moved that this Bill should be re-committed to the former Committee, and that they should proceed therewith on Monday next. The object was to make a broad road in the vicinity of Belgrave Square and the Brompton Road, near the South Kensington Museum, the length being about half a mile, and the minimum width eighty feet. That would require about eighteen acres, but the Commissioners proposed that it should be 150 feet wide, and for that purpose thirty acres would be wanted. The Estimate for the road simply was £220,000, but the capital to be taken for the whole of the improvements was £1,000,000 sterling, with debenture power beyond. The accidents which occurred at the time of the Great Exhibition, consequent upon the great amount of traffic through the present narrow thoroughfares, made it only surprising that the road had not been earlier made, and there was no doubt from the evidence taken before the Committee that the traffic since that time rendered the carrying out of the improvements contemplated by the Bill a very desirable object. The Chairman of the Committee himself had stated that sufficient witnesses had been called to prove the desirability of the new road. With regard to the objection to a private company carrying out the improvement, the ratepayers were already sufficiently taxed, the Board of Works, whose duty it was to carry out the improvement, had not the means of doing so, and the House had already affirmed the principle of empowering private persons to carry out public improvements, and for their own advantage, in the case of the Hyde Park Estate Gate Bill. It had been complained that the company had attempted to obtain too much land for the object proposed; but, in the case of Victoria Street, the construction of which was undertaken by a private company, the public suffered and the company became bankrupt entirely in consequence of insufficient land being taken; and, in the case of the Thames Embankment, the Board of Works were empowered to schedule a larger quantity of land than was absolutely required, in order that they might recoup themselves for the outlay. But the Committee, nevertheless, came to the conclusion that the company asked for more land than was wanted; and it was for the purpose of requiring them to reconsider that decision that he brought forward the present Motion. The directors of the company for making this road included the names of Mr. E. Wortley, M.P., Mr. Warner, M.P., Mr. Knight (of the firm of Smith, Knight, and Co.), Mr. Montague Baillie, and Mr. Astley, of Eaton Place, and the security for its completion comprised the Credit Foncier and Mobilier of England, with its capital of £2,000,000, and Messrs. Smith and Knight, with a paid-up capital of the same amount. The value of the property to be affected was £800,000, and the opponents only represented property to the amount of £20,000. The opponents were principally shopkeepers in the Brompton Road, who thought that the sale of their goods would be injured by people leaving the high road, and going by the wide street. There were some dwellings of the labouring classes which would be displaced, but if the poor desired to live in the midst of the rich they must be content to live, as in Paris, on floors of tall houses. The vestries of Chelsea and Kensington supported the measure, ten Members of Parliament had signed petitions in its favour, and he believed it was desired by the inhabitants of Belgravia generally.

seconded the Motion, and said this was one of those improvements which was originally designed by the Prince Consort, and if the Bill were not passed this Session, it must inevitably be carried during next year. Although the promoters of the Bill were not capitalists they were supported by a great financial company, which entered into agreement with them to carry out the measure in the event of the Bill passing. A clause might be inserted in the Bill compelling the company to build model lodging-houses for the accommodation of those whom they turned out of their homes.

said, he must, as Chairman of the Committee, oppose the Motion. It was unfair that when a Committee unanimously rejected a Bill a Member of this House should come down and seek to get it re-committed. He denied that the Committee had stopped the case. They had simply intimated that witnesses should not be called to prove again and again the same point. The Committee did not think that sufficient evidence had been adduced to justify the interference with property which would be involved. The Committee objected to granting forty-five acres for the purpose of making an ornamented street which only required fifteen acres. This Bill was one of the weakest and worst supported that had ever come under his notice. In the case of the Hyde Park Estate Gate Bill, that came from the House of Lords and was sanctioned by the Committee. The Committee were the best judges of the expediency of passing such a Bill. It was a positive fact that the opponents of the measure could not find out who were its promoters. The total capital of the company was to be £1,000,000, and no proof had been adduced that they would be able to raise that sum. The proposal would involve the removal of the houses of a large number of poor people, and would inflict upon them a considerable amount of inconvenience and hardship. Not an archi- tect was produced to speak of the mode of laying down the proposed line. Nor were there any witnesses to prove the sufficiency of the estimates. Lord Cadogan, the chief landowner in the neighbourhood, petitioned against the Bill. The householders, who held leases of from fifteen to sixty years, had spent large sums in improving their property, for which, if handed over to the tender mercies of the Credit Foncier, they would have no prospect of adequate compensation. He voted for the second reading of the Bill, because it had come from the Lords.

said, that though as a Member of the Committee he felt the road would be a great public convenience, there were reasons which led the Committee to a strong opinion that the measure ought not to be sanctioned.

said, that it was at all times undesirable, except in very strong cases, to encourage appeals to the House from the decision of Committees, but that was more particularly the case at a late period of the Session, with respect to a Bill which was strongly opposed, and when the Committee was unanimous.

said, he should oppose the Motion, on the ground that it would be an extremely dangerous precedent to hand over private property to a company like the Credit Foncier, which had no connection with the locality to which the measure related. It was also a very objectionable process, and one calculated to bring discredit upon Parliament, to sanction Bills before the companies were formed. The scheme was promoted by strangers who had no claims to it. If such applications were allowed, no man's house would be his castle whenever a company got up a little capital for the purpose of turning him out.

said, that in consequence of the late period of the Session, he consented to withdraw his Motion.

moved, in section 1, line 8, after "appointed," to add—

"Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the said Board of Conservators from obtaining the services of additional constables under the Act third and fourth Victoria, chapter eighty-eight, section nineteen, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act; such constables, when appointed, to have all the powers and privileges of water bailiffs, and to be paid for their services by the said Board."

moved the omission of the Clause, which he said provided that between the 1st of January and the 1st of July no eels were to be taken, the ground being that the boxes and gratings used for taking them were liable to catch salmon. Eels were a very important article of food in England; and in the south of England at all events were best in the spring and summer. There had been no evidence given upon this subject before the Committee, and therefore he objected to their legislating upon the matter at present.

said, he seconded the Amendment. Nothing was more destructive to salmon than eels, and therefore the more eels were caught the better would it be for the preservation of the salmon in those places.

said, he was willing, if this regulation would interfere with the eel fishery, to omit the clause.

said, he moved its omission, on the ground that it involved a proposition contrary to the first principles of English law. The clause appeared to be founded upon the supposition that every owner of a salmon fishery was a criminal, for it gave the conservator or water bailiff power, after making oath before a justice of the peace that be suspected acts in contravention of the Fishery Act, to enter, go over, and remain seven days upon, a gentleman's land without being; liable to a charge of trespass.

said, he hoped that the clause would be retained, as, from his experience of the Irish Salmon Fishery Act, he believed that it would be exceedingly useful in preventing abuse, and that the power it conferred would not be likely to be abused.

moved the following clause:—

(Provisions as to exportation of salmon.)

