said, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for North Lancashire, Whether there are any vacancies in the Royal Victoria Patriotic Asylum at Wandsworth; if so, what number; and further, will he state whether it is the rule or intention to fill up any vacancies in the Asylum solely with children of soldiers who died in the Crimea, to the exclusion of the children of those who, having served in the Crimea, have since died on service with their regiments in India or elsewhere?

said, in reply, that the number of vacancies in the Victoria Patriotic Asylum at Wandsworth was thirty-seven. Those vacancies had been caused by the necessity which the Royal Commissioners were under to provide temporary accommodation for hospital purposes, but they were gradually being filled up, and he believed that the number of three hundred would be completed in a very short time. In reply to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that the institution was originated by the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund for the education of children of soldiers who had been either killed or wounded, or died from disease contracted during the Russian war. The Commissioners held that the children of such soldiers had the first claim on their attention and the funds of the institution; but it was under the considera-of the Commissioners whether, when all these claims had been met, they should take into consideration the claims of the children of soldiers who had served in the Russian war, but had since met with calamities in other parts of the world. When all these claims had been satisfied, the institution would be applied to the education of the children of soldiers generally.

said, he rose to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he has received the Return of the unemployed unmarried Women in the Cotton Factory districts, and when the works sanc- tioned by the Government Engineer are likely to be commenced?

in reply, said, he had no authority to compel such a Return, but he was informed that endeavours were being made by the Committee of Relief to collect the information, and that probably in the course of next week it might be obtained. With respect to the other Question, he could only answer that it would depend on the legislation of that House.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, considering that the Irish Law Officers of the late Government had prepared a Bill for the Amendment of the Laws relating to Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland, which Bill they handed over to their successors now nearly four years ago, he intends to introduce any measure for the Amendment of the said Laws during the present Session?

replied, that he would not pledge himself to bring in a Bill, but be would certainly give the matter prompt and careful consideration.

said, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When the Report of Council on Education will be distributed; and whether it is the intention of Government to propose the Vote for Education before Members have had ample time for consideration of the Report?

in reply, said, the Report would be distributed in the course of next week, and therefore would be in the hands of Members probably before the Vote came on; but he could not undertake, in the present state of public business, to postpone the Vote even should that unfortunately not bee case.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to complete the transference of the Ionian Islands to the possession of any other Power, without any further reference to the approval or consent of Parliament?

Sir, the Ionian Islands were erected into an Independent State, and placed, as such under the protection of Great Britain by treaty, and not by any action of Parliament; and therefore, if any change should be made in their condition, it will be made in the same manner as that in which the original arrangement was concluded—namely, by treaty. Of course, that treaty will be laid on the table of the House.

I wish, Sir, to ask another Question, in consequence of the reply of the noble Lord. The cession of the Ionian Islands will not be completed, I presume, without communication with the various parties who signed the Treaty of Vienna, and those communications may have a serious effect upon our relations with Foreign Powers. I wish, therefore, to ask the noble Lord, Whether he will take care that the communications with those Powers shall be laid upon the table, in order that this House may have an opportunity of considering their probable effect on our relations with Foreign Powers, before the cession of the Islands is completed?

I do not apprehend that there is any chance of any communication taking place between this Government and any parties to the Treaty of Vienna, with regard to the cession of the Ionian Islands, which can endanger in any way the friendly relations of this country with Foreign Powers. The course of the transaction is not finally settled. Whatever is proper and fitting to be laid before Parliament, and required to be laid before Parliament, will be laid on the table of the House.

I beg to ask the noble Lord the Questions of which I have given notice—Whether the Vote of the Ionian Chambers upon the proposed cession of the Seven Islands to Greece is to be taken before the consent of the Powers of Europe, assembled in Congress, to that cession has been obtained; whether the Congress is to be confined to the Powers who were signatories of the Treaties of 1815, or whether it is to comprise all the Powers of Europe, including Turkey; whether, in the event of Turkey not being invited to attend the Congress, any communication will be addressed to the Sublime Porte on the subject; and whether the consent of all, or only of the majority of the Powers assembled in Congress, will be required to authorize the cession.

I cannot at present state in what order communications will take place. Of course, the cession cannot be completed without, in the first place, the consent and wish of the Ionians, and in the next place without the consent of the parties who signed the Treaty of Vienna. Those only who signed that treaty will have a voice in the matter. Turkey did not sign it, and therefore Turkey will not be called upon to give her assent or dissent; but naturally Turkey is acquainted with what is in contemplation. As to whether all the signatories will be required to consent, I apprehend there is no likelihood of any dissenting voice if the great majority are of opinion that on European grounds the cession should be made.

I understand from the noble Lord that in his opinion there will be no material difference in the judgment of the great Powers, and therefore he does not anticipate the case I supposed will arise. But in the event of a difference of opinion arising, what then is to be the course of proceeding? Is the consent of all the great Powers necessary, or is the arrangement to be carried out by the majority?

That is more a point of international law. But I think it is quite clear that supposing the great majority—say all but one—consent to the arrangement, and the Ionians and Greeks also agree to it, it is not likely any one Power will set up its dissent against the opinion of the majority.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, When he will move for leave to introduce the Courts of Justice Building (Money) Bill?

said, that probably next week he should be able to introduce it.

Sir, I think the time of the Session has now approached when morning sittings should commence, for disposing of matters which require a great deal of debate. I shall propose that on Tuesday morning the House shall sit with the view of taking the Irish Fisheries Bill.

said, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice with respect to the expediency of appointing a permanent First Commissioner of Works. In doing so he should not trouble the House with any lengthened disquisition on matters of taste. No one would, he thought, be disposed to deny that it was desirable the public buildings should, as far as possible, combine unity of design and economy with efficiency, while there could be as little doubt that there was no unity of design displayed in the mode in which public buildings were constructed in London. Every hon. Member who had visited the Continent must have been struck by the difference which existed between the way in which public works were carried out abroad and in this country. The advantage which foreign nations enjoyed in that respect arose from the fact that in the construction of their public works unity of management prevailed. He was anxious that the House should take nothing upon his mere assertion; and if the House would accompany him in imagination through some of the principal parts of London, he would show that instead of unity and economy the utmost absurdity characterized the constructions of the public buildings in the metropolis of this country. He would, in the first place, call the attention of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to Buckingham Palace, in support of the view on the subject to which he entertained. It was a curious instance of the mismanagement of public works in this country. The money to be laid out on Buckingham Palace was, in the first instance, £240,000. £1,200,000 had, however, been expended upon it up to that moment, and that enormous increase of expenditure had, he contended, arisen from the fact that there had been such constant changes in the management of the Board of Works. There was, he might add, an amusing circumstance connected with Buckingham Palace. It would be in the recollection of the House that the Marble Arch, which now stood at Cumberland Gate, was previously placed in front of the Palace. Hon. Members, however, were not, perhaps, aware that when it was placed there it had not been completed. It was intended to put very expensive friezes on the arch, and to place a statue of Minerva on the top—to indicate, he supposed, the wisdom of the Board of Works; but when the arch was removed to Cumberland Place—no one knew why—the friezes, instead of being placed on it, were stuck up in the inner court of Buckingham Palace, at a height of eighty feet, and the statue of Minerva had been changed into one of Britannia, and erected at the east end of the National Gallery, opposite St. Martin's church, where a hole in the wall had been made to receive it. He should next advert to the National Gallery, than the area of which, a Committee reported—and that opinion had been confirmed by others who had an opportunity of studying the sites of the metropolis—there was none finer in Europe. The late Sir Charles Barry, then Mr. Barry, proposed some extraordinary embellishments, in the shape of lions and tridents surmounted by a colossal statue of Neptune, which were, luckily; not carried out. After the National Gallery was erected there came the question of the Nelson Column, which gave rise to much discussion, and on which two or three Committees sat. The result was that the column was commenced where id now stood; but it was found that there was not money enough to complete it. And what did the Commissioner of Works do? He cut down the column, and made it twenty feet shorter than was originally intended. The hat was sent round to the public for subscriptions to finish the works, and the Emperor of Russia subscribed £500. That was to complete the lions at the base; but up to that day those lions were not to be seen. The lions were intrusted to Sir Edwin Landseer, a most eminent artist, whose talent was known and appreciated not only in this country but throughout Europe; but he was not aware that he had ever before been employed as a sculptor; and, if he was not mistaken, his right hon. Friend had informed the House not long since that that gentleman spent a good deal of time in the Zoological Gardens studying the habits of those animals, while an expense of some £200 or £300 had, he believed, been gone to for several casts made of an anatomical lion at Turin. Be that, however, as it might, the lions were not yet visible. Then there was the statue of Dr. Jenner. Dr. Jenner, it seemed, had gone to Kensington Gardens to smile on the admirable memorial of the right hon. Gentleman's taste which was there to be Found at the fountain end of the Serpentine. Now, Dr. Jenner's previous position was miserable enough; but he looked even more miserable where he at present was, inasmuch as he looked as if he were afflicted with the very disease which was so honourably associated with his name. Having inquired, he might add, where the fountains were in the vicinity, he was told that they were not playing, but that he could see the pipes. He asked when they played, and the answer was, "Oh, never, except when the engineer is here. He goes away for a long time together, and when he comes back he turns on the water with a key." Notwithstanding between £20,000 and £30,000 had been spent on the purification of the Serpentine, the water was the filthiest he ever saw. The fact was, that they had no clean water in the Serpentine, and that the mason work, which was intended to be handsome, was entirely thrown away. Instead, in short, of being purified, the Serpentine was, he believed, dirtier than ever it had been before. When walking by it a short time ago, he had passed the monolith, a big stone put in a hole, but which the right hon. Gentleman had, he understood, characterized as an admirable work, and which, it appeared, it was his intention to beautify with four fine poplars. Passing from the Serpentine to Burlington House, he there found another glaring instance of money thrown away. In that instance it arose, too, from the frequent change in the Commissioners, there having been no less than seven different Commissioners within the last ten years, while since 1845 there had been twelve. Burlington House, he might add, was purchased by one Commissioner. The next did not know to what use to put it. It was originally proposed, he believed, to transfer the National Gallery there; but in fact no use had been made of it, though, if he was correctly informed, it had from first to last cost £200,000. Meantime, what had occurred? The changes in the National Gallery cost £18,000, and it was now found out that further changes were required, the whole of the money being wanted because gentlemen in office did not know their own minds. He should next advert to the Foreign Office, which furnished a proof of the absence of all purpose in the Office of Works. The old Foreign Office was, so far back as 1839, pronounced to be perfectly dangerous to those who had to inhabit it. That was twenty-four years ago, and yet it was only now that they were about building a new Foreign Office. All that time they had been incurring enormous expense, in consequence of the indecision of those in authority. In 1853 a Committee sat on the subject, and had before them a report of Mr. Pennethorne. That Committee reported strongly in favour of a concentration of the public buildings. Very large premiums were offered for plans for the concentration of the public offices, but good faith was not kept with the gentlemen who sent in designs. It was clearly understood that the works would be carried out by one or other of those gentlemen, and yet the task was committed to none of them. £5,000 was spent upon premiums, and an additional sum upon the fitting-up of Westminster Hall and other matters. Sir Benjamin Hall went out of office, and the whole thing was forgotten. For the last four or five years the battle of the styles had been going on in that House, and at last a decision had been arrived at which was no doubt satisfactory to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that the building should be erected according to a style which, no doubt, would hereafter be known by his name—a combination of Gothic, Italian, and other styles; but in the mean time Mr. Scott had been making design after design, and all these operations were attended with great expense. But in order to show the happy results of a concentration of authority in dealing with public works he need only point to the beneficial effects that had attended the Local Management Act, which had been introduced by Sir Benjamin Hall, in 1855, and which had abolished that costly and ineffective system of superintending public works which had previously prevailed in the metropolis. He would next pass to the consideration of what had been done in respect to the Record Office. He found his right hon. Friend doing in reference to that matter what Sir Christopher Wren in the year 1673 had refused to do. Sir Christopher Wren had then said that he would never consent to the addition of a gallery to the Chapter-house, or to any records being placed in that spot, as he considered such a measure would be an act of desecration. But his right hon. Friend had no such scruple. The Chapter-house was crammed full of records; or, at all events, was so last year. The public records were, indeed, kept in most extraordinary places. Some of them were stored in houses in Chancery Lane, which were supported by pillars to keep them from falling down, while others were to be found in the stables the Master of the Rolls, behind the mangers of his horses. The right hon. Gentleman would probably tell them that he was going to take a Vote of £20,000 for the Record Office, but it was impossible that for that sum any satisfactory building could be erected. Another of their unfortunate architectural projects were the proposed Courts of Law. When the Earl of Derby was in office it was proposed by Lord Chelmsford that £100,000 should be voted for the erection of Courts of Law. That proposal was rejected, but a substitute for it was since devised by his right hon. Friend, who asked them last year to undertake the building of a series of Law Courts which would cost nearly £1,500,000. But the House had naturally refused to sanction such an outlay, and there seemed to be no prospect of their obtaining any fitting accommodation for the legal tribunals, although he believed that it would have been possible to secure that advantage at a cost of not more than £100,000. It was manifest, that when the Government, had got possession of a valuable piece of ground, they ought not to part with it without some very special inducement. But he found that the right hon. Gentleman had recently sold a piece of ground, near the Admiralty, of the value of £1,400 a year, on which he might have erected a building large enough to accommodate all the departments of the War Office, which were now lodged in various detached buildings, and scattered among a labyrinth of passages in which no one could find them. Such a building might have been erected for £100,000; and they were paying for the hire of houses for the accommodation of that department £12,000 or £14,000 a year. He mentioned that to show that there was no economy in the existing mode of conducting public business. Would hon. Members believe that the miserable hovels which were close to the site of the new Foreign Office had not yet been purchased? He had spoken to the owners of two or three of them, who said that they hoped that their houses would be bought, but that they would wait until the Foreign Office was up, and then they should get a better price for them. It should be observed that a Bill was passed to authorize the purchase of these houses, but the Government allowed its powers to expire. Was that economy or common sense? He would mention another instance of what he could not help regarding as the unfortunate management of the public buildings. Thirty-five years ago a State Paper Office was erected at a cost of £70,000; in the year 1855 it was proposed to put a new story to it, and in 1860 the right hon. Gentleman pulled it down, and there was an end of that money. Remembering these circumstances, all of which he had documents to prove, could the noble Lord suppose that the House would be prepared to vote £484,000 to purchase the Exhibition Building; £220,000 of which was to be spent upon decoration, of the style of which the House had no information, and which, if it was then settled, might be changed by some other Minister of Works who might succeed the right hon. Gentleman? The facts which he had stated were of a most startling character. The House discussed small items of £1,000 at Constantinople, or £500 somewhere else; but he was anxious to go ot once to the root of the matter, and show how a large amount of money might be saved. In dealing with the question he believed that one step in the right direction would be the appointment of a permanent Commissioner of Works. He did not say whether the Parliamentary Commissioner should be made permanent, or an additional Commissioner be appointed; but he was convinced that the adoption of one or other of those measures would, by giving greater stability to the Board, increase its authority in that House. It would have been presumption in him to have brought the matter forward on his own opinion, but he was supported by good authorities. Before the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenditure, in 1860, Mr. Hunt, a gentleman of excellent judgment, and who performed his duties at the Board in an admirable manner, was asked—

"Confining the question merely to the subject of works, do you think that the works themselves would be batter done if there was a permanent head?

