the money, had a right to have the question determined which was the most important. According to the Report of the Committee which investigated the whole subject, the Thames embankment was not the most important. Everybody was aware how much the thoroughfares into the City were obstructed, and that their improvement was the first necessity, while the Thames embankment concerned only some gentlemen living in Westminster, and a very small portion of the ratepayers. If this Commission were to act he hoped that not only the cost of the Commission, but of the whole embankment, would be paid out of the public revenue.

said, he wished to know, Whether the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was prepared to lay on the table further papers in reference to the affairs of Syria? The question was discussed at some length on the previous night, but it was obvious that no satisfactory discussion of that great and most important question could really take place until some official and authentic information was laid before the House. The last official information on the subject came down to the end of July, and that conveyed the frightful in- telligence of the massacres in Syria, and of the means by which those massacres were carried on, and showed the large part the Turkish authorities took in promoting them. One of the last documents was a letter from Sir Henry Bulwer stating that the responsibility of the Ottoman Porte was greatly enhanced from the fact that he had not allowed a single week to elapse for a whole year in which he had not brought the matter under the attention of Fuad Pasha and other principal persons connected with the Turkish Government. No more official information had been afforded, but all sorts of hints were thrown out with the view to deprive the sufferers of sympathy, and to excite sympathy on behalf of the perpetrators of the massacres. He did not wish to give any opinion on the point whether the French troops should evacuate Syria, or whether there should be a joint occupation; but he contended that it was essential to have a full discussion of the subject, and it would be an eternal disgrace to leave the poor Christians in the Lebanon to a Power unable to protect them, for another frightful massacre might thereupon happen. All the private information he had received on the subject led him to believe that the removal of all Christian protection or force in Syria would be followed by a renewal of the massacres. He wished also to ask whether the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would object to lay on the table the Reports made to Sir Henry Bulwer, the British Ambassador at Constantinople, during the last autumn, by the British consular agents in Turkey as to the state of the Christians in that country?

said, that he would at once though briefly reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman. The last paper relative to Syria laid on the table was the convention entered into by the Powers with the Ottoman Porte, which was presented to the House at the commencement of the present Session. With regard to the negotiations, he should be ready to lay the papers on the table; but he could not. consistently with a due regard to the public service, do so at present. Negotiations and discussions were going on—some at Beyrout, some at Constantinople, and some at Paris, and it was impossible, in the midst of these negotiations, to lay the papers on the table without injury to the public service. He hoped immediately before Easter or immediately after it to be able to lay on the table all the papers in relation to the affairs of Syria, and those papers would contain the Reports of the consular agents to Sir Henry Bulwer, to which the right hon. Member had alluded. He thought it would be well that he should now answer a Question put to him the other night by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitz-Gerald) with respect to the part taken by the French Government—namely, whether a representation or note was presented by the Russian Ambassador to the Ottoman Porte, and whether that was supported by the French Ambassador. He had no means the other night of answering the latter part of that question, but he now had to say that Earl Cowley had received from M. Thouvenel an intimation that the French Ambassador did not interfere in any way either to support the proposal of the Russian Ambassador or to give any opinion on it. The only opinion the French Ambassador gave was in the form of an expression of a hope that reforms would speedily be introduced, and that thus the necessity of the meeting of the Ambassadors proposed by Her Majesty's Government would be prevented.

said, he wished to add a word to what had been said on the subject of the Thames Embankment. He had been a Member of the Committee of last year, and he did not understand that Committee to recommend that the Metropolitan Board of Works should merely have the raising of the money to pay for the Thames embankment. His own opinion was that if the ratepayers and inhabitants of London were to pay for the embankment of the Thames the sole responsibility of its construction should be left in their hands. His experience of Government interference was not such as to lead him to wish for it on-'the present occasion. The appointment of a Royal Commission had taken him completely unawares, but when he saw how the Commission was constituted he was more astonished still. It was impossible that the Lord Mayor of London, who was named Chairman of the Commission, could give to the subject the attention which it deserved, inasmuch as his duties in the City were sufficient to occupy fully the whole of his time. The next name on the Commission was that of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works himself. There could be no doubt that Mr. Thwaites had enough to do at present, and that he had committed a great mistake in consenting to become a Member of the Commission. It would have been far better if he had remained independent of the Commission, so that when the subject came before his own Board, he might have been able to express an unbiassed opinion. The composition of the Commission generally was such that he doubted whether its Report would carry much weight with it, or prevent the whole subject from being reopened.

said, he presumed that the Royal Commission was to select some plan for the embankment of the Thames. He agreed with his hon. Friend who spoke last, that neither the Lord Mayor of London, who had been a member of the Metropolitan Board of Works, nor the present chairman of that Board, should have been placed upon that Commission. The Government would have done far better if they had selected some engineers or architects in whom they could have reposed confidence. It was true that there were professional men on the Commission, but they would be overruled to a certain extent by the other Commissioners. He also thought that if the Government were going to exercise their taste in the embankment of the Thames they ought to do what was done by those private individuals who indulged in articles of vertu—pay for them out of their own pockets. The ratepayers, it seemed, were to pay the whole expense, and yet the Government were to select the plan. Now, they might select an extraordinarily expensive one; and, on the other hand, the Metropolitan Board of Works might choose to have some regard for the pockets of their constituents. If the Government did select a handsome plan—and he had great confidence in the taste of the Chief Commissioner of Works—they ought to make some provision for obtaining the necessary funds. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets that the whole matter should be left in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Up to the present moment that Board had effected no one object that had been intrusted to them. The only thing they had done was to open up a little street leading from the corner of King Street, Covent Garden, into Long Acre; but even that street was not completed, because a house had been left standing which projected into the roadway. The Board had received £94,000 to make an improvement in Southward, which, if it had been carried out, would to a certain extent have rendered unnecessary the expenditure of a large sum of money upon the embankment of the Thames; he meant the opening of a street from High Street in the Borough to Stamford Street, making a wide road along the south side of the Thames, and thus relieving the great thoroughfares on the other side of the river. Nothing had been done by the Board beyond pulling down some very valuable property in High Street, where for eighteen months a great chasm had existed, and the householders in the neighbourhood complained that they were saddled with heavier rates in consequence of that property having been destroyed, as it seemed, for no purpose whatever. He was not disposed to intrust the embankment of the Thames to a body which had been so neglectful of its duty.

said, he was glad that the Government had undertaken the great work of the Thames embankment. The great thoroughfares on the north bank of the river were becoming every day more and more encumbered, and he was convinced that unless something were done to relieve the pressure great public inconvenience would arise. He thought the Metropolitan Board of Works could not be intrusted with an operation of such magnitude and importance as the embankment of the Thames.