"All salmon intended for exportation shall be entered for that purpose with the proper officer of Customs, at the port or place of intended exportation, before shipment thereof; and any salmon shipped or exported, or brought to any wharf, quay, or other place for exportation, contrary to this section, shall be forfeited, and the person shipping or exporting or bringing the same for exportation shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding two pounds for every salmon so shipped or exported or brought for exportation; and any officer of the Customs may, between the third day of September and the second day of February, open any parcel entered or intended for exportation, or brought to any quay, wharf, or other place for that purpose, and suspected by him to contain salmon, and may detain any salmon found in such parcel until proof is given, in manner provided by law, of the salmon being such as may be legally exported; and, if the salmon before such proof is given become unfit for human food, the officer of Customs may destroy the same."

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to confer the rank of Lieutenant Colonel upon Regimental Paymasters of twenty years service, considering that by the promotion of Surgeons to that and higher ranks since the year 1858 Paymasters have lost that position of equality with the Surgeons in their Regiments which they had previously enjoyed; and, if not, for what reason?

said, in reply, that there was at present no intention to alter the rank of Paymasters as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The whole question of relative rank was considered by Lord Herbert in 1860, when the Warrant which fixed the rank of Paymasters was settled; and that noble Lord objected to adopt the measure indicated by the hon. Gentleman for several reasons into which he (the Marquess of Hartington) need not enter. One reason, which had considerable weight with Lord Herbert, was that there had never been any difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of well-qualified Paymasters, while there had been considerable difficulty in getting properly qualified Army Surgeons. Paymasters were not the only Officers who might complain that their relative rank was altered by that which was conferred upon Surgeons by the Medical Warrant of 1858.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Licence to be granted to the Convocation of Canterbury for the alteration of the Canon of Subscription, will be laid on the table?

in reply, said, it would take some time to make it out. He could not, therefore, say the exact day.

said, he wished to know if it were likely to be laid on the table before his Motion on the subject came on for discussion.

said, he could not say.

Are we to have it before the dissolution?

in introducing the Motion of which he had given notice regarding the appointment of Dockyard Superintendents, said, the Admiralty had the power of going to the same market with other shipbuilding establishments for their materials, and he could only come to the conclusion that the reason why the work was to the amount of from half a million to a million a year more expensively done in the Royal dockyards than was necessary was on account of the mismanagement prevailing in them. It could scarcely be expected that the Lords of the Admiralty, considering the rank from which they were taken, would have any practical knowledge of shipbuilding, but it might be reasonably expected that they would take care to appoint persons enjoying that knowledge which they themselves did not possess. He would briefly examine the securities taken for the efficient and economical management of the dockyards. The first gentleman appointed was the Controller, who, as a seaman, could have no practical knowledge of shipbuilding. Yet the duties of the Controller of the Navy were to control all expenditure in building, repair, and outfit of ships both in dockyards and contract vessels, including machinery; to state the number of men for each department; to regulate the number according to wages Vote; to recommend alteration of numbers; to revise expenditure with a view to economy and efficiency; to visit the yards, inspect work, and see that his orders are carried out well; to recommend means of preserving ships, learn their condition, and that of boilers and machinery, so that he may tell their Lordships when they will be ready for sea. To see that the timber is good and suitable; and as to the quantity in store, to carefully observe the quantity of timber and stores so as to report at once any want or waste thereof, to receive and examine monthly a scheme of the progress of work at each yard, and to modify such work when needed; to submit, when required, designs of vessels to be built by Admiralty or contract, with details of cost, machinery and guns proposed; for contract vessels, to give the names of contractors, and other details. It was perfectly impossible that a man, even possessing the most intimate acquaintance with shipbuilding, could discharge all these duties without efficient subordinates. The next step to secure efficiency in the dockyards was the appointment of Superintendents, gentlemen invariably taken from among the officers of the Royal Navy. It was not his wish to confine such appointments to civilians, but if given by preference to officers of the navy it ought to be seen that they possessed the requisite qualifications. They should not be excluded, but the most competent men, whether sailors or civilians, should be selected to control and direct the expenditure of the Royal dockyards. The Duke of Somerset said of the Captain Superintendent—

"He is a naval officer put there to superintend all the different departments that are under him. He cannot be practically acquainted with shipbuilding. He is in a worse position, in point of knowledge, than the Controller is with regard to the Superintendent who is under him. The Controller has been for many years in the situation, whereas the Superintendents in the dockyards are removed every five years, and therefore cannot be expected to be practically conversant with shipbuilding or the details of manufactures that are now going on in the dockyards."

In other words, it was more pleasant for one ignorant man to give his orders to another ignorant man than for an ignorant man to give his orders to one who was possessed of knowledge. It was also stated of the Superintendents—

"Their hands are very much tied by 'instructions' All officers of every grade are subordinate to them. They are required to use the utmost zeal and diligence in seeing orders of the Board carried out, and must exercise as far as possible a personal supervision over every part of the establishment committed to their care. 'Can' discharge workmen for misconduct, 'but' have no direct control over the expenditure of the yards, 'and' the number of workmen, the rate of wages, and the distribution of labour are arranged in London.'"

