said, that as the second reading of the Bill had been taken without discussion, he wished to make a few remarks in explanation of its object and leading provisions. The Bill had come down from the House of Lords, where it had been introduced upon the recommendation of a Select Committee of that House, which had examined witnesses, and found that great injury was occasioned by the noxious vapours which arose not only from alkali works, but from certain other manufactures. They also found that in the neighbourhood of St. Helen's and other towns trees and vegetation were injured and occasionally destroyed, that residences were rendered uninhabitable, that cattle suffered so that the quality of their milk was affected, and they cast their young. One gentleman, who had himself been a manufacturer, stated that his own health had suffered from a residence near these works. The leading manufacturers had exerted themselves to neutralize the bad effects produced by the emission of noxious vapours. Some years ago means were discovered of condensing the gas from alkali works. Those means were adopted by the principal manufacturers, but not by all, because the process was rather expensive, and only one-third of the muriatic acid which was produced could be advantageously disposed of. The only check on the mischief done by these works had hitherto been either by an action for damages brought by persons on the ground of injury done to them, or else by indictment. In the case of an action for damages, it was necessary to prove that the injury done was by some particular work. In the infancy of the manufacture it was not difficult to furnish proof of this kind, because the works were not congregated in one neighbourhood, and the chimneys were lower than at present. In the course of time, however, the works increased in the same district, higher chimneys were constructed, and the smoke was dispersed over a wider area. It therefore became difficult to trace the injury to any particular establishment. The other legal remedy was by indictment, but those who resorted to this process were bound to show not only, as in the action for damages, the source from which the injury proceeded, but also that the injury was of so public a nature that it might be fairly considered a public nuisance. That also was a difficult, expensive, and uncertain remedy. Various clauses had been introduced into recent public Bills, in which ineffectual attempts had been made to carry out the object sought by the present Bill. The causes of these failures was fully explained in the Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House, and that Commute consequently came to the conclusion that special legislation was necessary. Great numbers of the leading manufacturers acquiesced in the proposed legislation, and agreed that a special enactment was necessary, which should be applicable solely to the alkali trade. It was said with truth that other works did as much injury as alkali works, and it was asked why there should not be a general measure applicable to other trades. The reason was that in these particular works an undoubted remedy had been discovered, which could not be said with the same certainty of other works. The manufacturers themselves had first endeavoured to correct the evil, but they failed because they could not obtain the co-operation of every member of the trade. Under these circumstances the present measure had been introduced in the House of Lords. It proposed that inspectors should be appointed, and that all alkali works should be carried on to the satisfaction of these inspectors, but there was nothing to empower the inspector to direct any alteration in the process of the manufacture. The Bill provided for the registration of the works, and that the inspectors should have power to enter them at any time during the night or day, in order to examine into the efficiency of the apparatus for the condensing of the gas. It was also enacted, that all offences under the Act should be adjudicated upon by the Court of Quarter Sessions. It might be objected that that might not be an entirely impartial tribunal, and the Government were prepared to consider, when they came to the clause, a proposal to give a power of appeal. He would admit that the Bill was to a certain extent new, because it instituted for the first time an inspection for the protection of property, and not for the safely of workmen. The Government would therefore be willing to consider any suggestions for securing the manufacturers against improper interference.

said, that the Bill proposed to institute a control over one of the largest and most important manufactures of the country, the statistics of which could not be expressed by hundreds or even by thousands, but only by millions. The alkali manufacture consumed 1,761,000 tons of raw material, and produced 280,000 tons of finished goods, of the yearly value of £2,500,000. The capital involved in the trade somewhat exceeded £2,000,000. The hands directly and indirectly employed in the trade were 19,000, and the question therefore involved the maintenance of nearly 100,000 souls. The wages paid were £871,750 per annum. The trade gave employment to a large quantity of shipping, for the estimated tonnage of the raw materials and finished goods was 2,500,000 tons. Some of the most important and most necessary articles of life were dependent for their cost on the production of alkali. Next to oil and tallow the most essential ingredient in the manufacture of soap was caustic alkali. It was also the raw material of the heaviest cost in the manufacture of glass, which consisted of alkali and sand fused together. Alkali was also an important element in the manufacture of paper from other material besides rags. The use of straw, for example, depended on a solution of silica by caustic soda, which was the chief means of using vegetable fibres. Alkali was also largely used as a cheap soap, and as bleaching powder in cotton bleaching. Petitions in favour of Amendments to the Bill had been agreed to by the Chambers of Commerce of various towns, and also by bodies and trades indirectly interested. He mentioned these facts in order to invite the assistance of the Committee in introducing such clauses as the manufacturers deemed necessary for their protection. The alkali manufacture was, in fact, a peculiar trade. The cheapness with which alkali could be manufactured depended on the locality. Four elements entered into the composition of alkali—salt, pyrites, coals, and limestone and chalk. There were very few localities in the kingdom in which these several products were found in close proximity. An additional tax of only 1s. per ton would impose a tax of £100,000 on the transport of the raw materials, and would increase the cost of production of all the necessaries of life into which alkali so largely entered. It was, therefore, desirable that the trade should continue to be carried on in the especial localities adapted for it. If, however. Parliament introduced clauses to drive the trade from the most suitable localities into other districts, the additional cost of transport would involve an increased cost of production. The manufacturers had met the Bill justly; they did not object to legislation, but there were some Amendments which they desired should be introduced, and he hoped that the Committee would give a fair consideration to them. The Amendments which he intended to propose for the protection of the manufacturers, had for their object the providing due notice of the ground on which the manufacturers had rendered themselves liable to penalties, and, further, that they should have the power of appealing from the local tribunal to a higher court.

said, he entertained great doubt as to the policy of the measure. It was an entire novelty in legislation. The Bill attempted to deal with one particular trade—and that a very extensive one—when still greater evils were produced by the noxious vapours created by other manufactures, which were left untouched. For that purpose it introduced something like a system of excise without the excuse of raising revenue. The nuisance which they proposed to suppress had of late years diminished, in consequence of the discoveries of science; and he did not see why parties complaining of any damage or inconvenience from alkali works should not be left to their present legal remedy. In deference, however, to what seemed to be the general feeling in favour of the Bill he would not move its complete rejection; but he would propose in Committee that its operation should be limited to a few years, so that Parliament might before long have an opportunity of again considering the question.

said, he wished it to be understood that this was by no means an Act for the exclusive protection of the landed interest, as was sometimes asserted, but that it was one for the protection of the health and comfort of the inhabitants residing in the towns and neighbourhood where these works were carried on. It had been said that things were mending, but the facts were exactly contrary; for every year matters were getting worse and worse. In the neighbourhood of St. Helen's vegetation had disappeared, the farmers had been driven further and further from these works, and the actual destruction of agricultural property was increasing every year. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) asked why they should not rely in that case upon the old legal remedy? Now, the fact was, that that remedy had been effectual in former times, when those works were thinly scattered over certain districts; but in the present day, in consequence of the number of manufactories adjoining one another, it was hardly possible to prove that a nuisance proceeded from any one of them in particular, and the law thus became inoperative. He would only further remind the Committee, that a majority of the trade had given their assent to the remedy for the evil which the Bill would afford.

said, it was very much to the credit of the alkali manufacturers, that they were ready voluntarily to subject themselves to these inconveniences for the public good. The House would do well to go on with the Bill, but the clauses would require careful consideration, as the measure was certainly one of an exceptional character.

said, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, that Parliament had given more stringent powers for the suppression of smoke than any which the present Bill would confer.

said, that if he had entertained any doubt as to the necessity for the Bill, it had been removed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hussey Vivian), who had shown the extent of the alkali manufacture, and the tendency of these undertakings to congregate together, and thus cause a condensation of the mischief. A worse tribunal than the Court of Quarter Sessions, however, for the prosecution of offences under the Bill, could not be selected. It was a matter not connected with the peace of the country, and was a sort of thing entirely beyond their cognizance. At the same time, the nuisance complained of was of such a nature that Parliament ought to try to meet it by legislation.

said, it was open for the Committee to consider whether the County Court could not be substituted for the Court of Quarter Sessions. The judge of the County Court might, if necessary, have the assistance of the jury.

said, that the Clause provided that alkali wash should mean every wash in which muriatic gas was evolved. He would move, however, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "wash", and to insert the words "for the manufacture of alkali and the sulphates of soda and potash."

said, he would move to insert the word "reasonable" so as to require that the condensation of the gas should be effected to the reasonable satisfaction of the inspector.

said, he thought the word would be surplusage.

said, the Clause provided, that if any alkali work was not carried on in such a manner as to secure the condensation of not less than 95 per cent of the muriatic gas evolved, the owner of the work should be deemed to be guilty of an offence and be subject to penalties. He wished to move an Amendment in order more clearly to define the offence. The proportion of 95 per cent seemed enormous; but so perfect was the process that that amount of condensation would be secured. He would move to insert the words "on its being made to appear to the court before which any information or complaint in respect thereof shall be heard or determined, that 95 per centum at least of the muriatic gas evolved in such work has not been condensed."

said, he would then move to leave out the word "each," the effect of the Amendment being to render the manufacturers not liable, as the clause enacted, for "each" such offence.

said, he would then move to leave out the words "and in respect of a continuous offence, after notice from the inspector, to a penalty not exceeding £30 nor less than £5, for every day during which the alkali work is carried on in contravention of this section," and to insert, "provided always that no such owner shall be convicted of more than one such offence in respect of any one day, nor of more than one such offence committed previous to any conviction."

said, he wished to move that a proviso be added that no penalty be imposed unless the Inspector should produce before the justice of the peace who was about to issue a summons a certificate in writing of the facts on which he founded his opinion that 95 per cent of the muriatic gas evolved in the alkali works is not condensed therein, and serve a copy with such summons.

said, he thought that a curious Amendment. He should oppose it, on the ground that it was really furnishing the defendants with the whole of the evidence on which the case against them was founded.

said, it was admitted that the proposed legislation was novel, and that the alkali manufacturers had met the wishes of noble Lords in another House with fairness and liberality. He would therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendments they suggested.

said, he trusted the Committee would agree to the Amendment, because it was desirable that full information should be given of the grounds on which the Inspector founded his opinion. It was also desirable that the Inspector should carry on his work with a feeling that he was responsible for his actions.

said, he agreed that the manufacturer should know the charge he was called upon to meet, but he did not think that sticking it into the summons would do it.

said, he must submit that the Inspector who made a complaint ought to know exactly the facts on which he had founded his opinion.

said, he had no objection to the introduction of the words proposed to be added, on the understanding that, in case he should hereafter think they would fetter the actions of the Inspector, he should be at liberty to introduce words to prevent such an effect.

said, he would then move the addition of a proviso to the effect, that if an owner of alkali works should prove that he had used due diligence to comply with the Act, and that the offence complained of had been occasioned by the fault or neglect of his agent, servant, or workman without his knowledge, consent, or connivance, it should not be compulsory on the court to convict the owner. The object of the proviso, was to secure to the manufacturers that they should not be made the victims of their workmen; and that if the manufacturers really desired to carry the Act into execution, neither any designed act on the part of the workmen nor their negligence should subject the employer to penalties.

said, it was an alternative proposition to one of which he had given notice, and the manufacturers preferred his.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.

said, that it was proposed that in every register there should be inserted the name in full of the owner, the name of the parish or township in which the works are situate, and the name or names of the articles intended to be produced at the works. It was necessary sometimes to make changes in chemical preparations, and if the words were retained, the manufacturer would be liable to a penalty for the introduction of every new article, however small, in accordance with the varying changes of trade. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words, "the name and names of the articles intended to be produced at the works."

said, no penalty was imposed for non-registration. He would therefore move the insertion of words imposing a penalty of not less than £5 nor more than £10 for every day during which the works should be carried on without registration.

said, he thought the penalty of £10 was excessive.

moved, as an Amendment, that the penalty should not exceed £5.

said, he would move the insertion of words directing that notice should be given to the owner of works carried on in contravention of the Act of the commission of the offence, as soon as conveniently might be after the commission of such offence.

