said, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the misstatements contained in the Report of Inspector C. Graham, on the National School of Coote Street, Ireland, published in the Return laid upon the table of this House on 20th June, 1864; and whether he will have any objection to lay upon the table of the House copies of the letter of the Commissioners of National Education to the Rev. James Dunne, withdrawing these misstatements, dated 1st April, 1865, and of the letter of the Rev. James Dunne to the Commissioners, dated 6th April, 1865?

, in reply, said, he had not yet had an opportunity of communicating with the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland upon the subject; but he was not aware that there were any misstatements in them. However he would inquire into the matter.

said, he wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay the correspondence on the table?

said, he should prefer communicating with the authorities in Ireland before giving any pledge.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the Government of the United States any formal and official demand for compensation to American subjects for losses sustained by the Alabama or any other Confederate cruisers alleged to have been equipped in British ports?

Sir, a correspondence has been going on for some time—two years I think—between the Government of the United States and Her Majesty's Government an the subject of the prizes taken by the Alabama and other vessels of a similar character. Within the last few days we have received further communications from Mr. Adams on that subject, to which, of course, as yet there has not been sufficient time to reply. It is right to say that the whole correspondence, though each party has stated their respective views, has been carried on in very friendly and most amicable terms.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will, before the House adjourns for the Whitsuntide holydays, lay upon the table of the House the Estimate for the New Museum of Natural History?

said, he could not lay upon the table any Estimate upon that subject until he should receive from his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works intelligence to the effect that he and the Trustees of the Museum had come to some understanding with respect to the land on which the building was to be erected. The last statement that had reached him from his right hon. Friend was that he and the Trustees had not as yet concluded their communications upon the matter.

said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could state any time after which he would not not bring forward that Estimate?

I can only say, in general terms, that the last thing the Government would do would be to submit an Estimate at any period when the House could not give it a full and fair consideration.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill this Session to make Regulations with a view to prevent Accidents by the Explosion of Gunpowder?

replied, that such a Bill was in preparation, but as Reports on the subject had been so recently printed, and it was desirable to give the trade an opportunity of making any representations which they might desire to put forward, the Bill would not be introduced till after Whitsuntide.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the changed aspect of affairs in America, Her Majesty's Government, either separately or in conjunction with the Government of the United States, will consider the propriety of sending a squadron to the coast of Cuba, for the purpose of preventing the importation of slaves into that island, and thereby effectually putting an end to the African Slave Trade?

Sir, some time ago Her Majesty's Government invited the Government of the United States to co-operate with them on the coast of Africa by sending out a squadron for the purpose of preventing the slave trade from being carried on. The American Government professed their perfect willingness to co-operate, but a difficulty arose in regard to the regulations then subsisting with respect to our neutral position on the one hand, and the admission of belligerent ships of war into our ports on the other. That difficulty could not be well overcome at the time. But in the present altered state of things in America Her Majesty's Government have renewed their applications to the United States, and have represented that their cruisers, employed for the purpose to which I have referred, would, of course, be received with every privilege and courtesy which are due to the cruisers of friendly nations. The difficulty which prevented the co-operation of the two countries some time ago is no longer an obstacle. No communication has been received from the United States with respect to a squadron at Cuba; but, if they assent to the arrangement respecting the West coast of Africa, no doubt they will cooperate with us regarding Cuba.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the proposed scheme for the abolition of the rank of Master, which the First Lord of the Admiralty has stated is to be laid before Parliament previously to its final adoption, will specify what increase it would occasion in the numbers on the Active Lists to which the Officers now in the Line of Masters would be removed; whether, in order to obviate stagnation of promotion from those Lists so increased it will provide for a proportionate increase of the Superior Lists; and whether it will comprise an Estimate of its immediate and prospective effects on the amount of the Vote for Half-pay and Retirement to Officers of the Navy?

replied that the proposal of the Admiralty, which would he laid upon the table of the House, would give full information upon all these matters. He would take that opportunity of giving notice that it was his intention to move for leave to introduce three Bills—one for making better provision with respect to the wills of deceased Seamen and Marines; the second, for the better disposal of the effects of deceased Seamen under the control of the Admiralty; and the third, for the regulation of the Pay and Pensions in the Royal Navy.

said, he wished to ask, when the scheme with respect to the Masters would be laid before the House?

said, he could not then state, as the subject was a very difficult one; but he was anxious to produce it at the earliest possible moment.

said, that no information had been received at the Admiralty of the loss of Her Majesty's schooner Eclipse, in New Zealand, but they had heard of the destruction of a private schooner of the same name.

said, that the Despatches received from New Zealand by the last mail would be immediately printed and laid before the House. They would show that, in one instance, a friendly native chief had obtained a victory over a rebel native chief; that a rebel chief had been captured in another case. It might be agreeable to the House to learn that the Colonial Government had sent home £500,000 of their debentures, to be delivered to Her Majesty's Treasury on account of their debt to this country.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the protection of our Colonies, and the advantages we derive from them, said, the position he intended to take up was that our colonial system was the best and cheapest method that could be devised for the protection of our enormous commerce, and that without it we should require depots for coal and garrisons all over the world, as, in fact, was now the case in those seas where we had no colonies. It appeared from a blue-book he held in his hand, coming down to the year 1862, that the amount of our import and export trade including the regis- tered export and import of gold and silver, amounted altogether to £501,000,000 pet-annum—and at least 20 per cent might be added for the increase since 1862—but hundreds of ships making short voyages to the Continent and back were not included in that Return, and neither were the ships engaged in the vast trade between India, China, and Australia, which could scarcely amount to less than £100,000,000 per annum; thus raising the total value of our commerce to upwards of £600,000,000. Besides the protection of our own commerce, we had taken upon ourselves the police of the seas. Ships only were of no use for these purposes; in these days of steam it was necessary that we should have depots of coal and places where ships could refit, with garrisons to protect them; and what he maintained was that if we had not colonies, we should be forced to have arsenals and garrisons all over the world. In the absence of colonies, we already maintained such military stations as Gibraltar, Malta, Bermuda, and Hong Kong; and a similar policy was adopted by other countries—France, for instance, having the Isle of Bourbon, Pondicherry, the Marquesas, Tahiti, the Isle of Pines, and New Caledonia, in which, he believed, there were more troops than in all our colonies put together. It was not possible to ascertain in all cases what was the cost of protecting our commerce where we had colonies, and what it amounted to where we had none; but in some instances a tolerably accurate idea might be formed of the difference of the cost in the two cases. Our exports to China and Japan were in value £3,237,000, and to protect that commerce we had a garrison of 1,300 men at Hong Kong, a regiment of soldiers in Japan, he supposed some troops at Shanghai or on the mainland of China, eighteen ships, and twenty-three gunboats. Occasionally we had a little war with China, and there was a hill to pay for powder and shot; and we had also had to blow a town about the ears of some Japanese chieftain. Now, on the other hand, the value of our exports to our four great colonies in Australia was something like £9,000,000; the garrison of those colonies did not exceed 500 men, who were partly paid by the colonists themselves, and we had there but three ships, mounting only thirty-nine guns. To the western coast of South America our exports were £2,700,000, and we had there five ships, mounting 105 guns. He gave this as an illustration of the general fact; but he might remind the House of another item of saving, because by the possession of our colonies we saved the expense of diplomatic and consular establishments. A great deal had been said about the enormous expense of the military defence of our colonies, but he thought that he could easily convince the House that a good deal of it was nonsense. Malta and Gibraltar had been put down as colonies, but they were really not colonies at all; no more were the stations upon the coast of Africa, and it was precisely because they were not that they were so expensive. As to the Cape of Good Hope, the question was a mixed one. We retained that possession at the end of the great French war, because it afforded a convenient stopping place for our ships; and if it had been a barren rock upon which no colony could be established we should have had to keep up a garrison there. The necessity for our sending troops to garrison the frontier arose from our having, as we supposed, in the interests of virtue and humanity, put an end to the commando system, by which the settlers used formerly to defend themselves against the Kaffirs, and he supposed that now the Kaffir war was at an end part of the troops would be withdrawn. Among the good things done by the present Government he regarded it as not the least important the placing a friendly chief between the Kaffir frontiers and the settlers—a step which he thought likely to prevent future wars. Be that as it might, there had been great exaggeration as to the number of troops at the Cape, which did not exceed 4,73 9 men—much less than the garrisons of Gibraltar and Malta. The Mauritius was retained at the end of the great French war because our commerce had suffered greatly from privateers and cruisers, who had made it their resort, and if it had been a barren rock we must have garrisoned it, as well as provided and paid the civil servants who would have been found necessary. Ceylon was scarcely a colony. Hong Kong was certainly not one, and Western Australia and Van Diemen's Land were removed from the category of ordinary colonies, one by being and the other by having been till very recently a penal settlement. In the four great colonies upon the Australian continent soldiers were, in his opinion, but little needed. The colonists had a good Volunteer force; it was impossible to suppose that any one would invade Australia with a view to overrun it from the landside, and its ports could be best defended by means of floating batteries of light draught. He passed over New Zealand, because the question of defence of that colony had been amply discussed in the House a short time ago, and also because New Zealand was in a state of transition, the colonists having made an offer to take the war into their own hands and pay all the expenses. At the Falkland Islands there were very few colonists. As to the West Indies, he would observe that even if there were no colonists at all it would be necessary to keep up there garrisons to prevent them from becoming a nest of privateers and buccaneers as they formerly were. He came in the last place to out great North American Colonies, and their case was somewhat peculiar, in as much as they had on their frontier a great, civilized, and, be was afraid, a warlike nation. He did not, however, share in those fears which appeared to have been so generally entertained, that the United States, wearied after a long contest, would proceed to attack our North American possessions, and he felt sure if they did they would be boldly resisted by men whose origin from the two noblest and bravest races in the world led one to suppose that they would combine with the steady courage of the Englishman the gallant onslaught of the French. He now wished to say a few words on the general advantages of colonies. And first, on the subject of emigration to those and other colonies, he would observe that, without being a Malthusian, he must admit that in any society which was in a healthy state there must be found in the population a tendency to increase. The difficulty which in consequence arose was met in some countries by what was called the prudential check; while in this country it was to a great extent met by emigration, it being calculated by a high authority, Mr. Herman Merivale that one child in six born in this country was provided for by that means. Hitherto the United States of America had been the great field for emigration. Now, if people emigrated at all it was better, he contended, that they should go to some of our own colonies, where they would, in process of time, become our best friends and our best customers, than that they should go to swell the number of some other nation. To show what good customers our colonies were, be might mention that our exports to the West Indies were nearly as great as to the magnificent Empire of Brazil; that our exports to India were £15,000,000, whereas to China and Japan, with a much larger polation, they amounted to only £3,237,000; and that to the two gold colonies of Australia they were £8,000,000, whereas to California they amounted to only £430,000. Then, supposing we were in any difficulty with regard to any raw product for machinery, lie would like to know whether we should go to foreign countries or to our own colonies first. Take, for instance, the case of cotton. The world had been ransacked for cotton—a product which grew in perfection in many parts of the globe. Now from the Mediterranean, including Turkey and Egypt, the quantity we bad got was 107,000,000 pounds; from Brazil, 22,000,000 pounds; and from China, 30,000,000 pounds. Whereas from our Indian dependencies we had obtained 434,000,000 pounds. The same general argument would hold good with respect to hemp and wool. There were those who said that inasmuch as our colonies must separate from us at some time or other, the sooner we got rid of them the bettor. He did not endorse that view; and assuming that separation must some time take place, he did not see that there was any reason why we should be in a hurry to throw them off. It was something to have a great Empire, though the idea was one at which the utilitarian might laugh.