They could not, therefore, be expected to exercise an efficient control over an expenditure of £2,000,000. The next in rank was the master shipwright. They were in some cases very able men, but they were not placed in a position to insure efficiency and economy in these yards. The master shipwrights, moreover, only had the direction of one department; the chief engineer had another; and the master attendant a third. Every one knew that for a manufacturing business to be conducted properly there must be one controlling head in a position of authority, and possessing power proportionate to his responsibility. The master shipwright was not in that position. He would name an instance in point, and that an important one. Many of the improvements in private manufacturing departments took their origin from the working men. If a man in the Royal dockyards thought he saw a thing might be done better and more cheaply he communicated to the foreman. The latter went to the head of the department—say, the master shipwright. He went to the Superintendent. The matter then went to Somerset House, and thence finally to Whitehall. After great delay the communication travelled back downwards to the Superintendent, and so on, unless, indeed, the communication was lost by the way. The master shipwright had to touch his hat to every officer in uniform, naval or military, whom he might meet in the yard. He was insufficiently paid for a man who had charge of so many thousand men. In private establishments such a man would receive nearly the salary of a Cabinet Minister. There were at the present moment men who were superintending private building yards, who were paid nearly as well as the First Lord of the Treasury, and yet the Government expected that a master shipwright with a salary of £600 a year and a retiring allowance would do for them what private firms paid from £2,000 to £4,000 a year to obtain. The thing was ridiculous. The master shipwright was the head of only one department, and he was not in a position to secure the right management and control of the Royal dockyards. The system was also productive of jealousies. The master shipwright and the chief engineer sometimes could not agree, and they had to refer their differences to the Superintendent, who knew nothing about the matter. It was, therefore, highly essential that an officer who knew something about the business of the dockyards should be placed at the head of them. If any private business were managed like the dockyards the principals would come to bankruptcy and inevitable ruin. He was sorry to have to trouble the House with figures, but matters of account could not be dealt with without them. His object was to show the great waste in the management of the Royal dockyards; and as the House was the guardian of the public purse, and it was dealing with an expenditure of more than £2,000,000, he would ask for the patient indulgence of the House for a few minutes. He would first refer to "Return No. 454 on Dockyards and Steam Factories for 1862–3," the last Return published. This Return gave the following results:—

"Chatham Boathouses.—25 boats fitted, cost £10 6s. 5d., equal to £258 0s. 2d.; ditto rate-book price, £23 2s. 1¼, equal to £577 13s.; cost less than rate-book, £12 6s. 8¼d., equal to £319 12s. 10d."

"Portsmouth Boathouses.—85 boats fitted, cost £18 15s., equal to £1,593 14s. 8d.; ditto, rate-book value, £9 5s. 8½d., equal to £799 6s.; cost more than rate-book, £10 10s. 4½d., equal to £794 8s. 8d."

Thus at Chatham boats were fitted out at half the rate-book price, while at Portsmouth they cost double the rate-book price, or four times as much as at Chatham, according to the rate-book. He would not say that these accounts were accurate, but they were the accounts furnished by the Admiralty, and it was for the Admiralty to explain them. He would now advert to the smitheries of the Royal dockyards. On a former occasion he had called attention to the cost of forging in the Royal dockyards—a subject in which he took some interest, since he happened to be connected with works of this kind. With one or two friends he paid a visit to Chatham, and satisfied himself that the system of forging in the Royal dockyards was most extravagant. On looking to the cost of the different yards he found these results. He was still referring to Return 454—Dockyard and Steam Factories, 1862–3—

"Sheerness Smitheries,—Common Forgings.— 1,679 cwt., cost 27s. 6½d. per cwt., equal to £2,314; rate-book value, 21s. per cwt., equal to £1,763; cost more than rate-book, £551.

"Devonport Smitheries.—Common Forgings.—3,503 cwt., cost 16s. 3½d. per cwt., equal to £2,856; rate-book value, 21s. per cwt., equal to £3,678; cost less than rate-book, £822.

"Portsmouth Smitheries.—Plain Forgings.—2,488 cwt., cost 47s. 1½d. per cwt., equal to £5,864; rate-book value 35s. per cwt., equal to £4,354; cost more than rate-book, £1,510.

"Devonport Smitheries.—Plain Forgings.— 2,250 cwt., cost 33s. 0¼d. per cwt, equal to £3,715; rate-book value, 35s. per cwt., equal to £3,039; cost less than rate-book, £224.

"Portsmouth Smitheries.—Middling Forgings.—1,992 cwt., cost 58s. 0¾d. per cwt., equal to £5,785; rate-book value, 44s. 2d. per cwt., equal to £4,400; cost more than rate-book, £1,385.

"Devonport Smitheries.—Middling Forgings.—2,234 cwt., cost 44s. 11¾d. per cwt., equal to £5,026; rate-book price, 44s. 2d. per cwt., equal to £4,934; cost more than rate-book, only £92.

"Portsmouth Smitheries.—Extra Forgings.— 727 cwt.; cost 129s. per cwt., equal to £4,696; rate-book price, 70s. equal to £2,547; cost more than rate-book, £2,149.

Sheerness Smitheries.—Extra Forgings.— 422 cwt., cost 62s. 7¾d. per cwt., equal to £1,322; rate-book price, 70s. per cwt., equal to £1,490; cost less than rate-book, £168.

He wished he could spare the House these figures, and hand them to the reporters to he read to-morrow morning.

"In the Portsmouth steam-hammer shops, 3,777 cwt. blanks cost 31s. 9¾d per cwt., equal to £6,010; at the rate-book price of 20s. per cwt., equal to £3,778; cost more than rate-book £2,232. In the Devonport steam-hammer shops, 2,813 cwt. blanks cost 14s. 8¾d. per cwt., equal to £2,072; rate-book price was 20s. per cwt. equal to £2,813; cost less than rate-book was £741. Total cost of blanks at all the yards—17,757 cwt. cost 23s. per cwt., equal to £20,570; 17,757 cwt. Devonport rate, cost 14s. 8½d. per cwt., equal to £13,140; excess of cost above Devonport rate was £7,427, or more than 50 per cent."