said, the whole cause required much consideration. The court was to be both judge and jury at once, and in his opinion the magistrates in Quarter Sessions would form a very undesirable tribunal to decide the questions which would arise under the Act. It was no part of their ordinary business to inflict penalties. In the county of Lancaster, in which the Act would mainly come into operation, there were not less than 600 magistrates. How many were to sit in judgment on these cases, and what would become of the Court if the case were to last a whole day, or more than a day? Would it not be supposed by the public that magistrates would take part in the judgment who had not heard the evidence?

said, he was ready to admit that Quarter Sessions was not perhaps the best Court that could be devised for trying these cases. But he should state, that although there were 600 magistrates in Lancashire, there were not more than one hundred who practically took part in criminal business. The county was divided into five divisions for criminal business, and the number of magistrates who would hear those cases would vary from five or six to twelve or fifteen. They would be as competent to deal with these cases as any non-professional persons could be. As to magistrates passing in and out of court, he believed that they scrupulously abstained from interfering in criminal cases unless they had heard the whole of the evidence.

said, he doubted whether the manufacturers interested in it would be satisfied with the clause. If they were satisfied, they did not understand their own interests, because the complaints could not be referred to a more objectionable tribunal. The complaints would be more frequently brought by landed proprietors, than by any other classes, and they formed a large portion of the magistracy who presided at Quarter Sessions. He thought it was most likely that there would be a temptation in these cases for a larger number than usual to attend, and that the magistrates would feel not a judicial but a personal interest in the decisions under the Act. He would suggest that the County Court would be a better tribunal. He confessed, that if he were an alkali manufacturer, he would certainly prefer to have his case brought before the County Court, and let the judge have a jury, if necessary, to assist him, Nothing could be more monstrous than to place the interests of the manufacturers under the judicial management of the Quarter Sessions, and subject them to the confusion that must arise. Perhaps it would be well to postpone the determination of the question, and within a week the House might be able to adopt some more satisfactory proposal.

said, it it might seem invidious that cases in which manufactures were specially interested should be tried before the magistrates at Quarter Sessions. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) would find, however, that out of the 600 magistrates in Lancashire, 400 were connected with manufactures, and 200 only were connected exclusively with land.

said, that as a magistrate himself he was unwilling to be invested with such a jurisdiction. He thought there were grave objections to that mode of proceeding.

said, he must avow that he was in favour of leaving the jurisdiction of the cases under the Act with the County Court. At the same time, he would recommend that the consideration of the clause be postponed.

said, the transfer of the jurisdiction to the County Court would be acceptable to the manufacturers. At the same time, they desired that the decision on such important matters should not be left to one court, but that there should be a power of appeal.

said, he thought the best way would be to negative the clause when it was put, and then the Government might bring up a clause giving the jurisdiction to the County Court.

said, it would be open to any hon. Member, on the Report being presented, to move the omission of the clause and the substitution of another, making the County Court the tribunal. It must be remembered, however, that such a proposal would give the County Courts a jurisdiction of a new kind. At present, the County Court had no power to impose penalties. It was impossible for the Government to substitute the County Court, without considering the question more fully than it was possible to do at the present moment.

remarked, that the County Court would be the better tribunal, as a considerable number of the magistrates belonged to the manufacturing classes.

said, he begged it should not be supposed that he brought any charge against magistrates; but they were likely to feel a strong personal interest in the subject; and if he were a landed proprietor, he would rather not have such matters brought before him. If they had another tribunal, the law would be more satisfactorily carried out. If the landed proprietors were in a minority, they might complain that the cases were brought before a tribunal where the majority were manufacturers.

said, he did not think they were then in a position to decide upon the matter.

said, he would move that the Chairman be ordered to report progress, and they could then let the matter stand over for a week to give the Government an opportunity of considering the question. In the mean time they might have representations from the gentlemen immediately concerned in the Act, namely, the manufacturers, which would enable them to agree to a proposition that would be satisfactory.

said, he preferred that the proposal should come from a private Member. He doubted whether it would be expedient to take the jurisdiction from the Courts of Quarter Sessions.

said, that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had told the Committee that what they were going to do was with the consent of the alkali manufacturers He (Mr. Cobden), however, was warranted in saying that the manufacturers would unanimously oppose the measure unless it were accompanied with the Amendments suggested by the trade. Considering how fairly, he might even say with how much docility, the trade had received the novel legislation comprised in the Bill, they ought to be treated with the greatest consideration. If the trade had resisted this special legislation, and if they had appealed to Parliament to strengthen its general legislation for abating nuisances, he believed that the House would have sided with the manufacturers. He remembered a large establishment near Newton, with a tall chimney 200 or 300 feet high. The proprietors of those alkali works were prosecuted successively and successfully by the landed proprietors, until they blew up their large chimney with gunpowder. That proved that the landowners were not altogether powerless under the present law. He had no hesitation in saying, that if the Committee placed the jurisdiction in Quarter Sessions without appeal, the Bill would be unsatisfactory to the trade, and would be resisted by them in every possible way. He wished, therefore, to ask the Government if they would consent to postpone the clause and bring in a proviso for giving the jurisdiction to the County Courts?

said, he did not understand that the trade would accept a clause giving jurisdiction to the County Court Judges without appeal. The Government were in favour of Quarter Sessions, but they were prepared to give some appeal from Quarter Sessions.

said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman be would not press his Motion.

said, he had no doubt that the very influential gentlemen representing the trade in London would in the course of a week be able to give an opinion on the subject that would assist them in coming to a decision. Probably they might wish to have an appeal to have the cases uniform, without, reference to the tribunal that had decided in the first instance, though in the case of the Quarter Sessions Court they might wish to have an appeal for other reasons which he (Mr. Cobden) would not go into. The complaints under the Act would not impose much business on any court, and they could not have many appeals.

said, he did not wish to have two trials on the merits, but it was very necessary to have some uniformity of decision. The best, way to get at the facts was by a jury. He had a weakness for juries. The parties could then go to a court of law to see if any evidence had been improperly let in, and to set the law right. But the Court of Quarter Sessions was constituted the judge and jury, and, what was worse, the Bill gave the court an original jurisdiction.

said, he wished to ask why, instead of enacting pecuniary penalties, there should not be an indictment at Quarter Sessions. The evidence of the inspector could be made satisfactory proof that 95 per cent of muriatic gas had not been consumed, and that might betaken as conclusive evidence of a public-nuisance. The Quarter Sessions could then act in the regular manner.

said, that the matter to be heard would probably involve some scientific facts in chemistry which would be better tried by a single judge in the County Court than by several magistrates at Quarter Sessions.

said, he would move a clause enabling the owner of any alkali work who might be charged with an offence under the Bill, to have the workman through whose negligence it may have occurred brought before the court; and on proof that the workman had committed the offence, the workman should be liable to be fined instead of the owner.

objected to the clause. The Bill was framed with a view exclusively to the proceedings of the manufacturers.

said, he would move as an Amendment words to the effect, that if the master should show that the infraction of the Act was caused by the negligence of any workman or agent, it should not be compulsory on the court to convict the owner.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether or not it be the fact that instructions have been issued by the Home Authorities to those in India with the view of preventing Officers of the Indian (now Royal) Artillery from being withdrawn from their Regiments for Staff, Civil, or other detached employment under the several Local Governments, for which, before being transferred under the authority of the Horse Guards, they were, by the Regulations of the Indian Service, equally eligible with Officers of Cavalry and Infantry?

said, in reply, that no instructions had been sent out; but no doubt the tendency would be to employ fewer Artillery Officers in the manner indicated by the hon. and gallant Member, because there were now numerous Officers of Cavalry and Infantry who were unattached, whereas the services of the Artillery Officers were wanted with their Corps.

But there is no prohibition?

No.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Is it true that the Russian General Mouravieff has issued an ordinance proclaiming that the penalty of the Knout will be inflicted on all Polish ladies dressed in mourning?

said, in reply, that he had no official information in respect to the alleged punishment of Polish ladies dressed in mourning, by the infliction at the hands of the Russians of the knout, and he was therefore sorry that it was not in his power to contradict the statement in the morning papers.

said, he he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any information can be given of the result of experiments as to the effect of vaccination on sheep, or any particulars of the professional services in examining sheep arriving in Irish ports, with a view of preventing the spread of small-pox among them, for which objects a Vote of £434 10s. is pro posed in Class VII., Vote 14, Miscellaneous Estimates?

said, in reply, that part of the money had been expended upon experiments, and part in the inspection of sheep arriving at the ports of Ireland. The experiments had not yet been completed; but when they were, the results should be laid upon the table of the House.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Private Soldiers of the Malwa Field Force, which afterwards formed the first Brigade of Sir Hugh Rose's Division, will receive about £40 each from the Dhar Prize Money, this booty having been granted exclusively to the actual captors; and whether it has also been proposed to allot to these Troops a share of the Banda and Kirwee Prize Money on the principle of constructive capture; and, if so, whether the Law Officers of the Crown have concurred in that suggestion?

said, he believed that the private soldiers would, as stated by the noble Lord, receive about £40 each from the Dhar Prize Money. In reply to the second Question asked by the noble Lord, he would only state that the decision of the Question rested with the Treasury; but what that decision would be he could not say.

said, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Why the Portpatrick Railway Company have been allowed to repudiate that portion of their reciprocal agreement with the Treasury by which they were pledged to extend their Railway to Glasgow, so as to connect the North of Ireland with that city; and if, in that case, it is advisable to ask for an additional grant of five thousand pounds beyond the sum originally agreed upon and reported as necessary to fulfil the engagement entered into by former Governments?

replied, that he was not aware that the Railway Company referred to had been allowed to repudiate any agreement that it had entered into with the Government. He believed the facts were these:—At the commencement of 1856 the Treasury proposed that there should be two lines of railway to Portpatrick, one going north to Glasgow, the other going east to Dumfries, and that Portpatrick Harbour should be improved and adapted to vessels carrying on the mail service to Ireland. As the Government undertook to improve the harbour, they insisted on a Clause being inserted in the Act of the Portpatrick Railway Company's Bill which prohibited the declaration of any dividends until the Company brought within a certain time as far as the harbour its line, which runs east to Dumfries. The Company had completed its arrangements, and therefore the Government had proceeded to improve the harbour.

By what influence is the traffic from this country to Ireland forced to go to Portpatrick?