He replied—

"My idea has been that a great advantage would accrue if we had a permanent Commission I think that there should be two Commissioners who could divide the labour, because there would be a great deal to do. Those Commissioners would then have due authority to act, certainly in the routine business of the office. If Parliament determined that a Foreign Office should be built that work could be carried out without constantly seeking the co-operation or aid of the First Commissioner. Certainly, from what I have heard here, I think, that unless we were represented in Parliament, we should have some difficulty, because we should have to explain all our proceedings either to a Secretary of the Treasury or to a Lord of the Treasury, who would either have too much to do, or who would not care to be troubled with our technicalities; whereas a First Commissioner, whose time was wholly devoted to that speciality, would be more ready and able to answer questions in the House of Commons. But it seems to me that it is very desirable to have permanent officers in authority, who could take up and follow through continuously all matters of ordinary business."

He was also asked—

"You have made two or three important recommendations which you think might conduce to a large saving of public money; first, to strenghen the constitution of the Board of Works, and give it continuity by the appointment of two permanent Commissioners, as well as a Parliamentary First Commissioner."

And his answer was, "Yes." Lord Llanover said—

"I think one of the greatest absurdities existing in the State now is that the First Commissioner of Works should be a political officer."

And in reply to another question he added—

"The duty of the First Commissioner is to carry out those works which are sanctioned by Parliament, and be ought to be a man who has some knowledge of works. He ought to be able to cheek the surveyors and architects; I do not mean with regard to a knowledge of the special details, but he ought to possess that general knowledge of works and of engineering that would enable him to go into the matters of architecture, and building, and surveying, with those with whom he is brought into contact. What can be more absurd than for a man with the great knowledge and ability of Mr. Hunt to go before the First Commissioner, and to lay a plan before him which is as dark to his mind, perhaps, as the Chinese language? Men may be appointed merely for political objects, and they have been so appointed, who know nothing whatever of the nature of conducting works, or of the conduct of property and management of it. Therefore I think the public service is damaged most materially by having such an officer."

Mr. Austin, another high authority, took the same view; for on being asked—

"I suppose you would not hesitate to say, that if any scheme could be devised by which one head should continue to carry on the business of the office, that that would be more likely to secure good management?

His reply was—

"Certainly; as far as the business of the office is concerned, I have no doubt of it. I think I have had experience enough of the office to say that beyond all doubt. There are questions on the point that are not quite so clear to answer; but those questions do not relate to the transaction of the business of the office, but to questions in which tire public take a great interest. By the present system the First Commissioner has an opportunity of answering in Parliament questions upon matters of a general interest respecting pub-lie works that may be put to him, whereas it seems tome, that if we had a permanent Commissioner, that means of furnishing information or explanation would fail. I assume, of course, that the Permanent Commissioner would not be in Parliament.

"Then, the objection which strikes you to a Permanent Commissioner refers only to the Parliamentary duties of the First Commissioner?—I think it is very much confined to that.

"With regard to general superintendence of this important department, you would say that a continuous system, under one head, would be more likely to contribute to the good working of the office?—I have no doubt about it."

Finally the Committee expressed the same opinion in their Report, and stated—

"That the evils arising from constant changes in the office of Chief Commissioner of Works having been prominently brought before your Committee, they are of opinion that the appointment of a permanent Commissioner would seem the only means of removing them. Your Committee consider that, upon the appointment of a permanent Commissioner, the duties of the existing political office of First Commissioner in Parliament might be discharged by some other Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons"

Such was the unanimous opinion of the Committee, and he felt it would command the respectful consideration of that House. He had no wish to cast any reflections upon his right hon. Friend opposite; but when gentlemen were appointed on an average every two years to the important office of Chief Commissioner of Works, it was impossible they could bring to that position the knowledge enabling them to carry out its duties successfully. In France a very different system prevailed of conducting public works. The Prefet de la Seine, the officer corresponding to the English First Commissioner of Works, was a permanent functionary. Some persons might find fault with the public buildings in Paris, but all must agree in admiration of the unity of design upon which they were built, and in attributing to the remarkable man at the head of the French empire, no matter what their views of his political character might be, great taste in architectural improvements and wonderful determination in carrying out his plans. He should like next to quote the language of a great authority, a man of highly cultivated taste. Sir Charles Eastlake, speaking at the dinner of the Royal Academy, said—

"If any part of the domain of the fine arts can be said to be more worthy than another of their attention, it is, perhaps, that section which, in its various forms, is most before the world—I mean architecture and public works. It should be borne in mind, that if pictures are defective, they can easily be disposed of; that indifferent statues and even objectionable small structures can be removed; but spacious architectural arrangements and extensive buildings must remain either as a lasting credit to the taste and good sense of the nation, or as a lasting stigma, which all would repudiate, but which all must be content to bear."

It might be said, indeed, that the evils to which he had referred were to be attributed to their system of a constitutional Government; but he thought it unfortunate that these iniquities should be charged upon constitutional government at the very time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord at the head of the Government were holding up that form of administration to the imitation of foreign countries; countries in which the fine arts and public works by no means presented an equally pitiable spectacle. Constitutional Government, he maintained, had not failed at all; there had simply been neglect in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. For the last forty years Commissions and Committees had been reporting in favour of the appointment of permanent Commissioners who could be relied upon, and whose capacity and merits would not be dependent on the fluctuations of party, and he therefore asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government to take that matter into his careful consideration. For his own part he believed that such a measure would, to a great extent, prevent that mismanagement which he had attempted to describe; and it was with that conviction that he begged leave to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.

said, his hon. Friend opposite had led the House a very agreeable tour round the buildings in London, enlivening his description by illustrations of considerable interest; but it was remarkable that the more important of his illustrations entirely demolished the argument which the hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to urge upon the House. His Motion was to the effect that greater unity of design in the public buildings, and greater efficiency and economy of the public service, would be attained by the appointment of a permanent Commissioner of Public Works; and in support of that proposition his hon. Friend quoted many instances of vacillation and useless expenditure in the public buildings of this country. But, unfortunately for his hon. Friend's argument, nearly all the instances which he had quoted of vacillation of purpose, change of mind, and useless expenditure of money, occurred at periods when either there was a permanent Commissioner at the head of the Office of Works, or when the Board of Works consisted of one Parliamentary head and two permanent Commissioners. In the year 1782 the original Board of Works was abolished, and a Surveyor General of Works was appointed, who was always to be a professional man. The gentlemen appointed successively, under that Act, were Sir William Chambers and Mr. James Wyatt, both eminent architects. In 1814 Sir Benjamin Stephenson succeeded to the office of Surveyor General, not being an architect, as it was thought desirable that a civilian should control the expenditure and direct the architects. In 1831 the Office of Works, having at its head a Surveyor of Works, was consolidated with the Office of Woods, and for twenty years the Board consisted of one Parliamentary and two permanent Commissioners, such as the hon. Gentleman wished now to be appointed. But the cases of mismanagement on which the hon. Member dwelt in making out the case in favour of his Amendment all occurred before 1851, when the Office of Works as at present existing was constituted. Nominally, the Secretary of State, the President and Vice President of the Board of Trade, were members of that Department; but practically the First Commissioner of Works was alone responsible for its conduct and direction. The plans affecting Buckingham Palace, as they all knew, underwent considerable modification. The first estimate was for £230,000, the intention being merely to alter the old palace. As the monarch of the day had no family to be accommodated, it was proposed to build a small palace; but afterwards, under altered circumstances, the estimates were enlarged to an extent much beyond the anticipations originally entertained. But the hon. Gentleman opposite attributed too much im- portance to the office of permanent Commissioner of Works, if he thought that Sir Benjamin Sephenson could have stopped the expenditure on Buckingham Palace, and ought to be held responsible for not having done so. He confessed that the whole history of the National Gallery was one that he looked upon with regret, as showing how such matters were mismanaged in this country. Its erection was resolved upon in 1831, at a time when the country was clamorous for retrenchment. The first idea, in order to economy, was that the King's stables should not be pulled down or materially altered. A Commission, presided over by Sir Robert Peel, was appointed, and it applied itself to the question of how they could most economically obtain a National Gallery. The House were determined to have a cheap article; they got a cheap article, and they had never ceased to regret it. Had a sum slightly in excess of the £70,000 actually spent been voted at that time, the House would have been saved the necessity of incurring further expenditure in order to obtain a National Gallery worthy of the country and its fine collection of pictures. It was rather strange that the hon. Gentleman should attach blame to the Office of Works in connection with the Nelson Column, which was raised by private subscription. It was only after the monument had been raised high in the air that, the Committee being totally unable to finish it, the Government were obliged to step in, and undertake to complete the structure. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the vacillation and change of purpose exhibited in the removal of Dr. Jenner's statue. But did he wish so great a sacrifice to consistency as would have been required in keeping that statue in a position where architecturally it was out of place. That was a sitting statue on a 9 ft. scale, by the side of two standing figures on a 14 ft. scale. It was a blunder to place it there, and it would have been bad taste to retain it; the best thing was to remove it to a position where it was in harmony with the surrounding objects. It was accordingly removed to a quiet part of Kensington Gardens, where it was an appropriate addition to the ornamented stonework. He next came to the purification of the Serpentine, and he could only say that he was not responsible for the change of plan. His predecessor had taken very good advice. The late Mr. Stephenson advised that Mr. Hawkshaw should be consulted, and he recommended that the Serpentine should be purified by a process of filtration. When he (Mr. Cowper) came into office, he ventured to think that the project was a mistake, and that it would not succeed, He accordingly moved for a Select Committee, which, after a careful investigation, came to a unanimous Resolution that the filtration ought not to be proceeded with. The authority of the Committee prescribed the change, as well as that of the Board of Works; and if his lamented predecessor had lived, it was probable the Committee would equally have decided against his plan of filtration. He was sorry the hon. Gentleman had not seen the fountains playing in Kensington Gardens lately, because there was now a plentiful supply of water six days in the week during the hours when the gardens were most frequented, and he knew that vast numbers admired the fountains greatly. The money voted for the purification of the Serpentine had attained that object. The plan of filtration was abandoned in favour of a much simpler and more effectual scheme. A very deep well was sunk through the green sand into the chalk, and brought up an abundant quantity of the purest water in the vicinity of London, which poured into the Serpentine, and had a beneficial effect in keeping its water sweet. During the greatest part of the year there were no grounds of complaint about the water of the Serpentine. It was true, the basins were not in a satisfactory condition, but the defilement of which the hon. Gentleman had spoken did not arise from the water, but from the accumulation of weeds in the basins. Probably means might be found of clearing them out. The hon. Gentleman next complained of the delay in regard to the use of the site of Burlington House. It was, however, a wise thing to secure so central a space when it was in the market, even although a temporary loss of interest was sustained. It was a most valuable possession for the country, and he hoped that before long the Government would be able to put before the House a scheme of appropriation for this site. With respect to the Record Office buildings he must deny that the Government were working without a well-considered plan. In fact, a plan had been prepared for the apportionment of the whole of the ground adjoining the Record Office. Every portion of the building now added was according to a plan, and would become part of a general whole. The money for a new wing was placed on the Votes of that year, and that would be as much as was necessary to meet the existing requirements of the office; but as those requirements increased, the buildings would be extended. The hon. Gentleman had confused two very different things—the proposal of Lord Chelmsford to build two Vice Chancellors' Courts at an expense of £100,000, and the proposal of the Government to build a Palace of Justice, in which all the Courts of Law and Equity, the Probate and Divorce Court, might be located. A Royal Commission had sat on the subject, and had recommended a costly and comprehensive scheme for concentrating the whole of the Law Courts and offices at one spot. He could not plead guilty to having sold that portion of the end of Carlton Terrace to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, because it was Crown land under the management of the Commissioners of Land Revenues, not of his office. It was not, however, land suited for public offices, as supposed by the hon. Gentleman. The site reserved for the extension of offices was in the neighbourhood of Downing Street, for which so large a sum had been paid. The hon. Gentleman said it was very wasteful not to buy the northern portion of Charles Street, when the Government had bought the southern side. His answer was, that the northern portion of Charles Street would never be required. About one-third of the site of Downing Street—namely, 43,000 yards, was unappropriated, and in future years, when it was necessary to extend the public offices, they would be extended to the north, and not to the south. A large site could be obtained on the northern side, because there was not only the land on which the offices of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Colonial Office stood—all which must be rebuilt—but there was also the garden, attached to the residence of the First Lord of the Treasury. Then there was another site—the portion of land in New Palace Yard, between the Clock Tower and Great George Street, which had been partially cleared by the removal of the old houses in Bridge Street. With all that available space, it would have been a gratuitous piece of extravagance to make any further purchases on the south side of Charles Street. Upon the whole, he must contend, that the hon. Member had not succeeded in showing that any extravagance or vacillation arose from the want of a perpetual Commissioner at the head of the Board of Works. The hon. Gentleman had quoted the Report of a Select Committee in the year 1860, which Report, however, was not adopted unanimously, but by a small majority. That Committee attached an exaggerated importance to the permanence of the office of Chief Commissioner of Works. Unquestionably, there would be some advantage in the head of such an office having an experience of many years in the discharge of his duties; but the balance of advantage would be against the permanency of the appointment. A man long in the same office was apt to acquire a narrowness of view, a partiality for those who were under him, and a disregard for public opinion. If, without actual misconduct, he were to turn out to be ill fitted for his post, still there could be no change, and the public interests would suffer in his hands. The heavy price which the House would, however, pay for the permanence of the office, would be, that it would deprive the Legislature of the benefit of having a Member of that House with the knowledge and responsibly attaching to the head of the office, and that it would deprive the office of the influence of a Parliamentary head. It was in his opinion absolutely necessary that the head of the office should have a seat in that House. The reasons urged for making the head of the Works permanent applied also to the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Poor Law Board, the Vice President of the Education Department, and to other Ministers. But the question was whether the advantage of having a permanent officer was at all commensurate with that of having the office represented in the House of Commons. The Committee of 1860 must have been misled by a fancied analogy between the Offices of Works and of Woods. The business of the Office of Woods was mainly to receive money for which it was accountable to the Treasury, and it had no direct transactions in that House. But a very short time since they had a marked instance of the disadvantage of having an office even of that character not represented in the House of Commons. Hon. Gentlemen would remember that a feeling sprang up that the policy pursued by the Office of Woods and Forests with regard to Epping and Hainault forests was one which ought not to have been adopted; that forestal inclosures ought not to be encouraged, because the inhabitants of London were thereby deprived of en- joyments which hitherto had been within their reach, If the head of the office had had a seat in that House, he might have so explained his policy as to alter the opinion of the House, or the debate might have convinced him of the propriety of a change. But in the absence of such an officer the House was obliged to adopt a rough, rude, and violent way of attaining its object—namely, by an Address to Her Majesty that no inclosures of lands near the metropolis should take place, thereby bringing matters to a dead lock. What was desired of the Office of Works, was that it should combine efficiency with a wise economy. The best guarantee for such economy and efficiency was to be found in the determination of the head of the Department to secure them. If the House wished to exercise a control over him, it was well that he should be personally within range of the influence of its opinion, especially as there were so many matters within his province in which the House took a very great interest. On the other hand, it was moat important that the House, in voting estimates for public works, should have a person present who was responsible for the details of those estimates, and would explain how the money would be spent, and how money voted previously had been expended. The presence of such a person in the House, was the best check to that natural tendency which was always found in public assemblies to run into one of two extremes—either to rush into such a lavish expenditure as had been incurred in the case of the Houses of Parliament, or to adopt such a small and delusive economy as cutting off £400 a year for a clerk of Works whose business it was to keep down expenditure. It was quite clear, if the First Commissioner of Works had not a seat in that House, he would lose that authority which he ought to possess. A suggestion had been made, that if the office were permanent, the Parliamentary work might be done by some other Department of the Government. But the person representing the office in the House of Commons ought to be able to speak with all the weight attaching to responsibility, and with the fullest knowledge of what was to be done, otherwise he would only be delivering information second-hand, and would meet with no attention. So absurd an arrangement would not long continue. The plan of a Board had been already tried for twenty years and failed. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the case of Paris, and said they ought to follow the example set there. But the hon. Gentleman did not observe the distinction, that the person who carried on all the great works there was not the Minister of Public Works, but the municipal authority. The Prefect of Paris was a municipal officer, the head and chairman of a municipal council, and therefore the person to whom he should be compared was not the First Commissioner, but the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works The latter was a permanent officer, but that was not sufficient to secure the work being done like that of Paris. The difference between Paris and London was this—in Paris there were ample funds; whereas in London the money provided, whether by the municipality or the Government, was not sufficient for the great improvements which might advantageously be made.

