rose to ask the Home Secretary a Question of which, he had given private notice. About a month ago he moved for a Return respecting the discharges from convict prisons in England and Ireland. On showing the terms of the Motion to the Under Secretary for the Home Department, he was told that the Secretary of State wished all such Motions postponed till after the appearance of the Report of the Royal Commission on Transportation and Convict Discipline, which would contain all the information desired, and would be out very shortly. He, of course, acquiesced. Time went on, no Report appeared; and a few days ago he again made inquiries of the Under Secretary with respect to the Report, and was told that it was in the printer's hands, and was almost hourly expected. He saw on the Notice Paper that morning a Motion by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) for a Return identical with the one which he was requested by the Secretary of State to postpone. He therefore begged to ask, Whether it wag intended to give the information moved for by the hon. Member as an unopposed Return; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State could explain why a similar Return asked for by himself a month ago had been refused?

said, that he had not refused the information; he had only suggested, through his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, that it would be better to postpone the Motion for the Return until it was seen whether the information was contained in the Report of the Com mission. It was only that morning that he had seen the Notice of the hon. Member for Roscommon, and he could not say whether he should grant the Return until he had communicated with some Members of the Commission, and ascertained whether the information would be contained in the Appendix to their Report, which, though not yet presented, had been agreed to.

asked whether the right hon. Baronet made the same inquiries when he asked for the Return.

said, that at that time the Commission was sitting and taking evidence. The evidence was now complete.

said, that looking at the period of the Session, and the state of public business, he had thought it right to consider whether, even if he was supported by a majority, he had any prospect of carrying this Bill into the other House in sufficient time for it to receive a proper consideration. He had arrived at the unwilling conclusion that there was no likelihood that he could do so; and therefore he thought it best to ask the House to permit him to discharge the Order, with the intention of re-introducing this measure at an earlier period next Session. He did not wish to enter into a debate upon bygone matters, but he might perhaps be allowed to say that the purpose of this Bill, and the motives of its promoters in and out of the House, had been entirely misunderstood, and, in consequence, greatly misrepresented. The object of the Bill had been stated by high authorities, and seemed to be understood by the Universities, to be to compel the Colleges to open the fellowships to Nonconformists Its object was nothing of the kind. The Bill simply proposed to remove a restriction which was imposed upon the Colleges two hundred years ago for an entirely different object, and which had entirely failed He should have thought that the Universities and the Colleges would have been glad to obtain the full freedom of action which was so essential to the health of educational institutions as well as of other corporations. The measure was not brought forward in a spirit of hostility to the Universities or to the Church. The gentlemen who requested him to move in the matter were second to none in their attachment to the Church, and were most eminent members of the great educational body at Cambridge Their motive, object, and purpose was to improve the University and the Colleges. They thought, and, in his opinion, rightly thought, that the removal of the restriction in question, by setting free the action of the Colleges, would tend to improve the educational system. That was one of the matters which, if he had gone on with this measure, would have had to be discussed; but certainly those who had taken an active part in preparing hostilities, and had signed Petitions against it, had not lightly comprehended its purport, scope, or effect. He should like them, in the cooler moments of the recess, to consider whether any fairer, more moderate, or mote reasonable proposition could be made than that the Colleges should be left to their free action. At Cambridge, if this restriction imposed by an Act of Parliament was removed, they would have perfect freedom of legislation. There was some doubt whether such power existed at Oxford, but he believed that the 39th section of the Oxford University Act gave it to the Colleges. Therefore, it was idle for those bodies to contend that this restriction was essential to the welfare of their institutions, because they could by their own action protect themselves from intrusion precisely as they were now protected. One word as to the Petitions presented by his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir W. Heathcote). If that University, in its corporate capacity, had ever been forward in promoting the advancement of the cause of education and general improvement, he should have said that a Petition under its seal was entitled to great weight in that House, but the reverse was the case. He should be at a loss to discover any measure which had been proposed during the last two centuries for the improvement of education and the advancement of the real interests of religion which had not been opposed by the University of Oxford, and therefore he attributed no weight to its Petition against this Bill. He might remind his hon. Friend of a couplet with which he was no doubt familiar—

"The King to Oxford sent a troop of horse,

For Tories own no argument but force."

That was said the best part of a century ago, but he was not sure that the same spirit did not animate many of the authorities of Oxford at this moment. He hoped that discussion and mature consideration would induce them to think that there was no ground for the opposition with which his proposal had, on this occasion, been threatened. The Petitions from Cambridge, which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had been kind enough to allow him to see, were all founded upon an error as to a matter of fact. They stated that the removal of restrictions as to fellowships was proposed when the Cambridge Act was under discussion by that House, and that it was refused. Having had charge of that Bill and been present at all the discussions, he could state that nothing like his present proposal was then submitted to the House. What was then proposed was to open the Colleges compulsorily, and force them to open the fellowships, whether they wished it or not, to those who were unwilling to take any test. That was the very reverse of his proposal, and therefore these Petitions, founded entirely on a false assumption, were of no authority at all. He trusted that this question would come before the House at an earlier period next Session, and he was confident, that whatever prejudice might now have been raised against his proposal, it was so reasonable, so much for the interest of the Colleges and Universities, so much for the advantage of religion and education, and of the Church of England, the interests of which were bound up with the progress of education and religion, that he was sure that it must sooner or later be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman then moved that the Order for the second reading be discharged.

said, he did not rise to question the discretion which his right hon. Friend had exercised in withdrawing this Bill, but only to reply to some observations which he had made with respect to the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted a well-known epigram. He would remind his right hon. Friend that there was another version of the epigram which he had quoted, in which the learning of that University formed the prominent feature, and in which it was suggested that that learning which led them to certain conclusions required to be overborne by the force directed against them by the Whig Government of the day. The Petitions which he had presented from the University of Oxford were somewhat remarkable. One was a Petition from Convocation under its seal, and was adopted by a large majority of the persons present. But that Petition did not stand alone. Inasmuch as Convocation contained only persons on the spot, not exceeding 300 in number, it was determined to ascertain the opinions of the non-resident members, and nearly 2,000 of them signed a document approving the Petition. In addition, the younger men, who were not members of Convocation, that particular stratum in which his right hon. Friend would look for liberality, had expressed the same fear of his Bill. What his right hon. Friend had said, in fact, increased instead of diminished the authority of those Petitions. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended the House to disregard the Petitions because they were contrary to the general current of opinion. If this had been a direct aggression upon the Universities, it might have been right to disregard their Petitions; but as his right hon. Friend said that he only sought to give a certain discretion to the Universities, and to confer upon them powers and advantages which they did not now enjoy, surely they might be trusted when they said that they did not want any additional powers. If the members of the University, who were alleged to be fettered by restrictions and trammels, considered those restrictions and trammels safeguards which they had no desire should be removed, surely the House would be very cautious in removing safeguards which those most concerned thought to be necessary. He wholly denied that the members of the University were under any mistake as to the character of his hon. Friend's Bill—he believed its character was fully understood and appreciated. It was understood that its object was to take away the legislative sanction from the existing state of things, and place the Universities in a position in which they would find it more difficult to resist another day.