I am not aware of any influence of that nature. I found that successive Governments had bound themselves by engagements from which it was impossible to escape; and as I am in a position to carry out the project, I think it is my duty to proceed with the improvement of the harbour.

said, that, pursuant to notice, he rose to call the attention of the House to the state of the law for rating to the relief of the poor, and to move for Returns in connection with the Union Assessment Committee Act. Previous to the year 1836, the system of assessment in various parishes was conducted on the principle of assessing the property at the lowest possible value. In fact, every one endeavoured so to assess himself as to relieve himself as much as possible from the common burdens. In that year, however, under the guidance of the right hon. Member for Stroud, a Bill was brought in for the purpose of regulating parochial assessments, the first and most important clause of which laid down two principles—that there should be a definite rule for the ascertainment of the gross estimated rental, and that a just scale of deductions should be fixed in order to arrive at the net ratable value. That Bill, however, though admirable in intention, did not provide the necessary machinery; and consequently, in 1862, another Bill was introduced containing the necessary powers. The action of the various provisions being somewhat uncertain, instructions were from time to time issued by the Poor Law Board. But there was one point on which it was still necessary that the various local authorities should have some idea in common, with a view to harmonious action, and that was as to the deductions which ought to be made on particular classes of property, so as to reach the net ratable value. Various county meetings had been held with that object; and although they had not any positive legal status, they operated beneficially in bringing together the chairmen of committees and eliciting opinions. It was remarkable how these opinions varied at different meetings. In Worcester, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), the county magistrates and chairmen of committees adopted, as the scale of deductions to be allowed, 2½ per cent on land simply, on land with buildings 7½ per cent, on houses 15 per cent, and on cottages of less than £6 value 20 per cent. That scale every one would admit to be fair and moderate. But in the county of Norfolk they proposed to deduct on land from 1 to 5 per cent, on land with buildings 5 to 15 per cent, on houses 10 to 15 per cent, and on cottages 15 to 35 per cent. The enormous difference between these two scales must he apparent to every hon. Member. In Buckinghamshire the county of Norfolk was outstripped, for there it was proposed to allow from 5 to 20 per cent upon land and buildings—a proposition which was obviously absurd. These county meetings, having no official status, and no practical power, the different union committees in many instances exercised an independence of action, and adopted scales more justifiable according to their notions. In the Union of Buckingham, the Committee adopted the following scale:—On land, according to the extent and nature of the fences and buildings, from 1 to 10 pet cent; on houses generally, 10 to 20 per cent; on cottages under £6 value, from 10 to 25 per cent. Practically it was found that where a range of allowance was sanctioned, every one almost took the highest figure, and eventually most of the land with buildings and house obtained an allowance of 10 per cent; land with buildings, but without a house, obtained 5 per cent; and land without buildings obtained 2½ per cent. The result of the new assessment, so far as he had been able to ascertain it, proved the great necessity of this revision. The Returns for the Union of Buckingham showed that in 1856 the rental assessed was £68,665. There had been an increase of 38 per cent, or £25,782; so that in 1863 the net ratable value was £94,447, the gross estimated rental was £105,494, while the deductions, averaging 10½ per cent, amounted to £11,047, showing a net amount of £94,447. With regard to individual parishes, the disproportion between the old and new assessment were most extraordinary. Whilst the average increase in ratable value was 38 per cent, the increase under the average in one parish was 19, in another 28, in another 20, and in the borough 26; while the increase above the average was in one parish 52, in another 52, in another 64, and in another 68. These statements showed that the old assessment was fraught with exaggerated inequalities. And there was another point deserving the attention of the House, because it affected an important class of property—the tithe rent charge. A letter had been directed to the Poor Law Board by the clerk of the Buckingham Union, which stated that—

"The Act for enclosing the common fields of the parish of Thornborough (passed in the year 1701) directs payment to the vicar of certain corn rents in lieu of tithes, such payment to be made free and clear of all manner of parochial taxes whatsoever, and also from all other taxes now imposed, except land tax. The Committee are desirous of knowing whether the operation of the private Act of 1797 has been to exonerate altogether from local taxation the value of the tithe corn rents of Thornborough, or whether it has been to transfer to the tithe-payers the liability antecedently resting on the tithe-owner. Assuming the net annual value of the parish of Thornborough to be £1,500, of which the corn rent free of rates is £150, and the value of the other ratable property to be £1,350, ought the parish to be rated on £1,500, or on £1,350? As a parochial Act solely, it is obviously immaterial, since to produce the same amount the smaller sum would be assessed to a higher ratio; but with reference to union and county contributions the parish would be a gainer by its assessments being levied on £1,350, and it would then, in virtue of a private Act, have received a partial exemption from a liability to a common fund."

To that the following answer was returned by the Secretary:—

"I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd ult. The Board direct me to state that it appears to them that the corn rents referred to are wholly exempt from the liability to be assessed, and therefore the amount cannot be taken into consideration, either by the entry of it as a separate item in the valuation lists, nor by an addition to the assessment of the other property in the other parishes."

If that was the true state of the law, it ought to be altered, for nothing could be more unjust than that a parish making an arrangement with a vicar by which in lieu of his ratable tithes they covenant to pay him a corn rent free of rate, should escape a liability to assessment as touching the tithe surrendered to them, and he trusted the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown would be directed to the subject. Some of the parishes had made returns omitting the tithe rent-charge and others had included it. The Union Committees were in this position, that they did not know of which return they ought to approve. Then there was another matter of considerable importance, which related to clergymen and the question of curates' stipends. There was no doubt that the clergy had been paying a much larger proportion of parochial taxation than they ought, and they were now desirous of obtaining the most ample redress which the law contemplated. In the year 1859 the Poor Law Board obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject, and in the May of that year they issued a circular with regard to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of "The Queen v. Goodchild and others." That circular said—

"With reference to the subject of allowance on curates' salaries, the Court of Queen's Bench considered two subjects. One was a claim made by the incumbent in respect of the value of his own personal labour and services. The Court decided that no deduction could be allowed upon this head. The second was a claim for the salary of the curate. Upon this claim no universal rule was laid down; but the Court decided that in some cases the salary is not, while in others it is, to be allowed. It is not to be allowed where the curate is merely a substitute for the incumbent, as where he is non-resident—or, being resident, from sickness, infirmity, or any less creditable cause, does not perform his own duty personally, but employs another person instead. It is to be allowed where, from the vast size or population of the parish, one man's labour is entirely insufficient for the duties necessary to be discharged by the incumbent. Where the bishop of the diocese has required, under the statutes giving him the authority, the appointment of a stipendiary curate, and the incumbent, performing his duty, employs a curate in obedience to such requisition, an allowance is, according to the judgment of the Court, to be made in such case. So also the Court held that in cases where (the bishop not being legally empowered, or not being called upon to interfere) the incumbent from a sense of duty appoints a curate himself, devoting all his own time and attention to his cure, a reasonable allowance is to be made in respect of the curate's stipend."

Nothing could be more vague or unsatisfactory than such regulations; and how was it to be expected that a country overseer should be able to decide on some of the nice points which were involved? Last year, however, upon occasion of an application for information to the Poor Law Board, the Board issued another circular to the following effect:—

"The Board direct me to state that it would be inconsistent with their practice to express an opinion with reference to any particular case, but they forward for your information a copy of a circular issued by them on the 9th of May 1859, explaining their general views on the subject of the assessment of tithe commutation rent-charge to the poor rate. The Board, at the same time, desire to call your attention to the recent decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, with regard to the deductions for a curate's salary, and to payments charged on behalf of district ministers and others. It will be seen that these decisions materially modify some of the views expressed in the circular."

Thus it appears that the instructions, already vague enough, were subject to further modification; and this was the present condition of the subject. He certainly thought the law ought not to be left in that state of uncertainty. There was another matter which had been brought under the notice of the House by petition. Complaints had been made as to the state of the law with regard to the assessment to the poor rate of woodlands and mines. With regard to the former the state of the law was very peculiar. In the Act of Elizabeth, as mention was made of salable underwood, it had been concluded that all other description of wood was exempt, and so the law now remained. Now, nothing could be more absurd than such an interpretation. Salable underwood had been defined to be wood growing from a re-productive stool or stem: an ash tree of any size growing singly from its stem is exempt, but five ash poles growing from a common stem are ratable. Land devoted to the growth of chesnut hop-poles yields a ratable produce. Land occupied in the growth of larch poles escapes the rate. Upon what ground could that state of the law be justified? In regard to mines the law was just as extraordinary. The mention of coal mines in the reign of Elizabeth had led to the exemption of all other mines; so that coal mines were ratable, whilst lead, iron, copper, and tin were exempt. Again, stone quarries that were under the ground and invisible were exempt, whilst the same minerals, when gathered from the surface were assessed, as being the produce of the land, and came under the operation of the Poor Law. Another curious refinement was, that if a landowner reserved a royalty in the raw produce of a mine, the raw produce was ratable; but if it were reserved in the same mineral in a wrought or manufactured state, or if it were reserved in money value, then the produce was exempt from taxation. This question had been pressed on his attention by the Petitions that had been presented to the House; but still the subject had not escaped previous notice, and these exemptions had been uniformly condemned—first, by a Committee of that House on the Poor Laws in 1818; again, in 1843, by the Commission of Inquiry into the State and Administration of the Poor Law; and again in 1857 by another Committee of that House. With regard to the last anomalies which he had referred to, he had not mentioned them with the idea of forcing on a consideration of those subjects at present, for he should be sorry to add just now to the labour of those connected with the Poor Law Board, who were overwhelmed with work of an exceedingly anxious nature; but he would recommend his right hon Friend (Mr. Villiers) to turn his attention to the points connected with corn rents and curates' stipends. The matter was too important to be allowed to drag on year after year without on attempt being made to remedy some of these anomalies. Without wishing to pre judge the action that might be taken by different unions, and because it would In-useful to see how the law had been interpreted in different parts of the country, he wished to move for a Return of all parishes (being part of a union) in which the corn rents for tithe were exempt by Act of Parliament from parochial taxation, showing the amounts paid for such corn rents in the last year; and also for a Re turn of the Resolutions passed by the several unions fixing the deductions to be made from the "gross estimated rental." under the heads of "land," "land and buildings," "woodlands," "houses," and "cottages under £6 value." It might be said it did not matter what amount was de ducted; that ail was fair if the parties in the same union agreed among themselves, and that all unions in the same county could not be expected to act on the same inter pretation; but if the Legislature had pass ed a measure declaring that certain facts ought to be stated, they ought to be stated, and it was not satisfactory that they should be misstated because the parties agreed not to state them fairly. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Returns.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would consider the matter well before he agreed to the last part of the Return, as, in his opinion, the hon. Member, in asking for the resolutions of the assessment committees, was asking too much. He did not think any hard rule could be laid down on the subject, as there was a wide difference even in the same parish in the value of properties classified under the same heads. A small farm of fifteen or twenty acres might have some ramshackling timber on it, and the farmhouse might be of the same description; but the deductions allowed in that case could nut be applied to a farm of 1,000 acres, with well constructed buildings. In many cases the assessment committees might not have come to any formal resolutions, and a bare return of what had been done, without any explanation, would place the assessment committees in a very unfair position. Very different deductions would haves to be made in the case of cottages of good substantial brick, and structures of wattle-dab or cob, with clay walls and thatched roof. Chinese exactness in such matters was quite unattainable, and they must he content with an approximation.

said, that if the assessment committees were to furnish the Returns at that moment, they would not only be useless, but would mislead. If the hon. Gentleman postponed his Motion, the Returns would not only be more complete, but there would be ample time for legislation next Session.

said, he thought it would be most desirable to have the Returns. He believed it was more in theory than in practice that differences existed as to the cost of repairs. He could not, however, but complain of the anomalous principles on which rating was enforced. For instance, a distinction was drawn between a brickwork where the clay was taken from the surface, and where it was procured from below ground; and open quarries were charged, while all mines, except those of coal, were exempted. He held that these cases ought to be treated alike. A large portion of Norfolk and other counties was not under the Act, which, as it was a very good one and worked well, ought to be applied to all parishes.

said, he saw no advantage in giving the last Return asked for at that time, for it would be incomplete. It would be much better to wait for half a year longer. It was much better, in his opinion, to leave the matter in the hands of the local authorities than to lay down any hard and inflexible rule of assessment. He believed that all other minerals than coals were excepted because coals alone were mentioned in the act of Elizabeth, and that timber other than salable underwood was exempted for the same reason.