said, the Committee which had been alluded to, and of which he had the honour of being a Member, came to the conclusion by a very large majority, that a permanent Commissioner of Works ought to be appointed, and they had in view a very easy way of getting over the difficulty of not having some one in the House who should be responsible to Parliament. They thought that certain official Gentlemen who sat day after day and night after night on the Treasury bench, and received salaries for doing little work except signing certain papers—he meant the Lords of the Treasury—might add to their importance if they were bound to answer in that House for the officer who presided over the Office of Works. But the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to the main question in the public mind—he had not ventured to say that the present system had given satisfaction to anybody. No doubt the conclusion come to by the Committee would be unsatisfactory to the front benches on both sides of the House, because it was a great thing for a Minister, when about to form a Government, to have such an appointment as that of First Commissioner of Works to give away. But was it not true that the Gentlemen appointed to that office were appointed on account of their political opinions and associations, and not because of any capacity or fitness on their part? Without wishing to say anything invidious either to his right hon. Friend the present First Commissioner or to his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) who held the same office under the Government of the Earl of Derby, he believed it would be possible to find in this country persons who, from education and early training, were better suited to perform the duties required. The Government in office might be turned out any day, and then a Gentleman from the other side might come in with views entirely different from those of his predecessor. They had seen an instance of that not long ago. The more he considered the matter, the more he was of opinion that it would be advisable to have a permanent officer at the head of the Works Department. The office might very well be represented in Parliament by a junior Lord of the Treasury.

said, that having executed many large works for foreign Governments, he had been brought much into communication with foreign Ministers of Public Works, and he had always found that they were really Ministers of Public Works. But in this country the First Commissioner of Public Works was no Minister of Public Works at all. He should be very sorry if the Minister of Public Works had not a seat in that House, and be amenable to those discussions and questions which must arise under a constitutional form of government. But what he wanted to see in England was what they had in France, an able body of men in association with the public minister, competent to deal with these questions in such a way as that they should not suffer from the disappointments they then felt in finding so many of their public works, particularly in reference to the estimate and ultimate cost, a by-word and a proverb. He had executed immense works for the Government of France; and he had always found their estimates so well considered, their plans so thoroughly well sifted, and the whole affair so thoroughly considered in all its branches, that he had been able to adopt the estimates of the ministers as they stood, and execute the works by contract for that sum, and had never found himself a loser in any one instance. The consequence was, that great works were carried out in France for the amount of the estimate which was laid before the country for those works; but in this country no works could be mentioned which ever were carried out within the estimates. That, of itself, condemned the whole system. The House of Commons could not do justice to its constituents unless it had estimates laid before it which were completely reliable, and a Department which could not lay before them estimates which had been thoroughly and honestly considered was not worthy of confidence. In this country many of the public works were not under the con- trol of the Commissioner of Works at all. Some were under one Department, some under another. The Admiralty, for instance, had charge of the construction of harbours of refuge, breakwaters, and docks; but of public works they knew nothing whatever. They might be good sailors or mechanicians, but of public works they knew nothing at all. If the Admiralty in France wanted a dock, they went to the Minister of Public Works and told him that a dock was required. The First Lord and the Secretary of the Admiralty had nothing to do with it. The Minister of Works became responsible for the execution of the work, and the consequence was they never found an estimate of £200,000 or £300,000 ending in an outlay of £1,000,000. What they wanted was a thorough reform of the system. The Minister of Public Works ought to be really a Minister of Public Works; and when he came down to that House to propose a public work, and to offer an estimate, he ought to be responsible for that estimate, and then the House and the country would not be subject to such lamentable excesses. There were estimates before the House that night for works which had cost millions, and were utterly worthless, and never could be used. That would not have occurred in any country on the Continent. They had no Holyhead Harbour abroad, three or four times altered no—Alderney on which hundreds of thousands of pounds had been absolutely thrown away. There was no instance resembling the £600,000 or £700,000 which had been spent at Jersey in creating obstructions which it would be necessary to remove at great cost, for the very safety of the navy itself. Let them take the First Commissioner of Works, be it the noble Lord opposite, or the right hon. Gentleman; give him a board of association to act with him, and let him have all the public works to carry out, leaving none to be executed by the Admiralty or the Treasury, and make him responsible for the estimates, and responsible for the plans. Then, if he was found fault with, he could turn round to his Board, point out to them their own condemnation, and select another more worthy of his confidence. Thus they would be enabled to avoid the disappointments and expenses with which the existing system was attended.

said, that his hon. Friend's proposal was confined to the constitution of the Office of Works; whereas the remarks of the hon. Baronet had extended to that of the Admiralty and the War Office. In his hon. Friend's criticism of some of the more conspicuous and notorious failures in our public works he (Lord John Manners) was disposed to agree. The hon. Baronet, in his able speech, had advocated not merely a permanent officer at the Board of Works, but a very large reform of all the departments to which different works had been intrusted. That subject he (Lord John Manners) thought was hardly yet ripe for discussion. But as to the more limited question of his hon. Friend behind him, he could not see that the proposal was one which would sensibly diminish the evils of which he complained, or in any degree effect their removal. Besides which, as it stood, his hon. Friend's proposal was already practically carried out. When he asked for a permanent officer, his (Lord John Manners') answer was, that a permanent officer already existed in that distinguished public servant, Mr. Austin, from whose evidence he had quoted. A better man no First Commissioner could desire to have at hand. He would put it to his hon. Friend whether the objection he felt to the non-permanent character of the head of the department of Public-Works might not be equally applied to every other great department of State? In fact, the organization of the Office of Works was precisely the same as that of every other Department. It had its political non-permanent head, who was responsible to Parliament, and who acted in harmony with his Colleagues in the Government; and it had its permanent officer—in some Departments called an Under Secretary—who was responsible to Government, and not to Parliament. He doubted whether the evils complained of would be cured by the establishment of a permanent officer. The hon. Baronet (Sir John Shelley) had gone into details, and had given it as his opinion that some person, as a Junior Lord of the Treasury, should be appointed to superintend the office. But, without disparaging Junior Lords of the Treasury, past, present, or to come, he (Lord John Manners) could not think they were likely to be very conversant with the details of undertakings in the origination of which they had had no voice, and which they might find it a a difficult task to defend in the House of Commons, if they were objected to. He thought the proposed arrangement would be found to work extremely ill in practice, and he would remind the House of a some- what similar case. A few years ago the Poor Law Board was not represented in the House. Great inconvenience ensued, and, acting upon the advice of the late Mr. Charles Buller, it was decided that the Poor Law Board should be represented directly in the House. But how? It was not proposed that a Junior Lord of the Treasury or a Junior Lord of the Admiralty should be the mouthpiece of the Poor Law Board. The responsible head of the Board was brought into the House, and the result was that the business had been carried on to the satisfaction of the country ever since. He thought that the practical remedy was to be found not in an alteration of the existing system, but in the discretion, in the tact, and in the good feeling of the various heads of the office who succeeded each other. Whatever mischief had been done had arisen from the over-zeal of the incoming Commissioner, wishing to carve his name on some marble or bronze monument, and for that object subverting all that the previous Commissioner had established. In that way changes had been hastily adopted which had far better have been avoided. But he held that to be one of the necessary evils of a constitutional form of Government. If there was a change of Government, it must be left to the responsible head of the new Government to place the right man in the right place. If the Prime Minister made an unfortunate selection, inconvenience ensued; but he could not see that there was any greater mischief from not having a permanent head at the Office of Works than for not having a permanent head at the War Office, the Colonial Office, or any other of the great offices of State.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to a Report recently issued by Sir Henry James of the progress of the Ordnance Survey of the United Kingdom. That Report contained a suggestion which would have the effect of postponing the survey of Scotland for about a quarter of a century, until a re-survey of England had been made on a larger scale, together with revisions of the surveys already completed both of England and Ireland. The attention of Parliament had been frequently called to the subject, and various inquiries made; but, so far as Scotland was concerned, they had been working without any fixed plan, and a Committee had reported last year that the interference of Parliament had not only caused delay, but very great and unnecessary expense. What was the actual state of the survey of the United Kingdom? There was a complete map of England on the one-inch scale. As a map it was perhaps the most convenient of all, but for many purposes a larger map was necessary; and, if so, one on the 25-inch scale was probably the most desirable. There were two complete maps of Ireland, one on the six-inch scale, and one in outline on the one-inch scale, and a third in progress showing the physical characteristics of the country. In Scotland there were 30,000 square miles to be surveyed. A little more than one-fifth, or 6,348 square miles on the six-inch, and 4,022 square miles, or considerably less than one-seventh, on the one-inch scale were completed; but only 732 square miles on the six-inch, and about 1,000 square miles on the one-inch scale were published. It had happened once that the engineers were all removed to Ireland to make the survey on the six-inch scale, but it was scarcely fair to Scotland to take them away a second time. The people of Scotland had contributed their share to the surveys of England and Ireland, and they were entitled to have their country surveyed before further proceedings were adopted either in Ireland or England. They did not care upon what scale the map was done, whether the six-inch or the one-inch scale; but the survey ought to be completed. He did not wish to call for the action of Parliament, but he desired to bear what course Her Majesty's Ministers intended to adopt.

said, that in addition to what had fallen from his hon. Friend, he would beg the House to remember that in comparison with England the area of Scotland was exactly one-half. England and Ireland both had got capital maps; while Scotland had been waiting forty years for a map. It was now proposed to delay its completion, in order to expend £1,500,000 upon a second survey of England upon a linger scale. The survey of England had cost £1,060,000, while the survey of Ireland, on the one-inch and the six-inch scale, had cost about the same amount. In Scotland only 4,000 square miles had been surveyed, and that survey had cost £500,000—or half as much as the whole of England. Now, the survey of Scotland had been always estimated to cost only £1,000,000; but if only 4,000 square miles had cost half that sum, how would the survey of the remaining 26,000 be completed for the sum named. For his own part, he had been always opposed to a very expensive survey of the country, and he believed that a capital survey on a minor scale might be obtained for £300,000. But the conclusion having been arrived at that Scotland should be surveyed on a larger scale, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the matter into his serious consideration. It was generally supposed that the annual Vote of £70,000 was appropriated to the purposes of the survey of Scotland; but if hon. Gentlemen would look to the Return which he had obtained last year, they would find that nearly half the money was appropriated to other purposes. He found that last year only £20,000 of the £70,000 was spent in Scotland, £20,000 more having been spent in England, while £10,000 was laid out upon the revision of the map of Ireland, which had two maps already. There were other items in the list for military surveys, besides a long schedule of fanciful performances—such as copies of old maps, lithographs, and other things. It would be satisfactory if in the future it could be Stated, when the Estimates were considered, what amount was to be appropriated to the survey, and that the Department should be bound either to spend the money on the survey for which it was voted, or to do as other Departments did—namely, pay the balance into the Exchequer. Now, the people of Scotland felt themselves much aggrieved in being placed in a worse position in respect to a survey than either Ireland or England, and he thought they had a right to claim that the survey in that country should be proceeded with in a continuous manner. If it were proceeded with at the rate of last year, instead of its being finished in ten years as promised, the youngest Member in that House could scarcely hope to live to see a complete map of Scotland. He trusted, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the assurance, that before he embarked on the large expenditure proposed in Sir Henry James's Report, the money voted in the present year should be devoted to the survey of Scotland.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give no pledge not to commence the survey of England until that of Scotland was completed. The evidence taken before the Committee, of which the hon. Member for Wick was Chairman, showed that it was impossible to carry on the survey of the latter country continuously. The fact was that the more cultivated portions of Scotland had been very completely surveyed, and of those portions the Scotch people had not only a map on the one-inch scale, but also a plan on the twenty-five inch scale. The portion which remained to be surveyed was the Highlands, and that it was possible to survey only during the fine portions of the year. A survey could not be carried on there in winter, while it could be proceeded with very well in England. It would be rather hard, therefore, to prevent men from going on with a survey in England at a time when they could not work in Scotland. On the other hand, a survey could not be so well made in England during the summer, on account of the crops. The survey might, he believed, be carried on most economically and profitably to both countries, if it were proceeded with during part of the year in Scotland and part in England.

said, it might be impossible to carry on the survey during the whole year in the mountainous districts of Scotland, but there would be no difficulty in surveying the low-lying grounds, of which a large extent still remained unsurveyed. The subject, he might add, had attracted considerable attention in Scotland, and he hoped it would receive the consideration of that House.

said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence between the Trinity Board and the Board of Trade, and to ask the President of that Board whether, in his opinion, the experience had of the Electric Light during nearly two years, is not sufficient to warrant its adoption at Portland? In their Correspondence the Trinity House omitted all reference to the most important fact that the Electric Light was distinguishable from all others; and while complaining that it had during nine months been extinguished, once for two minutes, once for thirty seconds, and eighteen other times for much shorter periods, they overlooked the facts that under the existing system it was necessary to extinguish the lamps every night at least once, for a quarter of an hour, to trim them. It was also said that the light depended entirely upon the care and attention of the engineer; yet, al- though that person had during the nine months so grossly neglected his duty that there was frequently danger of the boilers exploding, the light had perversely gone on exceeding all others in brilliancy and power. Its illumination could also be seen long before the light itself rose above the horizon. The Trinity House referred to the fact that two vessels had gone on shore in spite of the light; but the fact was that one of these vessels was in charge of a drunken captain and crew, while the other was the case of a light collier which would not answer her helm, and being on a lee shore was driven aground. It was also alleged that a large amount of skill and care was required in the engine-room, but the truth was that the most ordinary attention to the proper working of the engine was sufficient to insure the good action of the light. It was also much less costly than oil lamps. He did not impute to the Trinity House any desire or disposition to falsify facts, but he thought that they had not fully recognised the merits, and had greatly exaggerated the defects of this light. In short, the objections urged against the electric light were of much the same value as those which were brought forward when gas was proposed to be substituted for oil in the streets.