said, the hon. Member had made a most specious statement, advocating protection for our colonies and countenancing a system of extravagance which he hoped the Government would not be prepared to sanction. He had been trying to show that the colonies were of vital importance to the commercial interests of the country; but he would like to know, in the presence of the fact that, while the world at large took £110,000,000 of our exports, and the colonists only £50,000,000, which were the best customers? He was not, however, on that account prepared to say that we ought to draw from our colonies all reasonable support, but he was opposed to anything like extravagant expenditure in their support. With respect to the cost attending the transactions, it was relatively much greater with the colonies than with the rest of the civilized world. He granted that, to some extent, they did receive a supply of raw materials from the colonies, because merchants here did not send out their goods without expecting to receive some return. What defence did we need for the £8,200,760 we sent to France, the £13,373,131 we sent to the Hanse Towns, or the £16,704,080 we sent to the United States of America? With regard to emigration, the emigrants, especially from Ireland, preferred to seek an asylum in the United States of America to going to any of our colonies, where great inducements were held out to them to settle. Under the Homestead Bill the American Government offered to a man with a family a gift of 160 acres of land. Where did we find an inducement of 160 acres, 100 acres, or even 50 acres of land, offered to our people to go and settle in one of our colonies? With regard to the cotton supply in 1860, when the American disruption took place, we were receiving 85 per cent of the raw material grown by slave labour in the Southern States; 8 per cent from Egypt and other independent sources, and the paltry supply of 7 per cent from the East and West Indies. He could not understand his hon. Friend being guilty of such a misdirection of his energy and talent as he had been in the case he had endeavoured to make out that evening. He hoped that by the system which would he pursued in future the colonies would be rendered less dependent on British expenditure, that they would be brought to feel their own weight and their own power, and, left to themselves, that they would become as great and important as the States of America had grown since they ceased to be colonies of Great Britain. He thankfully admitted that in the article of sheep-wool we had already received important contributions from Australia, and the woollen trade in this country would have been in a most impoverished state instead of the prosperous condition in which it had existed for many years, had it not been for their supplies. But if the colonies as a whole were thrown on their own resources they would learn new lessons of self-reliance, and would offer inducements to settlers to come out and help them. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) was about to proceed to Australia, and it was to be hoped that he would go out as a missionary from the mother country, and in holding out the right hand of fellowship to the colonists would make them understand that they ought not to exact from us heavy duties, as if we were adverse to their interests. Canada, for instance, had placed extravagant duties on British manufactures, and the same spirit of exaction pervaded the whole of the British colonies. If it were known that the Home authorities were determined in future not to show favour to the colonies, but to do them full justice, they would, he believed, become more prosperous than by any other means.

said, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) spoke with authority on Australian subjects, because he spoke with the special knowledge of a personal residence in the colony; but he did not think there was any irreconcilable antagonism between the views of hon. Members who had addressed the House. The hon. Member for Salisbury had not said that there was any claim on the part of the colonists for that assistance from the Imperial Exchequer which the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley) so justly deprecated; but, at the same time, he showed the great advantages which, as a colonist, and as a Member of that House, he perceived in the existence of numerous communities scattered over many of the most interesting and fruitful parts of the world, consisting of those who sprang from our loins, carried our learning across the seas, reproduced our institutions, looked to the same fathers of literature, read our press, participated in the advantages of our postal system, and were, in fact, creating and maintaining communities of the same feeling and origin as ourselves in the most distant parts of the world. All must agree that advantages not merely material, but moral and political, were derived from the existence of those colonies, though these advantages could not be measured entirely by statistics. He had not understood the hon. Member for Manchester to discourage in any degree the maintentenance of the most intimate relation with our colonies, the cultivation of friendly feelings with them, or the rendering to them of the many inestimable services which the mother country always had it in her power to afford. But the hon. Member contended that in carrying with them English institutions they also carried with them the independent, honest spirit which was the first characteristic of Englishmen, which was the foundation of the power and glory of the Empire. It had been said that formerly we taxed the colonies, but that now the colonies taxed us and, no doubt, for many years it had been necessary to lay before Parliament Estimates which were really a tax upon the mother country, for the benefit of her colonies; but that principle had been settled long ago in a contrary sense, and he did not think any Estimates had more rapidly and continuously declined of late than the civil Estimates for colonial services. It might fairly be said the principle had been established that the colonies ought to be self-supporting, and that if any Vote were now taken for the benefit of the colonies it should be justified on strictly exceptional grounds. During the year 1861 an important Committee sat, under the auspices of an hon. Friend on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Arthur Mills), to consider the question of Colonial Military Expenditure. That Committee passed the colonies in review, distinguishing those of Malta, Gibraltar, Bermuda, and others, which were military strongholds, which the country was compelled to keep up for naval stations, or purposes not strictly those of colonization, from those which might be called colonies proper. The Committee laid down very clearly what was the expenditure on the colonies proper, and pointed out what, in their opinion, were the reforms and improvements of which the system was capable; stating, however, that it must be a matter of discretion with the Government how far those suggestions could be carried into effect. In the following year a discussion took place upon the Report of the Committee, the Chairman of which disclaimed on their part any intention of weakening the tie binding the colonies to the mother country; and a Resolution was agreed to which, though it referred only to colonies having representative institutions, might be taken as showing that the House of Commons approved the Report of the Committee. That Resolution was passed in 1862; and last year the House having occasion to deal with the very unsatisfactory state of things in New Zealand called on the people of that colony to make a substantial contribution towards the outlay upon troops remaining there. The Ministers and Assembly of New Zealand expressed their wish that the whole of the troops might be removed at the earliest possible period, and the defences of the colony intrusted to a colonial force, at the sole expense of the colony; but at the distance of half the globe arrangements required some time to complete, and this new policy was not yet wholly carried into effect, but it had been so far adopted as to show that the Government was not indifferent either to the wishes of the colonists or to the recommendation of the Committee of the House of Commons. The effects of the war in New Zealand had been to drain almost completely the neighbouring colony of Australia of Imperial troops; and if they returned there it would be on the understanding that a substantial contribution should be made towards their cost. The Committee also recommended that the number of troops in the West Indies should be diminished. But the force in those Islands was governed by the force on the West Coast of Africa, the unhealthy nature of which station rendered necessary the keeping up of largo reliefs. The forces, however, on the West Coast having been reduced, a corresponding diminution had taken place in the force hitherto maintained in the West Indies to the extent of one of the five West India regiments; and the result would be seen in the Estimates of this year. A Committee was now sitting, and when its Report bad been laid on the table it would be for them to say whether a further reduction might take place in the troops on the West Coast of Africa, and also in the West India regiments. Those who were curious enough to read the papers delivered to Members every morning might have observed that in regard to three Crown Colonies—Hong Kong, Mauritius, and Ceylon—he had already been engaged in requiring from those colonies contributions towards their military protection. So that it would be found that there was scarcely one of the recommendations of the Committee which had not already engaged the attention of the Government, and in regard to which some progress had not been made. At any rate, it was accepted as their principle and guide that the rule laid down by the House in 1862 should be carried into effect by the Imperial Government. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) had alluded to the Act passed in the present Session to enable the colonies to make better provision for their own naval defence; and it so happened that by that day's mail that Act, together with certain regulations which the Admiralty and his own Department had suggested, went out to the Australian Colonies for their adoption. That Act, no doubt, must come gradually into operation, because it established a new principle, and it was to be hoped that it would be the solution of difficulties which had for many years proved insuperable. It was an important fact in the history of this country in connection with its colonies that she was calling upon them, by an Act of the Imperial Legislature, to make provision for their own defence by sea, where dan- ger, as his hon. Friend had justly observed, was most likely to threaten them than from any attack by land; and that, while offering these facilities and opportunities for making such preparations, she held them responsible for their own security. All who have joined in or listened to that discussion—those who sympathized with the hon. Member for Salisbury, and those who sympathized with the hon. Member for Manchester—could, he thought, arrive at the unanimous conclusion that they had highly valued the connection between the colonies and the mother country, that they were sensible of the great advantage of having those free, industrious, and enter-prizing communities sharing their own blood, their own language, and their own laws, settled over the whole world; but that they also expected from them that spirit of independence and self-reliance which was the first prerogative as well as the first characteristic of an Englishman; that, as a policy of freedom, affection, and attachment had been substituted for one of coercion and Imperial control, and as Great Britain was ready to render them every aid which could fairly be required from her, so in return she would look to the colonies for energy, self-denial, and self-reliance, and that, helping themselves and doing their duty by the mother country, they might feel confident that she valued them in the highest degree, and would faithfully fulfil all those duties which an affectionate parent owed to her offspring.

believed that the colonies were more indebted for their peace and prosperity to the mother country than she was indebted to them; but that to flourish in a healthy and enduring manner communities, like individuals, must be self-reliant. The tide of emigration, however, had set in towards the United States rather than towards our own colonies, because the American Government had passed what was called the Homestead Law, giving land to settlers for nothing. Under those circumstances our enterprizing fellow-subjects would not go to distant colonies, where they had to pay £1 per acre for land.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether that portion of the Act 5th Geo. IV. c. 64 s. 9, which empowers the Lord Lieutenant—

"To apply a sum not exceeding five hundred pounds in any one year in providing materials for the repairs of boats of poor fishermen at such ports and places where quays and piers are or shall be built."