said, that having taken a chief part in passing the Parochial Amendments Act through the House, and having taken great interest in its working, he had no reason to complain of the discussion of that evening, because it showed, not that the Act had not worked satisfactorily, but that its operation had exposed anomalies in the rating which had existed for centuries, and thus proved the necessity for the measure. He did not understand the hon. Member for Buckingham to call upon him to correct those anomalies, which had been acknowledged by all the courts of justice, and which were nowhere more apparent than in the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman, of mines and salable underwood. The question arose from the construction which had been put upon the Act of Elizabeth. Expressio unius, exclusio alterius est, was the principle adopted by the courts; and as collieries were specifically mentioned in the Act, that was held to imply the exclusion of all other mines. He could not collect whether the hon. Member was satisfied with the decision of the Poor Law Board as to the mode in which assessment committees and overseers were to obtain the correct ratable value of property. Overseers now knew from the circular quoted by the hon. Gentleman that to arrive at the ratable value they were to make certain deductions from the estimated rental; and, consequently, the only question which remained was, on what principles those deductions were to be made. It was possible that great differences existed throughout the country in the amounts deducted from the estimated rental for repairs, but he was afraid he could not produce the resolutions of the assessment committees. In the first place, the unions are upwards of 650 in number, and he was not at all certain that they had generally agreed to resolutions on the subject. Some had, no doubt; but very few of the resolutions had reached the Poor Law Board, and still fewer stated the principle on which they were founded. He had ascertained, moreover, that even where resolutions had been passed, the assessment committees had not in all cases adhered to them. In the greater part of the unions the assessment committees had not come to any positive decision. On the whole, though he admitted that full information ought be procured, he thought the hon. Member should delay calling for the Returns for some time, especially since it would not be easy, perhaps not quite right, to enact a law requiring assessment committees to make their deductions on a fixed principle. If the Returns were to be ordered, then assessment committees might jump to the conclusion that there was to be fresh legislation on the subject, and might at once suspend their proceedings, which would be attended, not with any advantage, but probably with some little mischief. The hon. Member had found fault with the decision of the Poor Law Board exempting corn rents received by clergymen from the rate, and had asked whether they had taken the advice of the Crown lawyer on the point. The rule of the Board was, when they had any mistrust of their own opinion, to refer to the Law Officers of the Crown; but when other people mistrusted their opinion, they did not think it necessary to ask the Law Officers whether they were wrong. It was open, however, to the hon. Member to take any opinion he liked, or, indeed, to introduce a Bill on the subject. The cases of the exemption of corn rents must be extremely rare, and he did not really know where they were to be found. He could not therefore have a Return prepared without more definite information. As to the deduction to be made on account of the stipend which an incumbent paid to his curate, the law had been rendered clear and explicit by the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Where a curate was appointed, not as a substitute for, but as am assistant to the incumbent, there must be a deduction; but no deduction was to be made where the duties of the parish were not too onerous for one man, or where the incumbent was not resident. Only two cases had been brought tinder his notice in which the question had arisen, and the matter was one, therefore, which he did not think could be much in doubt. In conclusion, he had simply to express a hope that the hon. Gentleman would postpone his Motion for the Returns; and he could assure him, that if before the end of the Session sufficient progress should have been made by the assessment committees, and he found that full and satisfactory Returns could be procured of the rules on which they had acted, he should himself move for those Returns.

said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was not yet disposed to take any action in the matter, as the time was not come for the required Return. The great desideratum in these cases was uniformity, in counties at all events, if not over a wider area. In his opinion, that uniformity would he much more likely to be attained if time were afforded for considering the various reports sent up from all parts of the country by the assessment committees.

said, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission upon Greenwich Hospital, presented to Parliament in May 1860, and to put some Questions with respect to it. Those Questions had reference, in the first place, to reforms which the Admiralty required the authority of the House to enable them to carry out; as, for example, the effecting any change in the constitution of the hospital or remodelling the governing body; end, in the second place, to matters in which the Admiralty could, proprio motu, effect a change, such as the improvement of the internal management and economy of the institution. The constitution of Greenwich Hospital rested mainly on the Act of 1829. It was an establishment which possessed large funded property, and the control of its estates, funded property, and financial affairs, was vested in a Board composed of five members, two of whom were Commissioners ex officio—namely, the Paymaster General and the First Commissioner of Works. Of the three remaining Commissioners two were at that time civilians, and one, he believed, a naval officer. The internal management and discipline of the hospital, the superintendence of the infirmary, wards, and schools, was intrusted by law to a body of officers, at the head of whom was the governor and under him the lieutenant-governor, assisted by a staff of officers consisting of fifteen gentlemen, all of whom belonged to the naval profession. The government of the institution was, he might add, a double government, and would, he thought, upon investigation, be found not to be free from the defects inherent in such a system. Those defects he understood mainly to be the absence of responsibility and occasional conflict of authority, and a general supine-ness of action. A Commission had in 1859 been appointed by the Crown to inquire into the management of the whole affairs of the establishment. That Commission had entered at great length into the inquiry, and had made one of the ablest and most carefully prepared Reports which had ever been presented to the House of Commons. The Report was presented to Parliament in the early part of 1860, and the recommendations which it contained might be summed up under four heads. The Commissioners recommended an entire change in the governing body of the Hospital, a material reduction in the staff of officers, a large reduction in the domestic establishment, with a view to its more economical and more efficient working, and lastly, that some provision should be made for the wives and families of pensioners. So impressed did the Government appear to be with the justice of these recommendations, that they introduced a Bill into each of the two Houses of Parliament in 1861, which embodied those recommendations almost in their entirety. On the back of the Bill which had been introduced into the House of Commons were the names of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty and his able coadjutor, Mr. Whitbread. The Bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords passed through several stages, and Amendments were made in Committee, but from that time to the present no more had been heard of that measure for amending the constitution of Greenwich Hospital. No one knew why it was withdrawn. The Bill, in the first place, provided that for the future the governing body should consist of two ex officio Commissioners, the Paymaster General and the First Commissioner of Works; the other three to be appointed by the Lords of the Admiralty, and to be called the Civil Commissioner, the Admiral Superintendent, and the Medical Commissioner. These appointments were to be made for five years, to secure that persons filling them should at all times be capable of fulfilling the duties attached to the office. At the end of that time these persons were to be re-eligible. The Bill further provided that the offices might be reduced in number. It effected a very important reduction in the staff of officers, which it provided should consist in future of one captain, one commander, three lieutenants, and such a number of warrant officers as the Lords of the Admiralty might think necessary. He was the more anxious to address his inquiries to the Government at the present moment on account of some recent appointments which were thought to be antagonistic to the Report of the Commissioners and the Bill of 1861. It was possible that some misapprehension might exist as to these appointments, and, if so, it was desirable that the Admiralty should have an opportunity of explaining what reform they had effected. The first appointment to which he should refer was that of Sir Richard Bromley, who had been appointed second Civil Commissioner, although the Bill of 1861 provided, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners, that there should be only one such officer. He admitted that Sir R. Bromley was an eminent and valuable public servant; but his services had been rendered not to Greenwich Hospital, but to the country at large, and he ought to have been rewarded out of the public treasury, and not out of the funds of the hospital. If he had retired from the public service on account of ill health, then he ought not to hare been made a Civil Commissioner at Greenwich, an office which required to be filled by a person of good health and perfect efficiency. It might, however, be said that Sir R. Bromley had been sent to Greenwich as a reformer, to introduce necessary reforms and cut down expenses. If such were the grounds of his appointment, he could only say that the Government ought to have accompanied his appointment with such a change in the constitution of the hospital as would have enabled him to carry out those reforms which he was expected to effect. It was absurd to send any one to introduce reforms and leave him trammelled with the cumbrous machinery of the old system. They could not, therefore, look upon the appointment of Sir R. Bromley as that of a reformer, because he was encumbered by the double government spoken of and a machinery which Sir James Graham had said had never worked well since 1820. If that machinery did not work smoothly as at present constituted, was it to be expected that it would work any the better for the introduction into it of a new wheel that would travel at a greater amount of velocity than any wheel in the old machinery —for that was precisely the position of Sir Richard Bromley? The next point related to the officers. The Report of the Commissioners recommended, and the Bill of 1861 provided, that the number of officers should be largely reduced; but that reduction had not been carried out, and the officers now occupied no less than one-fourth of the building, and drew largely upon the funds of the hospital. That was a question of great delicacy, and it was one upon which he wished to speak with some reserve, or rather deference for the strong professional feeling which existed on the subject. A relative of his own, indeed, had expressed to him a strong opinion on the matter; but he considered he was performing a public duty, and was not actuated by any private feeling in the course he was taking. He was aware that there was a strong feeling in favour of retaining Greenwich as a place of comfortable retirement for old invalided officers of Her Majesty's navy. He looked upon that institution in a different light. Of course, there ought always to be an efficient staff, but he thought that there was no necessity for so large a staff as one consisting of seventeen officers. At that moment they occupied one-fourth of the building, and drew largely on the resources of the hospital. He wished to do full justice to the claims of the officers, but he felt compelled to examine a little closely the grounds on which they based their claims. He thought, in the first place, that the officers appointed to Greenwich Hospital should be in such a state of health as would enable them to perform their duty. The claim of officers to admission to Greenwich Hospital as a place of retirement rested on this ground, that for a series of years a large payment was made out of the prize money into the chest of Greenwich Hospital. By the Act 46 Geo. III., passed in 1806, and by a subsequent Act of Parliament passed in 1814, those payments were made legal, or rather that portion of the prize money was ascertained by law for the purposes of Greenwich Hospital. It amounted in 1814 to £5 per cent, in 1806 to a less amount; but it might be taken for argument's sake that there was paid to the chest of Greenwich Hospital up to the year 1829 a portion of all prize money amounting to about 5 per cent. Without stopping to inquire whether that prize money could properly be considered the property of the officers, which he was not prepared to admit, he would only point out, that as these payments ceased in 1829, the numbers of those who had a claim to admission on that ground must be but small and rapidly diminishing. But if the claim of the officers to admission on account of that legal assignment was valid, he was prepared to set up another of which they had never heard a word in that House—namely, a claim on behalf of the merchant seamen The House was, perhaps, not aware that by an Act of Parliament passed in 1695, in the reign of William III., sixpence per month was deducted from the wages of every merchant seaman and paid into the chest of Greenwich Hospital. Those payments had also ceased, but they ceased subsequently to the payment of the percentage on prize money. In 1835 the Consolidated Fund undertook the payment of £20,000, towards the funds of the hospital in lieu of the merchant seamen's sixpences. If therefore the officers' claims were valid on account of the payment of a portion of the prize money, the merchant seamen's claims were equally valid on account of the payment of their sixpences, and equal justice ought to be done to them. There was another very important consideration in reference to officers' claims, which was this. In 1728, exactly a hundred years before the payment of prize money into the hospital chest ceased, by an Order in Council a sum equivalent to the half-pay of all the officers employed in Greenwich Hospital was paid into the chest of the hospital, and applied to its purposes. When the Admiralty appointed officers to Greenwich Hospital, they actually paid it a sum equal to the half-pay of the officers; but since a very recent period, he thought 1840, or a little earlier, the officers, in addition to the salaries they received as officers in Greenwich Hospital, received their half pay from the Crown. Greenwich Hospital did not gain that half-pay, as it did a hundred years back, but was obliged to pay salaries and emoluments to the officers besides losing their half-pay He did not grudge the officers anything which the Crown might choose to bestow upon them, because any reward which our naval and military officers earned by long and distinguished services that House would cheerfully pay; and he would even go be yond that, and say that he thought it was the practice of the Government to reward our distinguished officers somewhat too niggardly; and if a proposition were made to increase those rewards, he believed it would be cheerfully acceded to in that House; but he objected to the Crown transferring its obligations to its own servants from the public treasury to Greenwich Hospital. That was the sum and substance of his objection to this large staff of officers being maintained out of the resources of Greenwich Hospital. He would give the House an instance of the encroaching tendencies of public Departments, which were always apt to shuffle off on other shoulders whatever liabilities they could get rid of. In 1859, if he mistook not, while the Commissioners were still sitting, the Admiralty made a proposition to the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, to understand which it was necessary to remember that every pensioner on admittance to Greenwich Hospital relinquished all claim to pensions he might previously have enjoyed. The proposition of the Admiralty was, that the Commissioners should pay at once out of their surplus incomes to the in-pensioners half of their surrendered out-pensions, and eventually to the officers of the hospital as well their half pay as their salaries. The Commissioners very properly replied that the proposed scheme would be a misapplication of the property held by them in trust for specific purposes of a great national charity. The proposition therefore dropped. He only quoted it to show how ready the Admiralty were to transfer obligations from the Treasury to Greenwich Hospital. The House had lately heard much of the propriety of taxing charities, but the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was met by such an outcry that he was induced to abandon it without going to a division. No proposition, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever made and abandoned for the taxation of charities, approached in magnitude this sweeping proposal on the part of the Admiralty. He then came to another point. The Bill of 1861 adopted the recommendation of the Commissioners in respect to the reduction of the domestic establishment of the hospital; and without going into any long argument on that point, he would state that in the Report of the Commissioners of 1859 there was an instructive comparison of the cost of domestic management of the hospital in the years 1805 and 1859. At the former date the cost of maintaining 2,410 pensioners and 144 nurses, being widows, was £69,206 per annum. The establishment charges, including under that head the salaries of civil and military officers, clerks, servants, repairs, &c., in 1805 were £21,837 a year. In 1859 the number of pensioners, 1,676, was less by 30 per cent than the number in the former year, and the cost of maintaining them, together with 100 nurses and 71 sick attendants, was £50,910 per annum. That was £18,296 less than in 1805. But what did the House suppose were the establishment charges in 1859? No less than £48,667, or £26,830 more than in 1805. The Return proved that while the expenditure upon the individual pensioners had not increased during fifty-five years, and while the aggregate number of pensions had diminished 30 per cent, the cost of the establishment had considerably more than doubled. At the same time, owing to the admirable arrangements of the manager of the estates of Greenwich Hospital, who was emphatically the right man in the right place, the affairs of the institution had been immensely simplified; the cost, therefore, ought to be properly a great deal less. Under the Act of 1861 the Admiralty were empowered to make reduction without the necessity of further application to Parliament. But he could not discover in recent appointments that spirit of economy which the Act of 1861 seemed to promise. Certain offices had been filled up, the occupants being permitted to retire, although these officers, if not absolutely condemned, had received the negative praise that their salaries were in an inverse ratio to the duties they were called on to perform, and that these duties were generally performed by deputy. The chief civil officers of the Hospital are the Secretary, Steward, Cashier, the Clerk of the Check, and the Inspector of Works; the Steward has under him five clerks, two mates, and the brewer. Lately the cashier retired on a pension of £600 a year. The steward, a paymaster, was made cashier, at a salary of £500 a year and half-pay, with an establishment of five clerks, two men servants, and a brewer. A new steward, an Admiralty Secretary, was appointed at a salary of £500 a year, £219 half-pay, and lodging money at the rate of three guineas a week. He might observe, that if the number of officers were reduced, a large amount of lodging accommodation would be available for those officers to whom lodging money was paid. With regard to the internal management of the Hospital, about which the Admiralty might proceed propria motu, without requiring the authority of Parliament, he wished to ask what were the intentions of the Admiralty with respect to the wives and daughters of the pensioners. Whatever tardy reforms the Admiralty might intend to effect, the long continued neglect which had been shown to the female relatives of the pensioners would remain as a blot and reproach upon the administration of Greenwich Hospital. He believed that no one would venture to contradict that assertion. He did not wish to throw blame upon the present Board of Admiralty, because he believed they had already done more for the hospital than any preceding Board, and, if rumours were correct, they were prepared to do still more; but he would say that it was a most scandalous shame that from the foundation of the hospital up to that year, 1863, the condition of the wives and daughters of the seamen should have been wholly ignored. He would not rest upon his own authority, but would quote from the Report of the Commissioners, who said—