said, he had some difficulty in Answering the Question of the noble Lord, because on a scientific subject of the kind, of great interest and importance to the shipping interest, he could not form an opinion of his own except upon the advice and testimony of others fully acquainted with the matter. The exact position of the Board of Trade on such questions was this:—Whatever power they exercised in reference to light-houses and lights they possessed under the Merchant Shipping Act, but that Act gave them no power to initiate or propose any expenditure upon new light-houses or in carrying out any new processes for their illumination. Their duty was simply to control the expenditure; and when the Corporation of the Trinity House—the body charged by law with the administration of the light-house system—proposed any expenditure, it was submitted to them, and could not be incurred without their sanction. When the Trinity House proposed to re-construct the light house at Portland, and improve the lights, the Board of Trade went as far as the Act permitted them, and suggested that before they gave their sanction to the improve meats it might be well to clearly ascertain whether that light-house could not be pre- pared to receive the electric light, and they requested that the improvements should be postponed until the electric light had had a full trial. A certain amount of experience had been obtained of the electric light, but the Trinity Corporation was of opinion that it was not sufficient to satisfy them that it would be prudent to rely altogether upon the new method of illumination; and in forming an opinion they had the advantage of the aid of Mr. Faraday, one of the most competent men in the kingdom. He himself regarded the trial at Dungeness as most satisfactory; and, as far as he was competent to judge, the experiment promised exceedingly well. The noble Lord had acquitted the Trinity Corporation of any deliberate wish to retard improvement; and he would assure him further that the Masters and Elder Brethren were only desirous of arriving at a sound conclusion. Beyond the question of efficient lighting there were considerations of expense by which, of course, that corporation must necessarily be guided to some extent. Although it might be advisable to employ the electric light, if ultimately approved, in particular situations, there were other positions where ordinary lights would answer nil the purposes of commerce and navigation. No obstacles would be thrown in the way of introducing the electric light; but it was necessary that those charged with the responsibility should take sufficient time to satisfy their minds that it was really a valuable and reliable invention. At the same time, he was quite prepared to admit that there was a reasonable limit of time within which they ought to make up their minds one way or the other; but as far as the Board of Trade and the Trinity Corporation were concerned, every means would be adopted to test the efficiency of this light; and if it proved to be all they had heard, he had no doubt it would be adopted at other stations besides Dungeness.

said, he had attended as closely as possible to all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but had been unable to discover what he intended to do. The official experience of his right hon. Friend had converted him into the most perfect piece of Ministerial caution he was acquainted with. The terms of the question addressed to him were clear and categorical. His noble Friend had asked, "Will you, as the head of the Department immediately connected with a question so important to our commerce and navigation, give us some assurance that this great improvement shall be adopted on this particular spot?" The right hon. Gentleman had not alluded to that spot in his answer. He had also been in hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would have alluded to the Start light-house, where an improvement was greatly required, but he had not mentioned it. The right hon. Gentleman's generalities were amusing. The right hon. Gentleman said the Board of Trade were desirous of obtaining the best scientific assistance. Would he allow him (Sir John Pakington) to suggest that the Trinity Board was the one where persons would least think of applying for scientific assistance. Even the noble Viscount, who held a distinguished position in connection with that corporation, would hardly lay much stress on its scientific, attainments. But the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned one of the highest names in science—that of Mr. Faraday, and Mr. Faraday's opinion was in favour of the electric light. The right hon. Gentleman asked for time; what amount of time would satisfy him? It was clear from the right hon. Gentleman's own statement that he could not deny the advantages of the electric light. The Portland lights were bad, and required repair. The Start light was out of repair. There was twelve months' experience of the electric light at Dungeness; and it had remained in operation during that period with unbroken success. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was not so clear and decisive as the commercial interests of the country had, he thought, a right to expect. He trusted that the Government would hesitate before they rejected the light, and that they would do all in their power to secure the great advantages which it promised to the shipping interests.

said, he drew a more favourable augury from the reply of the President of the Board of Trade than the right hon. Baronet had done. It had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman that the Board of Trade knew the great advantage of the light, and there could be no doubt that it was the best light which could be adopted for light-houses; but there were two difficulties in the way—its permanence and its cost. Its permanency was the principal difficulty; but he hoped no long time would elapse before the Trinity Board arrived at the opinion, that though in that respect, and also as regarded the cost, there might be some objection, it ought not to stand in the way of the adoption of the light.

said, that both the Board of Trade and the Trinity Board quoted Professor Faraday in justification of their hesitation to adopt the electric light. And what said Professor Faraday? In a Report dated December 23rd, 1862, that eminent scientific authority stated that the evidence went to show that the electric light had not failed once in sixteen months, and that on examining it on the spot he found it to be in every point satisfactory; and in a second Report, dated in February of the present year, he repeated his favourable testimony of the great superiority of the new optical apparatus over the old system of lighting light-houses.

said, he rose to call attention to the circumstances attending the death, after four weeks' imprisonment, of Regimental Sergeant Major Lilley, of the 6th Dragoons, at Mhow in India, on the 25th of May 1862, and to the imprisonment at the same time, for a still longer period, of Troop Sergeant Majors Duval and Wakefield, of the same regiment, without either of the three having been, brought to trial, or any formal charge having been preferred against them, and to ask whether the Commanding Officer, under whose authority the above took place, is still permitted to remain in command of the Regiment. The statement he had to make was a very plain and simple one, but before doing so he desired, in the first instance, to disclaim any intention of attacking the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for War (Earl De Grey and Ripon), for whose ability and character he had the highest respect. He felt convinced, that if the disposal of this matter had rested with that noble Lord, and if his hands had not been tied to some extent by the action taken by the military authorities in India, he would not have lost a single day in taking care that full justice was done to the parties concerned. He knew something, however, of the difficulties he had had to contend with; and if the expression of opinion he trusted to elicit from the House should have in any degree the effect of smoothing those difficulties, and enabling him to take the course which his own sense of right and justice would naturally impel him to adopt, his object in bringing forward the subject would have been fully attained. The facts of the case were as follows:—About two years ago the command of the 6th or lnniskilling Dragoons was transferred from Colonel Shute, who now commanded the 4th Dragoon Guards, to Lieutenant Colonel Crawley, who exchanged from the 15th Hussars. It was not long before a change appeared in the good feeling which had previously existed between the lieutenant colonel and the officers under his command. Dissensions, into the origin of which it was unnecessary to enter, arose; and Captain Smales, paymaster of the regiment, wrote a letter to the commanding officer, containing charges of such a nature as hardly left Colonel Crawley any option between admitting the truth of these charges, and thereby admitting his own unfitness to hold the command, or, on the other hand, bringing the officer to a court-martial for making false and malicious charges against him. Colonel Crawley adopted the latter alternative, and a court martial was appointed to try the case. One of the principal features of the charge made against Colonel Crawley was his absence from the monthly parades of the regiment. Among the most important of Captain Smale's witnesses were the non-commissioned officers, because, from their peculiar position, it was almost absolutely impossible for them to make any mistake as to the identity of the officer in command of the parade. Accordingly, three of those non-commissioned officers, Regimental Sergeant Major Lilley, and Troop Sergeant Majors Duval and Wakefield, were regularly subpœnaed by the accused as his witnesses to prove the presence or the absence of the colonel. Before, however, they had an opportunity of giving their evidence, they were sent for by the commanding officer, not to the orderly-room of the regiment, which would have been the proper place, but to his private house, and there subjected to an examination of the most stringent kind, from which the adjutant of the regiment was excluded, and the only persons allowed to be present were witnesses for the prosecution and friends of the commanding officer. From that examination those three non-commissioned officers were marched off, and ordered into close arrest, with sentries placed over them. When any charge was brought against an officer, whether commissioned or non-commission ed, there were three kinds of arrest that might be enforced—he was placed either in ordinary arrest, that was, confined within the barracks or cantonments, which was the usual course; or in close arrest, which involved confinement to his own quarters; or, lastly, what was very rare, and resorted to only in cases of a very grave or criminal nature, in close arrest, with sentries posted over him. To the last sort of confinement were these men subjected on a charge of conspiracy, which His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, in a memorandum lately issued, stated there was not a shadow of evidence brought forward to sustain. What did the 99th Article of War say with respect to confinement? It said—

"When any soldier or officer commits an offence deserving of punishment, he shall be ordered into arrest or confinement until released by lawful authority; and no officer or soldier shall continue in such arrest or confinement more than eight days, or until such time as a court martial can conveniently be held."

And the 79th Article said—

"Whoever shall unnecessarily detain any prisoner in confinement without bringing him to trial, shall, if an officer, be liable to be cashiered, or to suffer such other punishment as, by the judgment of a general court martial, may be awarded."

But those men were kept in confinement without trial not for eight days, but for several weeks: one was liberated only by death; and when the order for release came for the other two, it found one of them a raving lunatic, and he was conveyed to the hospital suffering from brain fever. After four weeks' imprisonment Sergeant Major Lilley was taken ill, and he died within a few hours. No inquest or committee of inquiry, which in India was equivalent to an inquest, was held; but a post mortem examination was made by the regimental surgeon, who certified that the cause of death was apoplexy, brought on by his sedentary life and the peculiar and painful circumstances in which he was placed. How painful and how peculiar those circumstances were, he would now proceed to explain to the House. The place where Sergeant Major Lilley was confined was a single room in a bomb-proof building, formerly used as cavalry stables, and which had since been pulled down as unfit for the occupation of European troops. It was almost impossible that the roof of this building could get cool, as it was so formed that the amount of heat absorbed by it in the day could not be carried off by night. In a room, then, more like an oven than a human habitation was Sergeant Major Lilley imprisoned, and that room was shared by his wife, who was confined to her bed by a diarrhœa attending the last stage of consumption; in fact, she only survived her husband two or three days. A sentry was placed over the sergeant major, with strict injunctions to keep him constantly in sight, and not to allow him to receive any communications from without. The adjutant, with proper feeling, had in the first instance placed the sentry outside the room; but in consequence of a sergeant's wife having attempted to communicate with the sick woman—to give her some flowers, he believed—Colonel Crawley, incredible as it might appear, ordered the sentry to be stationed inside the room; and there, in the presence of strange men, renewed from day to day and from hour to hour, and posted three feet from her bed, all the functions of nature had to be performed by this dying woman. Colonel Crawley had pleaded ignorance of those circumstances, professed to be shocked when he heard of them, and attempted to throw the blame of this indecent and inhuman proceeding upon the adjutant who received the orders. Unfortunately for him, there were witnesses to prove that it was distinctly brought under his notice at the time that Lilley was a married man, and also that his wife was ill. To these representations Colonel Crawley replied, in language he did not choose to repeat to the House, that he did not care—married or single, officer or soldier, the duty should be done; and it was done. Those facts were not imaginary; he had drawn them from documents placed in the hands of the military authorities, and he might almost say he knew every word he uttered might be fully proved from the evidence of witnesses now in this country. An attempt had been made to prove that the death of Lilley resulted from excessive drink, and a native suttler's Bill was brought forward to show that a large quantity of wine and spirits had been supplied to him during his confinement. That assertion had been adopted by Sir Hugh Rose, who gave it general currency in his remarks upon the court martial, which were read at the head of the regiment. But it turned out, on investigation, that the spirits had been consumed not by the sergeant major, but by his sick wife, who was entirely kept alive for some weeks by taking, under medical advice, large doses of wine and spirits. The evidence of the sentries and of the medical officer proved conclusively that neither during his lifetime nor after his death were there the slightest signs of excess on Lilley's part. And his Royal Highness had endorsed that statement, and vindicated Lilley's memory from the imputation sought to be cast upon it. He would not dwell upon the character of the deceased, or the esteem in which he was held in the regiment, nor on the testimony borne to his character by the two commanding officers under whom Lilley had previously served. For redress and reparation it was unhappily too late; for Lilley was dead, his wife was dead, his children were dead. But if it was too late for reparation, it was not too late for punishment, such punishment as he trusted that House would force upon the reluctant authorities at the Horse Guards. The death of Lilley had excited a very painful feeling in India; the matter had been taken up by the press, and it became clear that the discussion of it could not be con fined to that country. It was at last brought under the notice of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, who, while censuring Colonel Crawley in his memorandum in terms of well-deserved severity, had, with the most incomprehensible leniency, still left him in possession of that command for which he had shown himself so manifestly unfit. Let the House mark the varying measure of justice dealt out in military offences according to the rank of the offender. Paymaster Smales, for writing a letter which was considered insubordinate, though the charges brought forward in it had been fully established, was brought to a court martial, tried, condemned, and cashiered. His professional prospects were blasted; while the commanding officer, for an offence, which, however it might be viewed elsewhere, no one in that House would dispute was far graver, alike in its character and its consequences, was visited with no severer punishment than a simple reprimand. But he could not believe that in the face of such facts as had been brought forward this strange leniency would be persisted in. He hoped Colonel Crawley would not be left the power, as he had shown he had the will, to inflict tyranny and persecution on those beneath him. So persuaded were the Serjeant's relatives that his blood lay at Colonel Crawley's door that he had authority for saying they were determined to indict him for manslaughter so soon as he appeared in this country, unless the Government took the matter up earnestly. Before he sat down there were two objections he wished to meet. He hoped it would not be said that he was attacking an absent man who had no opportunity of defending himself. The charges he had made against Colonel Crawley were not only contained in documents in the possession of the War Office, they had been for months the property of the public papers, they were widely circulated and widely believed; and it was from no wish to blacken his character, but rather to enable him, if he possibly could, to clear it, by means of a proper investigation, that he brought the facts before the House. He had no knowledge of him, he did not even know of his existence until he saw him named in connection with these transactions, and it was the natural feeling which such transactions had aroused in his mind that had determined him to bring forward the case. The other objection which might be urged was, that it was not the province of that House to interfere with the ordinary administration of justice, which should rest with the usual tribunals. In that view, as a general rule, he entirely concurred; but if the House, as a general rule, was bound to abstain from interference with the ordinary administration of justice, it was not only warranted, but imperatively called upon, to interfere in case of the administration of injustice. It was in those exceptional cases where redress had been sought, and sought in vain, at the hands of the ordinary tribunals, that a last appeal had to be made to that public opinion of which the House was the highest representative; and it was the full belief that that appeal would not be made in vain that had induced him to bring the matter before the House of Commons.

observed, that the memorandum which had just been issued by the Horse Guards had completely altered the aspect of the case. By continuing Colonel Crawley in command, the Horse Guards had become responsible for his conduct, and he sincerely trusted that the weight of public indignation, and the reprobation of that House would be expressed in clear and measured terms with reference to the proceedings of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief on that occasion. He would quote one or two passages from the memorandum of his Royal Highness—

"His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge has read, with deep regret, the proceedings of the court martial on Mr. Smales, late paymaster of the 6th Dragoons, and in reviewing the proceedings of the court and the subsequent remarks his Royal Highness regrets that on some points he has been under the necessity of differing from officers high in command"—(alluding, he supposed, to one high in command in India, but who had a powerful friend on the Treasury bench)—"on whose judgment, on all other occasions heretofore, his Royal Highness has had the greatest confidence. Nevertheless, for the interest of the service, his Royal Highness has but one course to pursue,"

And what would the House believe was that course? To retain the colonel in command of a distinguished regiment to which he was such a disgrace. His Royal Highness went on to say that Colonel Crawley

"appears to hare taken exception to certain practices in the regiment detrimental to its esprit de corps, and the language he made use of on several occasions his Royal Highness considers as exceedingly injudicious. Colonel Crawley's rejoinder to Mr. Smales's defence his Royal Highness considers as exceedingly vindictive, and likely to raise a spirit of resistance among his officers. It is only from the high opinion expressed of Colonel Crawley by the Major General under whose immediate command he is serving, that his Royal Highness allows Colonel Crawley to remain in the regiment; but it will be on trial only. His Royal Highness hopes that the report of the statements made by Colonel Crawley, on the occasion of his reading out the remarks of his Excellency Sir Hugh Rose, may prove to be incorrect, or it would add very much to his already very reprehensible conduct, and would necessitate his Royal Highness taking serious notice of the circumstances. As regards the confinement of the three non-commissioned officers, his Royal Highness views it with extreme displeasure."