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the present system of Transportation, its utility, economy, and effect upon colonization, and to report whether any improvements could be effected therein. It was now twenty-five years since the Committee, moved for by the lute Sir William Molesworth, inquired into the subject of Transportation, and since that time the conditions of the question had considerably changed. Between 1788 and 1839 two great penal settlements had been established at the other end of the world, at a cost of no less than £7,980,000; 97,000 convicts in that period having been transported to those colonies. The cost averaged about £82 per convict. The Committee recommended that transportation should be given up, and that penal servitude should be substituted, and in consequence of that recommendation, the latter was to a considerable extent substituted for the former. The system of assigning the convicts to free settlers who were willing to take their labour, was also given up under the colonial administration of the noble Lord the present Foreign Secretary; but, unfortunately, the system substituted in its place—that of penal discipline—had such injurious effects that the colonists had, he thought, principally from that circumstance, refused any longer to receive convicts. In 1852 transportation to Tasmania and New South Wales was abandoned, but convicts continued to be sent to Western Australia, to Bermuda, and Gibraltar. The present position of the question was that they were spending for purposes of penal discipline no less than £640,000 a-year, of which £400,000 was expended upon establishments at home, and £200,000 upon those abroad. In all the three colonies which he had mentioned, there were now-only 3,200 convicts, and last year but 269 persons were transported. In 1853 the law of transportation was modified by the substitution for transportation of personal service at home, and the institution of a system of ticket-of-leave. Hon. Members must remember the outcry which was raised against ticket-of-leave men, to whom were attributed all the crimes which were committed. In consequence of that outcry Committees of both Houses of Parliament were appointed, and sat in the year 1856. The recommendations of the Committee of the House of Lords, which amounted practically to a restoration of the system of transportation, had not been acted upon; but those of the Committee of this House formed the basis of a measure which soon afterwards passed into law. We were now in this position:—Transportation had been entirely abolished as a sentence, but the Secretary of State had it still in his power to transport any person who is sentenced to penal servitude. The cost of maintaining the convicts in penal establishments had enormously increased. In 1844 they spent, under that head, £450,000; every person sentenced costing, in English prisons, £30, and in colonial prisons, £12. In 1850 they spent £600,000; the cost in English prisons for each person was £20, and in the colonies £21. But in 1860 the change was still more marked. They spent £644,000, exclusive of military charges, and the average cost was £31 in English prisons, and £53 in the colonies; many times more than it was in the old times of transportation. But while the expenditure on their establishments had increased, the amount of crime had enormously diminished, that result being especially visible in the higher class of sentences. The same result was visible in Scotland, and in Ireland a most remarkable change was exhibited. As it had thus been made clear that the criminal tendencies of the country, instead of being aggravated by the practical abolition of transportation, had sensibly diminished, and as the average number of persons imprisoned in England and Wales for the last three years had fallen from 25,000 to less than 18,000, he thought the time had fairly arrived when we might inquire whether they had lost by the abolition of transportation, and whether they might not go a step further and abolish its cost, which was now, to a great extent, retained. A most encouraging sign was that convict prisons, although built a few years ago on the assumption that a certain proportion of criminals would always be carried off by transportation, since that had practically ceased had still been found sufficient for the reception of the convicts annually sentenced, and at the present moment room could be found in Ireland for 1,500, and in England for 600 convicts more than there actually were to put into them. In the course of former inquiries nothing had been more clearly-shown than that the transportation system, injudicious as it was in a national point of view, was still more objectionable in its effects on the criminals themselves. There was a freemasonry in crime which communicated itself to every one sent out to a distant colony and kept there for years, and from its trammels, even in the course of along life, individuals were rarely able to free themselves. The seed was sown in the convict-ship, where for months it was practically impossible to carry out the principles laid down for observance in penal settlements. It appeared from communications, showing the strong opinions held on this point by the late superintendent of convicts in Western Australia, and by a chief official in one of the larger prisons at home; that in a convict-ship it was impossible to guard against the immorality and wickedness which abounded, and spread through the whole company. On economical grounds the present system required recon- sideration. On that ground, at least, the transportation of convicts to Bermuda ought to be given up. The annual cost of every convict there was £44, the proportion of sick was very large, and there was no proper supervision of the convict work, the amount of which was utterly incommensurate both with their number and the object for which they were sent thither. Last year the attention of the House was drawn to the expenditure on public works at Gibraltar. One work there was nominally constructed by convicts, but lured labour to the amount of £11,400 had been employed upon it. The inquiry of the Committee might also be fitly directed to the colony of Western Australia. He doubted, with Lord Bacon, whether they had a right to form colonies by the deportation of criminals; he doubted also whether any colony could be satisfactorily supported by convict labour. But the question was, whether the system had succeeded in Western Australia. It had been found that as convicts were sent into the colony the free settlers left it; and it was not so much the labour of the convicts that the colony of Western Australia wanted to obtain as the large Government expenditure—something like £100,000 a year—the convict system brought with it. It had been shown by official reports that this expenditure was really the object for which the colony was still willing to receive convicts; and the convicts they most wanted were long-sentence men, of good character. The colony of Western Australia contained from 14,000 to 16,000 inhabitants, while the other Australian Colonies contained no less than 1,250,000, and the latter colonies had all unanimously protested and declared themselves against the transportation system. They complained of its continuance to Western Australia, because the very theory of the system required the Government to issue conditional pardons to the convicts. These pardons were conditional on the holders never returning to England, but they could pass with them into the neighbouring colonies. Unless such conditional pardons were issued the whole system of transportation would break down. But they were a great evil to the other colonies, which had been driven by the necessity of self-preservation to pass laws that certainly conflicted with the law of England, and could only be justified by that necessity. The Colonies of Victoria, South Australia, and even the more distant colony of the Cape of Good Hope, had passed laws forbidding convicts, under conditional pardons, to settle in them. Victoria had felt the evils of the system the most severely. In one year three-fourths of all the crime in Victoria was committed by the conditionally-pardoned convicts who had arrived from the neighbouring colonies. The time had come for the whole system to be narrowly investigated, and the Committee might be congratulated if, by its inquiry, it solved a difficult problem, and perhaps enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to strike £200,000 off the Budget. The hon. Member concluded by moving the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the system of transportation.

In introducing this Motion, to which I offer no objection, I cannot say the hon. Gentleman prefaced it by any exaggerated statements or descriptions of imaginary evils. He admitted that, on the whole, the present system works well, and that great opportunities of reforming are given to convicts in the United Kingdom. All the hon. Gentleman's censure was bestowed on the convict establishments abroad. He has stated that, if the inquiry of the Committee he moves for should end in suggesting any important improvement, that improvement will be confined principally to the expenditure on our penal settlements. I am prepared to subscribe to that view. I believe, considering the great difficulties with which all systems of secondary punishment on an extensive scale are surrounded, that the present system is, on the whole, as little unsatisfactory as the nature of things admits. Some fears have been expressed of the dangers that would arise from the abolition of transportation on a large scale to the Colonies. But those fears have not been realized. I do not think it has been proved that any large number of crimes have been committed by persons who have received conditional pardons. I will only say now that, under the present system, transportation is divided into two parts. One species of transportation differs little from domestic imprisonment in the United Kingdom, for, as respects convicts, Bermuda and Gibraltar may be regarded as foreign prisons. Upon the subject of Bermuda I will not enlarge, after the explanation of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies a few nights since. It is not in a satisfactory state, but it has been maintained in the idea that it was important for the Admiralty and War Departments that cer- tain public works should be carried out, while it is impossible to execute them by any other than convict labour. As to Western Australia, I will only say I am quite prepared to see a Committee pursuing an inquiry into that subject. I admit that the expense of convicts in Western Australia is large, and that is, as far as I know, the principal objection to the present system. No great evil arises, I believe, to the colony, to the persons transported, or to the neighbouring colonies. I am sanguine that the inquiries of the Committee will be of great use, and therefore I am prepared to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

said, he took a great interest in the question of transportation, and had given it much attention. He thought the subject was one into which an inquiry by a Committee was most desirable, as likely to lead to some good results. But he was of opinion that that inquiry ought not to be entered into with a foregone conclusion against the continuance of transportation in any shape. He, for one, considered it the best secondary punishment yet discovered. He admitted there were evils connected with it, but at the same time he believed there was no system of secondary punishment against which objections of a similar character might not be brought. He regretted that the hon. Member had mixed up the whole question of transportation with that of secondary punishment at home and in the colonies, because, in fact, the establishments at Bermuda and Gibraltar were but prisons removed to the colonies. The hon. Gentleman had expressed doubts whether a colony could be well founded by a system of transportation. He (Mr. Hope) thought that the example of New South Wales might have convinced the hon. Gentleman of the erroneousness of that impression. Even before the discovery of gold in Australia that colony had made greater progress than any other colony within the same period. Although he (Mr. Hope) considered transportation to be the best secondary punishment he did not think that they were justified in imposing it upon a colony that was dissatisfied with it, but there was a great difference between Western Australia and Tasmania and New South Wales, because in the former colony there was a demand for that labour which was rejected by the other colonies. It was, of course, a question deserving of inquiry whether the present system was calculated to inflict evils upon a colony. He looked with curiosity to the working of the system of transportation to Western Australia. The great object aimed at in the carrying out of the system was the prevention of further crime and the creation of a desire for improvement amongst those who had been convicted. He found in the blue book before him two annual Reports on the convict system in Western Australia, for the years 1858–59 and 1859–60. These Reports stated a number of facts which went to prove the complete success of the system, and that the most beneficial results attended it, both as regarded the improved habits of the convicts and the advantages conferred by it on the colony generally. In fact, as far as Western Australia was concerned, Returns showed that transportation was a success. After their sentences had expired convicts remained in the colony, and were able to earn an honest living, and while still under sentence escapes were exceedingly rare. Out of 5,577 convicts only twenty-seven had escaped. As compared with transportation carried out in this way the home system of penal servitude and tickets of leave was a failure. In the first case the convict, when his sentence expired, commenced a career in a new society with a new world before him, where his antecedents were not known. In the second, when he was discharged from prison he was surrounded by his old associates, and old habits and old connections made it almost impossible for him to reform. When they compared that state of things with the amount of crime existing in Manchester and other large cities, the superiority of the system of transportation to Western Australia was striking and conclusive. It was impossible but to admit that it was infinitely better to remove the convicts to a place where their antecedents were unknown than to leave them in the country of their crimes, surrounded by their old associates, and exposed to every temptation of falling back into their old habits. He hoped, therefore, that the Government in granting the Committee would take care that the question was thoroughly considered, and that the best evidence on all sides would be produced before it. With that qualification he willingly acquiesced in the appointment of the Committee.