"The wives of pensioners are wholly ignored, and their circumstances are deplorable. They are consigned to extreme penury and wretchedness, and in some instances become chargeable to the parish. In 1841 the school for girls, a portion of the lower school, was abolished, and it was said no provision was made in its stead, and we have learned with regret that in consequence of that omission the class of unfortunate females who haunt the purlieus of Greenwich are largely recruited from such children."

He hoped that that state of things would no longer be allowed to continue, and that the House would that night receive an assurance that the unhappy condition in which the female relatives of the seamen were left would be redressed. He knew, of his own knowledge, that much had been done of late in an indirect way. The pensioners of the first class received 5s., of the second 4s., and of the third 3s., instead of the miserable shilling a week which before was to be applied to the maintenance of their wives and children; but still the margin was not very large, and there was no direct recognition of the women. They were altogether ignored. By the Act of Anne express provision was made, or intended to be made, not only for the widows, but the wives of the pensioners. The House would hear with astonishment that the pensioners were forbidden to marry. He had himself entered into conversation on the last occasion on which he was at the Hospital with one of the most respectable old seamen he ever saw, who was engaged in reading the Bible at the time. Having asked the old man whether he was married, he replied, "That is a painful subject. I have lost my wife, but I should have too much respect for her, if she were alive, to bring her in here." That spoke volumes in condemnation of the management of Greenwich Hospital. There might be difficulties in the way of making suit able provision for the wives of the seamen in the hospital, but it was the duty of Government to overcome those difficulties Much had been said about the improvidence of sailors; and as long as they were neglected they were improvident, and when they came on shore, with plenty of money in their pockets, became the prey of crimps and rogues. But modern humanity and good sense had provided sailors' homes and savings banks, and the sailor had been found to show that he valued those establishments. If, in like manner, Government would make a proper provision for the wives of the old sailors it would have a great moral effect, and would induce the very best class of men to enter into the navy. With regard to the practical part of the question, three plans were suggested by the Commissioners. One was to make arrangements for the reception of a hundred families within the walls, by the erection of a number of cottages on some vacant ground contiguous to the Hospital. He trusted that recommendation would not be adopted, because it would not be consistent with discipline and good order to introduce the wives and families of the sailors within the walls. The second proposition was to adapt, at a cost of £6,000, some house property in Greenwich which belonged to the Hospital for the accommodation of a certain number of families. And the third recommendation was that lodging-houses should be erected for a hundred families, at an expense of £17,000. A meeting had been held lately in the City for making provision for the better lodging of the working poor of the metropolis, and one gentleman, who had paid most attention to the subject, calculated that a block of building capable of containing twenty families could be erected for £2,300. If that were so, he thought that for about £12,000 a block might he built capable of containing a hundred families. It would be an experiment; and if the experiment succeeded, it might be carried further. A sum of £12,000 would not be too much to expend in carrying out the views of the founders, in raising the standard of the navy, and in doing a simple act of justice to men who expended their blood in the public service. He desired to ask the Government, Whether it was their intention to introduce any Bill based upon the recommendations of the Commissioners; and, if not, whether they were prepared by regulations to make those important alterations and additions to which he had called attention?

said, that there could be no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member of that House of the interest and importance of the question which the hon. Member for Northumberland had introduced to their notice; and, for his own part, he could say that he rejoiced that, after many delays, the hon. Member had at length found an opportunity of calling the attention of the Government and the House to the subject. The hon. Member had referred, with a good deal of detail, to the Report of the Commission of 1860, of which his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade was Chairman, and he agreed with the hon. Member in thinking that that Report was a most valuable document. It was a copious, voluminous, and a bold Report; and if he were to define in one word its leading merit and principal characteristic, he should say that it was eminently a suggestive Report. Many of the suggestions which that document contained had guided the Board of Admiralty in the improvements which the hon. Gentleman admitted to have been introduced; but he was not prepared to say that the Admiralty was ready to accept, in all its entirety and detail, every one of the multitudinous suggestions in that valuable and able Report. The hon. Member had referred specially to many of the suggestions, and had spoken first of the proposed remodelling of the governing body of the hospital, which, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, and also in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inquiry, would be calculated to improve its efficiency, and lead to economy in the management of the hospital. The hon. Member had alluded to the condition of the wives and families of some of the pensioners, and he had touched on the claims of the widows, not of pensioners, but of seamen who had lost their lives in the service of the country. He was prepared on each and all these topics—and he was glad that the opportunity had arrived of so doing—to give to the hon. Member and the House an explicit answer on the part of the Admiralty, for the purpose of showing how far that Board agreed in the conclusions of the Report, and to state, with equal candour, where it was that, at least for the present, the Admiralty felt bound to stop. Before he went into a discussion of the practical grievances, and of the remedies which had been applied, or which still remained to be applied to them, he wished to remark that there were two preliminary questions, which the hon. Member also touched upon, and to which he desired in the first instance to address himself; because the view which persons might take of those preliminary questions would necessarily very much affect their conclusions when they came to the consideration of the recommendations made by the Commissioners of Inquiry. The first of those two questions was—what was the scope and original intention of this great national institution, Greenwich Hospital, and of its founders, and how far had that original intention been departed from? The second question was, how far the encroachments of the military establishment, more especially of late years, had diverted, or, as the phrase was, perverted, the funds of the institution from its original and legitimate object. Now, in dealing with these questions, the Admiralty had no desire except to have the facts clearly brought out. His impartiality would be shown by his strengthening instead of weakening some parts of the hon. Member's case. The first document with which they had to deal was the charter of William III. in 1694, the preamble of which set forth that the hospital was to be instituted

"For the relief and support of seamen serving on board the ships or vessels belonging to the navy royal, or employed in our service at sea, who by reason of age, wounds, or other disabilities, shall be incapable of further service at sea, and be unable to maintain themselves, and for the sustentation of the widows and the maintenance and education of the children of seamen happening to be slain or disabled in such service."