It should be remembered that Colonel Crawley, by the imprisonment of these men, had rendered himself liable to be tried by a court martial.

"They were placed under arrest for conspiracy, when, it appears, there was no charge preferred against them, or the shadow of evidence produced to that effect; and it would almost appear that his Excellency Sir Hugh Rose had been misinformed of the circumstances of the case, or he would not have dealt with the subject as he did, and would not have attributed the death of Regimental Sergeant Major Lilley to excess."

Was that a state of things to be permitted and maintained by the Horse Guards? If anything could sap the discipline of the British Army and lower the high spirit of the British soldier, it would be such conduct as this, should it receive the sanction of that House. He therefore hoped the noble Lord, in his reply to his hon. Friend, would not confine himself to the conduct of Colonel Crawley, but justify, if he could, the Commander-in-Chief, who, by the issuing of the memorandum to which he had referred had made himself responsible for every act Colonel Crawley had committed.

said, he would first reply to the Question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. H. Baillie), the forms of the House having prevented his doing so at an earlier hour of the evening. It was perfectly true that considerable delay had occurred in proceeding with the Ordnance Survey in Scotland. In consequence of the necessity to have certain districts on the coast of England surveyed preparatory to the erection of the fortifications, the force was partially reduced in Scotland. That survey, however, was now finished, and the force would be restored to Scotland in the same strength as before the change. The more cultivated districts in Scotland having been for the most part surveyed, it was intended in future to employ in Scotland a large force during the summer months, when the weather and length of the day were favourable to the survey of the mountainous districts, and during the winter that force would be removed to England, where it could be more advantageously employed. He hoped that explanation would be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. He then came to the unfortunate occurrences which took place last year in India, and to which the attention of the House had been called. It was not necessary that he should go back to the history of the 6th; Dragons further, than to the court martial which sat in April last in Calcutta, on Captain Smales, paymaster of the regiment. Very shortly after the commencement of the proceedings of that court martial the president was informed that the proceedings had been furnished by some person who had been present, and had been read by the sergeant majors in the house of one of them previous to their examination. Colonel Crawley represented to the president that such a course set at naught all the regulations for the conduct of the court and the president, while he did not attach blame to any one for what had taken place, strongly denounced the practice, and forbade any person connected in any way with the court martial to make public the proceedings until they were officially closed. On the 26th of April, acting on information given him, Colonel Crawley summoned Regimental Sergeant Major Lilley and Troop Sergeant Majors Duval and Wakefield before him, and in presence of some of the officers of the regiment they were called in to be examined. That examination was an irregular one, and the sergeant majors were not warned that what they stated might be used as evidence against themselves. However, as the result of the examination, Colonel Crawley placed the three sergeant majors under arrest on a charge of conspiracy; that arrest was not, as has been said by the hon. Member, close arrest; they were simply placed under ordinary arrest. At the same time, Colonel Crawley informed Major General Farrell of the charge on which he had arrested these officers, and requested his instructions as to their trial, and instructions as to placing them under close arrest. On the 28th of April General Farrell wrote to Sir William Mansfield, Commander-in-Chief of the district, and referred the question which had been asked of him by Colonel Crawley for his decision. At the same time, he informed Colonel Crawley of the reference which he had made, and with regard to the application as to placing the sergeant majors under close arrest, he added that Colonel Crawley had been verbally instructed that pending the decision of the Commander-in-Chief the arrest should be close. On May 6th Sir William Mansfield wrote, that having examined the evidence which had been sent to him by General Farrell, which consisted of Colonel Crawley's letter, the testimony of the sergeant major who had informed on his comrades, and the examination of the sergeant majors, in his opinion the evidence would not support the charge for conspiracy, his opinion to that effect being principally based on the fact that the sergeant majors had not been warned as to the use that would be made of what they might say in evidence. He went on, however, to say that their conduct hail been most improper, but whether Sergeant Major Lilley and the other sergeant majors had acted in the spirit of hostility to Colonel Crawley, or from other motives, Sergeant Major Lilley had grossly derogated from his duty by participating in what had taken place, and in allowing such occurrences to go on without bringing them to the notice of his commanding officer. Sir William Mansfield said that under such circumstances Sergeant Major Lilley was totally unqualified to occupy his position as sergeant major, and should be dismissed; and he concluded by stating that he wished the sergeant majors should he kept in arrest until the end of the court martial upon Paymaster Smales. Shortly afterwards, at the beginning of May, the court martial was adjourned on account of the illness of Captain Smales, and some other causes. The court martial not being concluded, the sergeant majors were still kept under close arrest. On the 24th of May Sergeant Major Lilley was reported to be sick; and on the 25th he died. On the 2nd of June Sir William Mansfield wrote to General Farrell that he had heard through the public newspapers that the confinement of the sergeant majors had been not only close, but of an absolutely penal nature, and that during that confinement Sergeant Major Lilley had died. He said that when he issued his directions of the 6th of May he was under the impression that the court martial would be terminated at or about the time when those directions would reach Mhow, and that consequently the sergeant majors would he at once liberated. He said also, that on the adjournment of the court martial the General commanding the division—Major General Farrell—should either have acted on his own responsibility and released the sergeant majors, or, if he did not deem that within his power, he should have made another reference to him by telegraph, and have obtained their enlargement. Sir William Mansfield inclosed in that letter a memorandum which he directed to be read to the troops at Mhow, stating his extreme regret that the unfortunate circumstance should have occurred, and explaining the reasons which had induced him to order the sergeant majors to be continued under close arrest. Those reasons were:—First, that from the evidence produced before him those sergeant majors had narrowly escaped—if they had indeed escaped—the commission of a most serious crime; and that it was necessary, in his judgment, to keep them from the temptation which, if set at liberty, they would have been under of repeating that crime. Secondly, that in his opinion it was necessary that they should be confined in close arrest in order to prevent parties concerned in the court martial from tampering with them, and concocting the evidence which they were to give. His third reason was, that it was necessary that the charge which had been brought against them by Colonel Crawley should not be condoned by the release of the prisoners until it clearly appeared during the progress of the court martial whether any further evidence could be produced upon which they could be tried. These, then, were the chief facts connected with this most unfortunate case, and which were substantiated and contained in the documents before the Horse Guards and the War Office. Upon them the opinion of the learned Judge Advocate had been taken. It would not be in accordance with precedent for that opinion to be laid on the table of the House, but there was no objection to his stating its substance. Having had these documents before him, the learned Judge Advocate had given it as his opinion:—First, that Colonel Crawley had not sufficient grounds on which the charge of conspiracy brought by that officer against the sergeant majors could be established. Secondly, he was of opinion that the continued arrest as sanctioned by Major General Farrell and Sir William Mansfield was illegal under the Articles and the section of the Mutiny Act which had been read, and that the reasons alleged in Sir William Mansfield's memorandum were not valid. It would be obvious from that statement that in this matter some one had been very much to blame. But he would submit to the House that it was necessary to inquire how the responsibility for what had occurred was distributed among the officers concerned. Colonel Crawley, it was perfectly clear, thought that he had evidence to prove a charge of conspiracy against the sergeant majors. He placed them under arrest, simple ordinary arrest, and he immediately forwarded a report to the General commanding the division, stating the offence of which they were accused, requesting that officer's instructions with regard to that charge, and asking his sanction before taking the step of placing them under total or close arrest. Major General Farrell appeared to have been wrong, in the first instance, in ordering that they should be placed under close arrest. He was probably wrong, also, in not at once perceiving that there were not sufficient grounds for the charge of conspiracy, and in referring the matter at all to Sir William Mansfield. Still more, however, was he wrong in obeying the letter and not the spirit of the instructions which he received from Sir William Mansfield. Those instructions were, that the sergeant majors should be kept under arrest till the conclusion of the court martial. Sir William Mansfield considering, and fairly considering, that when an entirely unforeseen occurrence, such as the indefinite adjournment of the case, took place, Major General Farrell ought to have taken that circumstance into consideration, and either have acted on his own responsibility, or at any rate made another reference to him. Then Sir William Mansfield appeared to have been wrong in the legal view he took of the evidence submitted to him. He was wrong in stating, that though the charge of conspiracy could not be supported, yet that in the interest of discipline it was expedient that the sergeant majors should be continued under arrest. Sir William Mansfield appeared to have acted under the impression that in ordering that continued arrest he was doing something in the nature of a remand—that he was, in fact, only doing what a police magistrate did when he remanded a prisoner in order that further evidence should be produced against him. In that impression Sir William Mansfield was quite wrong, and that seemed to be the extent of his error. Such being the manner in which these officers divided the blame and responsibility to which they had rendered themselves liable, the next consideration was, what could possibly be done by the home authorities in the matter? If Colonel Crawley was covered, as in the opinion of the Government he was, by the command of his superior officer, it was quite evident that he did not render himself liable to be tried, and that it would be perfectly useless to attempt to try him by court martial; for his act was sanctioned by his superiors. Major General Farrell also appeared to be covered technically in what be had done by the authority of his superior officer. But the conduct of these officers and the illegality of the course which they pursued was a subject which it would be perfectly in the power of the Commander-in-Chief, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, to point out to them, and bring under the notice of the army in such terms of reprimand and reprehension as might seem to be advisable. But what be wished to point out was, that it was incumbent on His Royal Highness to act with the greatest care and caution when he was dealing with so distinguished an officer as Sir William Mansfield. There were few officers in the army who had more distinguished themselves or done better service to their country than Sir William Mansfield. If he was right in the view which he had tried to place before the House, it would be evident to all that Sir William Mansfield acted under a misapprehension, and that he was in no way mixed up with the miserable squabbles and petty jealousies which had distracted the 6th Dragoons. It must be evident that, though wrong, Sir William Mansfield acted for what he supposed to be the best interests of the discipline of the army. Under these circumstances, it was the duty of His Royal Highness to deal not only with care and caution, but also with the greatest moderation and leniency. As it appeared that the confinement, and especially the close confinement, of Sergeant Major Lilley and his comrades was clearly illegal—as it also appeared that the death of Sergeant Major Lilley was probably caused by his confinement, and as a claim had been made by his surviving relatives, who were persons in poor circumstances, having been entirely supported by him, it seemed to the Government to be right that some reparation should be made to them for the loss they had sustained. The Government had therefore determined, with the sanction of that House, to make such a grant to the relatives of Sergeant Major Lilley as would be about equal in amount to the pension to which the deceased would have been entitled had he received his discharge at the time of his death. These were the main facts in the case, and upon them it appeared that no further light could be thrown. There were, however, certain collateral circumstances, with respect to which it was necessary that further inquiry should be made. So far as he had yet gone, his statement, as the House would have perceived, had entirely coincided with that of the hon. Member for Andover; but there was a marked discrepancy between the statements of Colonel Crawley, as made in his address to the court martial, and the allegations of Lieutenant Fitzsimon, the adjutant of the regiment, whose declaration had very recently been brought before the Secretary of State. Lieutenant Fitzsimon entirely denied the allegation of Colonel Crawley, that it was he, the adjutant, and not Colonel Crawley himself, who gave the order that the sentry should be posted inside and not outside of the room in which Sergeant Major Lilley was confined, and in which his wife was lying ill. That was a point which bore strongly on the character and moral guilt of Colonel Crawley; but when Colonel Crawley affirmed one thing, and Lieutenant Fitzsimon affirmed exactly the reverse, it was obviously impossible for any one at home to come to any decision on the matter until it had been thoroughly investigated on the spot. It was necessary that the conduct of Colonel Crawley with respect to these charges, and also the circumstances which accompanied the withdrawal of the letter from Lieutenant Fitzsimon, in which he contradicted the statement of Colonel Crawley, should be made the subject of an investigation. [Mr. CONINGHAM: What about the memorandum?] The memorandum published by His Royal Highness condemned in very strong terms the conduct of Colonel Crawley, chiefly with reference to the internal discipline of the regiment; but at the data of its publication His Royal Highness was not in possession of the opinion of the Judge Advocate General, or of all the facts, as they now appeared before the House. It was evident, if the facts were as he had stated them, that Colonel Craw- ley, though there might be great moral guilt resting upon him, could not be punished, except on that collateral point which he had said was the subject of an investigation. It would have been a great deal more satisfactory to himself, and doubtless to the House likewise, if he could have come down that night and handed over to them a victim who should atone for the wrongs and sufferings of Sergeant Major Lilley and his comrades. Although he could not produce a victim to the House, his consolation was, that he had told them without any reserve the facts of that most painful case; but he was sure that, on reflection, the House would agree with him, that not even the horror which such a tragedy inspired, or not even the disgust which was caused by a contemplation of such mismanagement and such military scandals as had been revealed in the case of the 6th Dragoons, would justify the Commander-in-Chief, or the Secretary of State, in departing one hair's breadth from the strict rules and principles of justice.

said, that he thought that sufficient evidence had been laid before the House to warrant the conclusion that a gross injustice had been perpetrated. He did not participate in the warmth of the hon. Member for Brighton, who had expressed, in honest and indignant terms, his great astonishment that His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief—knowing and reprobating the circumstances of this deplorable case—should allow Colonel Crawley to remain one day at the head of his regiment; but he was satisfied, that if such an outrage as that to which Sergeant Major Lilley had been subjected were to be committed among civilians, no mere rank would save the guilty party from an immediate judicial inquiry. It was not satisfactory to be told that Colonel Crawley was continued in command of his regiment simply because he enjoyed the confidence of his superior officer. Why, according to the statement of the noble Marquess, that superior officer was himself implicated in the affair; and it must never be admitted that the rank of Sir William Mansfield or General Farrell should be accepted as a set-off to the offence perpetrated at Mhow. He took leave respectfully to tell that House and the Commander-in-Chief, that if the British army was to enjoy the confidence of the country, they must be allowed to have the freedom from injustice and military tyranny that civilians enjoyed. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Marquess would be prepared to give an assurance that something more than mere collateral inquiry should be made. There ought to be a strict investigation into all the circumstances of the case; and if the guilt of this man's death was traceable to any one, inasmuch as the Judge Advocate General had declared that the imprisonment was illegal, punishment should follow. Never had a crime more flagrant been committed under circumstances of greater indecency. One fact the noble Lord had not made any allusion to, and that was, that Sergeant Major Lilley's wife, who had been placed in the same cell, died in her confinement, which took place under circumstances of the grossest indecency. Who knew what that poor creature suffered in her last moments? No more horrible case had ever been known in the annals of the country, and it passed all comprehension how English men and women could be subjected to such brutal treatment at the hands of their brother Englishmen. The answer of the noble Lord was not, in his opinion, sufficient, and nothing less than an immediate inquiry, and a suspension at all events of Colonel Crawley during the inquiry, would satisfy the just indignation of the country.