thought that it would not be right that he should allow this Order to be discharged without saying a word or two in explanation of the Petitions which he had presented from the University of Cambridge. He believed that no more remarkable Petitions were ever presented to that House. The Universities did not in the least degree misapprehend the object of his right hon. Friend's Bill. When at Cambridge the argument was employed that it was a permissive Bill only: the answer was. "The fallacy of that is too transparent, to deceive us." That showed that they understood the nature of the Bill. A permissive Bill could only be brought forward with the intention of creating agitation, on the ground that there was some grievance which ought to be remedied; and in his opinion it was worse than boldly asking the House to say to the Colleges, "You shall do so and so, because we think it desirable." The two Universities had petitioned under their corporate seals against a measure which would disturb their quiet, and interfere with the nature of the education given in them. It must be remembered that there was considerable debate in Convocation at Cambridge, and in the Senate House at Cambridge, whether or not these Petitions should be presented. At Oxford the Petition was carried by 182 votes against 51, and at Cambridge by 120 to 25 votes. From Oxford a Petition had been presented against the Bill, signed by more than 1,000 undergraduates and bachelors; and he himself had presented a Petition from all the Heads of Houses at Cambridge but two from almost all the resident tutors, from several bachelors of arts, and from a large body of undergraduates to the same effect He hoped that his right hon. Friend, having withdrawn this Bill, would seriously consider whether it was his duty to disturb the quiet and repose of Universities upon a matter on which they felt strongly and in a way which was not required according to his right hon. Friend's own views—because, under the University Acts, even those who did not belong to the Church of England had the fullest opportunity of receiving the benefit of a University education. There was nothing so injurious to great seats of education like Oxford and Cambridge as to leave them in a state of agitation and uncertainty which prevented them from carrying on education in the manner most advantageous to the country. He entreated his right hon. Friend, between this and next Session, to consider whether he would feel it his duty to reintroduce the Bill, either in its present or its amended shape, next Session. Unless there was some overwhelming necessity, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not do so, and he was convinced, upon reflection, he would perceive that no such necessity existed.

said, he greatly regretted the withdrawal of a Bill which was approved of by Nonconformists. He wished to correct an error in the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. It was not to suppress learning that George I., on his accession to the throne, sent dragoons to Oxford, as the hon. Baronet supposed, but they were sent to put down sedition, which raged at the University. In those days the University was treasonably hostile to the King, and favoured the Pretender, whilst Nonconformists were unanimously loyal; and to revenge themselves on the Dissenters for their well-known fidelity to the Monarch, High Churchmen, and their mobs, demolished their chapels at Manchester, Oxford, Birmingham, and other places. Government ordered possession of the city of Oxford to be taken by the military, and the commanding officer, Major General Pepper, declared he would instantly shoot any of the students who should appear out of the bounds of their own Colleges. It was the well-known character of the Dissenters that their loyalty was undoubted; whilst, on the other hand, the University had to be kept in order by military power. This historical fact, and the bad theology of the professors, had, to the present day, made many to consider the University to be the very seat of heresy and sedition. So far from feeling any hesitation in disturbing the repose of Oxford, as the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge desired, he would have satisfaction in supporting the Bill when it came again before the House. The intellect of the people was opposed, at the present time, to those tests, which separated man from man; and good men of every denomination wished to place all classes of Her Majesty's loyal subjects on terms of equality for the common welfare and satisfaction of the country.

said, he begged to tender to the right hon. Gentleman his thanks for proposing the discharge of this Order. He (Mr. Newdegate) was educated at the University of Oxford, which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hadfield) declared to be a hot-bed of heresy and sedition. He had been a Member of the House for twenty years, and he hoped that the House had not observed in his conduct any heretical or seditious tendencies indicating the effect of the education which he received at the University. He fully participated in the feelings of the University, and joined in their Petition that the House would not deprive them of those legal directions and restrictions which they believed to be essential to the faithful discharge of the high duty which they had to perform in preparing men for the ministry of the Church of England. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) would allow him to take this opportunity of presenting to him a phase of opinion and feeling which he had overlooked. The right hon. Gentleman quoted an epigram which showed that a certain Sovereign had been tempted to use force in respect to Oxford University. If the right hon. Gentleman referred to the melancholy history of James II., he would find that he attempted to use force against Oxford, and in what direction? Precisely in the direction of this Bill. It was the determination of that unhappy Sovereign to force upon the governing bodies of the colleges in that University certain Roman Catholic priests of whom he approved; and this proposal was based upon the Declaration which he had issued, expressive of his determination to absolve all his subjects from the restrictions, the repeal of some of which the right hon. Gentleman was attempting by the introduction of this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman recalled to his mind the historical events of that period, he would remember that even the Quakers addressed the King on this subject in most flattering terms—they even went so far as to leave their hats in the anteroom, that they might address him bare headed. But the people of England, so far from participating in the desire of the King to have these legal protections removed from the Church and from the Universities, effectually ejected that Sovereign from the throne. Oxford participated in that sedition against James II.; but there was no pretence for saying that the University was not most loyal to the present Royal Family, since it was this very resistance to the Declaration of James II., and this very refusal to do away with the existing restrictions on admissions to high offices in the University and the Church, that placed their loyalty to the present dynasty beyond doubt. There was another portion of the subject upon which he wished to say a few words. The opinions and feelings which seemed to actuate the right hon. Gentleman in introducing this Bill had been enunciated in the letter of Professor Stanley to the Bishop of London, in which it was affirmed that the present restrictions operated as a bar to candidature for admission to the ministry of the Church on the part of some of the most eminent young men of the present day. He had asked the opinion of men of the highest eminence, whose names he was not at liberty to mention, but who had watched during long lives the various phases of opinion which had become predominant in the Church of England, whether they believed that this view was correct? and they denied that it was so. One in particular says, "I remember the period when the prevailing opinions of the Church of England were condemned as too secular; yet there was no failure of candidates for the ministry. I can remember," he said, "when what are called Evangelical opinions were predominant; but there was then no failure' in the supply of candidates for ordination. I can remember the period when many favoured the Tractarian movement: at that time there was almost a rush of young men to join the ministry." But now, when it was proposed to remove the standards by which these young men, after admission to the ministry, were to be guided, and with reference to which they were to conduct themselves in their sacred calling, after being admitted by their ordination to the high functions of the ministry—these standards resting' entirely upon the authority of Holy Scripture, which formed the firm basis of the whole system of the Church of England—they, for the first time, found a failure in the candidature for the admission to holy orders. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this reluctance was not natural in young men who wished to do their duty, and who therefore wished to have their duty clearly defined; who desired, by accepting a standard and rules of conduct authoritatively prescribed, to have before them a specific guide for the due and faithful performance of their duties in accordance with the promises made in their ordination vows. He believed that this reluctance to enter the service of the Church might be justly attributed to the undue prevalence of speculative notions in high quarters, which shook the very foundations of our Establishment and of our religion. Young men feared that they might be deprived of the legal guidance and protection hitherto afforded to the clergy, and it was that which had hindered many young men from coming forward to discharge the duty of the ministry. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider this. All young men were not actuated by a presumptuous spirit of self-reliance. Those who were not, desired that the authority of the Church on doctrinal subjects might continue expressed as it was at present, and might thus give weight to their ministry, if that ministry was faithfully performed in accordance with the teaching and discipline of the Church. This movement would deprive them of that sanction and authority; and it was the conviction of men as competent to form an opinion upon this question as any man could be, that it was the fear of being launched on the duties of the priesthood without the countenance and protection afforded by the present regulations, which they called restrictions, that hindered young men from presenting themselves in adequate numbers for the ministry. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would believe him, when he said that, he made these observations in the spirit that they were called here to consult upon matters of deep interest to the country, and because it was possible that this particular phase of opinion might have escaped him; for men were all somewhat too apt to judge in accordance with the opinions of those with whom they naturally came into immediate contact, and often did not attach the importance which they ought to the feelings and opinions of others. He again thanked the right hon. Gentle man for withdrawing this Bill, They were in a period of considerable danger, for there were now in this country those who were known to be the deadly opponents of the Church of England—men who adopted all phases, would shrink from the use of no means and no obstacle which stood in the way of effecting a revolution in that great Establishment which, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) would forgive him for reminding him, had been for centuries the chief guardian of religious freedom throughout the world. Against them the Church of England defended her doctrines and her Establishment, and she did this by law. He would beg the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield also to remember that the leading denominationalists among the Protestant Dissenters had their standard of doctrine, and that any minister who did not regard these standards was visited by the penalty of dismissal from the ministry—a penalty which was rarely enforced against a clergyman of the Church of England in the present state of the Ecclesiastical Courts. There were, indeed, some few classes of Protestant Dissenters who had not a distinct definition of their doctrinal faith, and among these few were the Independents; but the discipline which they exercised over their ministers was all the more severe. If the right hon. Gentleman inquired of the different Protestant Dissenting denominations in this country, be would find that they almost all had standards of belief and a very arbitrary system of ecclesiastical discipline. It had been almost universally acknowledged by the Protestant Churches of the world that their discipline must enforce the standards of their faith, and that the tender of the standards of faith which they made to the world must be distinct, for a clear understanding of the tender is essential to freedom of choice; whether that freedom of choice is exercised by acceptance or by rejection.