said, that the convicts in the Irish prisons got very little more than one-half the quantity of food that was served out to the English convicts. They moreover very seldom tasted animal food, whereas the inmates of the English prisons frequently had roast and boiled meat, and other indulgences, their maintenance costing the public fully one-third more than the Irish convicts. The Irish system worked decidedly better than the English one, the Irish convicts being better conducted, and the number of recommittals much fewer among them than among the English. The disgraceful occurrences in the Chatham and other English prisons were traceable to the misgovernment of these establishments. The prisoners were first fed up to insubordination and then punished for it afterwards.

said, that with reference to the progress of Western Australia in consequence of transportation, the blue book showed that the reason why the system was viewed favourably there was because of the benefit derived from the expenditure on convict establishments.

, said, he rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He felt that the debate on the previous night upon the Resolutions of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth had in a great measure forestalled the discussion that would otherwise have taken place that evening. It would therefore be unpardonable in him to occupy at any length the attention of the House. The Resolutions moved by his hon. and gallant Friend certainly occupied considerable time in their discussion, but led to no result. He should be as well pleased if the Motion he had the honour to submit were accompanied by less discussion and led to more practical results. In bringing forward the Motion he could not but advert to the conduct of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), and, as he thought, his great want of courtesy towards himself. It would be in the recollection of the House that towards the close of the last Session he had the honour to submit to the consideration of the House a Motion similar to the present. His hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty opposed that Motion on the ground that three or four different Committees either had been, or were then, sitting with reference to naval affairs; that the officers of the department had been much occupied before those Committees; and that at that period of the Session no practical result could be obtained. He bowed to the force of those arguments, and asked permission to withdraw his Motion, with the announcement that he should renew it at an early period of the ensuing Session. But the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich on that occasion opposed the Motion, and, he was afraid, even at the cost of his dinner, remained to vote against it had it gone to a division. In that debate the right hon. Baronet made use of these words:—

"I should be sorry to see such a question handed over to a Select Committee of this House, the great majority of whose members would probably be wholly inexperienced in the details of this important department."

That was exactly the position of the right hon. Baronet when he became First Lord of the Admiralty; and, instead of calling to his assistance the same number of naval officers his predecessors had done, there were considerably fewer naval officers at his Board than under recent Administrations. The Board consisted of four Lords and three secretaries, including the private secretary, whom he considered a very important personage, which, with the First Lord and the Civil Lord, made nine in all. The Duke of Northumberland had eight naval officers, and the Duke of Somerset six naval officers, but the right hon. Baronet had only four naval officers; he therefore appeared to coincide in the opinion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) that naval officers were not the proper parties to manage the affairs of the navy.

explained that all he had said was that naval officers were not always the ablest administrators in these matters.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman had said that any clerk at £100 would do the business of the dockyards as well as the Admiral Superintendents. [MR. LINDSAY: No, No!] He could assure the hon. Gentleman that naval officers did not entertain any such disparaging opinions of the owners of the merchant shipping of the country. After the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich had used the words which he (Admiral Duncombe) had quoted to the House, he could not hare supposed that within ten days after the opening of the Session, he would give notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee. He wished to tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he was concerned to know the fact, that for the first ten days of the Session he was prevented from coming down to the House by an indisposition such as he hoped he (Sir John Pakington) might never suffer from. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice of the Motion for the Committee in nearly similar words to those of his (Admiral Duncombe's) notice, without having troubled himself to inquire whether he intended to bring his Motion forward again; although it might be in the recollection of the House that he had stated he would bring it forward this Session, unless he should see some reason for altering his opinion. Having disposed of that part of the subject, he might next say that in renewing the Motion he did not intend to cast any blame on the present Board of Admiralty. He believed they had been diligent and earnest, and that they had done the best they could with the cumbrous machinery which they had to work; but he was of opinion that the existing state of things in the naval department of the public service was not in unison with the wants of the country. His desire was to see whether a competent Committee could not devise some scheme to alter or modify what was now the system of conducting the naval affairs of this nation. When he had the honour of submitting the Motion last Session, he stated his opinion that it would be an improvement if the naval affairs of the country were placed under a Minister of Marine, with a Board or Council constituted in a manner different from that in which the Board of Admiralty was constituted at present. He presumed that the Minister of Marine would be a Cabinet Minister, and, therefore, a political individual; and he thought that if three experienced naval officers were to form his council a very good department might be constituted. They might be placed at the head of the various departments, and receive a certain measure of power and responsibility. In various pamphlets published since last Session similar views were expressed, and the Resolutions of his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) tended in very much the same direction. Indeed, every one who had bestowed attention on the subject seemed to think that a Minister of Marine, with a Council, would be an improvement on the present system. There could be little doubt that the subject of our naval administration was uppermost in the public mind. They were told that there was great dissatisfaction—almost disaffection, on the part of many of the officers of the naval service, and that the crews were in a state of insubordination. They were also informed that there was great difficulty in maintaining any discipline on board ship. He for one should heartily rejoice if the prediction uttered by the hon. Member for Bedford on the previous night should be verified, and if, when the black sheep were got rid of there should be an improvement in the discipline; but there could be no doubt that there was widespread dissatisfaction on board our ships. What the causes were it was not for him to say. Probably no man living knew what they were, but he thought that every endeavour should be made to satisfy the officers and crews of one of the finest services in the country. Of course it would be necessary to take into consideration the whole subject of manning the navy. That was one of the difficulties, for hitherto the reserve had been almost a failure. It behaved those who had the management of the navy to devise a scheme which would induce seamen to enter the service, and to make them more satisfied with it when they had entered it. He should say that, in the discussion of the previous night, his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) was rather hard on his gallant Friend Sir Baldwin Walker.

informed the hon. and gallant Admiral that he was out of order in referring to what was stated in the debate of the previous night.

said, he thought that, whatever might be said as to the appointment of Sir Baldwin Walker in the first instance, it was rather hard to have condemned him after fifteen years of faithful service to the country, and when he was about to take his departure on a command to which he was so well entitled. He should now refer to another point. They very often heard statements in which persons decried everything English, and applauded everthing French. There was no necessity for Englishmen doing that, for the French knew sufficiently how to applaud themselves. If hon. Members would read a pamphlet lately published by a French officer they would find therein statements to show that we were always wrong, and the French always right. With reference to the appointment of the Committee, which he was told by his noble Friend opposite (Lord C. Paget) was not to be opposed by the Government, his wish would have been that no ex-Lord of the Admiralty should be on that Committee. He was aware of the great ability and of the administrative powers of the right hon. Gentlemen who had been at the head of the Admiralty, but it would have given him more satisfaction if the results of their official experience were to be elicited by way of evidence before the Committee rather than in the capacity of members of the Committee itself. However on that point it was for the House to decide. Those were his opinions. They might be worth little or nothing, but his desire in moving for this Committee was that, however it might be constituted, whoever might be on it, the most searching, most fearless, and most impartial inquiry might take place in reference to the whole of the affairs of the naval administration of this country. He desired not to impeach anything or any one; hut he would ask the Government and the House to let everything be brought to light. If it should turn out that no improvement could be effected, it would be a satisfaction to the country to know that inquiry had taken place with a view to improvement; and if, on the contrary, and as he believed, beneficial changes could be effected, then they would have ample reason to congratulate themselves on the step which he asked them to take. He believed that if the modifications and alterations which he had sketched out were effected, it would be found that greater energy and efficiency would be the result; and that if, unfortunately, the day should ever arise when the naval service were called on to protect our shores, it would not be found wanting. He begged to move for a "Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the various duties devolving thereon; also as to the general effect of such a system on the navy."

said, he understood that no opposition would be offered to the appointment of a Committee according to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. In fact any hindrance or obstacle was unlikely, seeing that the discontent which had long smouldered within the heart of the navy had at length communicated itself to the country, whose voice sounds too clearly through the public press to be resisted. The demand is for a more responsible execution of the duties of the Board of Admiralty. It is equally clear that this object will never be attained other than by the act of the Executive. A Royal Commission, or by a Committee, as proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend, which if any real good is to be accomplished, must be constituted of Members such as readily could be found in this House, who will patiently weigh the subject in all its bearings and impartially acquaint themselves with all its intricacies. As his hon. and gallant Friend had with equal ability and clear reasoning laid the whole matter before the House, he felt that no additional words were required to give to it support and force, but the more so as only last evening he was enabled to express his own honest and deliberate convictions, conscious of the fact that truth is great and will conquer.