He would spare the House any further figures under this head. He called attention some time ago to the conversions of timber in the dock yards; his figures had never been disputed, and his facts had never been denied. He showed on that occasion the conversion of timber in the years 1862–3, and that if all conversions had been effected at the lowest yard rates, there would have been a saving in that one year of £55,496. The excess of offal timber made in 1862–3, over the rate given by Mr. Llewellyn in his evidence before the Dockyard Commission as the rate actually made at Devonport dock- yard, from 1850 to 1854, was 202,672 cubic feet. The difference in value of this as timber or offal was £37,760, so there was loss to that amount. English elm sawmills' conversions at Sheerness cost less than the rate-book 29 per cent, while at Devonport English elm sawmills' conversions cost £1,469, the rate-book value being only £513; the cost more than the rate-book was therefore 186 per cent, or £956. In 1859 a Committee, which had been appointed to inquire into the dockyards, issued a Report in which was this paragraph, "that small separate workshops are most objectionable, and are at present too general throughout the yards." In corroboration of that he would say that, according to Return 432, Dockyard and Steam Factories, 1861–2, at the Chatham Lead Mills, the labour and expenses in making 11,730 cwt of milled lead from ingot metal at the dockyards was 2s. 6d. per cwt., a total of £1,466; the cost or difference between ingot and milled lead in the market would be 3d. per cwt., equal to £146; difference or loss through the Admiralty making milled lead was £1,320. The labour and expenses in making 3,322 cwt. pipe lead at the dockyards was 4s. 10d. per cwt., equal to £802; the cost or difference in price between ingot and pipe in the market was 3d. per cwt., equal to £42; difference or loss to the Admiralty was thus £760. The total loss to the Admiralty in 1861–2 was therefore £2,080. In 1862–3 the labour, &c, cost the Admiralty for making milled lead from ingot 1s. 8½d. per cwt., market price or difference being 3d. per cwt. (reckoning ingot at market price 20s. 3d., no data being given in Admiralty accounts); thus occasioning a loss in 1862–3 of £1,090; which, added to the loss in 1861–2, makes the total loss 1861–2, 1862–3, amount to £3,170. In 1861–2, ingot lead bought at Chatham cost about 20s. 5½d.; cost at market, 20s. 3d. per cwt. Milled lead cost at Chatham, 23s. 11½d.; cost at market, 20s. 6d.; cost of labour, &c, at Chatham, 2s. 6d. per cwt.; cost of labour, &c., at market, 3d. per cwt. Pipe lead cost at Chatham, 25s. 3½d. per cwt.; cost at market 20s. 6d.; cost of labour, &c, at Chatham, 4s. 10d. per cwt.; cost of labour, &c, at market, 3d. per cwt. Labour, &c, Admiralty milled, 11 times market price; labour, &c, Admiralty pipe, 20 times market price. Ingot being 20s. 3d. in 1862–3, it would appear that the Admiralty rate-book value of labour for milled was 1s. 9d. per cwt., the market value 3d.; Admiralty rate-book value labour, &c, pipe, 7s. 3d., market value 3d. per cwt. for whatever price ingot may be in the market; milled and pipe lead are 3d. per cwt. higher. It would scarcely be contended that the Admiralty could not have gone to the open market and bought pipes quite as good as they could manufacture them. And now he came to another point. For the year 1865–6 the House had voted £30,336 for police for watching and guarding the naval yards; 16,694 workmen were employed in them, and therefore each one of those men cost about 36s. and 1d. for watching and guarding him. A Committee had lately been appointed by the Admiralty and had gone round various yards. His hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) no doubt, had some communication with that Committee, and perhaps he would tell the House whether the Committee had found anything like £4,000 or £5,000 a year spent in watching the different private yards. If not, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would favour the House with the reason why the workmen in the Royal yards required such an enormous amount of police force to watch and guard them. He now came to another subject connected with the question of superintendence, because, if we had practical men of business at the head of our establishments, they would take care that nothing was bought at an extravagant price. He had asked for a Return of the price lately paid for anchors, in continuation of a Return published in 1859. That Return had been laid upon the table, and he found that they were now paying for anchors from 100 cwt. to 120 cwt., 60s. per cwt., while the average price of four makers was 33s. 8d. For anchors from 70 cwt. to 100 cwt, the Admiralty paid 56s. 6d. the average price of the four makers being 33s.id. And so on down to anchors of 20 cwt., for which the Admiralty paid 26s. 6d., while the price of the four makers was 23s. 11d. The average price paid by the Admiralty for all sizes was 45s. 3d., while the average price of the four makers was only 28s. He calculated from a Return just printed (1859 to 1864) that 25,400 cwt. cost the Admiralty £60,330; the same size anchors bought in open market would cost £36,458, the difference or loss being £23,872. In 1856–7 the Admiralty anchors cost £44,856; in 1855–6 they cost £51,553. The Admiralty price, then, of one of each of five sizes from 20 cwt. to 95 cwt was £237 5s.; the market price for same was £127. If these anchors, bought from 1855 to 1857, were all Admiralty patterns the loss in two years was £40,000, and therefore there would have been a saving to the country for those two years, if we bought the anchors in the open market, of that large sum An hon. Friend below him asked "What about the quality?" Upon that point a letter which he received from Mr. H. P. Parkes, of Tipton Green Chain and Anchor Works, would be the best answer. It was as follows:—

"Sir,—Below I have much pleasure in forwarding my present price list for Admiralty pattern anchors, made in exact conformity with the Admiralty regulations, specifications, proofs, finish, &c, identically the same as now required for the Royal Navy. I have lately completed, under official inspection of an officer from Woolwich Dockyard, a contract for Admiralty plan anchors of considerable extent for the Ottoman Government. Chain makers and anchor smiths are a migratory class working for all makers alike who have work for them to do, and many in my employ at this moment have for years previously been employed at the works of the Admiralty contractors. The supply of Admiralty plan anchors for the Royal navy has been for near a quarter of a century notoriously an exclusive monopoly in the hands of one favoured firm (Messrs. Brown, Lennox and Co.), who have also the sole supply of chain cables for the navy. How this is, or why, has always been a most mysterious affair to myself and the whole trade."

The average price furnished by Mr. Parkes was 28s. per cwt. He should be extremely glad if the noble Lord could explain why a price nearly approaching 100 per cent extra was paid by the Admiralty for their anchors. In the Report of the Royal Commission of 1861 the following reason was given by Mr. Thomas Lloyd, Engineer-in-Chief of the Navy, for approving the Admiralty building iron ships:—

"If for no other, to make a comparison between the cost of a ship built in one of Her Majesty's dockyards and the price at which one can be purchased, and to make a comparison also between the quality of those two ships."