said, he regretted that a full and ample discussion of the Bill had not taken place, for he was sure it would have served the cause the right hon. Gentlemen had at heart, and assisted that large and strong party which really did exist at both Universities notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge. That right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that a Petition had been presented, not from the University of Cambridge, but from seventy-four Fellows and Tutors of that University in favour of the Bill before the House. He thought it could scarcely be said, in the face of that Petition, that the right hon. Gentleman who was proposing this Bill was disturbing the repose of the University. The fact was that that repose had been disturbed; and it was not by avoiding the discussion of the subject in the House that that, repose could be artificially maintained. For his part he was ready to assert that it would be unfortunate if repose were the chief characteristic of our Universities. He should have thought that in the Universities they should rather look for continued intellectual activity—that in places where men were to be trained who were not to be merely learned men, but men who had to cope with the world, and even in the case of the clergy, men who were to be strong enough to defend the Church should she be assailed, there should be, not repose, but activity. He believed there was a strong feeling at the Universities in favour of this Bill. He had spoken of the Petition of the seventy-four Fellows and Tutors of Cambridge in its favour. He believed that in the first Colleges there was an actual majority of Fellows and Tutors in its favour—and he was sure the House would see, and the country would see, that there was not the objection to this Bill which might be supposed from the observations of the right hon. Member for the University. With regard to Oxford, they had not got so far as Cambridge; but he believed that in Oxford also there was a strong feeling in favour of this Bill, and he saw in the papers that morning that a Petition was preparing to be presented in its favour. He knew that the Petition was so strongly signed as to show that the spirit which had animated Cambridge also animated Oxford. He regretted that they had not had a full discussion on the measure, but he was sure the House would not think, that because it was delayed for a year, it was therefore dropped. If the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Bouverie) were to drop it, it would be necessary, from the feeling expressed by influential persons at the Universities, that the Bill should be brought on again by some one else. It was very natural that a large portion of such Conservative bodies as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be against the Bill; but he trusted that when they saw that the subject was pursued in a proper spirit, in no spirit of hostility to the Church, they would withdraw their opposition. He would not have approached the subject if he had thought it detrimental to the Church of England; but he believed that the Church was strong enough to grapple with difficulties such as these, that it would be more able to fight for the faith, if it fought with a free hand, than if its arms were tied. He believed that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge had recognised the signs of the times, and saw that it would be well to fight with the arms of the day. He believed that the Church of England was in more danger from those who were so faint-hearted that they trembled before every attack, than from those who faced the danger.

said, that he felt as acutely as possible the loss suffered by persons not belonging to the Church of England by being debarred from participating to the fullest extent in the education afforded by Oxford and Cambridge. There it was that the character of their public men was formed. But even for the sake of obtaining those advantages he would not be a party to breaking up the fundamental principle on which Oxford and Cambridge were formed, which was that religious should accompany secular instruction. But was it not possible to extend the benefits of the Universities without any infringement of this fundamental principle, by affording facilities to the different bodies not in connection with the Church of England to establish halls or colleges in the Universities? Although he did not concur with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought the hon. Member for Warwickshire had misrepresented him. The difference between the proceedings of James II. and the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was this—the Monarch sought to interfere with the Universities in an unconstitutional way, and by violating the law; whereas the right hon. Gentleman sought to effect his object in a strictly constitutional manner, by the action of Parliament.

said, that the object of James was to do without Parliamentary authority what it was now proposed to do with Parliamentary authority. The real cause which deterred young men from entering the Church of England was that recent discussions had called attention to the inconsistencies they would be compelled to subscribe on entering the ministry. There was more unity in any body of Dissenters than in the Church of England. There was scarcely an "ism" that had not its counterpart in the Church. They all cared only to go their own road without being interfered with.

said, that many curious remarks had been made in the course of this debate, but none was more curious than the assertion of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that Dissenters were always unanimous, remembering the litigation which took place not long ago about Lady Hewley's bequest. It did not seem as if every man only cared to go his own road, when the Court of Chancery was invoked to settle it for them. He rose to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) for the testimony he had given to the value of religious education, and to assure him that the suggestion he had made was one deserving consideration. It was, however, a subject of much difficulty, and wholly foreign to the present Bill. If the measure were re-introduced next year, its opponents must only be prepared to resist it as well as they could. But he entered his protest against the supposition that all the "ability," as it was called, was in favour of the Bill. Their vauntings reminded him very much of the old fable about certain substances floating down a stream, which cried out and gave them selves a particular name. Minorities, it was well known, always comprised the larger amount of good sense; they had done so since the beginning of the world, and would to the end: but still, for all that, majorities were majorities, and in this country we had got a way of adopting the view of the majority, and not of the minority.

said, the case of Lady Hewley was one in which the authority of the Court was invoked, not to settle questions of ecclesiastical discipline, but to decide upon the destination of particular property. He had always thought it a system repellant to honest minds that those who were to act as teachers of religion and morality should be obliged to commence by putting a gloss, by which they could not deceive themselves, on the obvious meaning of formularies of the Church, slurring over the most material points.

said, that the object of this Bill was to ameliorate the law which adjudged it to be felony for a servant to take his master's corn for the purpose of feeding his master's horses. The Judges of Assize felt great repugnance to sentencing servants under the present law, and juries not unfrequently found them not guilty in the face of the clearest evidence. He proposed to reduce the character of the offence, so that it might cease to be a felony, and might be summarily dealt with by two magistrates in petty sessions. Offenders were to be imprisoned, either with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months, or to be subject to a penalty not exceeding £5. Believing that the certainty of punishment would deter farm servants from the commission of this offence, while it would save their masters the expense and inconvenience of prosecuting at sessions and assizes, he moved the second reading of the Bill.

said, he had no objection to offer to the second reading. It would be necessary, however, to take care that the first clause should not apply to the case of servants who might take their masters' corn for the purpose of selling it.