Sir, I rise on behalf of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, to state that, so far from any objection being offered to the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend, we shall be most happy to give every assistance in our power, in order that the very important subjects which ought to come under the consideration of this Committee shall have every possible elucidation. I need make but very few observations on the present occasion, but I think I am bound, on the part of the Admiralty, to state that, from the time at which we took office, there has been no desire whatever to shrink from any inquiry as to any branch of the Admiralty department. The noble Duke felt—and I felt and feel with him—that now, when we are in a state of profound peace, is a time to look over our military departments, with a view of adopting in them any improvements which may seem consonant with the spirit of the age. We do not, however, think that the Board of Admiralty has been guilty of such improper conduct in the administration of affairs, or has been the cause of any such disasters as should call forth the opprobrium that is too often cast upon it. That there are defects in the Admiralty I do not for a moment deny. It is important, for example, that our system of accounts in regard to expenditure on the materiel of the Navy should be improved, and I must say that the present Board of Admiralty have treated me with great consideration in respect to that matter. As a private Member of this House I felt it my duty to call attention to the expenditure that had been going on for many years in the Dockyard, and immediately on the present Board taking office, I requested my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset to allow an inquiry to take place into the subject. The noble Duke not only allowed that inquiry, but proposed that it should be conducted by gentlemen wholly independent of all branches of the Government. A Commission was appointed. I believe it will be in a condition to report in a few days. We shall then have a report pointing out where defects exist, and, at the same time, giving the department credit whenever their system has been good and wholesome. The Admiralty afterwards, on the Motion of various Gentlemen, consented to the appointment of Committees on different branches of the Admiralty business, including the gunboats, the transport service, the subject of piers and harbours, and so on. My hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Duncombe) last year, in a very moderate tone, exceedingly creditable to himself, as he has also done to-night, addressed the House on what he regarded as the defects in the composition of the Admiralty, and asked for a Committee of Inquiry. I then stated that there were at that time various inquiries going on, which occupied much of my own time and that of my colleagues, and that we thought it a very inconvenient time to appoint the Committee which he asked for. My gallant Friend did not press the point upon the House, and consented to put off the inquiry. At the commencement of the present Session the Duke of Somerset desired that I would put myself in communication with the gallant Officer, and say that Her Majesty's Government would agree to a Committee of Inquiry being appointed by this House whenever he chose to propose it. I communicated with the gallant Officer, through the hon. Member for Norfolk, in order to ascertain when it would be convenient for him to bring forward his Motion for a Committee. Meanwhile I was surprised quite as much as, I dare say, the gallant Admiral was to find that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington)—without the courtesy ordinarily displayed by Members of this House, and especially considering the terms that my right hon. Friend has always done me the honour to maintain towards me—announced to the House his intention to move for a Committee of Inquiry. My astonishment was very great, considering the post he had held at the Admiralty; for, hav- ing held that post, it appeared to me that he was not a proper man to move for, or to be the chairman of, such a Committee. I frankly told him that I should oppose his being the chairman of such a Committee, as I did not think him to be a proper person to occupy that position, just as I should not have thought myself a proper person to fill it. I think that, as we of the Admiralty are to be judged in respect of our public and not of our personal conduct, no one who has been connected with the Board should sit as Chairman of a Committee of Inquiry into our administration. My right hon. Friend withdrew his Motion, and I think that in doing so he acted wisely. I will now refer to the view which the gallant Admiral has taken of the discipline of the navy. He spoke of discontent existing among the officers, and I think I heard also the word disaffection. That there may be dissatisfaction to some extent among some of the officers of the British navy—that there may be many officers who think their pay insufficient for the services they perform—may be quite true. It is not for me to say that the navy any more than the army is a well-paid service. But I must say that the Admiralty have endeavoured, and will continue to endeavour, with the limited means at our disposal, to improve the condition of the officers of the navy. When I bring in the Navy Estimates, which I hope to do on Monday, it will be seen that we are at this moment endeavouring to improve their position. I may state that Her Majesty has graciously been pleased to increase the pay of officers in command of ships. In conclusion, I must be permitted to say on behalf of the colleagues that the present Board of Admiralty has not been behindhand in promoting improvements. I cannot but look with some pride on the passing of an Act last Session for the better discipline of the navy. That Act, though it passed through this House very quickly was the result of long and severe labour on the part of the Admiralty. In framing a new code of instructions for the navy consequent on that Act, there was also very considerable labour; and there is another subject that has occupied much of our attention—I mean Greenwich Hospital. All the world knows that the government of Greenwich Hospital has been extremely defective. My gallant Friend—now no more—(Sir Charles Napier), whose name I cannot mention in this House without expressing regret for his loss, often discussed the subject with myself, and I am bound to say that I always found him to be an honest friend to the seaman, a gallant and a zealous officer. Our first step with regard to Greenwich Hospital was to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. The result of the Report of that Commission has been, I am happy to say, the framing of a Bill which my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset is about to introduce into "another place," by which various improvements will be effected. In future the patronage of the Admiralty will be abolished with regard to the schools at Greenwich, and the whole of the nominations to those schools will be open to all who have claims to admission. I mention these things to show that, with all its defects, the Admiralty has not neglected its duty to the country, and that it has been our constant and earnest endeavour to earn the good opinion of our countrymen. I cannot agree with the gallant Admiral that the Committee to be appointed should not contain any Gentlemen who have been First Lords of the Admiralty. I should be sorry to see such men as the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), and the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) excluded from the Committee. The question is not one of party; but if the honour and safety of England are to depend in some measure on such a Committee as this, would it be wise or prudent to exclude from it men some of whose names have a world-wide reputation as regards our navy? Let me add that, whether I am on this Committee or called to give evidence before it, I can answer both for myself and my Colleagues that we will give every possible assistance in order that the inquiry may reach every detail and branch of the Admiralty.

Although I was not surprised to hear the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Duncombe) in reference to myself, I confess I was not prepared for the charge which my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has made against me of want of courtesy, in not informing him of my intention to give notice of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry. I have heard the imputation with astonishment. Instead of meeting it with anything like an apology, I meet it with a most explicit denial. My noble Friend had no right to make such an imputation. I never before heard of such a thing. I appeal, without fear of contradiction, to the most experienced Members of this House whether they ever heard of any practice by which an independent Member who thinks it his duty to give notice of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the constitution of a great department of the Government; is bound, before he gives that notice, to consult the Minister connected with that department. In my whole experience in Parliament I never heard so extravagant a doctrine. I will tell my noble Friend that lie has treated me with discourtesy in making this attack against me [Laughter], Right hon. Gentlemen indulge in a laugh; but I do not think they will dispute what I have stated, that it is entirely contrary to all custom; and I say that if a noble Lord in a high position makes a charge of want of courtesy against a Member of this House he is bound to do it according to the practice of the House. I am sorry to be obliged to say that I was not surprised at the language of the gallant Admiral. I am sorry to say that my experience of the language and tone in which that gallant Admiral sometimes indulges prevents me from feeling surprise at the observations he has made regarding my conduct. I know that nothing is more distasteful to the House than personal differences between Members, and as I made a public statement in the House of the reasons which led me to give the notice, and of my motive in withdrawing the Motion, I am perfectly content to leave where it now stands the question whether or not I have treated the hon. and gallant Admiral with any discourtesy? I should not have thought it worth while to rise to take notice of what had fallen from the gallant Admiral but for the few observations I desire to make on the Motion itself. The gallant Admiral said this discussion had been very much anticipated by what took place last night. It is hardly necessary for me after what I stated last night to say that, if necessary, I am prepared to give my support to the Motion. I expressed, last night, my opinion that the state of public opinion out of doors with regard to this question renders it most desirable that in some shape or other there should be an inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. I stated last night that I thought the principal object of the inquiry was to devise some system by which the present constitution of the Board—the present administration, I should rather say—may be conducted upon a system which shall give more direct responsibility to the officers who conduct the system than is now the case. The hope of devising a mode of increasing the responsibility is the principal object of that inquiry. But I think there is also another reason for inquiry, and that is the opinion at least that I myself strongly entertain of the unsatisfactory position of the First Lord of the Admiralty under the present system. I speak now in the presence of right hon. Gentlemen who have had longer experience of the Admiralty than I have. How far they may concur with me I do not know; but the result of my own experience is that the position of the First Lord as the President of the Board is not that which ought to be occupied by a Minister of State filling so important a post as the First Lord of the Admiralty fills. I heard with considerable surprise last night a statement which tell from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, who in the course of his speech said that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Carlisle, had stated—

I think the right hon. Member is infringing the rule which forbids reference to former debates.