Two years afterwards was passed another Act which, while it gave the merchant seamen's sixpences to the chest of the hospital, extended the benefits of the institution as far as possible to every seaman registered for sea service and disabled by age or otherwise, and to "the widows and children of such seamen as were slain, killed, or drowned in the sea service." He admitted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that merchant seamen had originally a claim to participation in the advantages of the hospital. Then came the statute of Anne, in 1703, for the increase and better management of navigation, and especially of the coal trade, which did away with the condition that seamen must be registered, and placed it in the absolute discretion of the Lord High Admiral to admit within the walls of the hospital "any disabled seamen, their wives and children, and the widows and children of seamen slain, killed, or drowned in sea service." In that Act, for the first and only time, was mention of the wives of seamen as participators in the charity. These Acts and deeds were previous to the opening of the institution, which did not take place till 1705, and their object was very wide—much wider than could now be contemplated or recognised. They were intended, not only to afford succour to the seamen of the navy, but to promote navigation, and to provide for the service of merchant vessels, and even of the coasting trade. These, however, were objects which had passed away with the change of ideas in modern times. The true construction to be put on the old Acts and deeds was, in his opinion, that the founders of the hospital deemed it desirable to extend the scope of the foundations as widely as possible, leaving it to the discretion of the Lord High Admiral to decide, with reference to the claims upon the institution and its funds, how far within the limits they prescribed the benefits of the institution could be spread, and to regulate the priority of claims. The second question to which he had referred—as to the encroachments of the military establishment—was one of facts and dates. In 1704—the year before the hospital was opened—the office of governor was created, and a lieutenant governor, one captain, and two lieutenants were appointed. In 1705 another lieutenant was added, and there were then 100 pensioners and six officers on the establishment. In 1728 there was an accession of one captain and one lieutenant, giving eight officers to 450 pensioners. In 1748 two more lieutenants were added, making ten officers to 1,000 pensioners. In 1753 another captain was added, when the proportion was eleven officers to 1,300 pensioners. In 1763 two lieutenants were added, and the numbers then were thirteen officers and 1,783 pensioners. In 1767 the number of pensioners was the same, but there was one more captain, making fourteen officers in all. From that date down to 1840 no change was made in the establishment. In the latter year a Commission sat upon the naval and military hospitals of the country of which the late Duke of Wellington was a member. That Commission reported that commanders had some special grounds of complaint that no provision was made for them in the hospital, and accordingly four commander ships and two masterships were added to the military establishment, and in 1840 the establishment had been increased to its maximum of twenty officers. In the present year two lieutenants and one com-mandership had not been filled up by the Board, and the number of officers was therefore reduced to seventeen. There was undoubtedly in the old Charters and Acts something approaching to a recognition of the claims of the officers. The Charter of George III., in 1775, provided that all officers employed in the hospital should be seafaring men. In the Act of 1829, under which the institution was governed, it was directed that all officers, save the Commissioners and the Clerk of the Works, should be selected as far as possible from persons who had served in His Majesty's navy. The strongest evidence of something like a statutory recognition of those claims was in the Acts passed in the reign of George III. In the 3rd year of George III. an Act was passed, authorizing the governors to pay out-pensions to seamen whom they could not or did not receive as inmates; and in 1806 another Act was passed to enable them to extend the same system of out-pensions to officers as well as men. Considering the fact that the hospital possessed some thing like a military establishment even before its doors were opened, that that establishment grew with the growth of the institution which it had to manage, and that it had received Parliamentary recognition, he thought the claims of such a class of men were not to be lightly dealt with or set aside. He further maintained that these officers had a solid around for consideration in their contributions to the capital fund of the hospital. The officers of the navy had, from the first, contributed the monthly sixpences as well as the men. They had contributed indirectly in the shape of 5 per cent upon prizes, and they had contributed that fourth of certain freightages which was given to the hospital in 1819, and which would otherwise have fallen to their share. He did not wish, however, to be understood as carrying this argument too far. He was aware that these considerations left intact the question whether the appointment of disabled officers, perhaps infirm from age or wounds, was the best system of government for the institution. That was a question to be treated on its own merits, but meanwhile it was right the House should know, before they came to discuss the constitution of the governing body of the hospital, that there were claims of meritorious and deserving officers which would have to be taken into account. He desired, in the next place, having disposed of the two preliminary questions, to make some statements with respect, to the improvements which had already been carried into effect, and his wish to do so was the greater because the introduction of those improvements was due to the almost too great and self-sacrificing labours of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who, in consequence of those labours, unfortunately was, he trusted only for a short time, compelled to retire from the service of the country. Since the advent of the present Board to office, and the publication of the Report of the Commissioners, the following offices had been reduced:—One inspector of works, one dispenser, two matrons, with vacancies kept up for one commander and two lieutenants. The saving thus effected amounted to £1,844 a year; besides the cost of the apartments which would otherwise be occupied. With respect to all future appointments, the old allowances in lieu of coals, candles, faggots, and soon, were to cease, by order of the Board—a regulation to which the recent appointment of Sir Richard Bromley was made subject. He would next state what had been done to increase the benefits enjoyed by the inmates of the hospital. As his hon. Friend had mentioned, the weekly allowance to the pensioners had been increased front 1s. to 3s., 4s., and 5s., according to a system of classification. That additional gratuity to the men, which had been given to them in the hope that it might reach their wives, had been bestowed at an annual cost of £10,000. Complaints had sometimes been made about taking the allowances from the pensioners while on leave of absence. Under a recent regulation any pensioner could take four days' leave of absence at any time, and once a year he was entitled to a leave of six weeks, during which he had the value of his weekly provision money to use while absent from the institution. The widows of seamen employed in the hospital were, he might remind the House, as much pensioners as the men themselves, and the maximum of their superannuation allowance had been raised from £10 to £25. An immense improvement had been made in the school. A new wing was in course of construction, with lavatories, baths, and all conveniences. The class-room accommodation had been increased, and measures had been taken to afford sufficient breathing space in the dormitories. Beyond all this, the Board had absolutely relinquished the whole of the patronage which they formerly posssesed in the appointment of boys to the school; and the boys, whether the sons of officers or seamen, upon one and the same footing, were selected for admission by a committee on the spot, under resolutions which represented fairly the spirit and intention of the old Charters and Acts. The same remark applied to the regulations for the admission of seamen and marines. He was not there to say that the expenditure upon the establishment of the hospital might not be reduced. It was his opinion, as soon as he began to look into the question, and that opinion had not been shaken by further inquiry, that the expenditure upon the establishment might be, could be, and ought to be reduced. But it was hardly fair to institute a comparison of cost between 1805 and 1859, in the method which the Commissoners had adopted. A truer comparison would he between the salaries and allowances in 1805 and the salaries and allowances in 1859. In the former year they were £14,000; in the latter, £23,000. The difference between those two sums—£9,000—was the real measure of the encroachment of the establishment upon the revenue of the hospital. But something was got for that increase of charge. The increase was not upon the military part of the establishment, where the addition was limited in extent, but on the civil branch, for secretaries, clerks, and so forth. At least, therefore, something was gained in the purchase of provisions and comforts for the inmates, for the irregularities which obtained before the passing of the Act in 1829 were no longer possible. In the comparison of establishment charges which had been made—those in 1805 having been £21,000, and in 1859 £49,000—he would omit £9,000 out of the difference of £28,000. But the relative expenditure upon works and repairs in the two years must be taken into account. It was not fair to take two years, and if in one the cost of repairs was £3,000 and in the other £10,000, to assume that establishment expenditure had increased to the amount of £7,000. Then there was an increase in the rates of Greenwich Hospital to the amount of £1,000, and the remainder of the increase—some £10,000 or £11,000—was to be attributed to the increase of wages. In admitting so much, some hon. Members might imagine that he admitted the weak point in the management of the institution. Certainly, when he first called for Returns from the hospital, nothing surprised him more than to find, that with a complement of some 1,600 pensioners, the number of persons receiving wages was upwards of 500. But the explanation was very simple. These wages were really pensions in another form, and the persons who received them were either the pensioners themselves—292 were pensioners—or the wives, but mainly the widows, of seamen, who, it was felt, were intended to share, in some degree, in the benefits of the institution. Such was the explanation of the difference in the expenditure of the two years. Then his hon. Friend had referred to the Bill brought in two years ago, changing and modifying the constitution of the governing body of the hospital, and had asked what were the intentions of the Admiralty upon that subject, and whether it was proposed to re-introduce that or some similar measure. Now, he was not there on behalf of the noble Duke at the head of the Board to withdraw the opinions which he expressed on introducing that measure; but in the House of Lords and in that House the measure did not meet with a very favourable reception. [Mr. LIDDELL: It was not discussed in this House.] That was perfectly correct, but the probable reception of a measure was to be tested by what was heard there before it came on for formal discussion; and the Bill in question was not received in such a way as made it advisable to press it. The Board of Admiralty, therefore, came to the conclusion, that having considerable power of reform already vested in themselves, it would be well to proceed by degrees, and endeavour to ascertain practically, in the first instance, to what extent they might themselves accomplish reforms and improvements before they came to Parliament for new powers. Then his hon. Friend said that the appointment of Sir Richard Bromley was in the teeth of the Report of the Commission. Now, in the opinion of the Board, the appointment was in the very spirit of the recommendations of the Commissioners, and it was made with the object of carrying those recommendations practically into effect. In their proposed construction of the governing body of the Hospital, the Commissioners recommended the appointment of a Finance Commissioner; and who more fit to be placed in that position than a gentleman who had been for many years Accountant General of the Navy, and whose energy and abilities and financial experience were so well known to that House and to the public? He had before him the Board's letter to the Hospital Commissioners, notifying to them the appointment of Sir Richard Bromley, and he would invite attention to the terms of that letter—

"The Queen having been pleased to appoint Sir Richard Maddox Bromley one of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, I am to draw your attention to paragraph 7 in the recommendations of the Report of the Commissioners on Greenwich Hospital, 1860, and I am to express a hope that from the experience and abilities of Sir Richard Bromley the finance department of the Hospital may derive all the advantage looked for by the Royal Commission."

Sir Richard Bromley had accepted the office upon these terms, and was pledged as far as might be to fulfil the expectations implied in the very terms of his appointment. His energy and abilities were known, the reputation which he enjoyed was known, and they might entertain a confident expectation that he would be wishful to maintain and increase that reputation. As to the condition of the wives and families of pensioners, he agreed with his hon. Friend, that even if the Admiralty were not strictly responsible for the circumstances and conditions of life of these families, these things did constitute a slur upon that great national institution. Suggestions had been sent down for the consideration of the Commissioners and of the military establishment. These had been returned with the annotations of the Commissioners. The matter would shortly be determined in all its details—and he could assure his hon. Friend that in the shape of some increased weekly allowance to the married men, and also by some provisions and regulations to secure, as far as could be secured, the proper application of that increased allowance, they hoped to be able to accomplish some good in this direction. Then there was the case of the widows. The Board were of opinion, that, next to the wounded seamen, there could be no class of persons, whether the terms of the original Charters and Acts or the intrinsic merits of their claims were taken into account, who had more urgent claims for some benefit from the hospital than the widows of men who might hove lost their lives in the service of their country. Objections referred to by his hon. Friend existed to the admission within the walls of the institution of wives and widows as well as the men. The Admiralty had therefore thought it preferable to try to make some provision for them outside. To enable the Board to do that, they would have to come to Parliament for powers, and it would be his duty, in the course of the next week, to ask leave to introduce a Bill in order to carry these proposals into execution. He trusted that his answers had not been entirely unsatisfactory to the House. He was quite aware that more ambitious and larger schemes had been proposed and discussed; but he could not accede to the policy of the course suggested. In his opinion, it was infinitely better that the man who, whether by his own labour or that of his wife, or by the assistance of his friends, was enabled, in addition to whatever out-pension he might possess, to gain sufficient for a comfortable, although it might be a humble, maintenance in the locality of his birth, or some place with which the associations of his life were connected—it was infinitely better that such a man, for many reasons which would suggest themselves to the House, should be so situated, than that he should be pensioned within the walls of the institution. Greenwich Hospital was an hospital which should be devoted to the accommodation of the infirm, of the really disabled, and of those who required those special comforts and attentions which they could not be expected to command in their own more modest homes. He could not therefore accept those more ambitious schemes to which he referred. He objected to them, too, because he found them to be financially unsound. They were based on the notion of a very large increase of expenditure, as well as of a very considerable augmentation of income. But how, let him ask, was it proposed to increase the expenditure and the income of the hospital. It was suggested that the out-pensions saved to the country should be paid over to the funds of the institution, while the scheme was, in the next place, baaed on a problematical saving of £20,000 a year; and lastly, on an elimination of the annual surplus which at present accrued. Now, there was a surplus, the amount of which was somewhat exaggerated. It was applied, in the first place, to an insurance fund, while there was, in the second place, a mining fund; but any hon. Gentleman who was at all acquainted with the matter must be aware that mining profits did not endure for ever. It was therefore simply a question of prudence to make provision for the day when those mines should be exhausted. Besides, there was annually a certain surplus which he trusted would be available for the purposes to which he referred. Now, bearing in mind what, after all, was the main object of the institution—to provide for a state of war—he maintained that in time of peace the resources of the hospital should not be taxed to their utmost or frittered away; so that, when war did unhappily arise, the building might be ready and funds at hand to accommodate those men who might have Buffered in defence of the honour and safety of their country. He acknowledged the justice of the claims which his hon. Friend had brought under the notice of the House, and the Government would not fail to endeavour cautiously, but perseveringly, and without delay, to give them some practical effect.