Under the provisions of the said Act, is not still in force, and whether he can state when the last grant was made under the Act. It was his (Mr. Blake's) belief that the sum of five hundred pounds per annum was still legally available for the purpose for which it was originally intended, and complained that it was not so applied. He also urged the necessity of placing the Fishery Department in Dublin in a more efficient state.

said, his own opinion, after taking some pains to examine into the question, was that there was no power in the Act to which the hon. Member had referred, or in any other Act, to authorize the payment of a sum of £500 per annum towards the assistance of poor fishermen in Ireland. An Act was passed in the year 1819 which gave the Lord Lieutenant the power of issuing to the Commissioners of Fisheries in Ireland an annual sum of £5,000 for the construction of fishing piers and harbours; but that Act was only to be in force for five years from the end of the next Session of Parliament, and it accordingly expired in the year 1825. It was then renewed until the year 1830; when, under a new arrangement, a body was created, called the "Directors of Inland Navigation." The Lord Lieutenant by the Act of 1830 was authorized to issue to the Directors of Inland Navigation for the completion of piers which had already been commenced a sum of £13,000, which was to be expended in a period extending over five years; and since the expiration of those five years the Lord Lieutenant had no money at his disposal which he could devote to that object.

Sir, I rise for the purpose of asking the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in consequence of the recent great loss of life among the Fishermen while pursuing their trade on the east coast of Scotland, it is the intention of the Lords of the Treasury to give effect to the Report addressed to them by Special Commissioners in February, 1857, recommending that an additional sum be granted for the construction of Piers and Harbours under the direction of the Fishery Board of Scotland? The reason which has induced me to ask this question is the fact that enormous loss of life has occurred among the seamen on the east coast of Scotland; and, also the fact that I represent a county on the coast of which there are many villages in which the rate of mortality from this cause has been to my mind most appalling. But I should not have ventured to appeal to the House upon any special, much less upon any local reason, had it not been for the recommendations of the Special Commissioners in 1857. I do not think the public are at all aware of the large amount of loss which is incurred on the north-east coast of Scotland. I am not going to trouble the House with many statistics—in fact, I shall confine myself to my own county, for there I can vouch for the accuracy of the statistics I give, as I know almost every individual case of which I am about to speak. On the night of the 23rd February, 1857, out of three villages, the whole population of which only amounted to 640 persons, no less than 41 fishermen were lost. These men were all lost in one night—being 7 per cent of the entire male population of the parish, and they left 27 widows and 79 children. Between the period to which I have alluded and the present time there have been various casualties, and yet the Government have, in the meantime, paid no attention to the recommendation of the Commissioners. I believe many persons would have contributed towards the erection of a harbour if the Government had acted in the matter; and it is to the non-existence of a harbour of refuge that I attribute the loss of the lives of many of these men. Had a harbour of refuge existed, I firmly believe the lives of many of them would have been saved, and much desolation and misery thus prevented. On the 27th October, there were 27 men drowned in one night; and on the 8th February there were 8 more—making a total of 35 lost out of a population of 500, leaving many widows and children behind them. I do not ask the Government to give any special grant, but I maintain that if they will adopt the recommendation of the Commissioners, and allow a larger sum to be given to the Fishery Board for the construction of piers and harbours, great benefit will thus be conferred upon the people whose claims I am advocating. In the Report of the Commissioners to which I allude, they recommend that, in addition to the grant of £3,000 now secured by Act of Parliament, an additional sum of £3,000—making in all £6,000—should be granted for the purpose of constructing piers and harbours—this sum to extend over a period of eight years, by which time the works would be executed. They say it is very important that this additional grant of £3,000 should be secured by special Act of Parliament for eight years, otherwise there will not be any trustworthy basis of operation, and the Board would be seriously impeded in the matter. The Commissioners had made certain other recommendations, amongst which were the reduction of some officers, and the abolition of others employed on the west coast, which would increase the revenue. The additional £3,000 which they recommended, and the existing £3,000 at present secured, together with the other sums to be brought in, will in all make a sum of £9,300 a year. Such a sum as this would, in my opinion, be most beneficially expended under the administration of the Fishery Board of Scotland. It is quite impossible adequately to estimate the benefit to be derived. I admit it is quite impossible for the Government to give money, but I think they might increase the amount given to the Fishery Board; and that is what I ask them to do. The grant to the Fishery Board, I am sorry to say, has been diminished, and they do not get so much now as they did in 1855. There is another reason why I think the Government might increase the grant, and that is, since the establishment of the herring brand in 1859, the Government have realized a large sum of money, and that brand is not only self-supporting, but I believe the Government have derived a large amount of profit from it. Altogether they have received something like £25,000; and I think that is an appropriate fund from which the fishermen may ask to have assistance granted for the construction of these harbours. Another reason which, perhaps, I may be allowed to urge, is the fact that so small a proportion of the revenue, considering the large amount raised from the people of Scotland, is expended in that country in comparison with the amount expended in other parts of the country. It was only in the early part of the present Session, in the course of an Irish debate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer called attention to this fact. He said—

"What proportion is expended in Scotland in proportion to the sum raised in the shape of taxation? I doubt whether one-fourth of the revenue derived from the country is spent within its borders."

I am not going to maintain that you are to spend all the money raised in the locality in which it is raised. Such an argument would be quite untenable; but I do think that, when we have £5,500,000 of money taken from Scotland, and only £440,000 spent there, we have some claim upon the consideration of the Government, especially when that claim is backed up by the Report of a Special Commission. It appears to me that the policy of the Government has been to get everything they can out of Scotland, and at the same time to reduce all the expenditure upon the public works. I trust that the Treasury will deal in future in a more liberal manner with these fishermen, who are a class of men who have always been ready to come forward when they are required for the navy, and at the present moment they form no inconsiderable proportion of the Royal Naval Reserve. In conclusion, I can only express a hope that I shall not appeal in vain, but that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will give the matter his careful consideration. I beg to ask the question which I have already read to the House.

said, he regarded this as a question which deserved the careful consideration of the Government. The fishermen upon the coasts of Scotland were exposed, from the nature of the tempests which occurred there, to great and unusual dangers, from which the fishermen of other parts of the coast of Great Britain were exempt. The storms which constantly arise on the east and north-east coasts of Scotland were of such a character that when the fishermen were engaged in fishing upon banks, perhaps forty miles from land, a sea would arise which threatened to swamp them before, with such boats as they had, they could reach the very imperfect harbours in which they were obliged to take refuge. He believed that Admiral Fitzroy had done a great deal for these men by the introduction of his meteorological system. Many of the prejudices which formerly surrounded this class of men had been overcome, and they now paid more attention to the barometers and to the various scientific apparatus for foretelling storms which were placed in conspicuous positions along the coast. From the coast to which his hon. Friend (Mr. W. R. Duff) referred there were drawn upwards of 1,000 men for the Royal Naval Reserve; and he (Sir James Elphinstone) had no hesitation in saying that they were among the finest men to be found in that force. He felt bound to express in the strongest terms his opinion that the grants for harbours upon the coast of Scotland had not been commensurate with the necessities of the case, and he believed there were many points on the coast of Banffshire, Aberdeenshire, and at Wick, in the northern part of the county of Caithness, at which, if the labour of convicts were employed, and if money were raised at a low rate of interest, for the construction of harbours—the loans being repaid by a toll upon the coasters resorting to the harbours—great improvements might be effected, which would result in a considerable annual saving of human life. The loss of human life in some of the gales which occur upon this coast had frequently been very great. Within his recollection as many as 100 men had been lost in one of those storms; and the loss of 100 able-bodied men involved the beggary and destitution of many families. Under all these circumstances he begged most humbly to support the recommendations of his hon. Friend.

thought that the hon. Member for Banff is entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought this question forward. The question of providing harbours of refuge had occupied the attention of the House for several successive years; and although a division was obtained in 1859 in favour of carrying out the recommendation of the Commissioners, yet in a subsequent year that decision was reversed. If that recommendation had been carried out, there would have been no necessity for urging the matter upon the attention of the House at the present moment; but the question being, as it were, in abeyance, and there being great difficulty in obtaining the construction of harbours of refuge on a larger scale, he thought they would do well to press on the Treasury the necessity of seeing what could be done by means of smaller works for these poor fishermen. Indeed, it is a question of humanity and public policy. The losses sustained by the fishermen were very severe. These poor people lived entirely by the produce of their fishing, and it not unfrequently happened that for three days out of the seven they were prevented from going to the fishing grounds because they had no place to run to in the event of a storm coming on. The result of this was that a great amount of human food was entirely lost. He believed that the produce from the fishing grounds might be doubled if those harbours were properly attended to; and he therefore trusted that the Secretary of the Treasury would be able to give us some hope that this subject will not be disregarded.