It is really a matter of necessity that I should explain the reasons why I think the position of the First Lord makes a change desirable. It is supposed by some hon. Members of the House that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when he was before a Committee, stated his opinion that the First Lord of the Admiralty is supreme. I think I heard that expression used. I am exceedingly sorry that indisposition prevents the right hon. Baronet from being present. But when I heard that opinion attributed to him, I remembered that I myself heard the evidence to which reference was made—namely, the evidence given before the Sebastopol Committee in 1855, and my recollection of that evidence did not at all support that expression. I have referred to the evidence in the Report of that Committee, and I find the opinions of the right hon. Baronet embraced in two answers, which I am sure the House will permit me to read. The first question is this:—

"Is the First Lord of the Admiralty a co-ordinate part of the Board of Admiralty, or is he, like the Master General of the Ordnance, a superior officer, with power to overrule the decision of the Board?"

This bears on the question whether the First Lord is supreme. The answer of the right hon. Baronet is—

"He has no power whatever to overrule the Board's decision. When he is present at the Board he presides, and the practice is that when documents are read the First Lord presiding gives his opinion as to the answer that is to be given. If all the members are silent, the secretary notes down the answer; any member who dissents from the opinion of the First Lord has an opportunity of stating it. That at least is the mode in which I have always transacted the business."

The other question was—

"Supposing there was a majority of the Board against his opinion, would that majority govern?"

In reply the right hon. Gentleman cited the opinion which Earl Spencer had expressed to him, that practically he had never found a Board interfere with the large discretionary power of the First Lord. In illustration of that, Lord Spencer told the right hon. Gentleman that on one occasion his opinion as a layman came into collision with that of the naval members of the Board on the question whether the decision of the Cabinet that Lord Bridport should strike his flag should be carried out, and that he was obliged to threaten the dissolution of the Board in order to procure the two signatures which were required, in addition to his own, to be attached to the order. Lord Spencer added, that that was the mode in which the First Lord enforced his authority at the Board of Admiralty. It may be said, perhaps, that if that power exists the First Lord is practically supreme, It is quite true, no doubt, that with the concurrence of the Crown, and of his Colleagues in the Cabinet, the First Lord may, in the event of extreme difference of opinion, break up the Board. But I think the exception proves the rule, and that the First Lord is not practically supreme in ordinary circumstances, when he can only assert supremacy by resorting to so extreme a measure. It is true, he is a member of the Cabinet, and that he conveys to the Board the opinion of the Cabinet; but he is in this painful position, that in the event of serious differences of opinion between himself and the other members of the Board, he is obliged to abandon his sense of duty on the one hand, or on the other to overrule the Board, without having in fact, any legitimate means of doing it, except by resorting to some such course as I have mentioned. Last year the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) spoke of the good feeling which had always, prevailed between himself and the naval members of the Board, and the right hon. Member for Carlisle made a similar statement. I have equal pleasure in stating that no First Lord could have acted with greater harmony and good feeling than I did with the naval members of my Board. But, however strong this friendly feeling may be, and I do not doubt in the slightest degree that it still prevails, it is impossible for five or six persons to act together for any length of time without differences of opinion occurring; and it is easy to see the embarrassing and difficult position in which the First Lord may at such times be placed. On these grounds it is, I think, very desirable that the constitution of the Board should be reconsidered, because the theory of a Board so constituted is inconsistent with the theory of Ministerial responsibility on which this House always acts. I retain, however, the opinion I have formerly expressed, that, of the various modes of inquiry, a Parliamentary Committee is the least desirable and the least convenient. I regret that the Government did not determine to conduct such an inquiry themselves, and next to this I should have preferred a Royal Commission. As, however, the Government have preferred a Committee I do not object to it, though I do not think it the best mode of inquiry. There is one point on which I feel great anxiety. It is as to the construction of the Committee. I think it most important, and I am glad to hear that it is not the intention of the Government not to exclude from that Committee gentlemen who have had experience at the Admiralty. The noble and gallant Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) says he told me he should oppose my being Chairman of the Committee if I moved for its appointment. I beg to say that the noble Lord's recollection is entirely at variance with my own. I will, indeed, confidently say that he never made any such statement. If he had, I should have told him that I see nothing in the circumstance of having held the office of First Lord to disqualify me from presiding over such a Committee. And, if I had proceeded with my notice, I should certainly not have been disposed to waive that claim which, by the custom of this House, every Member who moves for a Committee has to occupy the chair of that Committee. I think it would have been a most unwise decision to exclude from the Committee those gentlemen who know something of the subject about which the Committee are going to inquire. I do not say that those who have been at the Board of Admiralty ought to be in a majority. There ought to be various elements upon that Committee, and its members ought to be free from that partiality which need not necessarily attach to those who have had official experience at the Board. I hope that the Government will be careful in constituting the Committee, so that it may be composed of men who will enter upon the inquiry with a sincere desire to conduct it in the most dispassionate manner. I doubt, and always have doubted, whether a Parliamentary Committee is the best tribunal, and I doubt it now more than ever on account of the fashion that prevails to cry down the Board of Admiralty. There seems to be a feeling that a man who wants to write a pamphlet or make a speech cannot do better than attack the Board of Admiralty. An inquiry is desirable, and some changes may be necessary in the constitution of the Board; but I do not think the Committee ought to be led away by this fashion of decrying the Board of Admiralty. There was great force in what was said by one hon. Member, that we must recollect that under the conduct and management of this Board the navy has acquired all its glory and renown. I would also caution the House to bear in mind what has taken place in the War Office. There never was a public department that stood in greater need of improvement. When I had the honour to be Secretary of State for the Colonies, I was nominally War Minister. I said then repeatedly, both in private and in public, that the system might work very well in time of peace, but that if war came it must break down. War did come, and it did break down. During the war the Government found it so impossible to reform the administration of the army; that, notwithstanding the difficulty of making the attempt at such a moment, the Government reconstituted the Department. What has happened since at the War Office shows that it was much easier to find out the defects of an existing system than to devise a remedy; for, although that change has been effected four or five years, the War Department has not yet arrived at a satisfactory state. I trust that the Committee we are about to appoint will proceed to discharge their difficult duties in a spirit of caution and prudence. Public opinion requires that some changes should be made, and I would not have the Committee proceed in too timid or too cautious a manner. I trust they will so proceed as to give the public full confidence that their inquiry will be searching and impartial, and that it will be carried out in a manner beneficial to the public service.

said, he wished to explain that in objecting to the right hon. Gentleman as Chairman of the Committee he meant no personal reflection whatever upon him; considering, however, the place lately occupied by the right hon. Gentleman he thought he ought not to be the person to preside over its deliberations.