It would be highly desirable that the Admiralty should take notice of the prices at which the work in the private yards was done. The Admiralty had omitted £1,000,000 a year from their calculation of the cost to the country of the building and repairing of ships. They had left out many items which would be charged in the calculations of a private firm. For instance, he found that in 1863–4 they had omitted £214,800 (which the Government said would be included for the future). The salaries of foremen, rent, cost of gas, &c, amounted to £214,800. The pensions to artificers and to officers and foremen amounted—the foremen to £73,396; the latter to, say, £60,000. Besides these items it was necessary, in comparing the expenditure of the Royal with that of the public yards, to set down something for interest upon plant and capital. Now the stock of stores was about £5,000,000; the expenditure on shipbuilding for ships in progress of building up to March, 1864, was £1,117,713; on ships commenced as wooden and converted into iron-cased ships while building, £1,338,982, He assumed that in the seven Royal yards there had been expended on plant, workshops, and machinery, at least £2,000,000. [An hon. MEMBER: More!] Very likely; but he wished to state a moderate sum. According to this Estimate the total capital and plant was, therefore, £9,456,695; and the interest on this would be, at 5 per cent, £472,835. This would make a total of £821,031, which must be added to the cost of ships in 1863–4. Again, from the years 1855 to 1865–6, there was spent upon new works, machinery, &c, £1,342,000. This was entirely for the building and repairing of ships, and would represent an average of £122,000 a year. In the same period £5,709,578. was spent on new works, buildings, machinery, and repairs, which would give an average of £519,052 a year. As he had said, the whole sum, including interest on capital, which must be added to the cost of ships in 1863–4, was £821,031. This was excluding every part of the enormous sum spent yearly on new works, machinery, &c, and also the sum of £166,881 for Admiralty Offices in respect of which a sum of £82,306 ought to be charged to ships. Omitting these items, however, the House would see what would be the effect if the £821,000 were apportioned among the ships built and repaired by the Admiralty. The total expenditure on vessels in 1863–4 was £2,848,397, from which deduct cost of ships built by contract, £585,361, leaving cost of ships built and repaired by the Admiralty £2,263,036. To this must be added items not reckoned in Admiralty accounts — namely, £821,031, so that 40 per cent has to be added to these accounts in 1863–4 for purpose of comparison; £958,106, or 45 per cent, in 1862–3; £1,035,216, or 40 per cent in 1861–2; and £1,038,561, or 35 per cent in 1860–1. So that the ships built at Her Majesty's dockyards, which the accounts gave as costing about £2,000,000 each year, really cost about £3,000,000, or £1,000,000 per year additional. And now, what was the effect of that calculation upon the repairs of ships, a subject brought by him before the House on a former occasion? The Wasp, built in 1850, was a ship of 13 guns, 974 tons, and 100-horse power. According to the published accounts her repairs in 1859–60 cost £7,253. Adding 40 per cent, the real cost of her repairs would be £10,154. In 1860–1 her repairs cost, according to the Admiralty accounts, £8,483; adding 35 per cent, they really cost £11,452. In 1863–4 her repairs cost £32,002; add 40 per cent, and the real cost of her repairs would be, in 1863–4 alone, £44,802. Deducting £1,566 for returns, the total net cost of the ship in repairs since 1859 was set down at £46,172; but, adding the percentage stated, which would also be according to the mode in which private firms would deal with accounts, the real cost would be £64,842. Yet this wooden vessel, which could neither fight nor run away, might be bought new for £39,590. He had made the same calculations with regard to five other vessels, but he would not trouble the House with the details. The result was that, according to the published accounts, these six ships cost for repairs from 1859 to the present time £212,859, or, adding the percentages, £292,826, and they could have been bought new for £220,215. These were points which in a commercial country like this ought to be explained, but as to which he had sought in vain for an explanation from practical men. He came now to another matter. In 1863–4 the Sharpshooter, a 6-gun vessel of 503 tons and 102 horse-power, cost for repair of her machinery, with incidental expenses, £9,220. Adding 40 per cent to this, the repairs of the machinery amounted in one year to £13,000. But new engines and machinery might have been bought at £55 per horse-power for £5,610. The House and the country ought to know who was responsible for these things, which could not happen if practical men were at the head of our large manufacturing establishments. He believed that the Admiralty at present wasted every year nearly a million of money, and he wanted to know why it was so wasted. He had shown as to six ships that their repairs from 1859 had cost, without any additional percentage, £212,859; while they could have been bought new for £220,215. The hulls of vessels built in the Royal yards from 1860 to 1864 cost, according to the published accounts, from £24 10s. 3d. to £32 15s. 3d. per ton; while, in the private yards, in 1861 the hulls contracted for cost from £21 19s to £23 15s. per ton. Then he might fairly assume that the Admiralty had not built those hulls or executed those repairs at a less cost, according to its own published accounts, than they could have been done for in private yards. It was clear, then, that the £821,000 was utterly wasted, unless there was some special reason why the country should spend annually nearly a million more than would be spent in private yards in doing the same thing. The Admiralty and the private trade went to the same market for materials and labour; the Admiralty had an unlimited supply of capital, and the only ground of difference was, in his opinion, the mismanagement of details. He thought he knew the argument by which he should be met. It would be said that the work was done well in the Royal dockyards, and he admitted that in one sense it was done well. The materials were sound, the workmanship was substantial; but there was an almost unanimous condemnation of the Admiralty with regard to their mode of the construction of ships. It was very much a question whether, putting these large engines into wooden vessels, making them screw vessels, was not a great mistake. If we had practical men of business in the dockyards to assist the Admiralty we should be in a much better position than we were. The second argument was, that these Superintendents had other things to do besides building and repairing ships. If so, let the House know what those things were. He maintained that a man practically acquainted with shipbuilding was better fitted to superintend the manufacture of ships than a man who knew nothing about it. If they put two or three millions a year into the hands of Government to expend they should have practical men to disburse it. Perhaps his noble Friend would say that it was a saving to the country to have a superior officer in a Royal dockyard when a vessel came in for repairs; for the captain of the vessel, if he had only to deal with an inferior officer, would put the country to expense for unnecessary repairs. Now, he contended that a practical shipbuilder or practical engineer was better able to know what repairs a ship wanted than a naval officer. A civilian in the position of a manager of the works, like Mr. Lumley at the establishment at Millwall, with which the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) was connected, was less likely to listen to a naval officer who desired something unreasonable to be done than another naval officer whose tenure of office might be about to expire. It was said the other night that some twelve or thirteen private firms took naval officers to superintend their concerns; but he had made inquiries on the point, and he could only find that two naval officers were at all engaged in these matters—the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield and Captain Symonds—and they each, he believed, occupied the position of a director in a company, and employed a practical shipbuilder as manager. He believed that no man could be found in a manufacturing town to stale that at the head of a large manufacturing business there should be placed a man who knew nothing about it. With regard to authority, there were on the one side the Duke of Somerset, the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget), and the hon. Member (Mr. Childers); in opposition to those authorities he placed almost every man in that House, Sir Richard Bromley, Sir Baldwin Walker, the Royal Commissioners, and the Committee of 1859, who emphatically stated in their Report that practical men only should be appointed to positions requiring practical experience. He held in his hand a note from Mr. Beaumont, a Member of the Committee of 1859, in which that Gentleman most emphatically stated his opinion that at present the Superintendents in Her Majesty's dockyards were not only of no use, but a hindrance. But he had higher authority, and that was the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who at Chester the other day argued that a profession should be taken to when a person was young, and should be carried on by a man who knew something about it. He illustrated that doctrine by saying that a smith or a carpeater would not engage a man who was ignorant of those trades, and who was too old to learn. He considered this applicable to these Superintendents, they were too old to learn; the Admiralty, both the present and preceding Boards, were perfectly aware of the mismanagement that prevailed; and they were trailing a red herring across the path by appointing Committees and calling for Reports and recommendations. They began in 1796 to appoint Committees, and they have been appointing Committees ever since. They had a Committee last year to inquire into the accounts, though they might have gone into the City and got a professional accountant to do what they wanted. They appointed a Committee to go into the pro- vinces to inquire into the comparative cost of manufacturing certain articles in the Royal dockyards and in private yards; but what they would not do was to apply to a practical man of business. They would not put the round post into the round hole, but constantly went on putting it into the square hole, and then they complained that it would not fit. In April last there appeared, in an organ which was supposed to represent hon. Gentlemen opposite, a very able article upon dockyard management, which, he hoped, forshadowed what hon. Gentlemen opposite would do if they came to that (the Ministerial) side of the House. As an earnest Liberal he trusted that the present Government, which professed to be a reforming Government, would not leave a great administrative reform to be executed by the Conservatives; but whether a proposal for dockyard reform came from one party or the other, he was sure that if it was in accordance with the principles of common sense it would receive the support of a large number of Members who sat near him.