said, he thought the time of the House was well occupied in discussing the interests of the noble charity under discussion. He had listened, he might add, with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had shown that during the short time he had occupied his office, he had made himself master of one important question connected with the duties of his department. He was particularly gratified at learning from the hon. Gentleman that it was not likely the Bill of two years ago would be re-introduced. The description of the feeling which then prevailed with regard to that Bill was well described in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, as the measure was received with distrust, and it appeared to him (Sir John Pakington), that the course which the hon. Gentleman had announced on behalf of the Admiralty was a more prudent one than if they made another attempt at wholesale legislation. For his own part, he was not at all disposed to deny that reforms in Greenwich hospital were necessary. It was, no doubt, very desirable that a reduction should be effected in the establishment, and that the management should be as far as possible be rendered more economical; but he, at the same time, saw no reason why, under the powers conferred by the Act of 1829, it was not perfectly feasible to carry out those reforms, without having recourse to additional legislation. He wished to speak with respect of the abilities and industry of the Royal Commissioners. He felt that it was with some hesitation that he differed from the recommendations of one of them—his hon. and gallant Friend who sat near him (Sir John Hay). But he confessed he should be sorry to see all of them carried out. There was one part of their Report, however, on which the hon. Gentleman had not touched—namely, that pointing out the difference which had prevailed at Greenwich between the civil and military authorities. Those differences he regarded as a great misfortune; indeed, they were more—they were a scandal. The evil was one, nevertheless, which might be easily removed. He was disposed to think, that if the Governor of the Hospital were made a really useful member of the establishment, and were appointed one of the Commissioners, all the inconveniences which arose on that score might be obviated. Holding that opinion, he disapproved of the proposed arrangement, which seemed to him most absurd, to turn the office of Governor into a mere useless sinecure. It was a far wiser and more simple plan to make the Governor a Commissioner, and to appoint to the office a naval officer of high rank. The appointment of Sir Richard Bromley was a great improvement on the previous state of affairs. It was impossible for the Government to have filled up the office of Commissioner better than they had done by that appointment. He (Sir John Pakington) had seen with deep regret the remarks in the public prints reflecting on that appointment. It had been lost sight of, that this able roan lost his health from the arduous work which he had in the service. He was, therefore, glad to hear the generous terms in which the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the past services of that gallant officer. He was able, from personal knowledge, to bear testimony to the fact that Sir Richard Bromley's health had completely failed some years ago, from his long-continued exertions in the discharge of his public duties. It was in 1858 that his health broke down, and at that time it was his (Sir John Pakington's) duty, to grant him a lengthened absence from duty; and when he did so, he feared that he would not return to active life He was sorry that the arrangement made by the Government was not a more liberal one. Considering his length of service, it would have been more generous if he had been allowed full pay in addition to his salary as Commissioner. The point to which be was most anxious to refer, was a recommendation of the Commissioners with which he could not agree, and which, he was sorry to say, had been distinctly embodied in a Bill introduced by the Government two years since. He referred to the recommendation "that no commissioned officer of the navy be admitted into the Hospital except in an administrative capacity." He thought that to act upon such a recommendation would be most ungracious. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, in his able speech, had traced with clearness and accuracy the history of the Hospital, and had shown that from the commencement officers had been admissable to the benefits of the institution. In the year of the foundation of the Hospital, 1704, one of very nearly the first admissions was that of a disabled lieutenant in the navy; again by the Charter of 1775, again in 1809, and again in the recommendation of the Committee of 1840, over which the Duke of Wellington presided, the same principle prevailed, that naval officers should share the benefits of the charity. After the observations of the hon. Gentleman, he could not but hope that the noble Duke and the Board of Admiralty had reconsidered that part of the subject, and were not disposed to act upon the recommendation. He had been sorry to hear that the vacancies among the officers had occurred, and were not yet filled up, and he would wish to know whether it was intended not to fill them up. It must always be borne in mind, that the officers of the navy had largely contributed to the funds of the Hospital by freight money and prize money, and therefore be hoped that the benefits of the institution would not be confined absolutely to seamen. He admitted that reforms were necessary, and that increased economy was also necessary. A Return moved for by the late Mr. Pugh, some years ago, showed that at that time, the expense of the inmates did not exceed £40 a man, whilst now that expense was increased to £59 a man. That certainly called for inquiry and correction; but he believed that the Admiralty had full powers to cure these evils without having recourse to legislation, and be hoped that they would exercise those powers.

said, that, as one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the government and condition of Greenwich Hospital, he was desirous of stating the grounds upon which they made and still adhered to certain recommendations they had embodied in their Report, and which were objected to. And first, he would allude to the necessity for legislation. The evil which met them at the outset, in connection with Greenwich Hospital, was the continual and incessant squabbling between the civil Commissioners and the military Commissioners who formed the double Government of the institution. All the evils existing in that institution—and they were not a few—were clearly traceable to that double government; and be was informed that an Act of the Legislature would be necessary to get rid of that double government. For that purpose, the Commission thought that there should be legislation; but the remainder of the Commissioners' recommendations could, he believed, be carried out by the Board of Admiralty without the interference of Parliament. A change in the mode of government of the Hospital was absolutely necessary, and in that opinion the Commissioners were fortified by high authority, including that of the late Sir James Graham, who disapproved of a Board of civil officers, but considered that a re-construction of the governing body was necessary, and thought a civil Commissioner, acting with the Governor, and perhaps the medical officers, would form a suitable governing body. He (Sir John Hay) concurred in all that had been said of the great merits of Sir Richard Bromley, and thought that he would be an excellent civil Commissioner. One disadvantage arising from the present double government was, the great expense entailed upon the Hospital by it. Excluding the charges of building, he found the present charge for managing the establishment of the Hospital, not including the allowances to pensioners, was £47,704 upon an income of £158,000. The proposal of the Commissioners was, he thought, reasonable, as, after deducting £5,000 for building and other similar purposes, they proposed to allow £26,973 for expenses of management. This reduction of expenditure, to the extent of nearly £25,000 a year, could be easily arranged, merely by not filling up vacancies when they occurred. There was an excess of Commissioners and of military government; and although certain appointments had not been filled up, there had not been that reduction in the expense which the Commission had recommended, and actually showed how it could be made. He would not go at length into the items of wasteful expenditure in the matter of the establishment, but this he would say—there were certain officers to which the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had alluded—the Steward, the Clerk of the Check, Cashier, and Secretary—four civil officers who were supposed to have something to do—but when the Commission were at the Hospital, they found that the three first named had nothing to do, for they did their duty by deputy. He would read to the House an extract from the evidence of one of these officers, in which he stated that the clerks were perfectly competent to perform all the duties, and that he did not see why the officers themselves should be retained. [The hon. and gallant Member, having read the evidence proceeded:] The Commissioners did not wish to be hard on those officers, who had, no doubt, done good service in their time; but they thought Greenwich Hospital was not the place where Navy Paymasters ought to receive their pensions. One of these officers had since retired on full pay, and his place had been filled up; another had died, and his place also had been filled up. He had nothing to say against the selection that had been made; one was secretary to the late Lord Lyons, and another secretary to Sir Houston Stewart, who had performed most valuable services in the Black Sea and elsewhere. He did not object that these gentlemen should be duly rewarded for their services; but what he thought and what the Commissioners thought was, that they should be rewarded from the funds of the country and not from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. The surgeons of the navy were surely as deserving of pensions as the civil officers, yet they were only appointed to Greenwich Hospital for five years, no doubt under an impression, that if they became unable themselves to do duty, their clerks and apothecaries could not so well supply their places; but in other departments, because the duty could be got done without any great particularity as to the way in which it was performed, officers were allowed to remain until they were quite incapacitated for the proper discharge of their functions. Hon. Members would find in the Appendix to the Report many facts stated which strongly corroborated the conclusions at which the Commission had arrived. It bad, for instance, been ascertained that there were in the workhouses of this country 1,100 seamen who had served some thirty and forty years in the navy, who were entitled to admission into Greenwich Hospital, but who could not be admitted, owing to the overgrown nature of the Hospital establishment. He would never believe that it was the intention of the Royal Founder of the Hospital that 1,100 seamen should be maintained in the workhouses while one third of its funds were expended in its management. As a naval officer, though with some feelings of regret, he was obliged both to suggest and concur in the scheme of the Commission. What they did object to was, that under the pretext of performing military duties, officers were appointed who from their state of health could not perform them, yet received comforts and maintenance at the public charge. A good deal had been said about freight, but he did not see how captains and commanders in the navy could be said to contribute from their funds a proportion to give them a claim to be maintained at the expense of the Hospital. He would not further detain the House. The subject had received most ample discussion. He trusted, if a Bill were necessary to alter the government of Greenwich Hospital, Her Majesty's Ministers would propose a Bill with that view; and if the other reforms indicated could be carried out by the Board of Admiralty, no time would be lost in making them. With regard to the sinecure office which his Colleagues and himself had been accused of having established, they found that from the commencement of the Hospital there had been at its head the officer who was held to be of the greatest eminence in the profession. His colleagues and himself felt that it would be to the honour and dignity of the Hospital and the profession that that should continue, especially considering the distinguished character of Sir James Gordon, now holding that office; and that was the sole reason why the recommendation had been made.

said, he concurred in thinking that great reductions could be made in the expenditure of Greenwich Hospital, and he was glad to hear that they were likely to take place. The House was indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down for much valuable assistance he had given on the subject to the country. In visiting Greenwich Hospital he was surprised to find that the cabins of the seamen had only four instead of eight beds, and this was the more painful when they remembered the fact that 1,100 sailors were found in the workhouses of the country He was also glad to hear that an increased allowance was to be made to the wives of the pensioners. He did not, however, find any reference made to the establishment of a girls' school for the children of the seamen. That he much regretted, because he believed it was to the absense of such a school much of the immorality of the streets of Greenwich could be traced. If the noble Lord should not propose the establishment of such a school, he (Mr. Briscoe) should feel it his duty at some future time to take the sense of the House upon it. He should like to be informed whether the £120,000, advanced on mortgage to the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 in the year 1860 was still unpaid?

said, he thought that much of the dissension which had occurred between the Commissioners and the governing body of the hospital was to be traced to the appointment, during the administration of the late Sir Robert Peel, of a naval Commissioner. The increase of the expense, which had risen from £40 per man in 1849, to £60 per man in 1859, was the result of the Admiralty Order of 1852, by which it was directed that no man should be admitted to the hospital but men who had served in the Royal Navy for ten years. There was not, of course, an indefinite number of such men, and the number of pensioners fell from 2,710 to 1,600.

said, that the words of the early Acts of Parliament clearly showed that it was intended that the benefits of the hospitals should be enjoyed by seamen and by seamen alone. He should like to know whether the further provision which was contemplated by the Government for the wives of seamen would include the erection of homes, and he hoped that some arrangement would be made by which seamen who resided in the country, and were candidates for admission to the hospital, might be spared the expense of coming to London to be examined.

said, that the question had already been so ably discussed, especially by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject, and by his hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, that he should confine himself to giving explanations upon a few points connected with the management of the hospital which had been referred to. He was not prepared to say, nor did he think that any one who had studied the old Acts and charters would say, that it was originally intended that officers of the navy should participate in the benefits of the institution as pensioners; but from the very foundation of the Hospital it had been the practice that they should do so, and it would be extremely unjust to deprive them of advantages which they had so long enjoyed. Indirectly, officers of the navy had paid towards the institution as much money or more than represented the capital of the cost of the military establishment at Greenwich. The cost of that military establishment was only eight thousand odd hundred pounds a year; and his hon. Friend wanted to reduce that really small sum by cutting off from the establishment a certain number of old and crippled naval officers, who, in spite of their infirmities, were still able to attend to the discipline and see to the cleanliness and comfort of the men. The House must remember the case of Captain Aldham, who was nearly murdered between the const and the town of Mexico. Was it to officers like him they would grudge a position in Greenwich Hospital? No doubt the civil establishment was large and costly, but his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had entered into minute detail, and shown that in many respects the cost of that establishment was exaggerated out of doors. It must be remembered that a great many of those employed in the civil branch were officers in the navy who had served the country long and faithfully; some were pensioners who were doing the duty of nurses and servants in the hospital, and widows of seamen were likewise reckoned. If Greenwich Hospital were treated solely on economic principles, and not regarded as one of the ancient institutions of the country, it might as well be done away with. It was like the Temple of Janus, and might almost be closed in time of peace. It should be remembered, however, that it was called into existence immediately after the great naval battle of La Hogue, with the object of finding a home for the vast number of poor crippled sailors who then returned to the country; and if a European war ever occurred, it would probably be speedily filled with crippled men. The pensioners now in the hospital were generally the men who had served in the navy from the end of the long war to the year 1830. Those were days of economy, when the navy only consisted of about 27,000 men, and consequently the applications for admission in the present day were very few. But let it be remembered that the navy now amounts to 76,000 men, and we have in addition 16,000 Royal Naval Reserve men, who are entitled to the benefits of Greenwich Hospital, and therefore in all probability the demands on the Hospital will greatly increase. It was said that 1,100 seamen were in the different workhouses, who ought to be enjoying the benefits of Greenwich Hospital; but he maintained that every sailor who had served faithfully in the navy knew perfectly well that he had only to present himself and be Admitted. In reply to the question put by his right hon. Friend he would say that the noble Duke at the head of the Department did not think it necessary, as a matter of constant practice, to keep all the vacancies for naval officers filled; but if a case like that of Captain Aldham arose, of any one injured in the service to whom it was an object of importance to gain admission to Greenwich Hospital, the claim would certainly be considered. It was not, however, the intention of the Admiralty at that moment to fill up those vacancies. As regarded Sir Richard Bromley, he thought any reward which could be given to that most excellent, most able, and industrious old servant of the Crown would be well deserved. Her Majesty's Government, giving due consideration to his services, in placing him now in the same position in all respects which he had hitherto held as regards his pecuniary allowances, did only what they believed to be just and right. He trusted the appointment of that distinguished officer to Greenwich Hospital would tend to the reduction of expenditure in that institution, which hitherto he could not contend for a moment had been managed with a due regard to economy. The Government had chosen a most able and fitting instrument for the purpose, and he rejoiced in the appointment of Sir Richard Bromley to that office, although personally he regretted the loss of his services at the Admiralty, where he had brought the naval, the dockyard, and shipbuilding accounts into a correct and satisfactory state. His hon. Friend, who referred to the daughters of seamen at Greenwich, was probably not aware that a school for fifty girls already existed. It was no doubt capable of improvement, but the boys' school was everything that could be desired. He trusted that the Bill, which his hon. Friend had intimated his intention to bring in next week, would meet with the approval of the House of Commons.