So far as I am concerned, as having been at the head of the administration of the navy, I have no reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Admiral has moved for this Committee; and I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Officer, by the Motion he has made, will confer a great benefit on the service. I rise to say, what no one has done before, and that is a good word for the constitution of the Admiralty Board. My own experience is that the Board, as a whole, has worked well together. The First Lord is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the business of the Admiralty. Each member of the Board exercises a general superintendence over a certain number of departments, and is assisted by a permanent officer of considerable experience and high rank. When serious matters arise the different members of the Board communicate with their colleagues and take their decision. No doubt, on such occasions, practically the First Lord has his way. He does not come down among these gentlemen and say, "I will have my way;" but he receives the decisions of the Cabinet and the commands of the Queen, and, practically, when the First Lord thinks it his duty to insist, the junior Lords give way; at least, it was never my fate to be in a minority with my Board. Now, how is this Board formed? I am old enough to recollect the causes and reasons given for constituting the Board in its present state. The Duke of Wellington, soon after the termination of the great war, was at the head of the Ordnance. The Board with which he then acted was considered by him to be the best model for the conduct of public business. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Hardinge stated that before the Finance Committee of 1828. That Committee was composed of some of the most distinguished men of the day, including Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Herries, who had conducted the business of military and naval departments during the war. The Committee concurred in that opinion, and the Admiralty Board was formed directly on that model, and the whole of their constitution, now so unpopular, received the sanction of the Duke of Wellington and the Committee to which I have referred. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose that the Board which now superintends the navy is some old, antiquated machine, which no man of common sense would ever adopt. I do not pretend to say that experience may not suggest improvements, or that we may not be wiser than those who have gone before us. I do not put it as an argument that we should not inquire and improve it if we can; but I mention it as a reason why some caution should be employed before we pull to pieces that which has been set together by some of the best men. The Duke of Wellington was no common man, and if there were one quality for which he was remarkable it was his power of organization. The Board of Admiralty follows the Ordnance Board, and the Ordnance Board was organized by the Duke of Wellington. In the charges brought against the Admiralty I notice in some of the pamphlets which have been published that the Admiralty are made responsible for things which originated with the House of Commons. I may mention two points which are made a great deal of in these pamphlets. In a pamphlet which is supposed to come from very high authority, and to express the views of a considerable number of naval officers, great blame is attached to the Board of Admiralty for the harbours of refuge, and it is said that if the constitution of the Admiralty had been altered we never should have had these harbours of refuge. I do not say whether these harbours of refuge are right or wrong, but it is the Constitution of England you ought to inquire into if you want to alter that. They arose from a Committee of this House. An Address for a Commission was agreed to. A Commission was appointed. The Royal Commission, and not the Admiralty, heard evidence. They did not employ any Admiralty surveyors whatever. They had Mr. Rennie, Mr. Cubitt, and Mr. Walker, and when it was all settled it was handed over to the Board of Admiralty to carry out the wishes of the House of Commons. Another allegation is about the Keyham Dock. Reference is made to the French having constructed large basins and erected works such as we have not erected. But the Admiralty is not to blame for having suspended the great work at Key-ham. The facts are that a Committee of the House of Commons, which I assisted in compelling the Government to appoint, went so far as to say that they doubted if it ought ever to have begun, and that at any rate it ought to go no further. The Admiralty carried out the recommendation of the Committee, and for two or three successive Sessions Keyham was one of the stock Amendments which I had to meet; and I had some difficulty in getting money not to let the old works go to ruin. All this is now saddled on the unfortunate Board of Admiralty who had nothing to do with the matter. Let me not be misunderstood. I am not saying that the Admiralty is perfectly free from making mistakes. I am not contending that the House is not right in exercising full control over the money which it has to vote. I do not say whether the Committee was right or wrong about Keyham. But it was their doing, not that of the Board of Admiralty. There is another reason for saying that sufficient allowance is not made in estimating the conduct of the Admiralty. We hear of every fault which can possibly be found with the Admiralty, and every hole which can be picked is exposed to public view. We heat of all their faults, and a great deal more of things which are not their fault; but is there never anything wrong in private or foreign establishments? If a French naval officer were to write such a pamphlet as this he would, probably, find some difficulty in getting it published; and as to private establishments, I once said to Mr. Rennie, the engineer, "We make blunders at the Admiralty, and are supposed to make more blunders than anybody else; but are you civil engineers always right—do you never make any mistakes?" Mr. Rennie said, "Yes, we make mistakes, and perhaps as many as you do; but we are not fools enough to talk about them." If we could compare the Board of Admiralty with the French Admiralty and private establishments, it would look better than it does at the present moment. Nevertheless, the Government. I think, are quite right in granting this Committee, and in consenting to any alteration which is an improvement. It is said that great evil arises from the con- stant political changes, which necessitate a change of officials. The pamphlet to which I have referred says a First Lord's tenure is not more than a year and a-half. No doubt it would be much more agreeable to us if we could have a longer existence. But I do not see how you are to prevent it, unless you get rid entirely of the responsibility of the Admiralty Minister to Parliament. If you choose to have a permanent officer, uncontrolled by Parliament and not responsible to Parliament, then you ought to make a change in the constitution of the Admiralty; but, at the same time, you change the constitution of the country. I have seen a plan on paper proposed by my hon. Colleague. His remedy is to change from a First Lord to a Secretary of State; but a Secretary of State would go out with every political change, just as the First Lord does now. Then it was said, "We do not rely on the continuance in office of the First Lord or Secretary of State, but the subordinates would be permanent." I have ventured to compare the amount of change under the proposed system and under the old system, and I find in thirty years it would be as 103 changes against 107, or in favour of the present arrangement. If you have nothing but permanent officers, you must of necessity change them after a certain time. You cannot allow them to remain in office without an infusion of new blood, or you could not expect them to follow the changes of the day. One advantage of the present system is that, as there are frequent changes of the Board and of the superintending' Lords, there is no necessity for periodical change in the permanent staff. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that his object is to insure responsibility, and I quite agree that that is an object of the greatest importance. I should have said that at the present moment the First Lord is responsible for the whole conduct of naval affairs; but with respect to responsibility the House must be careful not to be deceived by mere words. I do not think it would be advisable to introduce such a system as would make the Secretary of State the mere nominal head of an office, the whole of the business being transacted by a permanent officer nominally under him, but over whom he has practically no power. The House will recollect that when this Admiralty Board was first formed there existed the Navy Board, which nominally obeyed the orders of the Admiralty Board; but, never- theless, the latter found it very difficult to get its orders carried into execution. The Admiralty was responsible for the dockyards, but had no real control over them. I see symptoms of going back to the same system, and that, I think, is an unfortunate circumstance. With respect to the Navy Board, there was no fault to be found with the persons composing it, but nothing was so unpopular with the navy as that same Navy Board, and when it was done away with there was a general shout of applause from the officers of the navy. I advise the House not to attempt to carry the responsibility which belongs to the Minister to every officer under him, or the business of the office will be entirely disturbed. The real way of enforcing responsibility is to make the naval Minister responsible, for the moment you begin to throw responsibility on subordinates that moment you free the Minister. You must have some regard for the discipline of the office; and if you tell the subordinate clerks that they are held responsible, the head of the department maybe told by them, when he attempts to enforce his orders, that they will protest, and the proper conduct of the business would be interfered with. I will only allude to one other point. It is the fashion to advocate a council, and this is a plan supposed to have the assent of many officers. The First Lord undoubtedly is to have the power to override the Council, but it is proposed in respect to money matters,—that is to say, as respects any increase or any reduction of expense, the First Lord is to have no power, but must obtain the assent of this Council before he adds a shilling or takes off a shilling in the naval expenditure. Suppose the Government think that a reduction may be fairly made in preparing the Navy Estimates, vet, when the First Lord comes to the Council, that body may negative the proposition. The councillors, too, being officers not holding office at will, but for five years, I do not know how the House of Commons would like that, but it appears to me to be a considerable encroachment on the privileges of the House of Commons in respect to the voting of money. I cannot conceive that such a power would ever be conceded by those who value the privilege of voting money by the House of Commons. I will not enter further into the discussion, but I give my ready assent to the Motion.