said, he availed himself of the first opportunity of resuming the debate on this subject, the adjournment of which he had himself moved in consequence of the lateness of the hour to which the discussion had been prolonged. He regretted the absence on this occasion of the Secretary to the Admiralty, who had on the last discussion alleged that the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) had some reference to the trade of the city which he represented. He regretted that the noble Lord had permitted himself to make such a remark, because, us the hon. Member for Glasgow had been a Member of the Royal Commission of which he (Sir H. Willoughby) was latterly the Chairman, he could bear testimony to the active, energetic, and useful services rendered by the hon. Member to that Commission—the hon. Member having, in the performance of his duty, imposed upon himself the trouble of visiting the dockyards of foreign countries as well as those of England. The noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) also remarked that the Committee, which sat last on the constitution of the Admiralty, merely reported the evidence, and that the absence of a Report did not look as if the Committee came to a conclusion in favour of a change in the constitution of the Board. But that was One of the most erroneous inferences that could be drawn. That Committee had been smothered by the immense mass of business thrown upon it after its appointment. The hon. and gallant Member for the East Riding (Admiral Duncombe) occupied the anomalous position of obtaining an inquiry which he did hot, by becoming Chairman of that Committee, conduct. Several Members of the Committee had formerly been at the Admiralty, and the inquiry was of the most extensive kind, because it took up the administration of statesmen who were Members of the Committee. Then, when the Committee were in the agonies of proceeding with this mass of matter; the business of another Committee was thrown upon it, new Members were added, to it, and the inquiry soon, became a species of stale-mate. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) retired from, the Committee, because he came to the conclusion that it would end in nothing; and he (Sir H. Willoughby) was very much disposed to follow the example of his hon. Friend, and was only induced to continue upon the Committee, from having been a Member of the Royal Commission. From the moment, however, that the labours of another Committee were superadded, it was impossible for the original Committee to report upon any change that might be required in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He did not know what hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dalglish) had of carrying on an inquiry by means of a Select Committee at this late period of the Session; but if the hon. Gentleman went to a division, he should vote with him. His (Sir H. Willoughby's) argument, however, was that there was plenty of evidence on which the Government could and ought to act in regard to the reforms which were necessary in the constitution of the Admiralty. The main difficulty appeared to be a due regulation of the expenditure of the Admiralty—of those £4,000,000 which were spent in wages, stores, and similar objects. The evidence in support of the insufficiency of the present system in checking this expenditure was to be obtained chiefly from the evidence of the chief officers of the Admiralty themselves. In 1851 the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) expressed his doubts whether an effective substitute had been discovered for the old Navy Board. The fact was that the Lords of the Admiralty, who were supposed to control the departments, were in such a position that, with the best intentions, they were unable to do so. The evidence of Sir Richard Bromley, the late Accountant-General, was most decisive on this point. He said distinctly that the accounts were bad He trusted that the House would distinguish between accounts and expenditure. What the House wanted to secure in the first place was a wise and wholesome expenditure. A book of accounts had been published—not, he was happy to say, at the expense of the House, but of the Board of Admiralty—which showed an expenditure of £1,500,000 in the dockyards. It occupied 365 pages; and if any one could make head or tail of it, he was very fortunate. The question which the Commission tried to solve was, "Who manages the expenditure?" Well, if there was one point on which the testimony was universal, it was that nobody did. They first asked the Accountant General, He said; "We know nothing of the expenditure." The Commissioners took what they considered the most effective mode of getting at the root of the matter. They examined the First Lord of the Admiralty. If ever there was a First Lord who paid attention to the finances of the navy, it was the Duke of Somerset. The Commissioners found, however, that it was useless to ask the First Lord, for he knew nothing about it. They then went to the first Naval Lord, Sir Richard Dundas. When they asked him who managed the expenditure, it was like touching a hot coal. He replied, "I know nothing of that—you must ask the Controller General." The Commissioners always put the question to the witness; and when he said he did not know, they asked him who could tell them. The Commissioners then asked the Controller General. He said, "We have nothing to do with the cost of building and altering ships; you will find it in the dockyards. Ask the master shipwrights." When the Commissioners went to the dockyards, they examined every master shipwright, and one assistant master shipwright. They replied that it was no business of theirs, and were astonished at being asked the question. They said, "We are builders, not contractors." Every one of them said he knew nothing about the cost; but one or two admitted it would be a great aid to them if they did know, The Commissioners said they would like to know the comparative cost of building vessels in each dockyard, and asked the master shipwrights if they did not sign a document, describing the cost of each ship. They all admitted they did, but one said that their signatures added no weight to the document, while another said that signing these documents was a mere matter of form The Commissioners then asked them about the accounts They said they believed they were very inaccurate; that they were kept by the clerks, who were often very young men. That was the present system of dockyard management; and if any one wanted chapter and verse, he was ready to give it. The master shipwrights were able men, but the fact remained that a vast outlay was incurred without preliminary estimate. When the Commissioners found this to be the fact, the Secretary to the Admiralty said it had never been the practice to have preliminary estimates. It was his firm conviction that it was for the Admiralty itself to look into this matter. He was glad that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had become a member of the Board, because he believed him to be a true friend of economical administration; but, whatever the good wishes and good-will of the hon. Gentleman, might be, under the present system he was without power. Sir Richard Bromley said that his superior officer was the civil Lord of the Admiralty, whose initials, even at the foot of his papers, took away all responsibility from him; and Sir Richard Bromley added that the civil Lord had been changed six times within eleven years. There was no effective cheek over the expenditure, not from want of good-will, but from the want of directness in the relation between the First Lord and the subordinate officers of the Admiralty. The first thing to be done was to make the Controller General a member of the Board. If he were brought habitually to the Board, and if, instead of filtering his authority through another Lord, he were made responsible, something would be done towards placing this vas expenditure under more efficient control. It did not require a new Committee to investigate these matters, for they could not carry the evidence any further. He believed, that if an able man like Admiral Robinson, the present Controller General, were brought into direct relation with the Board, and if the First Lord would say to him, "What will this ship cost, and where are your estimates?" the House would at last get a grasp over these vast establishments. He had read no extracts from blue-books, because he knew how tedious they were felt to be; but he had not said a word for which he could not find ample proofs, and the conclusion to which he came was, that the Hoard of Admiralty might render the interference of the House unnecessary by itself making the changes in its constitution that were required.

said, he agreed with his hon. Friend that no practical good would result from the appointment of a Committee at this period of the Session. At the same time, if the hon. Member for Glasgow went to a division, he would vote for him, in order to mark his sense of the neglect of the Government in not undertaking to make proper arrangements to secure responsibility in the Admiralty. The cardinal defect of the Board of Admiralty, as at present constituted, was the want of responsibility that pervaded, not only the Board, but every one of the thirteen branches of administration conducted by the Board. These thirteen branches were:—1. Manning the Navy; 2. Discipline; 3. Construction, Marine Engines, and Dockyards; 4. Public Works, Docks; 5. Paymaster or Accountant General; 6. Storekeeper General; 7. Victualling; 8. Ordnance; 9. Medical; 10. Hydrographical; 11. Marines; 12. Court Guard; 13. Transport board. It was practically impossible to fix the responsibility on any one officer. The officers who really did the practical work of the Admiralty in its various branches were not responsible to the House or the public, and the superior authorities, who were supposed to be responsible, were shielded by the fact that they had no practical knowledge of what was done in the different branches. Take the manning of the navy. The natural course would be for some one to be directly responsible to the First Lord. The first sea Lord had the manning of the navy in his department, but the whole Board took the responsibility. The discipline of the fleet was nominally vested in the First Lord. If he were not a sailor, it practically passed to the first naval Lord, who was not responsible to the House of Commons. The hydrographic survey, the ordnance of the navy, the storekeeper's department, the medical department, and all the other departments of the Admiralty ought to be under one responsible head, who should be directly responsible to the First Lord, instead of filtering their responsibility through individual Members of the Board or the Board itself. The First Lord should be the responsible Minister of Marine, and should have the power of at once putting his finger on the practical officer who was really responsible, and making the responsibility a reality. Most of these changes might be made by the Admiralty itself, and they ought to be immediately carried into effect.

trusted that the Government would resist this Motion. There could be no necessity for further inquiry, because the evidence was sufficient. The Duke of Somerset admitted that improvements might be made, but said that all the necessary minor changes and improvements might be made by the Admiralty itself, and that no further powers were necessary. Sir James Graham had expressed a very strong opinion on the question whether a civilian or a naval officer should be at the head of the Board, and the opinion of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) was similar. The evidence of Sir Thomas Cochrane was also taken, and Admiral Bowles stated that the constitution of the Board was perfectly satisfactory, that it had been found to work extremely well in the most difficult and dangerous times this country ever knew, and he did not see why it should not work well for the future. It was quite clear that the Board of Admiralty had power to deal with matters of detail without coming to Parliament for its sanction. As to the control of the dockyards, that most distinguished officer, Sir Michael Seymour, lately a Member of that House, and who for five years was Dockyard Superintendent, gave it as his opinion that it was desirable that a naval man should be at the head of the dockyards. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) said he would accept the evidence in the blue-book, and gave it as a reason for seeking for a Committee at so late a period of the Session, that they might have time to study the evidence of that blue-book during the recess. But if they did study the evidence, it would be found so conclusive that the hon. Gentle man would never have an opportunity of carrying his views into effect. He could not see that any practical good could arise from the appointment of this Committee, and he should therefore oppose the Motion.