said, that claims for admission to Greenwich Hospital were one thing, rules of admission another. He knew a case of a seaman nearly eighty years of age, who had served twelve years in the war, been in several actions, and always borne an excellent character, who had actually paid for twelve or fourteen years, but not long enough to entitle him to a pension, and who, by the rigid rules of the establishment, could not procure admission to Greenwich Hospital.

said, the hon. Member for Halifax had paid a deservedly high compliment to the Report of the Royal Commission; but his speech, nevertheless, was an argument throughout against the recommendations of that Report. The Admiralty had done nothing towards carrying out the views of the Commissioners. They actually stood up for the unnecessarily large and inefficient establishment, which the Commissioners condemned as having been created out of revenues never meant to be applied to such purposes. It was said that those who were excluded from the benefits of the hospital would be admitted if they could show their title; but it was impossible they could be so, because a great part of the funds were misappropriated. It was acknowledged that it was contrary to the charter of the hospital and the intentions of the founders that officers should be admitted as was now done, and yet the practice was continued. Instead of considering that any reform in the institution was necessary, the Members of the Government who had spoken seemed to think that there ought to be no such reform, but all the abuses in existence should be continued. Sir Richard Bromley had been withdrawn from the service of the Admiralty on account of sickness, and yet they said they had appointed him for a purpose in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners—namely, the reform of Greenwich Hospital. But how could a sick man fulfil such a task as that? That was only part and parcel of the whole system of the Board of Admiralty. That Board was opposed to every real reform, and it set its face against all progress. There had been many proofs given of that fact before, and one more had been added to them that night.

said, he wished to call attention to the unsatisfactory position of the Civil Assistants employed on the Ordnance Survey, with reference to Promotion and Pay, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any prospect of the same principle of classification being adopted in their case which has been attended with such good results in other Departments of the Public Service? He complained of the treatment received by this meritorious class of officers and their inferior position as compared with other Governmeut employés, when, in point of fact, they rendered the most valuable services. He denied that there would be any difficulty in carrying out a system of classification, and pointed to the success which had attended the classification of valuators in the Valuation Office of Ireland.

said, the subject had already been brought under the notice of the War Office when Lord Herbert was Secretary of State for War, and the proposal of the hon, and learned Member was rejected. Some correspondence took place between the noble Lord and the hon. Member, which was unfortunately of a private nature, and could not be produced. Lord Herbert's grounds of objection were, that the organization of the Ordnance Survey Office being of a totally different character to any other office, the same system was by no means applicable to them; and that the adoption of a system of classification would not only lead to considerably-increased expenditure, but would also tend to render inefficient that service which was at present well performed. Ample assistance could be obtained under the existing system, and it would be a waste of public money to increase the expense. The men employed were paid in proportion to the value of the services rendered, and that was the proper principle to follow. The cost of the changes which the hon. and learned Member advocated would amount to £1,000,000 for the whole survey of the United Kingdom. The organization of the department was worthy of the admiration of the country, and foreign governments had sent persons to this country with the view of imitating it.

said, the men did their work, which was admitted to be admirably executed, under a feeling that they were ground down, because they were without hope of rising, no matter what zeal and ability they might display, and were altogether dependent on the caprice of the officer over them. It was a strange thing that it should be impossible to classify a department in which the wages varied from 9d. to 19s. a day, and the work from the commonest labourer's work to the highest scientific work that could be executed. Again, it often happened that the men were put under the command of persons whom they had instructed, and the effect of that was to produce a feeling of despair. There ought to be a classification, which would enable men to rise in position in proportion to their abilities. There was also a grievance in the case of these clerks which ought to be remedied. The rate of pay was not half that which was given by civil engineers.

observed, that in the case of the Irish survey there was a system of classification, and it had worked well. He could not help remarking that it was absurd to suppose that the adoption of the same system in England would involve the cost of £1,000,000.

said, he thought that the Government proceeded on a vicious principle when, in engaging their servants, they allowed the question of a retiring pension to come under consideration. The Government should, like all great engineering firms, classify fairly the people they employed, and pay them adequately, so that they might be able to lay something by for an evil day.

said, that whenever any non-combatants had anything to complain of, they heard of it immediately. The men of the engineer force were not generally in such a good position as these civil servants, and he hoped their case would be taken first into consideration.

said, he thought there was great hardship in the case of those employed in the offices, and hoped, from what had been said that night in that House, the noble Lord would think it worth while to reconsider the question, as it was deserving of great consideration.

said, it was well known that the British Government in 1807 confiscated a large amount of Danish property; that the produce of the sales belonged to the Crown exclusively, but that the Government of the day took credit for having appropriated a considerable amount of the money produced by the sales to the public service. At that late hour (twelve o'clock) he would not go into the original merits of the claims for compensation of the sufferers, or into the state of the question as it stood. On some future occasion he intended to take the sense of the House in regard to the conduct of the Government, after the address of the House praying the Crown to make payment of the adjudged claims and the gracious answer expressing Her Majesty's willingness to do so, in not taking any steps to carry that arrangement into effect. At that time, however, he should content himself with asking, whether the Government would afford him any facilities in ascertaining what were the proceeds of the Danish vessels and munitions seized by the British Government, which led the Danes to make reprisals, and to what purposes those proceeds had been applied? He understood that they amounted to between two and three millions.

said, the Government would be glad to give the hon. and learned Gentleman every information in their power. No valuation had been made of the munitions taken from the Danes and used in British vessels, and none could be procured. As to the prize vessels, he understood that papers had already been laid before Parliament showing the amount of the proceeds, and how they were applied.

said, he would move as an Amendment, that the House go into Committee that day three months. The grant of public money proposed to the locality was, in his opinion, entirely with-out justification. It was as causeless an expenditure of public money as any he knew. If the grant were made to Harwich Harbour, a place not at all recommended in the Report of the Harbour Commission, they might as well set aside the recommendations of that Report altogether. It was far from his intention to denounce the Bill as a railway job, but it looked like an attempt to get the public money for the improvement of a harbour which it was the interest of the Great Eastern Railway to have improved, but not that of the public. He repudiated the taunt that it was because he represented a rival port that he made any opposition to the Bill. Hull did not require to be nursed at the expense of the nation; and if even any such demand were made, he should oppose it.

said, he could assure the House that the Bill had nothing to do with the Great Eastern Railway Company, and that the subject had been for years under the consideration of the Government. It had been represented that there was a pressing danger of losing the Harbour of Harwich by a point of sand growing out in a westerly direction until it met the shoal water. The question really was, whether it was not worth while to save the harbour, which was valuable not only for commercial purposes, but as a harbour of refuge, and for a North Sea fleet, should it ever be necessary to have a fleet stationed there. The Admiralty, the Trinity Corporation, the Tidal Harbour Commissioners, and a Select Committee, had all reported in favour of something being done; and it was now proposed to contribute half the necessary funds from the State, leaving the other half to be supplied from local sources. He thought it would be a pity to lose the opportunity of preserving the valuable estuary, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow them to consider the clauses in Committee.

said, that the borough of Harwich had nothing to do with Harwich Harbour, and, as far as the borough was concerned, it did not matter whether the silting up continued or not. The estuary was a sheet of water, over which the borough had no jurisdiction, and the trade of the borough was not dependent upon it. The Bill was founded upon the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee, of which he was Chairman; and he denied that the members of the Committee were unusually favourable to Harwich, or careless about the expenditure of public money.

said, he thought that the borough of Harwich must have an interest in the harbour being kept open, but he was inclined to believe that the local jealousy of Hull had a great deal to do with the opposition. It was most important to the coasting trade that the harbour should be kept open, and he hoped the Bill would receive the assent of Parliament.

said, that as a member of the Committee he approved the proposal to do something for Harwich.

said, he would allow that the improvement of Harwich would be of advantage to the shipping interest, but it was not one of the Harbours which had been mentioned either by the Committee or the Commission on Harbours of Refuge.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would move the omission of the latter part of the clause, which gave power to the Government to grant £10,000 to the Harbour of Harwich.

said, the omission of that part of the clause would be as good as throwing out the Bill, and he must, therefore, support the clause as it stood. It was doing a great public service at a small cost.

, said he should support the Amendment.

said, he must also oppose the Bill.

said, that as the Bill had been introduced with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, who had promised to support it, and as he now took a contrary course, he thought it would be useless to press it any further. He should, therefore, with the the permission of the House, withdraw it.

said, he would move the adjournment of the House. He agreed with the hon. Member for Knaresborough that a prosecution ought to be instituted, but he thought that at that hour (a quarter to two) the subject was too serious to be undertaken. He understood that the Chairman of the Committee which unseated Mr. Barbour did not think that one of the parties named ought to prosecuted.

seconded the Motion.

said, a private Member had no chance of bringing on such a question except by waiting till two o'clock in the morning. He was prepared to go on, and he thought he should be able to induce the House to agree to his Motion.

said, he then rose to move that Mr. Attorney General for Ireland should be instructed to prosecute John Doherty Barbour, Robert Barbour, and Thomas Barbour, for bribery, treating, and undue influence, committed by them at the late election for the Borough of Lisburn. The Committee had reported that John Doherty Barbour and his partners, the other two Gentlemen named in the Resolution, had been guilty of bribery, treating, and undue influence. It appeared from the evidence that Messrs. Barbour, who were great manufacturers, had a large mill at a short distance from Lisburn, in which they collected a number of voters and retained them there for eleven or twelve days, eating, drinking, dancing, fiddling, and card-playing. The premises were watched from nine at night until six in the morning, by three men with loaded guns, and none of the persons were allowed to leave the place. One man had no vote, but he was retained, as found by the Committee, in order to induce him to personate his late father. All the three persons against whom he desired the House to direct the prosecution, were, by the evidence taken before the Committee, directly connected with these proceedings. Thomas Barbour visited the mill, and spoke to the persons who were confined it it. Robert Barbour himself induced the non-voter to go the factory, and offered to remunerate him if he would personate his father and vote for John Doherty Barbour. He had also offered to purchase the land of a voter, and provide for his son and daughter. He was not a purist in these matters, but that was a gross and flagrant case, and in his opinion the House had no alternative but to prosecute these three persons.

said, he hoped that the Chairman of the Committee would be allowed to make the statement which he believed he was prepared to submit to the House.

said, that he was Chairman of the Committee which tried the Petition, and he was quite prepared to support the Motion for the prosecution of John Doherty Barbour and Robert Barbour, but he should move the omission from the Resolution of the name of Thomas Barbour. Mr. Thomas Barbour was no friend of his, but the reason why he thought it undesirable to prosecute him was that he did not think that there would be the slightest chance of obtaining his conviction. The only evidence against him appeared to be a conversation with a non-elector; and he believed that the other members of the Committee agreed with him that it was not desirable that Thomas Barbour should be prosecuted. He would therefore move the omission of the name of Thomas Barbour from the Motion.

said, he thought the dignity of the House would not be promoted by directing the prosecution of a person against whom the evidence was so slight as to make it improbable that there would be a conviction. In the case of John Doherty Barbour and Robert Barbour, he thought, that if the evidence which had been obtained against them was not negatived by other testimony, convictions probably would be obtained; but he did not anticipate any such result against Thomas Barbour. The evidence against that gentleman had been somewhat overstated by the hon. Member for Knares-borough, and, in his opinion, it would not be desirable that he should be prosecuted.

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough would accept the Amendment.

said, that as a Member of the Committee he wished to express his concurrence in that recommendation.

said, he would consent to omit the name of Mr. Thomas Barbour.