Sir, a very important subject is new under consideration. I quite agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, and by the right hon. Gentleman who has last spoken, that what is wanted is that which would give the greatest real responsibility, coupled with the greatest efficiency and security for the public service. We have heard for the last year or two complaints of all kinds against this immense public department, and a mass of information has been collected by Commissions and Committees, and has likewise been published in pamphlets. Now, by some curious coincidence, the whole volume of complaint settles down like a blight upon the Admiralty. Everybody says it is the Admiralty that is in fault. We have heard a great many complaints that the men do not get bread enough; that ships are built which ought not to be built, and not at the proper time; about a Surveyor of the Navy who did not know how to build ships; and to-night we have heard what I was very sorry to hear, and what the gallant Officer who made the statement could scarcely have intended, I think,—that there is dissatisfaction among the officers, and insubordination, to say the least of it, among the men—all of which cannot be very satisfactory to a nation which is paying from £12,000,000 to £13,000,000 a year for the Navy. It is impossible to hear these things and not to say that there is something wrong somewhere. But all the people who have made these complaints have stopped short at one point. They have not proved to my mind that it is what is called the system of the Admiralty which is at fault in all these matters. They have alleged it, but not proved it. They have not shown how this or that officer ha3 been impeded by the action of the Board, or how this or that First Lord has been checkmated by some obstinate naval officer who would not see with his eyes. Under these circumstances, I was much struck with what was said by my right hon. Friend below (Sir John Pakington) last year—that it was a case for the Government to look into, and, if any alteration were wanted, to make it; and, certainly, I never was more surprised in my life than, when I came to the House the first time this Session, to hear that my right hon. Friend had given notice of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and that the Government had agreed to such a Committee. All mischief, they say, comes from within; and, when the Admiralty that is and the Admiralty that was say there ought to be an inquiry, independent Members could not but come to the conclusion that some of these things about which the public were so dissatisfied could be traced to the system of the Admiralty. There has been a pamphlet recently circulated and also apparently a sort of pedigree scheme traced out from it, and on reading the two through hastily the objection stated by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth has occurred to me, namely, that, with a great deal of apparent responsibility, there was no responsibility at all about it. Some forty or fifty people were to be responsible to somebody, but the only man who was to be responsible to Parliament was the man at the head of all, and he was to have no control over these people, because they were all to have permanent employment. That would be a queer kind of responsibility to present to Parliament. I have never yet heard anybody say such and such a mistake has been made, and we are not able to find somebody responsible for it. The question of responsibility to Parliament has not yet been fairly tested. Many years ago I recollect the appointment of Captain Symonds to the post of Surveyor of the Navy was called in question; and the First Lord of the Admiralty, being challenged in this House, defended the appointment, and made himself responsible for it. That does not appear to me like a proof of want of responsibility. I do not remember any case where a complaint has been made, and the Admiralty charged with the blame, where a First Lord has attempted to throw off the responsibility, because he had no control, or for any other reason. If there is to be a Committee, it would be a very proper point to inquire into whether any of the matters which have been made subjects of complaint can be traced to any want of power in the Admiralty, to any shortcomings in a particular department, or to one thwarting another. Certainly, many things have come before us which it is not very easy to be satisfied with. My right hon. Friend told us a fact two years ago, which I think rather surprised the House. He said that for the ten preceding years the Admiralty had been ordering ships which had never been produced except on paper; that, instead of three ships of the line and a certain number of frigates per year, only two liners, and frigates in proportion, had been built. Was that the fault of the system, or of the men who worked it during that time? At the end of that time we woke up one fine morning and found that the French had got ahead of us, and it was said that if we had had those other ten ships this never would have happened. There might have been laches, but nobody has yet shown that that was owing to any fault in the constitution of the Admiralty, but it would be a very proper question for the Committee to inquire into. A short time ago a Commission was appointed to inquire into the best means of manning the Navy, and one of the things discoverd by that Commission was that the men did not get bread enough. The moment the Admiralty heard of it they increased the rations of bread 50 per cent. Was it the fault of the Admiralty that they had been short so long? One would have thought that a complaint of that sort must have reached the ears of the Admiralty very quickly. That is a matter which inquiry would set right one way or the other. But then it is said it is the shifting about of men in office that does all the mischief. You have seven or eight different Boards before you can say Jack Robinson. But at the head of the particular department which was concerned in the bread business there was an officer who had been there time out of mind. Admiral Milne was examined before the Commission, and he was asked, "How long have you been a Lord of the Admiralty?" "Many years," was his answer—a very vague term. I suppose his memory did not run to the time when he was not a Lord. He was a permanent officer, and he did not admit that there was any necessity for an increase in the bread; he gave the strongest evidence that the men had quite enough—they must have enough, because they do not draw all they have; they get pay instead of rations. But when the fact came to the knowledge of the Admiralty they increased the rations of bread by 50 per cent. Another curious bit of evidence was given in the same department about the meat. Admiral Milne said they bought the meat, and the contractor warranted it to last twelve months, but by some extraordinary management it was never served out to the men under two years. He told us that the allowance to each man is so much, and that if the meat shrinks down to less than a half the quantity is made up. But if a man who should have, say, one pound of meat for his dinner, finds that he gets only eight ounces and one pennyweight, he is not allowed to complain; nor has he any remedy with respect to the quality of the meat unless it was not sweet, although everybody knows what salt meat must be like when served out after two years. It was not proved, however, that the meat grievance was caused by the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. We were not told whether the captains of ships or the men themselves had brought the matter under the notice of the Board; but we ascertained that the gentleman whose particular duty it was to look after this department of the service was a permanent officer. Again, take the case of construction. I believe there have been only two Surveyors of the Navy for upwards of thirty years. That is not, therefore, a very shifting office, and yet there never has been anything like uniformity of opinion in this House as to the success of our naval construction. I do not know, indeed, whether the subject is one on which we can ever expect two men to agree. I am glad that the Government have consented to the proposed Committee. Provided that information is fairly afforded by the Government I think it is likely that the inquiry will show that there is some want of harmony in the working of the system, and some want of proper control over some of the departments. If the result be to point out to the Government what really is the disease, they will be the parties to apply the remedy. In a matter like this, which so closely concerns the privileges of this House with respect to the control of expenditure, and which so closely touches the prerogatives of the Crown, no party is fit to propose a remedy except the Government of the day. A Committee may be of assistance to them, either in pointing out where the blots, if any, are, or in satisfying the public mind that the want of success does not arise from the constitution of the Admiralty, but from some other cause. The subject is very important; time, I am sure, will not he wanting for the full elucidation of it; but, however that may be, it is clear that there must he an inquiry. Last night the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty invited the opinion of the House on the subject of Sir Baldwin Walker's leaving the country. Considering the great difference of opinion which exists on the point of construction, and as to where the blame ought to fall, I think it is very probable that Sir Baldwin Walker's conduct will be called in question before the Committee. I think, also, that all matters connected with Admiralty action upon the dockyards must necessarily come before the Committee. Under these circumstances it certainly would have been better if Sir Baldwin Walker, instead of being out of the country, could have been present to give such explanations as he might deem necessary. It is not unlikely, moreover, that his former colleagues at the Admiralty may decline to open their minds fully in his absence. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Government have assented to the appointment of this Committee, because, having had full opportunity during the recess of considering the whole matter, they must have come to the conclusion that the public would be benefited by an inquiry.

said, he thought the House had fully adopted the spirit by which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought the question before the House had avowed he was actuated—that of disclaiming party spirit or an intention to cast blame on any particular Board of Admiralty. He wished, however, to advert at the outset of his remarks to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich, with respect to the speech of the hon. and gallant Admiral. It appeared to him that those observations of the right hon. Baronet were unwarrantable, and quite uncalled for. There was nothing in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, nor in anything which had fallen from him, either in that House or elsewhere, during his long professional and public career, which could afford the smallest justification for them. With that observation he would proceed to a subject which, if discussed at all, he thought should be discussed on the present occasion—namely, the constitution of the proposed Committee. The point had been mooted, whether the right hon. Baronet, who had already held the post of First Lord of the Admiralty ought or ought not to be a member of this Committee. Upon that subject he entertained a very-strong opinion. In the observations, however, that he was about to make he begged it to be distinctly understood that he made them with no disrespect to the right hon. Baronet. As to the mere fact of ex-First Lords of the Admiralty being members of that Committee the right hon. Baronet himself had given a most conclusive reason against such a course being adopted. It was necessary, according to the right hon. Baronet, that the Committee should be composed of men who possessed a competent knowledge of the subject. That might be taken for granted; but one of the questions which the Committee would have to investigate was whether the public service was prejudiced by the practice of putting at the head of a great department men who, whatever their ability, were totally unacquainted with the details of the business over which they had to preside. Could it be expected that ex-First Lords would take the same—he would not say impartial—but dispassionate view of that matter that other persons less interested would? and would their presence in the Committee not give to the inquiry a tone and character which would much lessen the value of its results? Again, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had declared that the Admiralty was about to be put upon its trial. If that were so, the proposal to put ex-First Lords upon the Committee amounted simply to this, that these distinguished men were to discharge the duty of both judge and jury in their own case. One of the most important questions to be decided by the Committee was whether civilians should be placed at the Board at all, and was it proper that the very men whose position would be thus impugned should be allowed to decide in their own cause? It was impossible that the Report of such a Committee could carry a conviction of its impartiality with it as far as the public were concerned. The case of Lord Spencer which had already been quoted, was a striking example of the evils of such a course. With such a case before them was it right to place other civilians in a similar position. He strongly objected, therefore, to the appointment of such a Committee, and he hoped the House would join him in thinking that the distinguished individuals in question would be of the utmost service to the Committee as witnesses, but ought not to be permitted to be among the Members of whom it was composed.

said, he wished to express his objection to the system which appeared to be gradually growing up, and by which the direction of great departments was engrossed by Members of the other House. In order to secure inadequate responsibility to the country, the First Lord ought to sit in the House of Commons. In saying that he wished to cast no reflection on the noble Lord who now represented him there—it was the system to which he objected. The head of the War Office had just been translated to the Peers; the Colonial Secretary sat in the other House; and it would be a fitting climax that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should sit there also, and be vicariously represented in the Commons. Such a practice was, he believed, fraught with injury to the public interest.