said, that having already addressed the House upon the Question of going into Committee of Supply, he was precluded from saying more than a few words in answer to the question of his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman was in error in stating that the fee on branding herrings was a fund available for carrying out the object he sought. That fund was raised for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the establishment of the Fishery Board of Scotland; and he could assure his hon. Friend that it did not make the establishment self-supporting or anything like self-supporting. It was quite true that a larger sum had been realized from that source than was anticipated when the fee was first imposed; but all the sums received were paid into the Exchequer, and expended in strict conformity with the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The only sum in Scotland available for the improvement or extension of piers and harbours was a sum of £3,000 a year which forms part of the annual grant to the Fishery Board. That sum, which had now been paid for a long series of years, had been applied with great advantage in the construction of piers and harbours for fishing boats at different points on the coast of Scotland. He had no doubt of the advantage which would arise if the works which were said to be necessary could be carried out on the east and north-east coasts of Scotland, and also in other parts of Scotland both upon the east and west coasts. He was quite aware that in 1857 the Commissioners re-commended that a further grant of £3,000 a year should be allowed for a limited period; but he must confess that, taking into consideration the scale on which these fishery harbours were now being erected, he did not think that a grant of even double that sum would be adequate for the purpose. It was estimated that the harbour in which his hon. Friend (Mr. Duff) felt specially interested would cost £33,000. [Mr. R. W. DUFF: £22,000.] It would cost £22,000 if carried out partially, but if carried out to the full extent desirable, it was estimated that it would cost £33,000. Therefore, if the House were to vote double the sum recommended, and it were applied to this single harbour, it would take five or six years before there would be sufficient funds to carry out the work. He was glad that the hon. Gentleman did not claim an unconditional grant of the public money for this purpose. Since the passing of the Harbours Act in 1851, ordinary harbours could only be constructed by public money upon certain terms of repayment, and it would be hardly right or fair with regard to fishery harbours that they should be constructed with public money without repayment. He should be very glad if the thing could be clone, but he must confess that at the present moment he did not see his way towards carrying out the object desired by his hon. Friend.

said, there was a distinction to be drawn in the case of the fishing harbours of which the right hon. Gentleman was perhaps not aware—namely, that in consequence of the change which had taken place in the modes of sea fishing all over the coast of Great Britain a larger description of vessel was now used than was formerly found necessary. The truth was, however, that in most of the fishery harbours on the coast of Scotland the fishermen had very little means at their disposal for making improvements, and they were precluded from adopting that improved system of fishing which is found requisite for deep-sea fishing, because they had not the power of leaving the shallow harbours which nature had provided for them. He had no doubt that a great increase in the supply of fish, not only upon this coast alone, but upon the west coast—and, indeed, all over the kingdom—would be the result, if under proper and necessary precautions money could be advanced for the purpose of improving the fishery harbours.

said, he was rejoiced to find that reflection had brought conviction to the Admiralty as to the necessity of extending the accommodation in our dockyards. Three years ago when he proposed an expenditure of £1,500,000 in the Channel Dockyards for works necessary to the accommodation of the modern fleet of this country his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty treated his proposal almost with derision. On that occasion his noble Friend said that he (Mr. Corry) was a great advocate for brick and mortar; that his time at the Admiralty was looked on as the golden age, when he was the Palladio of that establishment; that he used to go down to the Board and propose gigantic works; that in going round the yards, if a person asked who constructed this or that great work, the answer was sure to be "Mr. Corry;" and the noble Lord concluded by asking him to sit down contented and not to alarm the House by statements such as he had made, because on a calm review there was no cause for alarm as to any evil results in time of war from a want of accommodation in the dockyards. But I his moderate proposal was now very much exceeded; for, assuming that the works now proposed were carried out in the most economical way—that was to say, partly by contract, and partly by convict labour—the estimated cost was £4,600,000; and the Estimate would be increased to £6,000,000 if the works were carried out in the manner and with the expedition which he thought ought to be used. He did not taunt his noble Friend with the gigantic character of these works, which threw those that he had suggested completely into the shade—on the contrary, he freely admitted that though the Estimate of his noble Friend was much larger than his (Mr. Corry's), it did not go beyond the necessities of the case. The plans proposed for works at Portsmouth, at Chatham, at Cork, and at Malta seemed on the whole to be good, and he would give them his cordial support. But though he was satisfied on the whole with the designs, he was not equally satisfied with the mode in which it was proposed to provide the means for executing them. In proposing the Navy Estimates the noble Lord said—

"The last paragraph of their Report is of such great importance that I must particularly refer to it, because it bears strongly upon the proposal that I am about to make. The Committee there state—'The Committee, therefore, having duo regard to economy, no less than to the pressing necessities of the service, are of opinion that the completion of the works they recommend should be expedited by whatever means may appear most advisable to the Government and Parliament.'"

He need hardly tell his noble Friend that he concurred in that recommendation of the Committee, because he was aware that he (Mr. Corry) had drawn it up himself. The noble Lord then went on to state that—

"If the House will agree to that principle, we can, I believe, by entering into a contract for the construction of the works at a given sum per annum, get the work done at a considerable diminution of cost and within a much shorter period of time."

But it was difficult to understand how any Bill could provide for the payment of the amount due under contracts at a given sum per annum. There was only one mode of doing this—namely, by borrowing money as was done in the case of the fortifications. An Act of Parliament would be mere waste paper so far as it attempted to bind future Parliaments, especially if there was an economical Chancellor of the Exchequer or an economical House of Commons; and the Bill proposed by his noble Friend, therefore, would give very little security for the punctual payment of fixed sums from year to year towards the expenses incurred under the contracts about to be entered into. The course which would be adopted by future Parliaments would depend to a considerable extent upon the amount asked for from year to year; but the papers laid before Parliament hardly gave a fair representation in this respect. From the letter of the Director of Works it appeared that the whole cost of the works, £4,650,000, would be distributed over fifteen years (which he thought was a great deal too long a time), and that there would be required an annual Vote of £310,000 for the new works during this period. The annual cost of maintenance was estimated at £275,000, so that according to that calculation a total Vote of £585,000 per annum would be necessary. But, in his opinion, this was not a correct view of the case, because the Admiralty did not propose to distribute the expenditure in equal sums over fifteen years. On the contrary, they proposed that the works should he pushed on with expedition during the first three or four years, in order to obtain a certain amount of accommodation as soon as possible. Thus at Chatham it was proposed to spend in the three years next ensuing £665,000, and at Portsmouth during the same period £822,000, making a total of £1,487.000, or an average per annum of £495,000 for Chatham and Portsmouth alone. The maintenance of the yards involved, as he had said, an annual cost of £275,000, so that the annual Vote necessary under these three heads would be £770,000. Besides that, other great works were to be provided for. The works at Cork were to cost £150,000, and were to occupy five years; so that this would involve an additional annual outlay of£30,000. A like sum of £150,000 was required for the dock and purchase of land at Malta, and as the works there were to occupy three years another annual sum of £50,000 must be added. Then, as his noble Friend had privately informed him, it was intended to construct a floating dock at Bermuda, and to spend there £250,000 in two years. This would add another £125,000 to the yearly Vote, which would thus amount to £975,000, or nearly a million a year, exclusive of the extensive additions to Key-ham which were a part of the scheme of the Government, but for which no estimate had been made. This was more than double the average expenditure on dockyard works, which had gone on for some years, and he much doubted whether any Act of Parliament would bind a future Chancellor of the Exchequer or a future House of Commons to such an amount from year to year. At all events the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken good care of himself, for the sum taken in the present year for docks and basins and other new works was only £166,000; and it was questionable whether the right hon. Gentleman would approve next year of a Vote of nearly a million. When the Duke of Somerset was examined before the Dockyard Committee, he (Mr. Corry) asked him whether the Admiralty had turned their attention to the expediency of borrowing money upon terminable annuities for the completion of the great works in the dockyards as they had done for the fortifications; but the Duke gave him no reason to suppose that any such plan would be adopted. It would be impossible to find any arguments more applicable to the case of the dockyards than those which were advanced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in favour of a loan for the completion of the fortifications. On the 23rd of July 1860, when proposing that £11,000,000 should be raised upon terminable annuities in order to complete the fortifications as soon as possible, Lord Palmerston said—

"I hold it to be absolutely necessary for the safety of the country that these recommendations should substantially be carried into effect. Now there are two modes of doing this—you may either vote annually such a portion of the annual income of the country as the country would like to spend on a matter of this kind, and by so doing defer for perhaps eighteen or twenty years the accomplishment of these defences; or you may take that course which it will be my duty to recommend, and endeavour to complete them at the earliest possible period, without, at the same time, laying upon the country a larger annual burden than would be incurred if you prosecuted those works more slowly. I mean you may by raising by terminable annuities to run for thirty years a sum that will be sufficient in the course of three or four years to complete those works, get within a short period the security you require. … My opinion is that if these works are necessary—and I think common sense shows you that they are necessary—if they are necessary they are necessary as soon as we can get them, they are necessary for time present, and it would be folly to postpone for eighteen or twenty years the completion of defences against dangers which I hope may not arise; but dangers which we may contemplate as possible, and which, if possible, may be possible in the course of a comparatively short space of time."—[3 Hansard, clx. 20.]

But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was indignant the other day when an hon. Gentleman suggested that the expense of the dockyard works should be defrayed in the same manner. He did not know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman objected, for he was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the fortification scheme was proposed, and it must be supposed that it had his entire concurrence. Why should the right hon. Gentleman object in the one case to what he had assented to in the other? In point of fact, it was more important to complete the dockyard works without delay for several reasons. In the first place the fortifications were required only to meet the probably remote contingency of war; but additional docks and basins were urgently required to meet the demands of the service even in time of peace, as the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee went to show. The every day work in the dockyards required that the contemplated extensions should be immediately carried out. It was far more important to keep an enemy out of the country than to foil him when in it, and the best mode of defeating an attempt at invasion would be to have the means of maintaining our fleet in a state of efficiency, for which the present accommodation in the dockyards was wholly inadequate. Besides, the works in the dockyards would endure for all time, while the fortifications might be rendered comparatively useless by a change in the art of war. In every respect the urgency of the case was greater than in regard to the fortifications. The dockyards were the jewels, the fortifications only the caskets to protect them; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw no impropriety in sanctioning a large immediate outlay by means of a loan on the caskets, but he would not hear of such an expedient in the case of the jewels themselves. He should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in his place, but it appeared that now the Estimates were not deemed sufficiently important to induce the right hon. Gentleman to attend, even when it was a question of spending five or six millions of money. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider the subject. The works, even if completed before the end of fifteen years, might yet be deferred too long. And here he wished to correct an error, or rather oversight, which occurred in a letter of the Director of Works dated January 23, which appeared in the papers laid before Parliament. It was there stated that the original Estimate for the Works at Keyham, which were commenced so recently as in 1844, was only £400,000, while they had cost upwards of £1,500,000. But the £400,000 was merely the Estimate for the south basin; and it was the practice at that time to specify the amount required in future years for the particular work only for which a Vote was taken in the Navy Estimates. In 1845 the Estimate was increased by £275,000 for two docks, making £675,000. Afterwards £300,000 was added for the north basin, and £250,000 for factory buildings and so on. The plan followed in 1844 was a bad one, and was amended upon the recommendation of the Committee of 1848, over which the Duke of Somerset presided. He wished to give that explanation in justification of a Department with which he had been connected, and especially in vindication of the late Colonel Brandreth, of the Royal Engineers, an officer of great ability, who then held the office of Director of Works, and who was incapable of making any such mistake. In conclusion, he had to express his satisfaction that at length we were about to get decent accommodation for our ships, and he only hoped that the Government would expedite the works by every means at their command.