said, that from the course which the debate had taken he thought he might assume that his hon. Friend (Mr. Dalglish) was anxious rather to place some views of his own with respect to naval administration before the House than to carry the question to a division. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was not sorry to be absolved from entering into the general question, because it was evident he would not be entitled, from any long official experience, to give expression to any well-founded convictions. With respect, however, to the constitution of the Board, he wished to make a few remarks. The great object of the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) seemed to bring the Controller of the Navy into direct contact with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to put more work upon the shoulders of an officer whom he described as already overpowered with work. But anybody at all acquainted with the manner in which the business of the Board was conducted must be aware that all the heads of Departments were in that direct relation with the First Lord of the Admiralty which the hon. Baronet so much desired. The hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Wakefield (Sir J. Hay) said there was a want of direct responsibility on the part of the various authorities of the Admiralty. On that point he took direct issue with his hon. Friend. The assertion was founded on an entire mistake. The responsibility of the Board of Admiralty to the Crown and the public, so far from being divided, was absolute as far as the First Lord was concerned; and, besides, there was the accumulated responsibility of himself as well of the other Members of the Board. He would illustrate that by reference to the Department with which he was specially concerned. The two leading matters with which he was concerned were permanent works and accounts. Now, no First Lord that ever presided over the Board of Admiralty would ever think of coming to that House and pretending to shirk any tittle of responsibility with regard either to works or accounts. There was, then, the complete and well-recognised responsibility of the First Lord, and the further responsibility of him, who was called the superintending Lord. He (Mr. Stansfeld) held himself responsible, and he held it to be his duty to form opinions with reference to organization and the general conduct of affairs, and, in case of need, to press those opinions upon the attention of the Board. The result of such a proceeding would he decisions for which the Board and the First Lord would be responsible to the House and the public. The hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had referred to the state of things which existed at the time of the Report of the Commission of which he was a Member, and more particularly to the accounts. The accounts came within his (Mr. Stansfeld's) Deportment, but the subject was not an inviting one, nor was it easy to understand, nor easy to make it understood, by those who were not familiar with such matters. He would, however, try to show what had been done, and what was being done, to carry the recommendations of the Commission into effect. There was no question that at the time the Commission sat there was abundant need for inquiry. Until 1856 there were no accountants' offices in the dockyards. The storekeeper in each paid the wages and kept the expense accounts. Between 1856 and the date of the Commission of Inquiry accountants' offices were opened in the dockyards, and the duty was transferred to the accountants, in the first place, of paying wages and making other payments which it was not necessary to specify; and secondly, of keeping the ac counts in a way upon which so much had been said upon other occasions. The accounts of expenditure upon ships and other matters used to be transmitted to the Controller's Office in town, not to be dealt with as a system of accounts, but with a view to Returns which might be drawn up for the information of Parliament. But the Commissioners made seven recommendations. They suggested, first, that the Accountant General should be instructed to frame a new system of accounts upon the principle of double entry; secondly, that the expense accounts should be made up in the dockyards every month, and transmitted to the Accountant General by the 15th of the month following; thirdly, that an annual account should be laid before Parliament, giving a detailed statement showing how the money voted had been expended upon ships and services fourthly, that the form of accounts should be carefully revised; fifthly, that the Accountant General should consult with the officers of the several yards, in order to decide upon a system of classification in those yards; sixthly, that the storekeepers should be cashiers, and should pay wages in the yards; and seventhly, that the practice of issuing stores without vouchers should be immediately changed by the Superintendent of the dockyard. Now, there was scarcely one of those recommendations which had not been or was not being practically carried into affect. The only exception was that with regard to the storekeepers being cashiers and paying wages. Each yard had now two officers—one of whom paid wages, while the accounts were audited by the other; and therefore it was unnecessary to adopt the recommendation to which he had referred. Now, lie wished to exhibit this question in two points of view—first, to show the form and organization of the accountant's department in each yard; and secondly, to go to the office of the storekeeper and trace the accounts from the original vouchers until they were shown in the shape of those annual Reports which were presented to the House. In consequence of the recommendations of the Commission, in the spring of 1861 the Board of the Admiralty determined to establish an Audit Office in each dockyard. In the accountant's office wages were paid, and the expense and manufacturing accounts of the steam factories, but not, of the workshops, were kept. The first duty of the Audit Office was to audit the wages accounts. The accountants did not act merely as cashiers, but ascertained from the muster-roll before they paid them the attendance of the men, and upon what labour and materials they were employed. Besides auditing the wages accounts, the Audit Office made up the expense accounts monthly, and sent them up to the Accountant's Department at Somerset House, and they were there posted upon the system of double entry, and were finally issued in the expense accounts laid annually before the House. Now, the storekeeper might be defined as the officer who purchased for the navy the raw materials of manufacture, and sold them again to the dockyards at prime cost, with the necessary allowance for the labour appertaining to his department. Taking the simplest case—that of timber—byway of illustration—when the storekeeper bought the raw material under contract, and issued it unconverted, he issued it at contract price. But timber might be converted by labour, and then the converted timber or the manufactured article might be returned to the store. He had before him an account showing the cost of the conversions in the storekeeper's department. On the debit side was the charge for the raw materials as purchased by the storekeeper, and the column for the value of the labour bestowed upon them; on the credit side were the returns of the unconverted materials and the converted materials, and thus the two sides were made to balance. But then the question arose whether the converted timber was charged to the workshop at the rate which had been paid for it. That had not always been done. The rate-book had not always attained a correct estimate, and Sir R. Bromley had shown that to have been the case. It was requisite, as a matter of account, that there should be some means by which the accuracy of those charges might be ascertained. He would explain the method which the Admiralty proposed to adopt. They would introduce on the credit side a column in which would be inserted the rate-book prices of the articles converted or returned. At the foot of each balance sheet the total of the rate-book prices would be summed up, and that total would be compared with the total of the value of the conversions and the returns. The same would be done with respect to the workshops, and his hon. Friend would admit that by so doing they would, by the end of the year, be able to show by what amount the charges differed from the cost of the materials, and of the labour bestowed upon the materials. With respect to the item of 10 per cent, intended to cover certain general charges upon the production of articles manufactured in the dockyards, the Admiralty were of opinion, and the late Accountant General was also of opinion, that though occasionally in the books of private builders this percentage account might be found, no item of that kind ought to form an element of account, which should be one simply and absolutely of cash expenditure. From these expense accounts, therefore, the percentage column would for the future be eliminated. He wished his hon. Friend to understand that the instructions were already prepared, and would be brought into operation on the 1st of October next. With reference to the large items of general superintendence, wear and tear, maintenance of plant, &c., they would be distributed pro ratâ against the ultimate accounts for service and ships. It might be objected that those intermediate manufacturing accounts might show a less cost than they ought, because they were not debited with those charges which would be made in cases of ordinary business. But where there was no mistake as to the meaning and object of the account, it was easy to draw the correct inference with regard to it. As to the third recommendation of the Commission, that an annual statement of the expenditure upon ships and services should be laid upon the table, what would be done was this:—The account would exhibit at the debit side in the first column the cost of materials employed, in the next column the charge for labour; and these two columns would be derived from the monthly returns made by the audit clerks of the dockyards from the original vouchers. It had been said that it would be necessary to compare the cost of a ship built in one of Her Majesty's dockyards with that of a ship built in another; and not only that, but with the cost of a ship which might be purchased from a builder in the trade. Well, according to the new instructions, all the charges would be classified according to certain stages in the building of a ship, so as to show the House, stage by stage, what the expenditure was in one dockyard and what in another, and also to enable it to compare that cost with the expenditure in the private building yards of this country. Now, about the interest upon capital and rent of premises. The real point was not so much what one chose to include or to exclude, as to know without mistake what was included and what excluded. They had come, then, to the conclusion that to make a charge for rent or interest upon capital would be to do a mere artificial thing. They did not propose, therefore, to debit those accounts with any charge for use of premises or plant, but they did intend to charge the cost of maintaining or renewing that plant. He did not know whether he had succeeded in making himself understood, for the subject was neither easy nor inviting, but it appeared to him necessary to state the changes which had been made or were about to be made, in order to meet the views of the Commission and the wishes of the country. He was anxious that these accounts should be made to tell the truth and the whole truth about the matter, and he would not be satisfied until that was done. He would also further say, that if at any time any practical suggestions could be made by any hon. Members, founded on the attention they had given to this subject, those suggestions would receive from him and the Board of Admiralty immediate and respectful consideration.