Sir, I must say that whilst I regret as much as my hon. Friend can do the absence from this House of the heads of both the great departments of expenditure, I am rather surprised to hear him complain of what he most unjustly designates as a system by which the heads of great departments are being transferred to the other House. When the present Government came into office, out of sixteen Cabinet Ministers ten occupied seats here, and out of five Secretaries of State four were in this House. Unfortunately Lord Herbert's state of health rendered necessary his transfer to the other House; but even now I do not think there exists any ground for the complaint of my hon. Friend. With regard to the main question under discussion, I agree that nothing can have been more satisfactory, temperate, and fair, than the whole tone of the discussion upon the main question before us this evening. It has been quite removed from anything like a party, petty, or personal spirit, and if, as I trust, this is an example which will be followed by the Committee, great advantage may be derived from its inquiries. I confess, however, that I do not anticipate that the Committee will find that any great change in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty is necessary. If the Government had thought such a change was clearly necessary, they would have made it themselves; but as they did not entertain that opinion, they proposed no alteration, nor did they suggest the appointment a Committee. Seeing, however, the complaints which are made against the Board—complaints, let me observe, unaccompanied by any attempt to show how these defects are in the slightest degree owing to the constitution of the Board—the Government think it wise to assent to the appointment of a Committee which may possibly detect faults; but, the appointment of which, at all events, will satisfy the country. Much has been said about the frequent shifting of the First Lord. But if he is not to go out along with the Ministry of which he is a member, I think the House must be prepared to alter the constitution of all the great departments of the State to which the same principle applies. Re- member, that though these changes may take place, there exists a permanent civil staff, who perform their duties quite independent of the political heads under whom they serve. For myself, I believe there is an advantage in the change of these heads of departments from time to time. In all permanent bodies there is a tendency to a system of routine, and changes effected now and then, introducing new blood, are, in my opinion, of essential advantage to the public service. On the subject of the responsibility of the First Lord, I am rather surprised at some of the opinions which have been expressed. When I was in office I consulted my naval colleagues on all questions. I was too glad to do so, but I never experienced the slightest difficulty on this account. I was responsible, of course, for the measures which I brought forward. I have had great experience at the Admiralty—having been for five years Secretary to the Board and for three years First Lord—I can say that I have, in neither capacity, seen or experienced the slightest difficulty in carrying through any measure which the First Lord has thought necessary for the public service. For what he does the First Lord of the Admiralty is responsible to the House of Commons and the country, and I do not believe that any change you can make will fix on him a greater degree of responsibility than he-has at present; and I do not think it would be advisable to put more responsibility on those officers who are not in this House to defend themselves, or answer for themselves, if their conduct is questioned. The duty of the House of Commons is to hold those responsible who are the Ministers of the Crown. If those Ministers find that any of the other officers of the department do not work well under them, then it is their duty to devise some remedy for the inconvenience; but the responsibility should not be divided; it should be imposed only on those who were able to answer for themselves in the House. I remember the time when the Poor Law Administration was not represented in this House, and at that time a constant series of vexatious attacks were made on that department. But after it had a representative here most of those attacks ceased. Whatever change may be made, I hope the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty will not be affected, nor do I wish to see the influence of the Naval Lords diminished.

My opinion, Sir, is in favour of granting this Committee; not that I think that the result of its investigation will be very important, or that it will bring about any great alteration in the administration of the Admiralty. But the Committee will deal with a subject that has much engaged public attention, and I think it will prove that many misconceptions exist with regard to this great branch of the public service. I should be sorry if one result of the labours of the Committee was to recommend that the head of the Admiralty shall in future always be a naval officer. If we come to that Resolution, the next step will be to take this department of the Government out of the House altogether. We have got it in the House now, and I recommend you to keep it here. I am persuaded that the schemes for changing the character of this branch of the public service into an administration purely professional are only preparing the way for the House of Commons losing the command of it. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) has made some just observations on the position in which the House is now placed with regard to the heads of two great departments. However much we may deplore the circumstances that have produced this condition of things, the fact remains; neither the administration of the navy nor that of the army is represented by the heads of those departments in the popular branch of the Legislature. I do not wish to occupy the House at this period of the evening, but I did not like to remain silent, for some expressions have been used in the course of this debate by two hon. Friends of mine which I very much regretted to hear, and I think they must have arisen from some mutual misconception. If there has been any error on the part of the right hon. Member for Droitwich in giving notice of his intention to move for this Committee of Inquiry into the Administration of the Admiralty and the state of the Navy, I take the full responsibility for the step. My right hon. Friend asked my advice with regard to it; and it was with my sanction and approbation the notice was given. It would, therefore, be disingenuous in me, if, after what has passed, I should be silent on that head. If I had supposed that taking this course would have given offence to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the East Riding, I should have been the last person to have counselled the step. Between him and myself there exist the cordial relations of an intimacy of more than a quarter of a century. I have great respect for his talents, and regard for his character. I know the independent spirit that always animates him, and I much regretted that he did not find it convenient to afford the late Government the assistance his experience could have given had he joined it. Last Session, I know my hon. and gallant Friend brought this subject forward with distinguished ability, but I was not aware he was under any engagement to renew it in the present Session. The question has now even greater interest than it had last year, and as my hon. Friend was not here to remind us of the position in which he stood with respect to the question, my right hon. Friend may be pardoned if he has, inadvertently, poached on his manor. But my right hon. Friend, when made aware of the breach of Parliamentary etiquette he had unconsciously committed, showed that he was animated by the feelings which should influence one gentleman in his conduct towards another. He did not hesitate a moment to put himself right with my hon. Friend and the House. My hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) made some observations just now, marked—I will not say with bitterness—but with less pleasantness than is usual with him, when referring to some expressions of my right hon. Friend, which he seemed to think were not justified by anything which fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the East Riding. My hon. and gallant Friend, who loves frankness too well to quarrel with me for expressing my opinion frankly on this subject—[Admiral DUNCOMBE: Hear, hear!]—my hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that he had spoken of the conduct of my right hon. Friend as unwarrantable. Now that is an expression which cannot be easily passed over by any Gentleman in this House. It is a strong epithet, though, perhaps, Parliamentary. Any one who is told that his conduct is "unwarrantable," may be excused if he retorts with a little violence of tone and manner. But I trust my hon. Friend and the right hon. Baronet will find no occasion to remember this rather disagreeable passage of Parliamentary discussion. My hon. and gallant Friend has now obtained that position to which he is fairly entitled, and no one wishes for a moment to deprive him of it. I trust that when the Committee is appointed it will be animated in its la- bours by only one desire, to illustrate the question and throw that light upon the subject, which in the present state of the public mind is very desirable; and I shall be sorry if the result of this discussion is to deprive the Committee of the services of any of those distinguished statesmen who have been heads of the naval department.

said, he rose to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham for the kind and courteous manner in which he had spoken of him then and on former occasions. He would not deny that he felt excessively annoyed by the right hon. Member for Droitwich moving for the Committee. He had brought the question forward in the previous Session, and nothing was easier than to have ascertained whether he intended to follow up the subject or not. He had had longer experience in the House than the right hon. Baronet, and he never remembered when a Member had brought forward a question another hon. Gentleman stepping forward and taking it out of his hands. But after what had passed, he should say no more of the matter.

expressed a hope that the House would not lose sight of the great constitutional question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham), because, although within the last six years £80,000,000 had been voted by Parliament for the Naval Service, that important service was not represented in that House by a responsible Minister.