thought the Secretary for the Admiralty could hardly feel flattered at the interest manifested in this discussion. Though approving of the Votes asked for, he did not think they were adequate for the required purposes. He thought the annual instalments to be of much use, and ought to be much larger. If the Government did not like to ask the House of Commons for a sum sufficient to carry out the works at once, there could be no reasonable objection to the proposal to raise money in the same way as they had done for the fortification scheme. As much money as could be expended ought to be expended at once, and the works ought to be completed in five or six years instead of being spread over twenty. In the way in which the Government were proceeding, the money that was laid out was producing no results. Either the works were not required, or, if they were, they ought to be pushed forward with the greatest vigour. The Channel ports were very badly provided with dock accommodation. One of the most extraordinary things he had ever seen was the charge of £20,000 for lowering floor No. 7. That sum was paid in two instalments, whereas the operation must have been done at once. For Keyham there was a charge of £21,000, and only £30,000 more was required to complete the work. Why not take the whole of it in one year? With regard to barracks, there were certain artillery barracks that might be completed with speed, and for which only £73,000 was necessary; but all the money now asked for was £21,000. If the Government would only ask for large sums for proper objects the money would be granted at once, and he thought that would be a far better course than taking small sums year after year, inasmuch as it would be far more economical in the end to use immediate despatch.

quite agreed with the right hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) as to the importance of completing works rapidly, but he found on looking into the Estimates that the completion of some of them would require fifteen or twenty years. The Report of the Inspector of Works pointed out the disadvantage of the system which had hitherto been pursued, and snowed that out of an expenditure of £550,000 per annum about £250,000 per annum was virtually thrown away, because it had been expended in alterations which had not proved efficient. He therefore thought the Government had done perfectly right in bringing in a comprehensive scheme with respect to Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth. The prompt execution of these works would save a large amount in the annual cost of the navy, for the present dockyard accommodation was quite inadequate to do the work in an economical manner. In private establishments vessels were completed within the yards; but in the national yards vessels had to be fitted partly in the yard, partly in the stream, and partly in the harbour. The Report of the Dockyard Committee of last year recommended the sale of the dockyards at Deptford, Woolwich, and Pembroke, because they did not afford accommodation commensurate with the annual outlay, which was £40,000 per annum. None of them could accommodate ships of the largest class. He trusted the Government intended to make some proposition with respect to the disposal of these yards. They seemed to be under the impression that Pembroke was valuable as a building yard; but he entertained an entirely different opinion, and was fortified in that opinion by the large majority of the Committee which adopted the recommendation. A dockyard which was mainly available for building purposes was not so economical as one which was also available for the general purposes of repairs. The Government were going to expend large sums on alterations and improvements at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Plymouth; and he believed they could, by dealing with private dockowners and shipbuilders, obtain better accommodation for the repair of ships than in the Royal Dockyards; and by that means the £40,000 a year spent on Woolwich, Deptford, and Pembroke, would be well saved. Propositions had been made with regard to private docks on foreign stations, that if the owners would deepen them so as to receive ships of war the Government would pay the cost on certain conditions. In this country there were plenty of builders on the Thames, the Mersey, and the Tyne, who could provide suitable accommodation, without any charge to the public, for repairing Her Majesty's ships in case of war. If such a plan were adopted there would be a great saving, not only in respect of outlay for works, and machinery, but also as regarded the expense of the staffs. He was glad to find that the Government proposed to construct a wet basin and two large docks at Cork, and thought the people of that district greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) for his long-continued advocacy of that measure. The only objection he entertained to the course proposed by the Government was that they did not ask for money to proceed with sufficient rapidity. The result would be that the works would be stopped, the contractors would have to be compensated, and the country put to a larger expenditure than it would be if they adopted the same plan which they had done with regard to the fortifications, and borrowed money to enable them to complete the works with rapidity.

remarked, that the attendance of Members on these occasions seemed to be in an inverse ratio to the largeness of the Vote to be proposed. He had the same fault to find with this Estimate as with many others—that a variety of items involving a large expenditure were all lumped together; and then followed a lot of minute sums, as if to show how careful the Department was about trifles. He held that there was economy in executing these great works as speedily as possible when once they had been decided upon; and now that we were in a state of transition as regarded our ships and other defences, the best means of providing against increased Estimates in future was to construct our docks in as scientific a manner as possible, so as to meet any changes that were likely to arise.

said, he was glad to find his hon. Friend (Sir Frederic Smith) taking an active part in the discussion of the Estimates, for too many of the hon. Members dealt in generalities about keeping down the public expenditure, and afterwards absented themselves from the House when the Estimates were under consideration. So far as the port which he represented was concerned, the officers there were thoroughly satisfied with the plans which had been brought before the House. With regard, however, to the mode in which the works were to be carried out, and the manner in which they were to be paid for, he differed from the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty. About three years ago the noble Viscount at the head of the Government brought forward a proposition to expend a large sum of money upon fortifications. Well, those fortifications were intended in a great measure to protect the dockyards. In 1863 the noble Viscount introduced the Bill which provided that the money for those fortifications should be raised by terminable annuities. Now, when he (Sir James Elphinstone) had the courage to propose that mode for raising money to pay the expenses of the new dockyards, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it his duty to read him a lecture upon the heresy of his doctrines on political economy. In making that proposal, which it was his intention to renew on a future occasion, he was only following the example set him by the Government in respect of the fortifications; and certainly he was at a loss to know how, in 1865, the Government could call that black which in 1863 they had declared to be white. He now gave notice of a Resolution he intended to move on the Dockyards Bill, that the whole of those works should be paid for by money raised upon terminable annuities, in the same way as the expenses of the fortifications were met. It was of the greatest importance that those works should be accelerated as much as possible, as the loss suffered by the country by the protraction of them was greater than any one could suppose. For example, it was of the highest importance to Chatham that the ships lying in its neighbourhood should be laid up in docks and basins. The Admiralty, however, were po tering about making shoes, pumps, and so on, instead of expending the money upon the docks, which were so essential to the interests of the country. He was afraid that those docks and basins would not be completed until half the plant of the country would be sacrificed. Having made up our minds to lay out £1,500,000 upon docks there was no difficulty in the way of the immediate completion of them. There were many great preliminary works to be undertaken. For example, the harbour of Portsmouth was encumbered by banks which could be removed and kept under control by a single dredge. At present the want of accommodation for our large ships in that harbour was notorious, and these vessels were often detained at Spit-head, where the difficulty and expense of communication were so great, or sent round to Portland in inclement weather, because the Admiralty would not go to the expense of £20,000 or £30,000 for dredging the banks to which he referred. An expenditure of a comparatively small amount would double the extent of anchorage in Portsmouth harbour. Only about £38,000 was required for the completion of the Keyham docks, which were of equal importance with Chatham and Portsmouth, and yet those works were unaccountably delayed. He was also glad to notice the Vote for Cork, because a station to the westward of all the English ports would be of very great importance in the event of a naval war. It was satisfactory to find that the Government had determined to do something at Bermuda, but he regretted that they had not also determined to improve the harbour of Halifax, which was even more important than Bermuda, as had been proved in the last war with America.

congratulated the Government on having at length realized the promise made to Ireland to expend some of the public money upon the construction of harbours and docks there. He believed that in making the docks at Cork the Government would be really carrying out a work of great national importance and one absolutely necessary for the public service. Six years was the period proposed for the building of a dock at Cork. When the work was absolutely necessary, why should it not be completed in three years instead of six? A ship could enter Cork harbour at any state of the tide—a fact that could not be stated in regard to many of the other docks of the United Kingdom. He knew that the public service had been often sacrificed for the want of proper dock accommodation at Cork. On one occasion a ship full of troops, having met with an accident to her machinery, was obliged to put into Cork harbour. The vessel, however, after landing the troops, was obliged to go to Portsmouth for repairs, by which a delay of several weeks was incurred, and that at a time when the troops were wanted in a great emergency at another place. There was no want of private and individual energy in Cork. The Messrs. Brown had docks and yards of great dimensions. What was wanted was a Government yard. It was of the utmost importance that such dock be obtained, and that at the earliest possible period. Only £150,000 was required for that purpose—a very small sum, when it was considered how much speed, and consequent saving of coals, would arise from the removal of vegetable accretions from the ships' bottoms. There was no reason why all that was wanted should not be constructed in three years, as well as in six. He thanked the Government for having turned over a new leaf, and given Ireland a share in the public expenditure.

said, before he could concur in the expression of satisfaction at what had been done at Portsmouth, he would like to know whether the plan of Sir William Martin, marked H, was laid before the Admiralty before they came to their decision? His own opinion was that that plan was the best, as it gave a very large wharfage accommodation in the smallest space.

said, it was satisfactory to the Government, and to the professional officers who had given their utmost attention to the subject now before the House, to find that their exertions had met with the general approval of the House. It was natural that in the early part of the Session hon. Gentlemen should criticize the intentions of Government with reference to the dockyards, as at that time no papers explanatory of the course which Government intended to adopt had been laid upon the table. Most of these hon. Members had subsequently expressed their satisfaction; but notwithstanding that every possible information upon the subject had since been given, a few hon. Members on both sides of the House had that evening raised objections of the most opposite character to the propositions of Government, and therefore he proposed to explain the plan which it was intended to carry into execution. In the first place, remarks had been made upon the smallness of the Vote taken for this year for the works at Portsmouth, Chatham, and other places. Now, the papers relating to the proposed extension of basin and dock accommodation in the Royal dockyards laid upon the table on the 27th of April last show distinctly the course which Government propose to pursue. It appeared from the memorandum of the Director of Works that assuming the time required for the execution of the proposed works to be fifteen years under the combined system of civil and convict labour, the annual liability would be about £310,000; but that assuming Parliament should have so approved the scheme in its entirety as to justify the Government in incurring a larger charge in the event of there being a necessity for expediting the execution of the works £500,000 per annum might be expended. In answer to that memorandum the Secretary of the Admiralty sent the following reply:—

"My Lords having had under their consideration your memorandum of the 28th ultimo, No. 83, in reference to the Report of the Select Committee on Dockyards, desire me to inform you that they approve generally of your submissions; but in bringing forward detailed proposals for the great extensions contemplated, you should, without increasing the aggregate cost, so arrange that the contracts for the more essential portions of the works urgently required for the public service, should be executed as speedily as may be consistent with efficient construction; while the employment of convict labour should be spread over the longer period contemplated, and the less important parts of the works should be executed after the completion of the first contracts."