thought that the speech which the House had just listened to was highly creditable to the hon. Gentleman, both individually and as member of the Board of Admiralty, and indicated great ability and aptitude for the office to which he had recently been called. He should, moreover, be very sorry if any party feeling were to deter him from acknowledging, in the most open manner, that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty conducted that great Department in a manner deserving of the highest commendation. He believed that both on the part of that noble Duke and the Board generally there was manifest every desire to consult the interests of the public service, and to adopt such suggestions as might lead to improvements in the Department. He thought it must have been very satisfactory to the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) and the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Dalglish) to hear that the Admiralty had adopted, if not all, very nearly all, the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission. He conceived that the observations of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had reference more to an improvement in the present mode of keeping the accounts than to the question whether or not the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty was satisfactory; and he believed that the House would be carried very far from the original object of the Motion if the discussion were to be limited exclusively to the financial points raised in the course of that day's debate, or to any one single branch, however important, of this great subject. He therefore wished to recall the attention of the House to the question before them—whether it was desirable that now, on the 24th of June, they should appoint a Committee to revive the inquiry which was commenced two years ago. The hon. Member for Evesham and the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) both admitted, that to commence an inquiry of that kind on the 24th of June would be a very hopeless task; but, nevertheless, they both said that they were prepared to vote for the Motion. For himself, he had arrived at a different conclusion, and did not think it desirable to give a delusive vote in favour of the immediate appointment of the Committee. At the same time, he must go further, and say that he must reserve to himself the right of determining hereafter whether or not he would vote with the hon. Member for Glasgow, if that hon. Member should be disposed at the commencement of next Session to move for a Committee; and for these reasons:—He was one of those who, two years ago, recommended that there should be a Committee on the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and he gave notice of a Motion on the subject, and it was only by accident that he did not propose the Motion. However, a Motion to the same effect was carried, and a Committee was appointed which sat for one Session, and he confessed that he was sorry that the Committee was not revived at the commencement of last year. That Committee made no Report, not from any wish to avoid making a Report, but because the Committee broke up at the end of the Session under the full persuasion that they would be re-appointed at the commencement of the next Session. In that expectation they were disappointed, and therefore no Report emanated from them. Nevertheless, it appeared to him that it would be inconvenient now, after an interval of two years, to appoint a new Committee on this subject, and to have the question investigated de novo. Though he regretted that the inquiry was not made more complete at the time, still there was no disputing that the blue-book did contain abundance of materials from which the Government, if so disposed, might proceed to make any changes in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty which they might deem advisable. He was not disposed to detain the House by a repetition at any length of those opinions which, as a witness, he expressed before the Committee; but he thought it right to state that he had seen no reason to change those opinions. They were given with most sincere diffidence on his part, and under circumstances of considerable disadvantage. The Duke of Somerset gave evidence before the Committee with great ability and with complete knowledge of all the details of his office, and no one acquainted with the complicated duties of the Admiralty could have heard that evidence without being struck by the complete mastery of details which it manifested. The noble Duke was followed by Sir James Graham, one of the highest authorities on this subject. It was impossible to receive evidence from persons entitled to greater weight; and consequently, when after them he appeared as a witness, he did so not only with disadvantage, because he was unable to compare his powers with theirs, but because his tenure of office had been much shorter. He then stated, what he still believed, that the constitution of the Board of Admiralty was not satisfactory; and that there was a disadvantage in the absence of that concentrated responsibility which he held to be essential for the fulfilment of the duties of one of the highest Departments of the State under a Parliamentary Government. Moreover, the administration of the affairs of the Department fluctuated, more or less, according to the views of the individual statesmen who happened to be at the head of it for the time being. He believed that in some cases the Board worked very well, but there were other cases in which it worked badly. Whether A or B was at the head of the Admiralty was a question utterly unimportant to the public. What they wanted was security for good administration, and it was no satisfaction to the public, if the system worked badly under one chief, to be told that it worked well under another. In the mode in which the Board conducted its business, and in the way in which it was constituted (it being composed of six gentlemen who sat round a table and were all equal), there was obviously danger in the absence of that security for continuous good administration which the public had a right to expect in every department of the State, and he strongly doubted whether the successive men who held the office of First Lord took precisely the same view of the power under which they acted and of the degree of their responsibility. He owned he would attach much greater weight to Sir James Graham's opinion in favour of the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty if he had not become aware that Sir James Graham, within twelve months of the very day when he expressed that opinion, had himself delivered a directly opposite opinion in reference to the mode of constituting the War Office and to the government of the army. Now, he frankly admitted that in consequence of recent experience in respect to the War Office, there was abundant proof that it was far easier to find fault with the existing arrangement of a great Department than to devise how it should be best altered and re-arranged; but this consideration formed no sound reason why persons should not state their opinions on the subject. He wished to recall to the recollection of the House the opinion of Sir James Graham, as expressed to the Committee on Army Organization, and extracted from a draught Report drawn up by Sir James Graham himself. [The right hon. Baronet here quoted a portion of the Report in question, which condemned the proposition to constitute a Board as a retrograde measure, distributing instead of concentrating responsibility, and which declared that a Board would only work well when the head of the Board acted so far alone as to assume the whole responsibility.] Those were the words of Sir James Graham in 1860 with regard to a Board as a machine for the government of the army, and why, then, should this bad machine be bolstered up for the government of the navy? The hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Captain Berkeley), in a very brief speech, supported the present constitution of the Board of Admiralty; and his chief reason for doing so was, because two naval officers had declared before the Committee their admiration of that Board. But it should be borne in mind that only one of those two distinguished officers—Admiral Bowles—had been connected, and that only a short time, with the Admiralty; whereas Sir George Cockburn, who held the office of Lord of the Admiralty for sixteen or seventeen years, had published his opinion, that unless the constitution of the Board were changed, the day was not distant when some calamity would occur to the country in consequence of the defective constitution of the Board. He knew the difficulties of the question, but the machinery of the Board of Admiralty was so defective that he was sure that they would never dare to apply it in a new case, and he hoped that the day was not distant when the evils arising from the constitution of the Board of Admiralty would be corrected. He had never denied that professional advice was essential to any Minister placed at the head of the navy, but it did not follow that that advice was to be had only under the present system. He thought that system might be very much improved, but he must express a hope that at the present late period of the Session the hon. Member for Glasgow would not press his Motion to a division; but, if he thought there ought to be another Committee, renew his Motion at the commencement of next Session.