said, he thought that the speech of the noble Lord would be read in India with some displeasure, or at any rate with great regret, by all the officers composing the Indian army, because the noble Lord had endeavoured to shift the blame from one to another. He had left it upon nobody, but had implicated those general officers in India who had distinguished themselves on all occasions, and who, he had hoped, would have received from the noble Lord complete exoneration in this matter. He had hoped also that the noble Lord would have been able completely to exonerate Colonel Crawley. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not acquainted with that officer, and only defended him as he would defend any other absent man who was unjustly attacked. Many statements had been made in this country; but it should be borne in mind that they were all on one side. He would appeal to the House of Commons not to condemn a man unheard, and he believed that Colonel Crawley was both anxious and willing to meet the charge in every particular. He was satisfied that it was only from a sense of duty towards officers higher in command than himself, that Colonel Crawley had refrained from answering the statements which had appeared in the papers. With the exception of the noble Lord, every speaker had denounced him, and the hon. Gentleman who had spoken first had declared that he was not fit to command the regiment; but India was a distant country, and there were many circumstances attending the court martial at Mhow which they had not been able to arrive at These sergeant majors were certainly believed to be guilty by Colonel Crawley and General Farrell; and when the evidence and the charges preferred were forwarded to Sir William Mansfield, though that officer thought the evidence insufficient to prove the charges against them, he still said, that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, these men were to be kept in closer arrest until the termination of the court martial. If that were so, surely Colonel Crawley had some reason for what he did, and neither he nor any other officer ought to be hastily judged. It should be remembered that men in the army were under a different rule from civilians, and that they had not the same ready methods of redress which civilians enjoyed. A man who was serving his country abroad ought not therefore to be assailed in his absence, unless sufficient reasons for so doing existed. On previous occasions Colonel Crawley had shown great kindness towards the regimental sergeant major. He (Colonel Barttelot) was not going to blacken the memory of the sergeant major. All he wished was to show that Colonel Crawley was not answerable for the death of the sergeant major. The fact was that circumstances had conduced to his death which no one could control. He was an exceedingly large man; it was, as they all knew, a very hot climate, and apoplexy was often fatal in a very short time. The day before his death Colonel Crawley had asked General Farrell whether the close arrest might not be changed to ordinary arrest, and that request was granted, so that at the time of Sergeant Major Lilley's death he was in ordinary arrest. With regard to the adjutant, Lieutenant Fitzsimon, to whom allusion had been made by the noble Lord, it did not appear from the remarks of Sir Hugh Rose upon the court martial that this officer stood very high in his opinion, for he said that the evidence of the adjutant was evasive and unsatisfactory, and showed his entire unfitness for the post. The Commander-in-Chief in India was not likely to be prejudiced or to have any bias upon such a matter; and that to his neglect of duty might be traced the annoyance caused by putting a sentinel in the quarters of Sergeant Major Lilley when he was under close arrest, [Mr. CONINGHAM: That was the statement of Colonel Crawley himself.] He thought that nobody would believe that the Commander-in-Chief in India would be prejudiced by what might be written by Colonel Crawley, or that he would even read it; and besides he was many hundred of miles away from where the inquiry took place. General Farrell, who was in this country, in a letter which he held in his hand said—

"You will perceive that another letter has appeared in The Times of this morning, signed "Civilian," wherein a gross misrepresentation of the truth has been made in regard to Lieutenant Fitzsimon. The case is as follows:—Lieutenant Fitzsimon wrote, commenting, as I conceived, in a disrespectful manner on Sir Hugh Rose's order; and this letter I advised him privately, at my office in Mhow, to withdraw. He said he would do so on my order. 'No, no,' I said, 'you can send it on if you like. If you wish to withdraw it, it must be your own act and deed;' and as his own act and deed he did withdraw it. If I recollect right, my assistant adjutant general, Major Champion, and my aide-de-camp, Lieutenant Gayer, were present. With reference to Colonel Crawley's dropping the charge of conspiracy against Sergeants Lilley, Wakefield, and Duval, he had nothing to do with it. I, as General commanding the division, received orders from the Commander-in-Chief directing them to be forgiven, and a warning order to be read out to all the non-commissioned officers assembled for the purpose. This order I duly read, and Sergeants Wakefield and Duval were released accordingly. Sergeant Duval had been in hospital for a short time with fever, which was very prevalent in the regiment at the time—nothing more. A summary of evidence was sent in by Colonel Crawley to me, against the sergeants, which summary I forwarded to the Commander-in-Chief, and it was his order that no prosecution against them should take place, and that they should he forgiven."

This showed that Colonel Crawley was not to blame, and he was sure that the sense of justice entertained by Englishmen would lead them to feel that this was not a case to be decided in any hurry or upon any one-sided view. The sick wife of Sergeant Major Lilley died, and he was sure that no one deplored her loss and that of the sergeant major more than Colonel Crawley must have done. But Colonel Crawley's wife was now in this country, and annonymous letters had been sent to her declaring that on her husband's arrival in this country a charge of manslaughter would be preferred against him. Every one must deprecate such conduct. It had been said that Colonel Crawley ought to be removed from the command of his regiment; but was it probable, that if he were unfit for the command, he would be retained in it by the Commander-in-Chief? That was primâ facie evidence that he was not guilty, and in his opinion he was rightly and justly retained in the position he occupied. In conclusion, he would appeal to the House and to the country not, for the sake of doing what was alleged to be an act of justice to a man who had died in the service, to do an act of injustice towards a man who was still serving his Queen and country to the best of his ability.

was surprised that the hon. and gallant Officer should have charged the noble Lord with not having done his duty towards these officers; for he certainly thought, after hearing the circumstances of the case, that the noble Lord had dealt very tenderly with them; because, though to some extent blame was cast on each of them, they were all acquitted by the noble Lord of any share in the blame. The hon. and gallant Member had told the House that Colonel Crawley was not to blame; but he wished the hon. and gallant Gentleman had gone one step further, and informed the House, if Colonel Crawley was not to blame, who was? The undertaking by the Government to make a little compensation by a sum of money to the family of Sergeant Major Lilley had very little to do with the great question under consideration. It was of the last importance that those in command, having liberty and life at their disposal, should use their great power with tenderness and with an extreme desire to do justice; and if justice was altogether neglected and set at nought, as it had been in that particular case, some one must be responsible, and an inquiry should be instituted until the reponsible individual was found. That there might be extenuating circumstances, he was quite willing to admit; and, in the absence of the guilty party, he was willing to believe that the lamentable occurrence was the result of some mistake on the part of one, perhaps of many persons; but surely no officer could be ignorant of the Articles of War, and that they had no right to hold an individual under arrest for a period of a month, without bringing that individual to a court martial. He believed, that eight days was the limit, unless under special circumstances. If Sergeant Major Lilley happened to be a large man, and liable to apoplexy, there was the more reason for caution in the selection of the place of confinement. Under all the circumstances, he thought that the noble Marquess had exercised great fairness towards the officers; but he still hoped that a rigid inquiry would be instituted into the affair.

said, that after the statement of the noble Marquess, that further inquiry was to take place, no good purpose could be gained by prolonging the present debate; but, as an old Inniskilling officer, he felt for the character of the regiment, and he therefore regarded with satisfaction the testimony borne to its former good condition by the Commander-in-Chief. He hoped, that when the matter before the House was brought to a conclusion, the Inniskilling Dragoons would be restored to their previous state of discipline and efficiency. He did not think that under no circumstances could a commanding officer be removed from his command without committing some crime; for when a regiment, whose discipline and good conduct had been remarkable in every respect, became afterwards in such a state as the Inniskillings were in subsequently to their arrival in India, the fact of that unfavourable change taking place, might of itself, under the circumstances, be a sufficient cause for the removal of the commanding officer.

observed, that the reason why Colonel Crawley was not removed, was because what he did was sanctioned by his superiors in command. After that fact had been ascertained, it was impossible to remove him.

asked, whether the foundations of the works for the harbour at Dover were laid to the whole extent?

stated, that what was being done with respect to Dover Harbour was the completion of the structure on the foundations already laid down. The Government were not extending the foundations of the harbour beyond the point which would allow two ships to lie alongside the new pier.

observed, that a contract had been made, and the total estimate of £650,000 for Dover Harbour was not likely to be exceeded.

said, that under these circumstances he would exclude Dover from the remarks he was about to make; but he should simply move that the Vote be reduced by £80,000—the amount required for Aldemey Harbour. That could not in any way be described as a harbour of refuge, though the money was asked for under that head. Alderney was entirely out of the way of ships entering or leaving the Channel, and no sane man would attempt to run for that harbour in a gale of wind, because it was surrounded by dangers. But then it was said to be a good military station. He was not able to deliver an opinion on that point, but he understood that some competent professional authorities declared that it would require from 3,000 to 8,000 men to garrison it in the event of war. Since the Vote was taken last Session a plan of the works had been laid before the House, and from that plan he had no hesitation in saying, that if the Government consulted their engineers, they would learn from them that the harbour could not be made safe and efficient for less than £2,000,000. The original Estimate was £620,000. Already that estimate had been exceeded by £427,000, and at least £750,000 more would be required to make a safe harbour of it. The late Government were very candid in the matter; the report of their officers distinctly stated that the work would require £2,000,000: but the present Government, when they came into office, set that estimate aside, and came down to the House stating that they could make an efficient harbour for £1,300,000. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the omission from the Vote of the sum of £80,000 required for Alderney Harbour.

said, he thought it would be very unwise in the Committee to consent to his hon. Friend's Amendment. Though he did not mean to go into the military merits of Alderney, there was no doubt that in the judgment of naval and military officers the harbour was of the highest value as a look-out station, and he protested strongly against his hon. Friend's assumption that it was entirely useless. He would frankly and freely state what had been done by Her Majesty's Government in the matter. Almost the first act of the Government, when they came into office in July 1859, was to inquire how far it would be advisable to extend the harbour. They found that the substructure of the great breakwater had been laid down to a certain point, and they sent for the engineers employed by the Admiralty to ask them whether it would be possible to limit the completion of the breakwater up to that point. The engineers told them that the contractors had been led to expect that the work would be extended to a considerable distance beyond that point, and likewise that it was intended to erect an arm of the breakwater on the eastern side of the harbour. The Government then asked whether it would be possible to make an arrangement with the contractors, so that the breakwater should not be carried beyond the foundations already existing. A great deal of correspondence took place with the contractors, who said, that having been led to believe that the work was to be carried much further, they had procured plant for that purpose, and had gone to considerable expense in making other preparations; and that they could not agree to stop the breakwater without a large compensation. After many communications an arbitration was proposed, and he was glad to be able to inform the Committee that an arrangement had been made with the contractors by which they would receive a fair and reasonable compensation for their plant and any expenses which they had incurred. The Government had stopped the eastern arm of the breakwater, and they had also stopped the extension of the breakwater beyond the point to which the substructure had been laid down. All they were doing was to complete the superstructure as far as the foundations had already been laid. Up to that point a great mass of stones had been thrown down for a foundation, which, being during the spring tides only eleven feet from the surface, constituted a great danger to vessels of a moderate draught which took the harbour in a gale of wind. The present Government had not caused a single stone to be thrown in beyond the foundations which they found there when they came into office; so that, in fact, all they were doing was to complete what had previously been commenced; and he besought the Committee to consider what a disgrace it would be to the country if they left underneath the water a shoal which must he a snare to vessels taking the harbour in bad weather. Such was the simple statement of the case. The Government had come to a fair arrangement with the contractors, and had given up the construction of the eastern arm. It was impossible to say exactly, when dealing with works below the water, but he trusted that the sum of £1,300,000 would not be exceeded; and after communications with the engineers, and after visiting the harbour in company with the Duke of Somerset, he had every reason to believe that the breakwater would be completed to the point which he had mentioned for that sum, which would likewise include the cost of blasting some sunken rocks inside the breakwater. The Government were really only doing that which would give, if not a good, at least a fair harbour of refuge. The Committee would be deceived if they supposed that it was unsafe for vessels. A man-of-war was lying there during the winter months, and it did afford shelter to small vessels, of which class were the vessels which would be employed in watching an enemy's coast. The Government was not going to extend the works. On the contrary, they had made such arrangements as would render it very difficult indeed for any Government to extend them. Under these circumstances, he did hope the Committee would allow them to complete a work which, if left unfinished, would be an everlasting disgrace to England.

said, that it appeared from the statement of the noble Lord that after spending a million of money they had succeeded in creating a shoal so dangerous that the Government had to apply to lay out a large sum of money in order to raise it above the water, whereby ships might avoid it. He would recommend the Government to buoy it, and leave it as it was. His noble Friend had said that the harbour would be available to small vessels, and from his (Sir James Elphinstone's) experience of the navigation of the Channel, he should say that none but very email vessels would ever venture near the Race of Alderney. He conceived there were few events more remote than a war with France; and as that possibility seemed the only argument for this expenditure, he thought it would be much better to apply this £80,000 to the commencement of a harbour of refuge at Filey Bay, for which the President of the Board of Trade admitted that a good case had been made out. The Government was not always very merciful to contractors; but on this occasion no harshness appeared to have been used towards them. He would like to know, however, why the alteration of the contract had not been brought under the notice of the House? The works at Cherbourg were commenced in 1750, and they were discontinued from time to time whenever there was a pressure on the funds of the French Government. No detriment could occur by letting the works at Alderney lie in abeyance for a few years. He should certainly vote for the reduction of the Vote to nil.

said, that after a severe gale he and some friends had visited Alderney in a yacht, and found that two vessels had shortly before been wrecked within the harbour itself, so completely that not a vestige was to be seen. Still he did not see how things could be left as they were. He thought the works must be completed, and should therefore support the Vote.

said, the compensation to the contractors wag included in the sum which he had named.

said, he thought the works at Portland would be finished next year by a Vote of a very small sum—under £20,000.

said, that as the pier marked K on the plans was stopped, there was not an engineer with the slightest regard for his character who would say that the works which were to be completed would be of the slightest use. If there was to be a harbour at all, £750,000 more must be expended. The Government had better adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet and buoy the place where the débris was deposited. The disgrace to the country was that they had ever been such fools as to spend their money at all at Alderney, and they would be greater fools to spend any more money in the same way. There was something like a million of money which the noble Lord admitted was entirely thrown away. ["No, no!"] He understood the noble Lord to say, that unless the Vote under discussion were passed, the harbour would be entirely useless. But, passing from Alderney, he should wish to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of the Government to carry the works at Dover further than the foundations were at present laid? He put that question because he was of opinion, that although carried to that extent, they would be of considerable value as a pier, it would serve no good purpose to prosecute them beyond it.

said, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that the present Government had nothing to do with the harbour at Alderney, for that it was begun by the Government of the Earl of Derby. He (Lord Robert Montagu) denied that. The Earl of Derby's Government had as little do with the matter as the present Government, for the harbour was begun in 1848; and when the fifth extension of the works was proposed in 1858, the Government of the Earl of Derby refused to sanction that extension. If, therefore, the noble Lord opposite and the present Government were ashamed of Alderney, and repudiated it altogether, he (Lord Robert Montagu), on the part of the Opposition, likewise repudiated it.

said, the noble Lord was mistaken in supposing he meant to convey the idea that the Earl of Derby's Government had commenced the works at Alderney. Those works were commenced about fifteen years ago, and what he had stated was, that the present Government found the harbour there in a certain condition when they came into office, and that one of their earliest acts was to make arrangements with a view of limiting its extent. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), he might observe that the expediency of constructing the eastern arm of the breakwater was a point very much in dispute. The Government had, at all events, determined to give up the eastern arm, and the expense of blasting the rock was, however, included in the Vote, which, when completed, would form a great improvement in the harbour. With regard to Dover, a contract had been entered into to construct there a pier of a given length—1,800 feet, and it would, in his opinion, be extremely unadvisable to break that contract, and enter into all the disputes which might follow the adoption of such a course. The works at Dover, he believed he might say, would be completed by November in next year, and would, when finished, be found most useful.

said, he hoped the Committee would have the moral courage to support the Amendment. He had, he confessed, listened with the greatest possible astonishment to the statements which had been made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had, in the first instance, stated that Alderney harbour had, in his opinion, great merit as a naval station; but it was only two years ago that he had heard the noble Lord observe in that House, with evident dislike as to the position in which he was placed, that he thought Alderney would be of some value as a look-out station. But the noble Lord, with his increased experience of office, had become bolder, and now told the Committee that the harbour would be a great naval station. But in the case of a war with France the harbour would require a garrison of 5,000 men, whom they would not be able to spare for such a purpose. The second assertion made by the noble Lord had, however, surprised him still more than the first. He wished the Committee to suppose that Alderney was of great advantage as a harbour of refuge. That might be so; but if he were correctly informed, the only vessels which ever took advantage of it were the revenue cruisers of the Emperor of the French. The noble Lord, however, spoke of difficulties which would arise between the Government and the contractors if the Committee should refuse to assent to the Vote; but he, for one, had not the slightest sympathy with the engineers or contractors in the case. They had, he believed, in constructing the harbour in question, been simply filching money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country, and he thought it was quite time Parliament should take the matter in hand and refuse to grant any more money. His hon. Friend behind him bore testimony to the unsafe state of the harbour. He must remind the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), who had referred to contracts being sanctioned by that House, that no contracts for the works had ever been laid before them, nor any plan, except the original one, which involved an expenditure of only £600,000. Under these circumstances, he thought that the House would do well to adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Rather than complete the piers, as proposed, he would act upon the suggestion which, he believed, had been made to the Government by an eminent engineer officer, and blow up the works which were likely to prove obstructive to shipping.

said, that the question as to the propriety of the Vote did not depend entirely upon the commercial or military value of the harbour, but upon a comparison of the sum voted with the sum asked for. The argument that they were on the eve of the completion of the work, which was used by the Government with effect last year and the year before, must now have additional force. He himself believed that one more Vote after that before the Committee would be sufficient for the completion of the works. The Government had done their best to carry-out the wishes expressed by the Committee last year. They had abandoned the construction of the eastern arm; and as they only desired to complete the western breakwater, which would otherwise become a sunken reef dangerous to vessels approaching the harbour, he trusted that the Committee would take the same view of the matter as they had previously adopted, and vote the sum which was asked for.

said, he was willing to accept the promise of the noble Lord that the pier at Dover should not be extended beyond the length of 1,800 feet. What he had said with regard to the pier marked K was that it would give no protection to the harbour, and that to give security from easterly gales they would have to construct a protecting pier across the harbour, at an expense of £700,000, in addition to the £1,300,000.