Sir, I am far from being displeased that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) should have again taken the trouble to go into the various details connected with the expenditure in our dockyards, but the House will see that it is impossible for either myself or my hon. Colleague to follow him through them. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that the figures will, as the hon. Gentleman hopes, appear in The Times, because we shall then have an opportunity of looking carefully into the statements, and I trust that the public will be benefited. Ever since the present Board of Admiralty came into power they have desired to give the fullest information with respect to the dockyards, and the hon. Gentleman has given the best evidence that we have done so by quoting our figures. No doubt, speaking generally, work done in the dockyards is more expensive than work done in private yards, but I believe in the long run it is the cheaper on account of its superior quality. Whether it is right that we should have Royal dockyards is a separate question. For my own part I think that it is of great importance that we should have such yards, and should not depend entirely upon the trade for either the building or repairing of our ships. I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman into his figures, but my belief is that he has taken rate book prices which he has on several occasions been told are now in process of correction. Everybody knows that to establish correct ratebooks of the cost of every article is a very difficult operation, but that is what we have endeavoured to do. Those rate-books are under constant revision, and while I do not believe that the discrepancies are anything like what the hon. Gentleman has stated, I am bound to admit that we have found considerable discrepancies between the prices of articles in different dockyards. I therefore readily acknowledge that it is desirable public attention should be called to these things, and that it is necessary that the rate-books should he carefully revised. I now come to the question which is more immediately before the House. The hon. Gentleman lays all these assumed shortcomings upon the naval Superintendents. The other night, in reply to the rather offensive strictures passed by the hon. Gentleman upon naval officers, an hon. Gentleman opposite asked how it happened, if naval officers were so incompetent to manage dockyards, the principal shipowners of this country were begging naval officers to take charge of their yards. It is the fact that the principal shipbuilding establishments of this country are dependent upon naval officers for their management, [Mr. SEELEY: Name them.] I decline to name them. I have the names of the officers here, but I do not choose to place them before the public. If, however, the hon. Gentleman inquires he will find that four of the greatest shipbuilding companies in this country are now practically managed by naval officers. Is that, or is it not, an argument to show that naval officers are competent to discharge such duties? Then, take the case of foreign countries. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt an admirer of the Government of the United States; did he ever hear of a civilian in command of one of the dockyards belonging to the American Government? The thing does not exist. Or let him go to France. There is not a single Imperial dockyard that is not superintended by a naval officer. Indeed, all the principal countries in the world depend upon naval officers for the superintendence of their national dockyards. Why do they do so? Because they know practically that the work done, I do not say in purely building, but in great repairing and fitting yards, can best be done under the superintendence of naval officers. If we were to appoint a civilian to manage these yards, the country would show its dissatisfaction, because I am certain that the work would not be so well done, and that great additional cost would be incurred. The hon. Gentleman apparently knows nothing about a man-of-war. He has spoken his mind very emphatically about naval officers, and now I will speak my mind to him. I have no doubt that naval officers are quite unacquainted with his business, and I believe that he is utterly unacquainted with the business naval officers have to perform in our great dockyards. From the moment that the keel of a man-of-war is laid down, it is necessary that the practical sailor should give his opinion upon the various details connected with her building and equipment. How can a landsman, how can a civilian, know where to place the magazines with proper precautions against fire, and how to provide suitable facilities for handing up the powder, storing away all sorts of warlike stores, and placing the masts, anchors, chains and internal fitments? Those are all matters that are eminently naval in their character; and so great is the importance of the superintendence of naval men in regard to them, that when the Admiralty have ships built in private yards we are obliged to have practical naval officers continually going to look at them, in order that they may bring their experience to bear upon the construction of those ships. Such shipbuilding is totally distinct from the building of merchantmen. I am quite willing to admit that for the building of transports and merchant ships naval officers are not so competent, but lam satisfied that, if the Royal dockyards were placed in the hands of civilians, the system would break down. There is another circumstance connected with the dockyards which the hon. Gentleman appears to have overlooked when he talks of discharging persons who are not fully competent. If a private individual has in his dockyard a man who does not suit him he sends him about his business. I should like to know what would be said if, in our dockyards, we were to send people about their business because they did not exactly suit us. No public Department and no Government can, unless there are real and fair grounds, discharge their people as a private individul can. We are told that we mistrust civilians. Now, I ask the House to consider what took place last year. We heard of an eminent shipbuilder, a gentleman who had distinguished himself in drawing the lines of ships, a very scientific man. He was wholly unconnected with the Government service, but believing him to be a person who was thoroughly competent, we brought him from private trade into the service of the country. That gentleman was Mr. Reed. Hon. Members will recollect to what an outcry his appointment gave rise. I am very glad that we made that appointment, because Mr. Reed has performed his duties most satisfactorily. So far, therefore, I am speaking in the sense of the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that, if he thinks the superintendence of our dockyards could advantageously be handed over to private individuals, he is greatly mistaken. There are many difficulties to be encountered. To take a ship in or out of dock you must have a naval man. The hon. Member could not do it, or any of his civil Friends. And does anybody think that a naval officer of high standing would submit to be put under a civilian? Such a system would not work at all. Instead of getting the work done we should be at perpetual loggerheads on questions of priority among these dockyard officers. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with what he has already done, in which so far he has performed good service. We have prepared elaborate Returns, and we have laid them on the table with a view to criticism, which is always useful. We shall all, I hope, meet on a future occasion in the same places to renew the discussion of the price of these articles. But the hon. Member, I hope, will not feel it his duty to press the matter further. On the question of anchors and cables, before sitting down, I will say that there can be no doubt that we pay higher for our anchors and cables than others do. But this is no new subject. I have said, and say again, that I look on anchors and cables as of the first importance to the existence of ships and the lives of their crews, and therefore that anything like mere buying in the cheapest market must be detrimental to the public service. That there are private companies and traders who make first-rate anchors and cables, from whom we might obtain them on more reasonable terms, I am perfectly aware. Two or three years ago we stated that we were willing to open our contracts to private enterprize, only stipulating that, as we dared not risk inferiority in the fittings of our large ships, the private makers should be invited, in the first instance, to make cables and anchors of smaller size. If they had been up to the mark we should then have opened the contracts for the larger size The manufacturers replied that unless the whole business were thrown open to them it would not be worth their while to undertake it, and so we came at once to a point of divergence. I should certainly object to any untried firm making the anchors and cables for such ships as the Warrior. I am sorry that the hon. Member reiterated his censures with regard to the dockyard police. Even if they cost a great deal more than they do I never would consent to have them put down, for I could lay on the table Returns that would surprise hon. Members, of the sums of money saved since their introduction by the driving out of low marine store dealers. I hope sincerely the House will not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member. We have given the subject now before the House much consideration, and, after hearing it discussed many times, I must inform hon. Gentlemen that the Duke of Somerset and the Admiralty are wholly averse from the system of employing civil superintendents.