said, he could fully corroborate the statement of the right hon. the Member for Droitwitch, that the reason why the Committee did not make a Report was that it felt that it had not concluded its inquiry, and expected to have been re-appointed at the commencement of this Session. It was perfectly idle to suppose that the appointment of such a Committee as was now asked for at that period of the Session could come to any practical conclusion, or produce any good fruits in the ensuing year. He should suggest to the hon. Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing his Motion, and of renewing it at the beginning of the next Session. He had read the evidence already taken on the subject with great care and attention. They had had a very important inquiry on that subject, and he was free to admit there had been shown considerable neglect and impropriety in the carrying out of the accounts at that period. The Committee found fault with certain arrangements, had suggested remedies, and many of those remedies had since been applied. Before he had entered office, a Committee was appointed, at the suggestion of the late Lord Auckland, to inquire into the state of the dockyards, and several valuable recommendations were then made by Sir Richard Bromley, which were subquently adopted. Unfortunately, however, a certain check was omitted, in consequence of which some irregularities were committed, which were much to be regretted. He admitted that many blunders had been committed by the Board of Admiralty which were very discreditable to it. The House of Commons was, no doubt, very valuable for finding out any evils that existed in the public departments; but when they had made those evils obvious, they had better allow the matter to rest, merely throwing upon the Government the responsibility of remedying them. Now, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had proved that he had applied himself with great zeal to perform the dry duties intrusted to him. The hon. Member had shown, that as regards the accounts the recommendations of the Commission had been carried out. He admitted that the blundering and irregularities connected with them were discreditable to the Department, but it had not been shown that the system had not been carefully devised by the Admiralty. He was glad to heat that corrections were to be applied to some parts of the system which required it; but he did not think it was expedient for Parliament to prescribe remedies for such matters. When they had inquired into a subject of that kind, and pointed out the faults they had much better stop there, and leave to the Government the responsibility of correction. With regard to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, although the Committee made no Report, they collected a mass of valuable evidence, from which people might draw their own conclusions. He had often been struck by the singular faculty which naval officers possessed of misunderstanding the administration of the Board. The arrangement was, that each had assumed the superintendence of a certain branch of business, with the advice of the practical officials; and that when he came to a question of more than ordinary gravity, instead of deriding it himself, he took the opinions of the whole Board in regard to it. Now, that plan was adopted in the Ordnance Office by a great man who had a peculiar talent for organization—the Duke of Wellington, and it was strongly recommended by a Committee of the House in 1848. It was introduced into the Admiralty by Sir lames Graham, who, he could state, had never changed his opinion as to its practical utility. Many officers of experience had expressed themselves in favour of this method; and although Sir George Cockburn had taken a different view, it should be remembered, that while he was an officer of the highest ability, he had a particular dislike to any restriction on his own authority, and the plan which he suggested was one which nobody would adopt. People talked of the Board of Admiralty as though it were an unparalleled monstrosity; but look at the Treasury—was it not similar in its constitution? There were Lords of the Treasury as well as of the Admiralty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer bore the entire responsibility of the former, as the First Lord did of the latter. Again, even the Cabinet was conducted in the same way. Each Minister took charge of a Department; but any very serious question was considered by all the Ministers in Council, and the responsibility of the Premier was akin to that of the First Lord of the Admiralty. At the War Office it was a frequent practice to have meetings between the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief, at which the leading officials were present to advise, and such meetings approached very closely to the system of a Board. In France the Marine was managed not by a Board but by a Minister, and yet it excited just the same vague dissatisfaction among French naval officers that the Admiralty did among the members of the English service. It was one of the great mistakes of modern days to throw all the blame of any mismanagement or irregularity on the system instead of on individual officials. Now and then a job was committed, and everybody at once cried out, "Oh, it's not this one or that one with whom we find fault, but the system." In his opinion, it would be infinitely better for the House to leave the Government to manage their business in their own way, and to judge them by results, holding them strictly responsible for any misconduct. If a private yard built a ship, and did the work badly, would it be accepted as a valid excuse that the system of the yard was imperfect? Would not the answer at once be, "The system is your affair, not ours; we give you a certain commission to execute; and if you don't do it to our satisfaction, then we must go to some one else." The same rule should be applied to the Admiralty. If they did not act efficiently, they should be dismissed, and another set of men appointed. Parliament could not commit a greater mistake than to force a particular mode of administration on the Government, for by so doing they furnished a ready excuse for any failure. The Government would of course say, that if they had been allowed to conduct matters in their own way, the result would have been very different, and that it was not they, but the system prescribed by Parliament, which should be blamed.

concurred in the opinion that the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this Motion would be acting wisely by withdrawing his Motion and proposing it anew at the beginning of the next Session, when it would have a better chance of a full and impartial considera-had tion. He (Sir Morton Peto), however, had heard nothing that could induce him to think that such an inquiry as was asked for was useless or unnecessary. On the contrary, he was strongly in favour of an inquiry.

said, that having had the honour to preside over the Committee to which so much allusion had been made, he thought it right to confirm what had been stated as to the termination of that Committee. The Committee was appointed under somewhat unusual circumstances. In the preceding year a Motion was made for a Committee; which was opposed by the Government. In the interval, however, that occurred between that time and the next Session a Report was made by a Commission, of which the hon. Members, for Glasgow and Evesham were Members, and that Report condemned the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. But that was not all. The noble Lord the present Secretary to the Admiralty had also, in the preceding Session, presented a Bill of indictment against the Board of Admiralty, which was stronger in its charges than anything said by any one else. In fact, the noble Lord took the unusual course of pointing out a definite sum of money, which he stated was not accounted for, which could not be found, and of which neither Committees nor Commissions had been able to discover any trace. On a second application, the Government of 1861 said that they would agree to this Committee being appointed. Now he (Mr. Henley) had had great doubt as to the advantage of that inquiry, because it struck him that there was not evidence to prove that the nonfeasance or the malfeasance had arisen in consequence of the constitution of the Board. The navy had been passing through a period of transition. Sailing vessels had given place to steamers, paddles to screws, and wood to iron; there was much grumbling at the expense which had been incurred, and it was very easy, looking back with the experience of two or three years, to say that things might have been better managed. The Committee, however, entered upon the inquiry, and examined a considerable array of First Lords and other Lords of the Admiralty. In reference to that evidence, he could not pass by a matter alluded to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. He alluded to a quotation from the draft Report of Sir James Graham for the Committee on Army Organization—a quotation made apparently with a view of in some way deprecating the evidence of the lamented right hon. Baronet. Now words were curious things, and similar words might be used at different times meaning very different things. He (Mr. Henley) thought it impossible that the quotation read by the right hon. Baronet could be held to apply in any sense at all to a Board constituted as was the Board of Admiralty. His recollection of the words used on the occasion referred to by the late Sir Jamas Graham was this:—The late right hon. Baronet expressly said that such a Board would be a new experiment. Now, it was evident by the use of the word "new," that Sir James Graham could not have meant to apply it to such a Hoard as that of the Admiralty, which had at its head a Cabinet Minister.

said, it was true that in the extract which he had read the word "new" occurred as applied to the army; but at an ealier period of the Report the late Sir James Graham referred to a suggestion of Lord Grey, that a Board should be constituted, to be presided over by a Cabinet Minister, on the model of the Board of Admiralty, and distinctly advised that no such Board should be constituted, condemning its machinery in the manner he had already stated.