The proposal to execute all the important portions of the works as rapidly as was consistent with efficient construction, and to leave the minor portions to he finished at leisure, was a very sound one, and that proposition Government intended to adopt. With regard to the small amount of the Vote taken for the works this year, had the hon. Member for Finsbuiy (Sir Morton Peto) been in his place he should have asked him whether it was usual for rail way contractors and others engaged in the execution of large works to expend a large sum during the first year of their operations. Any Gentleman conversant with the subject would be aware that there was no great expenditure during the first year. The expenditure upon the proposed works would, therefore, be but small during the present financial year, hut it would increase considerably during the next and following years. The works intended to be executed at Chatham were, first, a large fitting-out basin of thirty-three acres; secondly, a factory basin of twenty acres; and thirdly, a repairing basin of twenty one acres in extent. The factory and the repairing basins were to be completed writhing four years by contract, while various subsidiary works were to be carried on simultaneously by convict labour; and thus by the autumn of 1869 those large works would he ready for the use of the navy. It was proposed to take during the present year £70,000, which was the largest amount that could be expended, as, owing to time which would he required to remove the convicts employed there at present, with the plant, the contractor would not be able to commence operations until the beginning of the winter. The sum which would be required next year was £190,000; for the year following, £205,000; and for the fourth year, £255,000. In the fifth year £136,000 would be required to complete this part of the work, and eliminating the convict and dredging expenditure, in five financial or four actual years, no less a sum than £610,000 would have been expended by way of contract in the execution of these works. [Mr. CORRY: If you get the money.] He would touch upon that point presently—at present he was only replying to the objection that they were not spending money fast enough. With regard to Portsmouth, so far from Government only intending to ask for a miserable £20,000 for those works, they intended to expend the sum of £842.000 upon them within the next three years. The chief charm of the plan for these works was, that the works would be completed in sections, so that each section as completed would be available for the purposes of the navy without there being any necessity for the whole of the works to be finished before they could be of service. In reply to the inquiry as to Sir William Martin's plan marked H, he begged to state that the plan had been duly submitted to the proper authorities, but they had unanimously selected the one which was before the House marked E, and which he was happy to say had met with general approval. They would spend next year, in round numbers, at Chatham £200,000; at Portsmouth £260,000; in the year following at Chatham, £200.000, and at Portsmouth, £312,000; and in the year following, that at Chatham £250,000, and at Portsmouth, £250,000. Me ventured to say that that was as large an expenditure as the Government would be justified, by the necessities of the navy, in proposing for hydraulic works of this magnitude. His right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry) made two objections. The first was that the Government ought to raise this money by loan, and expend it in larger sums. Now, he put it to the House whether it would be worth while for so limited expenditure on works of this description, the effect of which would be greatly to reduce the expenditure upon constant changes, repairs, and patchwork, to make legislative provision for raising the sum required by means of a loan. If hon. Members would look to the Estimates, they would see that while the Vote for the extension of the dockyards was largely increased this year the expenditure of alterations, revisions, and patchwork was reduced. [Mr. CORRY: The Marine Barracks?] Quite irrespective of the Marine Barracks there was such a reduction that the Vote stood at very little more than the amount of last year. The same effect would be produced in future years; so that as these extensions went on pari passu the expenditure for patchwork would be reduced. It would not, therefore, be worth while, for the sake of an extra expenditure of £400,000 or £500.000 upon Vote 11, to resort to a loan which, however well adapted that mode of raising money might be to particular cases, generally ended in financial extravagance. He therefore, hoped that the House, while authorizing the Government to spend this additional £200,000, £300,000 or £400,000 for these great works would resist the temptation to extravagance which was held out to them by the suggestion of a loan. His answers to some detailed objections which had been raised by hon. Members must be similar to that which he had given upon the general question. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) complained of the smallness of the amount which was to be taken for works at Cork, and of the time—six years—which was to be occupied in their completion. It must, however, be borne in mind that in addition to the £150,000 included in Vote 11a considerable sum would be spent annually upon convict labour which was to be employed upon the works. He therefore did not think that the amount was so niggardly as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose; and he believed that if at the end of six years there was created at Cork so efficient an establishment as was contemplated by the Bill the people of Ireland would have no reason to complain. As to the caisson at Sheerness, the order could not be executed until late in the present financial year, and £500 was as much as would be required in that period. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) objected to spreading the lowering of the dock at Portsmouth over two years. The fact was that since the Estimates were prepared arrangements had been made which would enable the work to be completed within the present year, and would lead to a considerable saving of expense. As to the barracks at Eastney, the expenditure which was proposed would meet all the requirements of the marines without overburdening the Estimates with large Votes which were not needed. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith) had complained that in these Estimates all sorts of things were mixed up in the same Votes, and had instanced the placing of the charge for gas, which was an item of expenditure, under the head of "permanent works," which belonged to capital. If his hon. Friend referred to a paper which had been laid before the House, he would see that the Admiralty had requested the Committee of Public Accounts to look into this matter and had suggested that all items of this kind should be transferred to the ordinary Votes for the establishment. He believed that he had now replied to most of the objections which had been taken, and he trusted that the House would be satisfied to accept these Votes, taken in connection with the Bill for the contracts upon which they should go into Committee tonight, and which would pledge Parliament to the carrying out of these works, as indicating a policy not of reckless extravagance in the way of the extension of the dockyards, but of fully considered and matured expenditure required by the wants of the navy, spread over a reasonable number of years, and meeting the requirements of different places, both at home and abroad, where dockyard accommodation was needed. He was sorry that after what his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) had said about Bermuda, he was not satisfied with the proposal of the Government. It was difficult to satisfy every one, and that was a question about which something would have to be said hereafter. The plans both for Bermuda and Keyham would, he anticipated, be completed during the present year, and he was sure that they would be received with satisfaction by the House.

admitted that there was great difficulty in satisfying everybody; but here the question was about satisfying the country, and he doubled whether even the able statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) would succeed in doing that. The total Estimate for Chatham was £1,250,000, and the gross sum expended in three years was £130,000, or about £43,000 per annum. At Portsmouth the original Estimate was £1,500,000, the amount voted £7,500, and the sum to be taken this year £20,000, leaving a balance of more than £1,400,000. At Haulbowline the Estimate was £150,000, and the amount expended £5,000, leaving a balance of £145,000. Now, one of two things—either these docks and dockyards were indispensably necessary for the good of the country, or the whole proposal of the Go- vernment was a piece of wasteful extravagance. If they were essential to the well-being and safety of the country—and he made no question whatever about that—then, as a matter of common sense and economy, they ought to be completed in the least possible time. Do not let them peddle with £7,000 or £20,000 here or there to meet contingencies which, if they were ever to occur, were as likely to occur within the next six months as within the next ten years. He believed that if the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty and the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House could follow their own inclinations in this matter, the work would be completed more speedily; but the real obstacle to the efficiency of the public service in this and many other respects was the conduct pursued by one of the most prominent Members of the Treasury Bench. He believed that the real bar to the construction of these docks in the shortest possible time was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not the excuse that had been put forward with reference to efficiency of construction. The excuse from more rapid construction did not arise from efficiency of construction or the impossibility of construction, but from the want of money. And when the hon. Gentleman talked about the course now pursued being sanctioned "by men of business," he (Mr. Bentinck) understood these "men of business" to be embodied in the right hon. individual to whom he had alluded, who would not sanction any larger annual expenditure for the purpose of cutting controversy and meeting the requirements of his Budgets. They ought to understand whether the works could be carried on more rapidly than the Government proposed; but they were cutting their coat according to their cloth. The hon. Gentleman, referring to a remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), that it would take a million a year to carry on the works in an efficient manner, said the Government were asking as much money as it was possible to ask. But where was the justification on which the hon. Member relied? Was it to be found in engineering difficulties which would render it impossible to carry out the works with greater rapidity, or was it from a disinclination on the part of the Government to advance the sum necessary for the rapid completion of the works? If the latter was the case the principle was a bad one, as they were neglecting to carry out works which were essential to the safety of the country for the sake of economy, and thus were penny wise and pound foolish.

, said, he should probably be able to answer the question which the hon. Gentleman had purposed asking the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto), if he had been present, as he himself had had occasion to contract for the construction of extensive graving-docks and other works. He had always made it a part of the contract that the works should be completed at the earliest possible moment, because he found that until they were completed he could get no return from them. He believed, too, that such a course would be the proper one for the Government to pursue. The dockyards were essential to the interests of the country, and the money which was required should be raised upon the same principle as that adopted in the case of the fortifications, which could not be compared with our dockyards in point of utility. He felt convinced that the hon. Member for Finsbury, if he were present, would bear him out in saying that it was much better that the works at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Keyham, should be completed in the most rapid manner possible, instead of being subject to the dilatory course proposed by the Government. Looking at the works that were to be carried out, he thought a million a year could be spent with advantage; and, moreover, if they would set about the completion of the works with spirit, they would save the expense of the modifications which succeeding Administrations were sure to suggest. Before sitting down he wished to know from the Government when they intended carrying out their proposed sale of dockyards. The question was an important one, because it involved a large annual saving of £40,000 to the country, and he hoped, therefore, that he should receive a satisfactory answer.

urged the necessity of hastening on the works as speedily as possible. The Government had undertaken the manufacture and repairs of ships; but until those works were completed they could not be in a position to carry out the repairs. Thus every year of delay brought a loss to the country, and he, therefore, thoroughly concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The plans of the works at Portsmouth were well adapted to the wants of the case; but he would have wished that the Government had taken more advantage of the talent of the country in procuring the plans. With- out entering into details he might point out that the plans showed only seventy feet of quay space, and if there were to he laid down three lines of rails they would have little left for other purposes. The estimate would not be sufficient for all the works set out in the plans.

expressed a wish to know what determination had been arrived at by the Government in reference to the dockyards at Woolwich and Deptford?