Sir, I wish to make a few observations on this subject. I think the House will feel that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Seely) has given to it a most industrious examination, and has brought it before the House in a manner that was very clear, and that will prove, I hope, very useful in future. I further think the House will admit that the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) has entirely failed to make an answer to the speech of my hon. Friend. For the most part he admitted nearly every charge brought against the Admiralty; he has not disputed one of the facts with regard to the extravagant cost of ships, or the still more extravagant cost of repairs. My hon. Friend has shown that a ship cost in one, two, and three years more for repairs than the ship would have cost when new, and the noble Lord did not object to that statement. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I do object to it.] The noble Lord did not object to it in his speech. If he objects to it he has given no answer to it. My hon. Friend referred to the subject of the purchase of anchors and chains, and the noble Lord said the Admiralty think it highly necessary to have anchors and chains of the best quality. He did not answer the statement of my hon. Friend, that the makers of chains and anchors who are not employed by the Government are making them exactly like those that the Government buy from the firms favoured by their custom, and that those chains and anchors are tried by the officers of the Government exactly in the same manner and with the same stringent examination that is applied to the chains and anchors used by the Government, and that those chains and anchors are sold at cheaper rates by those firms to other Governments, who I presume are as anxious to have good chains and anchors for the safety of their ships and the lives of their seamen as the English Government can possibly be. The noble Lord did not explain why a particular firm for a long period had been making chains and anchors for the Admiralty at a price 50 per cent higher than the Admiralty could have bought chains and anchors of equal quality from other firms in the trade. That should have been answered. The noble Lord does not require to go to the pigeon-holes of the Admiralty to show how for a number of years a particular firm has been favoured with the Admiralty orders at a price 50 per cent higher than the chains and cables could be bought from other firms equally respectable and honourable in the trade. That is a matter to which the noble Lord should have turned his attention, but he did not do so. But I think that one part of the noble Lord's speech will have a very injurious effect on persons employed in the dockyards. He says, and we can understand what is meant by it, that the Admiralty have great difficulties to encounter, and that this Government and every Government have to experience such difficulties in the employment of a great number of officers. The noble Lord said, if a man be found entirely inefficient, what are we to do with him? Would it not be thought very unjust if a man who was not so efficient as he might be, should be discharged in the manner that private parties would discharge persons they found inefficient? If that doctrine enunciated by the noble Lord, and that statement of a difficulty for which he points out no re- medy, go forth to persons in the employment of the Government, it appears to me that very injurious notions will be put into their heads, and that they will feel that though persons employed by the Government are inefficient, such is the state of things in the Department of the Admiralty that they cannot be got rid of.

I never said so. I should be sorry to say any such thing. I did not say Government had no means of discharging inefficient persons. What I said was, that if in a private yard a person does not suit they can discharge him at once; but the Government have not the same, facility for discharging persons that private firms have.