Nothing is more easy than to say that a work is of no use and of no value. I can quite understand, that if we were beginning de novo, hon. Gentlemen might entertain a different opinion as to whether it was or was not expedient to make a harbour at Alderney. I think it would be expedient, other people may entertain a contrary opinion: but I cannot understand the reasoning upon which hon. Gentlemen ask that, great progress having been made, a harbour having been nearly constructed, and there being the foundation of part of a pier within a certain distance of high water, we should leave things as they are, and make that a source of danger which ought to be a means of safety. It is stated that the harbour is insecure, and that some yachts were damaged in the late storm; but if the pier, the foundations of which have been already carried about to the point D, were raised, that would give the safety which is now wanting. Then it is said that there are rocks in the harbour; but my noble Friend has stated that they are to be blasted, and that will remove that objection. My noble Friend has told the Committee that the naval Lords of the Admiralty who were at Alderney with him and inspected the harbour, are of opinion that the harbour, when completed, as we propose to complete it, will in case of war be a valuable look-out station. I really do think that under these circumstances it would be trifling with the national interests if the Committee were to determine to refuse the sum which is now asked to complete the harbour, not to the extent originally contemplated, but to the extent fixed last year, and up to point D upon the plan.

said, that the argument of the Secretary of the Treasury would justify any absurdity under the sun.

said, that although the eastern arm had been abandoned, the Estimate remained the same as last year—£1,300,000. If any hon. Member would look at the Chart, he would see that during a gale of wind from the eastward nothing would hold the shipping in the harbour. It was not £80,000 but £1,000,000 which would be required to make the harbour secure. If hon. Members were prepared to spend that sum, let them vote with the Government; if not, he hoped they would support the Amendment.

said, that the sum of £1,300,000 was not fixed as that which the harbour would actually cost. He believed, but considering the uncertainty of works in deep water he could not of course affirm, that the expenditure would be considerably less than that, because the Government had knocked off £100,000 for the eastern arm.

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of the item which had reference to Portpatrick Harbour. He understood it was proposed to Vote this year for the improvement of the harbour the sum of £5,000. Nothing would be more interesting than a Return of the money spent on the harbour during this century. It would startle the Committee if they could see the figures; and, for all the good that has been done, the money might just as well have been dropped into the sea that flowed into the harbour. If the Committee could see the harbour, they would unanimously conclude, that if they were to spend half a million upon it, they could not make it a harbour fit for a vessel worthy the name of a packet ship. What was the item of £5,000 for? Was it part of a larger sum? If so, what was the amount of the larger sum? He had heard rumours of an engagement or undertaking that had been given by the Treasury to expend £25,000 in the course of the next year or two, and he hoped that some explanation would, be given. There was a railway to Portpatrick on the one side and to Donaghadee on the other side, and they hoped to see steamers going from one port to the other. He had heard a rumour that a subsidy had been, promised for a mail service to carry mails between Scotland and Ireland by way of Portpatrick and Donaghadee, and he wished to know whether the expenditure on account of the harbour had anything to do with a project of that kind, and whether any payment on account of the mails had been promised. At present the mails between Scotland and Ireland were carried between Glasgow, Greenock, and Belfast, by boats, which performed the service well; and they knew what had been expended to improve the communication between England and Ireland. Would it not be better to give up spending money on the harbour of Portpatrick until some definite scheme was proposed by which they might be assured of a useful result?

said, that about twelve years ago, there was a stop to the expenditure of large sums on Portpatrick harbour, because it was thought perfectly impossible to make anything of it, in consequence of the foundation being solid rock. Was it intended to recommence an expenditure that had been discontinued under such circumstances?

said, Portpatrick harbour was one of those which, by an act of last Session, was transferred to the Board of Trade. He could not tell how much had been spent on it during the century, but he could say what was going on at that time. So far as he could inform, himself by reading the correspondence that related to the works in progress, and for which the Vote was asked, there had been a contract for which the Govern- ment to which he had the honour to belong, was not responsible—he took it as it stood, as one that must be performed. It was made in 1856, and the House had sanctioned it by voting the money to give effect to an engagement between the Treasury on the one hand and certain railway companies on the other. The engagement on the part of the Government was that they would make the harbours of Donaghadee and Portpatrick suitable for vessels adapted to carry on a mail service between those ports. The railway companies undertook to bring their lines down to the harbours, and also to establish a mail service; but there was never any promise of what had been called a subsidy for the mail service. All that was undertaken was that a fair and proper remuneration should be given for the actual freight and carriage of such letters as might be sent by the Post Office between Portpatrick and Donaghadee. He believed he was within the mark in stating that something like £700,000 or £800,000 had been spent by these companies in bringing their railways down to these respective ports in pursuance of that agreement, and the Government had also expended considerable sums in carrying out their part of the contract. It was originally suggested that the Govern went should expend £20,000; but unfortunately it was found that that estimate was not sufficient to complete entirely the deepening of the harbour, and those improvements that were considered necessary for carrying on the mail service. The matter could not be said to be entirely decided between the companies and the Government in reference to the mail service. The had been a reference to the Post Office as to what amount of payment they would be prepared to recommend for the carriage of the letters, and the Vote would be subject to the arrangements that were under consideration, and with the view on the part of the Government that they were bound honestly, and in good faith to those companies, to fulfil their share of the undertaking which had been entered into. Whether it was a provident or improvident contract, it was not for him to say; he found it in existence; he found the companies had so far carried out their portion of the engagement; and the precise condition of the remainder of it on the part of the Government, in consequence of the reference to the Post Office, was under consideration. It was not to be supposed that any new matter had been introduced; the Committee must not imagine that anything was now proposed by the Government except in continuation of what had been already begun, and in fulfilment of those engagements that were undertaken in the year 1856

said, that after the explanation given by the right hon Gentleman, the subject assumed a magnitude and a grandeur which he had not anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Committee was bound by a contract which was communicated to the House some years ago, and that the Government were doing nothing more than carrying it into effect. What was the contract? If Parliament were bound band and foot, they ought at least to know the nature of their engagements. The right hon. Gentleman did not presume to say that there was any writing to which they could appeal.

could not recite from memory the words of the instrument or document which embodied the contract, but it had been laid on the table of the House, he believed, more than once. The full particulars of the engagement under which the money was originally voted had been laid on the table of the House, and it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer to that instrument.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of an "instrument." What was the instrument? The only thing, so far as he was aware, which had ever been laid before the House, was an Estimate of £20,000 for contemplated improvements in Portpatrick harbour.

said, he wished to explain. Perhaps "instrument" was a wrong word to use. But the correspondence constituting the engagement or agreement between the companies and the Government, under which the original Votes were asked, had been laid on the table of the House over and over again.

said, the contract referred to was growing rather vague in its terms. It had ceased to be an "instrument," and had become "an engagement, an agreement, or a correspondence." Whatever its nature might have been, the Government were only pledged to an expenditure of £20,000, and that sum, with the exception of £1,000, had already been laid out; and he ventured to say that the improvement of Portpatrick harbour was not the least nearer completion than it was before. If the Vote was approved of by the Committee, they would he bound perpetually to the expenditure. They were told that the effect of the agreement entered into was this—that the Government had agreed with the railway companies to make Portpatrick harbour available for mail vessels carrying the mail service between Portpatrick and Donaghadee. He ventured to say, upon his own opinion and his own knowledge of the district, that it was not £5,000, £20,000, or £200,000 that would secure the result desired. But they had heard something more. He had asked if they were under any agreement with regard to the letters and mails; and the President of the Board of Trade had replied that there was no positive contract for the conveyance of the mails, but there had been an agreement to remunerate the companies for carrying letters. Would some Member of the Government be good enough to explain the difference? The item of £5,000 was stated to form portion of the general arrangement which had been referred to the consideration of the postal authorities. Surely it was not unreasonable to suggest, that until the House had the entire subject before it, the money ought to be withheld. He was quite prepared to vote £1,000, being the balance of the £20,000 formerly sanctioned; but, for the reasons he had given, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.

said, his official duties frequently called him over to the north of Ireland, and all the information he had gathered led him to support the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast. He thought, however, that it was necessary that they should know what was the amount the Government proposed to expend upon the harbour at Portpatrick, because be was free to admit that he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in thinking, that when contracts were entered into by one Government, they ought honestly to be carried out by another. He congratulated the President of the Board of Trade upon the change which had taken place in his opinion since the recent discussion on a contract entered into by the predecessors in office of the existing Administration. He quite concurred that they ought to supply, by a Vote of that House, the money for the performance of any contract which had been heretofore made; and as it only required £1,000 to do that, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast. As to Portpatrick harbour, it was useless to throw away money upon what residents in the locality believed to be an impossibility; for, according to them, no vessel could leave Portpatrick harbour during three months of every year. There was already a perfectly successful connection between Larne and Stranraer, which rendered the Portpatrick and Donaghadee route wholly unnecessary.

said, that it was the original intention of the railway company to have a route from Stranraer to Lame, and that the other route was adopted only because the Government insisted on it. At that moment Portpatrick harbour was unfit for the accommodation of first-class steamers. A manifest injustice would obviously be done to the railway company if, after having been compelled, at great expense, to go to Portpatrick, the Government failed to put the harbour in a proper condition for traffic.

said, that probably no hon. Member in the House was better acquainted with the locality than himself; and the real truth was, that not-withstanding the admirable way in which the President of the Board of Trade stood up for existing contracts, the proposed Vote was a downright useless expenditure of money. He thought it was the duty of every Member, notwithstanding that the expenditure might prove useful to his particular locality, to protest against such waste of the public money. The route which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) was far better; and although it was being carried on under struggling circumstances, there was no doubt it would ultimately be successful and meet the general convenience.

said, that as a naval man, an inhabitant of the district, and with some knowledge of Portpatrick harbour, he differed considerably from the last speaker. For a considerable time steamers ran all the year round from Portpatrick to Dona- ghadee, and they were taken off not because the harbour was a bad one, but for other reasons; for instance, that the steam traffic was not supplied sufficiently with railway traffic to make it available for postal communication with Ireland. At very great trouble and expense a railway had been constructed there. The Government compelled the company to continue the railway from Stranraer to Portpatrick, at an expense of £70,000 or £80,000, which they would never have entered into unless the Government had promised that they would accommodate them with a harbour fit for traffic. He should certainly support the Vote.

said, it was evident a contract in good faith had been entered into, and they were bound to see it carried out. If the President of the Board of Trade would undertake to say that the work would be satisfactorily completed for the amount proposed, and the House would not be asked for a further Vote, he would support the proposal.

said, it was quite a misapprehension to suppose that the Government were entering on a large and indefinite expenditure—£200,000 or £500,000—in connection with the proposed object. According to the engineer's report, the sum of £10,000 at the outside would be sufficient to complete all that it was necessary for Government to do in order to fulfil their engagement. After carefully examining the correspondence on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that the Government would not be acting in good faith if they did not ask Parliament for a further sum for the improvement of Portpatrick harbour. For the present, £5,000 was proposed; and he believed a small addition would render the harbour capable of accommodating steamers. If the Committee refused to vote any more money, then all the expenditure which had already been incurred would be thrown, away.

said, he would support the Government, upon the distinct understanding that the expenditure should not exceed £5,000 during the present year, and £5,000 next year.

observed, that the vessels which had formerly used Portpatrick harbour were no better than the worst of the Thames steamers. At that moment that harbour was not in such a condition that passengers could go that way. The distance from Stranraer to Portpatrick was only seven or eight miles, and it would be infinitely cheaper to pay every shilling of the outlay on the line between these two places, than to attempt to improve Portpatrick harbour. If there was a contract, he should be the last man to ask the Government to depart from it; but where was it to be found? He could nut help again asking the question what the contract with the Government really was? Would the Government produce it? Where was the estimate of the sum required to give effect to the contract? The President of the Board of Trade said, that the amount was "something like £10,000." He knew what £5,000 meant, and £10,000; but what "something like £10,000" was, he could not guess. He was glad to find that the Government had improved within the lust few days in their opinion of the advisability of adhering to contracts. Well, if there were a contract, let the Committee see it; but until then let them put a stop to the expenditure by postponing the Vote.

said, that the Government had shown no sensitiveness or squeam-ishness in doing away with the Dover contract, and he was therefore surprised that they should lay so much stress on the existence of a contract in the case under consideration.

said, that the route from Portpatiick to Donaghadee was one of the best routes between England and Ireland; and he trusted that no money necessary for maintaining the service would be denied.

said, he would again remind the Committee that an enormous amount of public money had been expended on the harbour of Portpatrick.

said, he felt compelled to differ from his hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. Cairns). He should support the Vote, not on the ground of a contract alone, but because the route between Portpatrick and Douaghadee was the most convenient route between this country and Ireland.

said, he would support the vote as proposed by the Government, on the ground of the absolute necessity of upholding the public faith in all cases of contract.

said, he fully agreed, that if a contract existed, the Government were bound to sustain it. But was there or was there not a contract? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had given two or three explanations to the Committee. He said he had read the whole of the correspondence, and that the Government were hound to vote the money. Would the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Government were bound to go on expending a definite or indefinite sum on the harbour, and whether their obligations would be fulfilled by the expenditure of £20,000, which had already taken place? If the engagement, whatever it was, had been fulfilled, he should feel at perfect liberty to reject the Vote.