, in replying to the observations which had been made in the course of the discussion, said, an idea appeared to prevail among hon. Members, especially on the other side of the House, that the Admiralty would have been glad to have proposed larger estimates had not objections to their doing so been raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The truth, however, was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised no difficulty with regard to the proposed expenditure which had been laid before him, and that the Admiralty Estimates had been submitted to the House in their integrity. Some hon. Members, he might add, seemed to think that the proposed works ought to be carried out at once, and without any reference to cost; and his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) talked of entering into a contract for the purpose, forgetting that the Admiralty had in the first instance to prosecute the work of reclamation of ground from under the sea, which it was necessary to shut out before the masonry could be proceeded with. That tidal work it was, of course, impossible to prosecute continuously, whatever the amount of money voted might be. A large sum, it would be seen, was taken for Portsmouth, while there was a considerable increase for Chatham over the Vote of last year, because the works had arrived at a stage when they could be carried on at all tides. He thought he might reasonably express his satisfaction that Ireland was a participator in the advantages of the proposed schemes. When the preliminary works at Cork were completed by convict labour there was nothing to prevent Government from entering into contracts and proceeding with vigour. In reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons), he might observe that the Government had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable that Pembroke dockyard should be shut up; while their intention with respect to Woolwich, and he might add Sheerness, was that when ample provision was made for building and repairing ships by means of the contemplated extension of the larger dockyards, those two yards should be closed. As to Deptford, the Government were of opinion that although it would be well to give it up as a building yard, it still was desirable to maintain it as a station for landing and shipping stores, and transacting the enormous victualling business of the country. He must not sit down without apologizing to his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Corry) for any remarks which he might have made some years ago, with reference to his great ability in constructing dockyards, and which might have given him offence. His right hon. Friend might, he thought, take great credit to himself rather than otherwise in connection with the matter, and might fairly regard himself as the Palladio of our dockyards.

thought that considering the large portion of the river at Woolwich occupied by the yard, it would be almost a scandal to have it shut up in the way Deptford Dockyard had been. He should therefore be very much obliged to his noble Friend if he would state what was meant by being "shut up."

asked if these yards were shut up whether claims to the ground would not be put in by the Woods and Forests—the property belonging to the Crown?

said, they had not yet gone the length of considering to whom the ground would belong when the Government gave up the yards.

said, it was very natural for his constituents to wish to know what was meant by being "shut up." Did the phrase mean disposed of for other purposes, or kept unappropriated?

recommended that the yard at Woolwich should be handed over to the Woods and Forests, who would be able to dispose of it for a large price, part of which might be applied to the purpose of preserving open spaces for the public.

said, he wanted to know whether the Admiralty was in communication with the War Office, in order to have the ground required at Portsmouth Dockyard squared off, there being at present only 600 feet available from the head of the docks, while there was no room whatever for naval barracks. If the means of military defence bad been condemned by the War Office, a great amount of land would be at the disposal of the Government, and if the obsolete fortifications were done away with the Government could recoup themselves for the expense of laying out some portion of that land in such places as it was not required for the public service. He had been a Member of the Committee which recommended that the small dockyards should be done away with; but that was under the impression that the Government could not otherwise he induced to supply the funds necessary for the great works which had been undertaken; but now that the Government had given the money he must say, as, indeed, he stated in Committee, that it would be a great misfortune to abolish those yards. Pembroke was a most useful yard for the construction of ships—it was peculiarly adapted for that purpose, and had the advantage of not being exposed to the fluctuation of the labour market. They could not possibly do away with Deptford, for the victualling of the navy was there carried on, and if the Admiralty killed and cured their own meat the provisions in the navy would be most materially improved. Woolwich was necessary for the repair of the smaller class of vessels, and he regretted few things more than having sanctioned the recommendations of the Committee.

saw no reason why the works at Cork should not be completed within the space of three years.

thought if the works undertaken were necessary, the most economic and advisable mode of proceeding would be to complete them as soon as possible. He wanted an explicit answer to this short and simple question—if the Admiralty were not hampered by any financial considerations—if they were free to expend what money they thought necessary on these works would they not take a larger sum than they asked in these Estimates? The noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made no difficulty. Surely the noble Lord had addressed the right hon. Gentleman in peculiarly favourable circumstances, for he believed this was the first time when money was to be granted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made any difficulty. His question was this, was it the opinion of the Government that it was not expedient to expend a larger sum for the completion of these works than they now proposed to do, assuming that they had the money at their command?

said, he did not exactly make out what his hon. Friend meant. The Government had taken into their consideration the proposals of the Committee of last year. The Committee referred to certain works which were immediately required, and the Government had taken a sufficient sum to commence their execution. They had not thought it their duty to propose to Parliament a larger sum than was named in the Estimates. Of course, if they had an unlimited sum at their disposal, the Admiralty might have undertaken larger works; but they had asked for money enough to proceed with these works in a satisfactory manner.

thought the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) was rather hard upon the Government. As a Member of the Committee that hon. Member had joined in the recommendation that certain dockyards should be sold, the sale of which would go towards providing the means of executing additional works. But, because the Government were about to engage in those additional works, the hon. Member now turned round and said they should not sell those dockyards.

called attention to the proposed expenditure on the new dock at Malta. There was "an additional Estimate for premium to contractor for earlier completion of works" at the Marsa; but in what time would that secure their completion? Much would depend on their getting possession of the French Creek, all their operations with regard to which appeared to be hampered by their engagements with the authorities at Malta. For the construction of the dock at the French Creek only £8,000 was asked this year, although the total Estimate was stated in the Votes at £120,000. The plan of Captain Clarke, which had been adopted, was far inferior to that of Mr. M'Clean, and it would cost more money and take more time to execute, owing to the rock which had to be excavated. Mr. M'Clean's plan would give them two docks and a large spacious open quay at a cost of £100,000, or double the accommodation to be obtained for a much greater outlay under Captain Clarke's plan. The Government were attempting to gain time and save money when, in fact, the result would be just the opposite. The item of £8,000 ought to be deferred until they had a plan of how the French Creek should be treated as a whole instead of a part.

hoped the Committee would be satisfied with the decision at which the Government had arrived on the matter of the French Creek and the Marsa after the fullest consideration. The plan finally determined upon had been concurred in by all the professional opinion, naval and engineering, which could be got at Malta; and the result arrived at was such a solution of a difficult question as was highly creditable to those who proposed it.

thought that after the ample discussion which the subject of the Malta Dock had undergone in that House, it was not desirable that the battle should be fought over again; and he trusted the Committee would not interfere with the course now proposed to be taken by the Government in that matter.

complained that he and other hon. Members had been taken by surprise. He was not aware they were going into another class of Estimates at that time of night.

said, notice was distinctly given that the Civil Service Estimates would be taken.

thought the proceeding was somewhat unfair. The First Commissioner of Works was absent when these Estimates were last before the House.

said, the real question was, whether the House was disposed to go on with business?

said, he owed an apology to the Committee for not being present on the former occasion; but he could not understand why his presence now should be a reason for not going on with the Vote.

asked for some explanation of the Vote, the aggregate amount of which for the mere inspection of public buildings, parks, &c., seemed to be excessive. There were no less than forty clerks in the Department, costing £11,500 a year.

asked, whether Mr. Pennethorne, who received £1,500 yearly as the salaried architect and surveyor of the Board, received a further sum of £800 in another capacity. He also wished to know whether it was the same gentleman who had been engaged in the preparation of plans for the transference to South Kensington of those collections which the Government for ten years had been vainly trying to induce the House to send there?

said, that Mr. Pennethorne received a salary of £1,500 a year for his services as Surveyor, and as adviser of the Office on architectural questions. The arrangement under which the services of Mr. Pennethorne were secured to the public was economical; the professional fees for the work performed by that gentleman would have amounted in some years to a larger sum than his salary. The extensive purchases of land on the site of the new Foreign Office and of the land between Bridge Street and New Palace Yard, had been conducted by that gentleman, upon whom had also devolved a great deal of business connected with Battersea Park and other metropolitan improvements. It was necessary that there should be some professional man permanently connected with the department to whom application could be made for advice, and Mr. Pennethorne was a very able man, of great experience. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) had spoken of the largeness of the total payments; but in reality the office was undermanned, and the persons employed had more business devolved upon them than they ought to have if they were more numerous. What was required of the surveyor of works, was not too highly paid by the £1,000 a year given to him as salary.

asked, whether Mr. Pennethorne was paid extra as architect for the Record Office. [Mr. COWPER: Yes.] He then wished to know whether, if the Government nominated Mr. Pennethorne as architect for the new Law Courts, he would have extra pay for furnishing plans for them.

said, that the agreement with Mr. Pennethorne was that he should give his services to the Board as acting surveyor and consulting architect; but when he was employed to furnish designs, or act as an architect in erecting new buildings, then he would receive his 5 per cent like other architects. In former days the Office of Works had three architects, who received a percentage—3 per cent, he believed—for their labours, and the Office was bound to employ those architects in every work which was erected. It was, however, thought that it would be an immense advantage that the Office should not be restricted to any particular architect, but should have the selection of the best talent. Mr. Pennethorne had no absolute claim to be employed on any now work; but if the Office should prefer him to any other architect, he then took his ordinary position as an architect, and received his 5 per cent.

said, that it appeared that Mr. Pennethorne had his £1,500 a year when he had nothing to do, and when he had something to do he then took his 5 percent.