said, it was quite clear that when the late right hon. Baronet used the words, "very much on the model of the Board of Admiralty," he might be referring to a thing not at all to be worked in the same manner. The hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) sketched out a curious sort of plan. That hon. and gallant Gentleman told them that there ought to be thirteen departments, the heads of each to be responsible to the First Lord, and the First Lord to be responsible to the country. Now it appeared to him (Mr. Henley), that this plan would amount to a system of divided responsibility, and that that responsibility would be shifted from one shoulder to the other. He believed that the responsibility of the First Lord would be greatly weakened and shaken by such a system. It would, no doubt, be very gratifying to naval officers full of schemes and crotchets to be able to fasten on one official and insist on knowing why he would not do as they wanted; but that would be very far from advantageous to the public interests. The hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) had told them how a whole string of officials did not know anything about an account which had never been kept; but there was nothing very wonderful in that. The hon. Baronet had now got the accounts, and rejoiced over them; but perhaps he would have to say, as a noble Lord had said elsewhere, that he could not make head or tail of them. He must, however, say that the hon. Member the Junior Lord had shown himself master of the details of his office by the very able and lucid statement he had made with regard to the accounts. Neither in the proposal of the hon. Member for Evesham, nor in that of the hon. Member for Glas- gow did he see any guarantee for a more economical expenditure. The truth was, that the more minute and detailed the published accounts were, the more difficult was it to pick holes in the expenditure. An independent Member might make a stand against an extravagant total; but if he entered into small items, the officials, who knew the ground much better than he did, would be sure to baffle him. He had only assented to the Committee over which he presided because the Government had assented to it—he was therefore a dispassionate Member of it. The inquiry had not been exhausted when the Session broke up. The end of the Session arrived before it could take the evidence of officers of the Board, and in the following year neither the hon. and gallant Member who had originally moved for it, nor the Government, proposed its re-appointment. For his own part he did not feel disposed to take part in the matter, either on one side or the other. He did not think that such an inquiry should be instituted unless on grave public grounds, and with more definite views than appeared to prevail on the present occasion. There had been much abuse of the Admiralty, but nobody had any definite plan to propose in its stead. If the Government believed the Department as now constituted was capable of performing its duties efficiently, they ought to come forward manfully and say so, and not expose the Board to these constant attacks and inquiries. If, on the other hand, the result of the investigations had led the Government to think that any changes would be beneficial, then they ought to make them. He quite concurred in the observations of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir. F. Baring) as to the mischievous consequence of always exculpating the officials at the expense of the system. It was a mealy-mouthed way of finding fault to say it was the system that was wrong, instead of boldly collaring the men who were the real culprits. In the evidence taken by the Committee there was abundant proof of nonfeasance and malfeasance; he meant evidence that affairs might have been better managed, and did not impute dishonesty of intention. But there was no proof that there would have been any improvement if the form of administration had been different. With all its faults and shortcomings, the Admiralty had not broken down when the pinch came. During the Russian War our vessels were in the Baltic at least a month before the French, and Admiral Seymour had stated that the crews of our ally were much rawer seamen than our own. This was the only consolation which he derived from that investigation. He hoped the hon. Member would not on this 24th of June compel the House to divide on the Motion, because by the time a Committee got upstairs they would have to come down again.

said, that in considering the management of affairs at the Admiralty he had always endeavoured to judge of the tree by its fruits. We had now some twenty-two iron-clad ships; but there was not a single man-of-war among them. Nor could he help alluding to the defective construction of our ships and the difficulty experienced in manning them. The recent Committee, presided over by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), stopped short at the very threshold of its labours, and further inquiry was absolutely necessary. He therefore hoped, that if the hon. Member for Glasgow withdrew his Motion now, he would renew it early next Session. Let the House remember the declaration of Sir George Cockburn—rone of the very highest authorities—that under the existing constitution of the Admiralty it was perfectly impossible to carry on naval affairs with any degree of satisfaction.

said, that in compliance with the general wish he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion. He would congratulate the Admiralty on their acquisition of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). The hon. Gentleman's statement had been clear and intelligible, and, up to a certain point, convincing. He begged to suggest, that in addition to the other papers about to be produced, there should be laid on the table an account showing the cost in gross of each separate article manufactured in our dockyards. He denied that his constituents in Glasgow had urged him to bring forward his Motion because the Admiralty had not given them any orders for the construction of ships during the past year. He hoped that no hon. Member would ever be deterred from suggesting public, improvements merely because his constituents might participate in the benefits resulting from them. Some few years ago the making of engines for the Admiralty was confined to one or two firms. A change was introduced by the right hon. Member for, Droitwich, who increased the number of houses obtaining orders from the Admiralty; and the result had been a reduction in price from £62 10s. to £50. He should be glad to gratify the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire by laying a definite scheme for the improvement of the Admiralty before the House; but he wanted in the first instance to get all the evidence he could, not only as to where the evil existed, but as to how that evil could best be remedied. Of course, however, it was now too late to enter upon such an investigation, and in deference to the generally-expressed wish of the House, he begged to withdraw his Motion, giving notice of his intention to renew it at the beginning of next Session.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that a clause had been inserted in the Act of 1856, for the express purpose of depriving Sir Thomas Wilson of his power of leasing his settled property, a part of which comprised Hampstead Heath. The object of the present Bill was to restore to Sir Thomas Wilson the rights possessed by every other Englishman, by striking out the clause which hadbeen so oppressively introduced. But inasmuch as he (Mr. Cox), as a metropolitan Member, who had always maintained the right of the London public to use Hampstead Heath, would be one of the last persons in the world to permit the inclosure of that spot of ground, he had inserted in the Bill a clause exempting from its operation all open lands used purposes of public recreation and health within seven miles of London and two miles distant from other towns. The Bill would thus do two excellent things—it would do an act of justice to a gentleman who suffered severely from the present Settled Estates Act, and it would secure to the public the enjoyment of Hampstead Heath and other uninclosed grounds in its neighbourhood.

proposed, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time that day three months. He did so upon two grounds—first, because he thought Parliament should not be asked to reverse its previous decisions on the subject; and secondly, because it was highly inexpedient that a public Bill should be introduced and passed to serve a private object. He doubted, moreover, whether the Bill would have the effect that the hon. Member anticipated. If they were to repeal the clause whereby Sir Thomas Wilson was prohibited from leasing Hampstead Heath, of course Sir Thomas Wilson would exercise that power, and he feared the exception would prove inoperative.

said, the House had been guilty of an act of injustice to an individual for the benefit of the public. Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson was possessed of property at Hampstead Heath and elsewhere. He had sought Parliamentary Powers to deal with the whole of his property, and Parliament had refused to give him those powers. He understood, however, that Sir Thomas Wilson had now resolved to treat the question of the leasing of Hampstead Heath as distinct from that of the rest of his property. Upon that understanding, and feeling the injustice that had been done, he was prepared to support the Bill. No doubt there was some inconsistency in the House dealing with a private matter by a public Bill; but that was owing to the peculiar circumstances of a public Act having been passed to meet the case of a private individual.

thought the Bill open to the same objections as previous Bills which had been brought forward with a like object, and which the House had uniformly rejected. The practical result of the Bill would be the inclosure of Hampstead Heath. He denied that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) represented the opinion of the metropolis in his promotion of this Bill. He would remind the hon. Member that the Metropolitan Board of Works, which might be supposed to represent metropolitan opinion, had unanimously decided against any proposition like the present.

said, he must remind the House that Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson had the property at Hampstead Heath devised to him, expressly debarred from the power of granting leases. There could be no possible injustice in not giving him a power to which he had no claim.

said the House had ten or eleven times refused to give the power now sought for. It was true that the Bill did not propose to give leasing powers over the Heath itself; but if houses were built around the Heath, the public would be deprived of the lovely views the equal of which, except from Richmond Hill, were not to be found in the vicinity of the metropolis.

had voted against the previous Bills, because under them Hampstead Heath would have been inclosed. But he thought Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson was unfairly dealt with with regard to his other property, and this unfairness the Bill would remove. Sir Thomas Wilson was not a young man, and at his death the restriction on building on the property would be removed. But by this Bill the public would be protected in their enjoyment of Hampstead Heath, while justice would be done to the individual; and he hoped it would be passed.

had never been able to see the injustice complained of. The father of Sir Thomas Wilson had great respect for Hampstead Heath, and, when dividing his property, he left his Charlton estates to the present Sir Thomas with power of leasing; but he left the Hampstead property without power of leasing. If property was left to a person upon restrictions, there was no injustice in continuing those restrictions during his life. He trusted the House would refuse to reverse its former decision.