said, that he wished to know whether the contract was to spend £10,000 to encourage the railways, or was it to make a harbour that would be accessible to vessels of such a size as would be able to carry on a passenger traffic. If the latter, he thought £200,000 would be nearer the real cost.

said, he considered that the Committee ought to know what the contract was. From what he had seen of the port, and from what he was informed, he believed the cost would certainly be nearer £200,000 than £10,000.

said, that perhaps he had been in error in using the term contract, which implied a legal instrument; but there was such a thing as an engagement. He found there was a Treasury Minute of July 26, 1858, during the Government of the Earl of Derby, which, referring to a Minute of the preceding Government undertaking to effect certain improvements in the ports, so as to render them suitable for the packet service, upon the faith of which undertaking the railway companies had expended certain sums, confirmed the preceding Minute. The Vote was simply intended honourably to carry out and complete that engagement.

said, he thought it was right, in matters of the sort, that the Committee should leave out of sight whether the contract or engagement was entered into by one Government or by another. The right hon. Gentleman had at last given the information that was desired, lie would only remark that the contract was so undefined that he hoped in future some more definite arrangements would be entered into, and that the Government would not, year after year, be able to appeal to the Minute as sanctioning a Vote of £10,000 or £20,000 as necessary to keep faith. He admitted that by that Minute they were bound to assent to the Vote, and therefore would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he objected to the Vote of £1,000 for Spurn Point.

said, it was only a re-Vote.

said, he thought that the owners of the shores, who derived benefit from: the works, ought to defray the cost, and therefore he should move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

objected to the form in which the Vote was submitted to the Committee.

said, he wished to call attention to a few of the items in connection with Dublin Castle. A very liberal salary was granted to the satrap or proconsul, who was acceptable, no doubt, to the citizens and hon. Members for Dublin, though not very acceptable to the people of the provinces. Any hon. Member who should say that the Lord Lieutenant was not the greatest ornament of Ireland would expose himself to all sorts of misrepresentation from the Dublin newspapers, as he himself did once when he placed on the paper merely a notice for inquiry into the utility of the Lord Lieutenant. There were more; patronage, more pickings, more corruption of every sort, and more absolute authority, in the officials of Dublin Castle than the Queen herself possessed. The first item to, which he would call attention was—for general repairs and alterations in the state rooms, public offices, and official residences in Dublin Castle, £3,686; and for furniture and fittings, £2,619; in all £6,305; and at page 34 were items of a similar description for the Phœnix Park residences of the same officials—the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Under Secretary, all Englishmen: some of those official paupers forced upon Ireland and sustained at the expense of the State; men of great wealth, no doubt, but who had come over to quarter themselves upon the Irish establishments. Well, repairs, alterations, furniture, and fittings for the Phœnix Park residences of those gentlemen were set down at £5,646, in addition to the £6,305 for Dublin Castle; making in all nearly £12,000. Then there was another item for the Phœnix Park itself, which was their playground, where they played cricket and croquet; in which they spent most of their time. In short, the entire Vote amounted almost to £20,000, which no doubt would meet with the entire approval of the hon. Member for Dublin.

said, though he had the honour of representing Dublin, he had nothing to do with the Castle, the politics of its present occupants being very different from his. However, it was an Irish institution, and he thought it his duty to defend it. The observations of the hon. Member would have been much more to the purpose had they been applied to the Votes for the parks, palaces, and buildings of this metropolis, instead of to the trifling sum asked for the Castle and park of Dublin.

explained that the estimate might be framed in two ways; either the cost for buildings might be brought under view of the Committee at one time, or might be distributed among all the various services. The plan by which the Committee could see the total cost at once was the better.

said, there was an item of £3,000 for rebuilding a portion of Queen's College, Cork, which had been burnt down. He wished to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had any reason to suppose that the burning was accidental or by design; and, if the latter, what steps had been taken to punish the miscreant who had committed the outrage.

said, the Government, having had strong reasons to suppose that it was an act of an incendiary, had taken steps to discover him, but had not been successful, as his hon. Friend was aware. The Vote was merely to repair the damage, and he thought it moderate.

said, it had been repre- sented that the college had been burned by persons who objected to the teaching there, but a more unfounded charge was never made against a community than that which was involved in the application made to the corporation of Cork by the Government to levy on the citizens the cost of the burning. The charge against the citizens of Cork was most unfounded and wanton. He had no objection that the burden should fall on the country generally.

said, he must altogether deny that any charge of complicity had been brought against the citizens of Cork. Proceedings had been taken against the corporation for the recovery of the amount of damage done, but they had failed, and the only resort was then to come to Parliament.

said, the charge had been disseminated all over Europe, and he most emphatically repudiated it.

said, he had visited the ruins, when he was told by a Professor that the very man who set fire to the college was discharging his official duties on the spot. He hoped all the information in possession of the right hon. Gentleman would be given to the House, as he understood that some of the Professors had transmitted some very interesting reports on the subject.

said, he wished to know when the works in the Queen's Park, for which £8,400 was to be taken, would be proceeded with?

said, the works had been already commenced.

inquired, how the Vote of £41,000 proposed for twenty-six new Coastguard stations in Ireland was to be expended? Three stations had been completed for £1,000, and he thought there was some discrepancy in the sum to be allotted for the remainder.

said, the greater part of the sum proposed was a re-Vote of what had taken place last year, but returned as unexpended. It was absolutely necessary to provide improved accommodation for the Coastguard on the coast of Ireland. On thirteen stations contracts had been entered into for six cottages at each. The work was expensive—the sites being very much out of the way.

said, he wanted some detailed explanation of the charge of £12,900 for a constabulary depôt at Phoenix Park, of which it was proposed to vote £6,000 on account. He thought there was already sufficient accommodation for the constables stationed there. Was the force to be doubled, or was a military barrack to be erected for the constabulary? There was also an item of £2,000 for a model school at Cork to which he objected. The Votes for model schools in Ireland were intended to carry out English hobbies. The mass of the Irish people objected to those institutions, which were mere nests of proselytism.

said, that Phœnix Park was the central depôt of the constabulary, and there had been great complaints for years past of the very inadequate accommodation existing there for that force.

said, he wished to ask what Department of the Government was responsible for the expenditure upon buildings for the Coastguard in Ireland?

The Board of Works.

condemned the model schools in Ireland for teaching farming as perfectly useless, and characterized the expenditure upon them as a wanton waste of public money.

said, he understood that the model schools were mere jobs, and of no benefit whatever to the agriculture of Ireland.

said, that the Vote for these institutions had been reduced by the sum of £700, in accordance with a pledge given last year; and next year it would undergo further reduction. At the same time, the schools were intimately connected with the national system of education in Ireland, and did a great deal of good in Dublin, Belfast, and other large towns, by bringing together and training young people of all sects.

said, he denied that the model schools were any part of the national system of education; they were an after-growth and a great abuse.

said, he objected to the items for additions and alterations in the agricultural schools, which he could state, from his own experience of their working, conferred no benefit of any kind upon the country. The farming practised in them was carried on in the most expensive way, and was no example whatever to anybody outside of them.

said, he could only reiterate his belief that the schools had done, and were doing, a great amount of good among the poorer classes. At the same time, if hon. Gentlemen insisted that the Vote should be cut down, of course they might be gratified.

thought it would be a pity to abolish these institutions, which had done some good already, and might be expected to do much more. The model farms were admirably managed, and the young men educated on them made very excellent stewards.

said, he had no wish to oppose the existing model schools, but he objected to any extension of the system; and bethought they might strike out the item for a new model school at Cork. The schools did little good beyond educating stewards and bailiffs for gentlemen.

said, he wished to ask whether any obligations had been incurred with respect to the school in question?

said, the land had been purchased. It was not, strictly speaking, a new school, but one projected some years ago.

said, it was the revival of a proposal which the people of Cork compelled the Government to abandon in a former year. He would not vote against the agricultural schools, although it was little to say in their favour that they produced stewards for landowners, and although he thought that a system which taught high farming was rather injurious than otherwise to the country. Still, if these schools really did any kind of service, he should be jealous of having them interfered with. As, however, the Government were trying to force the model school at Cork on the district in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants, he would move that the Vote should be reduced by £3,000, the amount proposed to be taken for that building.

said, that as a Member for the County of Cork, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the Mayor of the City of Cork. It was a mistake to suppose that this and similar Votes to which reference had been made were Irish Votes. They were English hobbies. The model school at Dublin was neither more nor less than a nest for a Scotch family.

thought that by reducing the Vote for agricultural schools to the extent of £700 the Chief Secretary had fairly carried out his promise of last Session. With respect to the model schools, the opinion in the North of Ireland was that they were of incalculable benefit. They were regarded, in fact, as among the best parts of the national system of education.

said, that the proposed Vote was to carry out an attempt to force money upon the South of Ireland against the wishes of the people, and he regretted to see hon. and right hon. Friends of his who in England supported religious education now voting to establish in Ireland purely secular schools.

said, he could not but express his regret that the Secretary for Ireland had struck out of the Bill in the 58th section that which, at all events, was a little approach to justice to the Irish tenants. If any English county Member were to tax English tenants in the way in which the Bill taxed Irish tenants, he would not be able to show his face in his county afterwards. As the Bill was brought in, the power of referring to arbitration the amount of extra rent to be paid in respect of improvements was granted to the Irish tenants; but as the Bill stood, the Commissioners of Works in Ireland were to have the power of imposing taxation to which the tenants gave no consent. There could be no respect for the laws, if they were made in that way.

said, he would move that the Bill be re-committed, in order to reinsert the word "arbitrators" wherever it had been struck out.

said, that the substitution of the Commissioners of Works for arbitrators was made at the suggestion of many hon. Gentlemen, who pointed out that the powers given to arbitrators nominated by the Board of Works were too extensive, and they therefore thought that those powers should be executed by the Commissioners of Public Works instead. The powers were no greater than had hitherto been exercised under the Drainage Act.

observed, that the question referred, not to the proprietors, who were taken care of in every letter and corner of the Bill, but to the tenants, whose consent was not required to any part of the proposed improvements. It was a semblance of justice to those men that there should be an arbitration, because by that means they could have been heard; but there was no provision that they should be heard by the Commissioners.

said, it would be an injustice to tenants to tax them for improvements to which they did not give their consent; and he thought that if the Bill were adjourned for a day or two, many useful alterations might be suggested.

said, he was of opinion that the insertion of the word "arbitrators" would make no practical difference to the tenants, because they were mostly tenants at will, and would consent to any condition proposed by their landlords.

said, he wished to point out that the Commissioners would act exactly as the arbitrators would have acted.

said, he thought that the Bill should be reprinted, so that the House might have an opportunity, before the third reading, of considering the effect of the change which had been made.

said, he thought the Bill might be allowed to pass without further delay. The assessment under the tithe commutation was made without the interference or assent of the tenant, and he had never heard of a tenant complaining.

said, he was sorry such an Amendment had been made in the Bill as that of doing away with the power of appointing arbitrators; but as the Irish Members did not attend in their places, the Government could not be blamed for doing what they thought was best for Ireland; still, he thought, there ought to be an appeal.

said, that the language of the Bill gave plenty of protection to the tenant, and afforded him ample opportunity of stating his own case. Still, he would make no objection to the postponement of the Bill, if it were desired.

said, he must protest against the manner in which Irish legislation was conducted, and complained of the small respect which was paid to the opinions of Irish Members. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed!"] English Members, who were discussing English matters of importance, were never interrupted by such unseemly cries.

would confess his ignorance of the subject, and he wished to ask for some explanation of the purposes for which the Bill had been introduced.

said, the Bill was intended to do justice, and not injustice to the inhabitants of those islands. The islands were a small group of islands near Jamaica, and dependencies of Jamaica. The Great Cayman was an island twelve miles long and three broad, and the population was about 2,000. The Bill had been drawn up upon the petition of the inhabitants, and would give great satisfaction to them, as it would give legality to the mode of government, which hitherto had been very imperfect.

said, he should move that the Chairman report progress.

said, he hoped some arrangement would he made by the Government for the Bill to come on at a more convenient hour.

observed, that he had expected that the Bill would have been allowed to pass that stage. It had already passed through Committee, and for the purpose of a special Amendment had been re-committed, in deference to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he was perfectly willing to go on with the discussion. The hon. Member for Taunton had given notice of an Amendment on the first clause; but as the Bill was not expected to come on until Monday, was not present.

said, the hon. Member for Taunton had raised the question already.

moved that the Chairman report progress.

said, he thought that at that late hour of the night (twenty minutes past one) it would be unreasonable to press the Bill. He should therefore move that the Chairman leave the chair.

said, he did not wish to prolong the contest, but protested against its being deemed unreasonable that he should seek to proceed with the Bill.

expressed a hope, that as the discussion could not be taken at that late hour, the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent to name a day when it might take place. The question was, he added, considered by the great majority of the Irish people of more importance than any measure which had been introduced into that House for years.

said, that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) had already given notice that it was his intention to bring the question of religious endowments in Ireland under the notice of the House on an early day. The adjourned debate on the hon. Member for Swansea's Motion might be fixed for that day.

remarked, that the hon. Member for Liskeard had not fixed any particular day for bringing forward his Motion. At the same time, he could bear testimony to the great interest felt in Ireland on the subject.

said, that whatever interest the Irish people might have felt in it in times gone by, they had exhibited very little of late years. He should move that the debate be adjourned to that day three months.

observed, if the people of Ireland had recently exhibited little interest in the subject, it was because of the great sufferings which they had experienced for the last two or three years, and which engrossed their thoughts for the moment, to the exclusion of other matters.

pointed out that it would be no use to adjourn the discussion for three months, because the question would be raised in another form upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Liskeard. He therefore recommended the hon. Member for Dublin not to press his Amendment.

said, he found it impossible to get a day for the subject, which, as a member of the Church of England, he had brought forward on his own responsibility. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would give him a day.

said, that the days at the disposal of the Government were few in number; and, important though the question was, he could not, at that period of the Session, promise the hon. Member for Swansea to give him a day for its discussion. At the same time, he trusted that the hon. Member would not persevere in his Motion to postpone the discussion for so long a period as three months.

observed, that there had been a time when the noble Lord and his friends in Opposition experienced no difficulty in finding a day for the discussion of this question which had raised them to power. They now kicked away the ladder by which they had mounted.

said, he would be glad to withdraw his Motion if any reasonable day were fixed for the discussion.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the execution of public work in certain manufacturing districts, and to authorize for that purpose advances of public money, to a limited amount, upon security of local rates. The right hon. Gentleman said that at that late hour he would not attempt to detain the House by any description of the measure, but would merely move for leave.

objected to the silent introduction of a Bill of such magnitude at that hour of the morning. It would enable the whole of England to be taxed for the benefit of a small portion of the country.

said, he did not see why leave should not be given to introduce the Bill.

thought it very important that the Bill should be introduced, and its contents made known with as little delay as possible.

said, the hon. Gentleman opposite misapprehended the character of the Bill. It contained nothing that was not disclosed in the notice.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to state the amount of interest to be paid on the capital borrowed under the Bill.

said the amount would be found in the Bill itself.

could not regard that as a satisfactory answer. If a more intelligible reply were not given, he should divide the House.

said, the rate of interest would altogether be governed by the regulations of the Exchequer Commissioners.

did not see why the Government should shrink from answering this plain question.

said, the Exchequer Loan Commissioners were not allowed to lend money lower than 3½ per cent.

I am satisfied.

rose to address the House; when—

The hon. and learned Gentleman is not in order in raising any general discussion on the Bill on the present Motion.