observed that Mr. Pennethorne received £1,500 for his services as surveyor in valuing and purchasing property required for public and Government purposes, and the other payments were for services as architect in designing and superintending new buildings.

inquired whether Mr. Pennethorne bad anything to do with the Foreign Office.

replied that the building in Downing Street was being erected by Mr. Scott. When important works wore to be executed by Votes of that House, it was thought undesirable that Mr. Pennethorne or any other gentleman should be necessarily employed. It was deemed better to appeal to the profession at large, and, after competition, to select the best man.

thought that what Mr. Pennethorne did for his £1,500 a year had not been satisfactorily explained. The right hon. Gentleman said that he acted as surveyor; but he perceived by the Estimates that there was a surveyor of works at £1,000 a year, and also an assistant-surveyor at £800 a year. The legal charges connected with the Board of Works amounted to no less than £4,000 a year.

explained that Mr. Pennethorne was the surveyor who surveyed and negotiated the purchase of property that might be required, and Mr. Hunt was consulting surveyor in the office, giving his advice on matters referred to him.

asked what the man did who received £1,000 a year.

said, that the political head of the Department required a professional man like Mr. Hunt to give him his advice on matters coming within his special knowledge and experience.

said, be had no objection to the Board giving a good surveyor £1,000 a year, but why was it necessary to spend £5,000 a year in assistants? The Board bad forty-three clerks, which seemed to argue an incredible quantity of writing.

asked, whether some arrangement could not be come to by which the legal expenses of the two Departments of Works and Woods should not be swollen by their Parliamentary contests. Hon. Members would remember how the two Departments contended with each other about the Thames Embankment. It was for the responsible Advisers of the Crown to settle the squabbles of these two Departments.

said, he was not aware of any opposition between the Offices of Woods and Works that entailed expense. There was a question in regard to the Thames Embankment between the Woods and Forests on the one hand and the tenants of the Crown on the other, and the latter thought it worth their while to fall back upon an opinion given by the Commissioner of Crown Estates. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that there was any conflict in law.

inquired the cause of the delay in laying before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the materials necessary for him to form an opinion in respect to the Estimate required for the new buildings at Kensington designed by Captain Fowke.

said, that as the building was intended for the Natural History collections of the British Museum, it was thought right to give the officers of the Museum an opportunity of considering the plans. Accordingly, Captain Fowke's plans were sent to the Trustees at the end of last year. They were anxious to give them full consideration, and they had only lately expressed an opinion, which was not however final, as they had referred the plans to a sub-Committee. When the Trustees had made up their minds the Government would resume its action.

said, that the Commissioner of Woods took one view about the proposed road between Piccadilly and Park Lane, and the Commissioner of Works another.

said, that the Office of Works was concerned in the scheme, because a portion of the Park was proposed to be taken. It was true that there was some difference between the Commissioner of Woods and himself as to the propriety of making the street; but no expense was caused thereby to either Department. The best and most costly plan would be the widening of Park Lane, but the work must be undertaken by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he doubted whether the Board would incur the expense of the best plan.

said, that having served on the Thames Embankment Committee, he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a fierce war was waged between the two Departments. The Commissioner of Woods thought that the Crown property was damaged by the proceedings of the Commissioner of Works. What additional expense was caused by this fierce contest he did not know, but it occupied the Committee for a very considerable period, and he could not but think that disputes of this kind ought to be avoided. The matter had Deen argued by counsel, and considerable expense and loss of time had been incurred. He quite agreed that there should be a thoroughly good legal authority in the office of the Commissioner of Works to consult, and also that there should be a thoroughly competent architect. But for new works why should he not have recourse to the architects and surveyors who were to be found in such abundance in the metropolis? He was confident that if that plan were adopted a saving of expense would be effected in the Department.

said, it was quite as true that the speech just delivered by the hon. Baronet had cost the public a certain sum of money. Every hour of the sitting of that House involved expense in the shape of the labour of officers, wear and tear of furniture, and light; and in that sense only was there any difference in the expense which arose between the Office of Works and the Office of Woods. Then the hon. Baronet laid down the proposition that if the Commissioner of Woods and Works had been the same person, no difference would have arisen. That was undoubtedly true. Twenty years ago that was the case; but Parliament was not satisfied with the state of things, and an Act was passed, the object of which was to give an independent voice to those officers who were placed in the immediate control of the Crown Estates. Occasionally, the Commissioner of Works, viewing a question from one point, formed a different estimate from that of the Commissioner of Woods, who looked at it from another point of view, but the general result had been beneficial. Parliament had a fuller and more perfect bearing of what was to be said upon a question in reference to the several interests involved, and there was no additional expense to the State.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to erect upon the piece of ground at Brompton the building designed by Captain Fowke for the reception of the Natural History collections of the British Museum.

said, it was the intention of the Government to make a proposal, but he thought it better not to go now into the question what that proposal might be. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that no stop had been taken which would in the slightest degree prevent full and ample consideration of the subject, and nothing would be brought before the House without ample notice.

protested against the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that Parliament in its wisdom had thought proper to do so and so, when the fact was that they had been beguiled into doing so by the Government. Formerly the Offices of Woods and Forests and of Works were one and the same, and represented the interests both of the Crown and the public. But now the Crown lands were no longer considered to be held for the benefit of the public. He should take an opportunity of showing that additional expense had been thrown upon the public by the separation of the Departments.

said, that in 1863 an opinion had been expressed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, when introducing the fortification scheme, which would be perfectly applicable in support of the Motion which he was about to make. That opinion had been already read in the House that night, and he would therefore content himself at that late hour with moving, that in the opinion of this House the expense of the contracts for Dockyard Extensions to be authorized by this Bill would best be defrayed by Terminable Annuities, as in the case of the Fortifications, under the Act 26 &c 27 Vict. c. 80.

hoped that the Committee would not consent to such an ignominious expedient for meeting the expenses of the country. He regretted very much that it bad been found possible for individual Members of the House to propose Motions which enabled the House to escape its responsibilities by the expedient of hiding from the public what it was about. If there was one thing which all of them ought to advocate it was plainness and simplicity in their proceedings. In certain instances be did not deny that certain expenses might be met by an addition to the debt of the country. This was done in the case of the abolition of the slave trade; and in 1860, when the country had to provide for some £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 of war expenditure, Parliament thought fit after careful consideration to provide for the expenses of the fortifications by an addition to the debt of the country. He remembered well that at that time the hon. and gallant Member proposed that they should take—say £20,000,000, and provide for the expenses of harbours of refuge. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Docks I said.] Such a proposal as this ought to be resisted by every man who adhered to the principle that the annual expenditure ought to be met out of the income of the year. The Motion after all was a futile Motion. If it had the slightest chance of being carried the bench opposite would not have been so empty, or rather it would not have been so thinly occupied. Certainly the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) would have been there to object to it, and by inference the right hon. Member for Bucks would have been there also to support the great financial authority of the other side. Armed, therefore, with this cumulative authority, he appealed to the Committee not to sanction this ill-considered Motion.

said, the question had been fully discussed at an earlier period of the evening before the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Vote which the First Lord of the Treasury proposed was £11,000,000. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: £5,000,000.] When the right hon. Gentleman talked of ignominious expedients, be seemed to have forgotten altogether that he was Chancellor of the Exchequer when this loan of £11,000,000 was proposed, and he certainly must have concurred in it.

thought that the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman was very singular. If he had attended in the House, instead of spending his time more agreeably elsewhere, he would have beard the argument which had been used. He was glad to bear the right hon. Gentleman express his approval of plainness and simplicity of dealing, but nothing could be more plain and simple, or more calculated to let the public know what they were doing in such matters as these, than asking for a lump sum like this. As the right hon. Gentleman had quoted authorities on the Opposition side of the House on which he seemed to place great weight, perhaps be would refer to the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government in proposing a loan for the fortification scheme, and if he could answer these arguments be might make out a case against this Motion.

said, he was reluctant to take part in the debate, but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had contradicted his right hon. Friend be would refer him to Hansard, where the noble Lord was distinctly stated to have said that the recommendations of the Commissioners amounted to an outlay of £11,000,000. [Mr. CORRY: Read on.] He found that in the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord a sum of £2,000,000 was taken for the first year, the noble Lord stating that it was as much as could be advantageously laid out within the twelve months, and that the expenditure of the other £9,000,000 would be spread over future years. It would not do, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and shelter himself under the shield of "Parliament in its wisdom," and condemn as "ignominious" a course which the Government of which be was the Finance Minister had themselves taken.

said, there was a mistake on the part of the hon. Member. It was true that the recommendation of the Commissioners was for the amount stated by the hon. Gentleman, but the application of my noble Friend was limited to a sum of £5,000,000 in all.

observed that the circumstances of the case of the fortifications and those of the dockyards were quite different. In the former case a new construction was necessary; in the latter only an extension was required.

said, that the Malta dock was not included in the Bill, because an annual Vote of a comparatively small sum would be sufficient for the works there.

asked what guarantee the contractors for the works scheduled in this Bill would have that the Government would propose a Vote in the Estimates to pay them for their contract. The sum for payment for the conveyances of the mails between Dover and Calais under the present arrangement had never been proposed in Committee of Supply.

said, that the last subject to which the hon. Gentleman opposite ought to call attention was the Churchward contract. Surely after the Report of the Committee and the ratification of that Report by the House of Commons, the Government would not have been justified in proposing any Vote for the continuance of that contract.

, as one of the Members of the Board of Admiralty who had signed the Churchward contract, declared that he had never seen any reason to regret that step, and he denied that the House of Commons had ever pronounced a condemnation of that contract.

said, if the hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with the decision of the House, he could at any time move a Resolution on the subject, and he was prepared to debate the question with him.

said, the right hon. Gentleman knew that no person could propose a Vote for money except Her Majesty's Ministers.

said, he found he had understated the case, because he was informed that the subject was discussed in Committee of Supply, and afterwards upon the bringing up of the Report the proposition was made to omit certain words which raised the question.

again declared that no Vote was ever proposed. This was the only mode in which the question could be raised, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to raise it by proposing a Vote.

said, the security for the contractors would be that the engagements had received the sanction of Parliament.