That is exactly what I stated the noble Lord said. I am not charging the noble Lord with neglecting his duty. It may be one of the difficulties of Government employment, and one that cannot be wholly removed or dealt with so easily as it could be disposed of by private firms. It certainly has not been the custom to get rid of such persons with equal promptitude. But that is a doctrine very pernicious to be stated in this House from the Treasury Bench and by the Secretary of the Admiralty, But I do not believe there are not men in the service of the Admiralty capable of undertaking the proper management of the dockyards. Surely he gave us a case in which a very valuable appointment had been made. The East India Company had 800 or 1,000 civilians in their employment, and yet the Government found it necessary to send over a gentleman from this country to look after the finances of India. It was an admission that out of a thousand civilian officers they had not one that appeared to understand the multiplication table or to be able to manage the finances of that great portion of our Empire. If it be true that there is no person in the employment of the Admiralty to do its work properly, it is the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty and of the Board of Admiralty to take care that such a person should be found. Nothing is so monstrous as to say that while the shipbuilding establishments of private firms are as well managed as in other parts of the world the Government is not capable of finding competent men in their own Departments to do their work. If not, let them bring them from outside their Departments, so that the Government dockyards may he as well managed as private dockyards. What is wanted is, that the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary to the Admiralty, and the managers and heads of the Department, should have, as their first object, to manage that Department well; and if there be men, or rules, or customs that interfere with its good management they ought to break down those rules and establish a better system in the Department which is under their control. But this always strikes me when this question is discussed, that the noble Lord and his Colleagues have in their hands placed every year by Parliament a sum I think exceeding £10,000,000, if it does not exceed £11,000,000. When I look at the trouble which it takes to manage a commercial or manufacturing undertaking which does not expend probably more than £100,000 or £200,000 a year, I can perfectly understand the enormous difficulty there must be in managing the dockyard establishments in various parts of the country and the world where the expenditure is more than £10,000,000 per annum. I believe, and my hon Friend the Member for Lincoln will excuse me for saying so, that it would be impossible, so long as Parliament grants readily and profusely whatever is asked—£10,000,000, or £11,000,000, or £12,000,000 per annum—that]there should not be very considerable waste in the expenditure. Whenever this question has been discussed in this House, this year, last year, and ever since the Russian war—when our expenses were so great—there has been a universal admission on the part of every person not connected with the Admiralty that in that Department there is enormous and extravagant waste, which is not reputable to that Department, and is discreditable to Parliament and oppressive to the community. The noble Lord who is now Secretary to the Admiralty was a great reformer of that Department before he took office, and he hesitated very much when he was asked to take office. He doubted whether, having made speeches compared with which the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln is a mere whisper of discontent—speeches in which he overhauled everybody connected with the Admiralty who sat on that Bench, if he came into office he should be able to fulfil the promises which he had held out of performing the duties which he insisted on his predecessor performing. Well, the noble Lord has been in that office for, I think, about six years, and I have never seen any person in that office who has been so perpetually found fault with upon all sides of the House with regard to the management of this Department. I must say, at the same time, I have never heard anybody who was more confident, or more plausible in the answers he has been able to give to those who have contended with him. I was glad when the noble Lord took office, for I thought we were going to turn over a new leaf and have things done much better. I am sorry that being in office he has not been able to do that which I think he had hoped to do, and which, I think, the House had a fair reason to expect he would attempt to do. I make an excuse for him on this account. I believe the Admiralty is so constituted, the money expended by it is so enormous, the state of things is so chaotic, that, however great was his desire of effecting reforms when he took office, and notwithstanding his ability and industry, it would be impossible for him to remedy all the abuses. And if, besides being an Admiral of reputation, the noble Lord was an accountant in the city, industrious beyond all other men, I believe he could not do what he thought at the time he would be able to do, and which he now regrets he cannot do. I do not know whether my hon. Friend below me is going to divide the House on this question. If he does, I shall certainly with great pleasure divide with him; but I tender him my thanks for the careful, able, and admirable speech which he has made on this question.

Sir, I put it to the House, whether it is fair for an hon. Member to come down to the House with an array of figures on matters of pure detail, and make a statement upon them, without giving us the opportunity of looking at them, or without any notice that he was going into such details. I appeal to the House whether it is fair to a public Department to take such a course. Sir, I feel it to he my duty to oppose his Motion.

said, there were two points asserted in the Resolution. The one was the inexpediency of appointing naval officers who were not possessed of a technical knowledge of the business in Her Majesty's dockyards, and the other was a disapproval of the practice of limiting their tenure of office to five years. Now, many hon. Members might be disposed to agree with the one, but to dissent from the other. Having passed a portion of his life in connection with the dockyards, he thought it would be extremely inconvenient not to have naval officers at the head of those establishments, and he was convinced that the men themselves employed in the dockyards would feel more satisfaction if a naval officer were placed as Superintendent than they would if a mere layman occupied the position, however superior he might be in technical knowledge. The character, and influence, and authority of naval officers were necessary to keep the dockyards in order. He was never aware that the captains of the yards interfered minutely with the details of business; their duty was to superintend the general arrangements. As to the other point, in regard to limiting the tenure of office to five years, he thought that where a captain was superintending, and before the end of the term succeeded to his flag, there might be a modification of the rule so far as not to allow him to retire until the end of the term.

said, he had always understood from reading works of fiction, particularly the novels of Captain Marryat, which were the principal source of his nautical knowledge, that a naval officer ought to be acquainted with all the details of his ship, and if the offices in the dockyards were open to them as a prize, they would have an interest in acquiring that knowledge. It was very undesirable, therefore, that the present system should be altered.

said, it seemed to him that the Resolution before the House came to this, that officers who were not possessed of a technical knowledge of the work carried on in the dockyards should not be appointed. A great many naval officers, however, were possessed of that knowledge. There were various other things to be taken into consideration besides the building of ships. The rigging of ships was an important] matter, where the weights should be I placed, where the piercings for the guns should be made, and other things of the same kind. He remembered a time when the ships could not sail close to the wind because the shrouds were placed too far forward. A naval officer was placed at the head of the dockyards; he put the shrouds further back, and the ships were enabled to sail closer to the wind. The same officer also made a great improvement in the sails, and thus a great saving was effected. Here, then, were two improvements introduced, not by a civilian, but by an officer who had served all his time at sea and had gained battles there. Allusion had been made to the French dockyards. They had in France a school of naval architecture similar to that which had been established by the Government, only the French school was on a much more extensive scale. The French Government educated their naval officers there, every officer having to pass two years at the school. There he learned many branches of science applicable to naval architecture, and the result was those officers became so eminent that they were sought by all the firms throughout France, they were sought by foreign countries, and they were placed at the head of the various steam-packet establishments. Considering all those facts he thought the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite was not one which ought to be agreed to, inasmuch as the Government had adopted the most proper course. They had established a naval school, by means of which, he firmly believed, most naval officers—if not all of them—would become eminent by their knowledge of shipbuilding.

Sir, I am very much surprised at the course taken by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, because he seems to me as if he were anxious to shut out any admonition on the part of the House that should enable him and the heads of his Department to control that Department in a more satisfactory manner. What can be more reasonable and more gentle than the proposition made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Seely)? It is not that you shall not have as superintendents of dockyards naval officers, but that you shall not have them of necessity. Therefore all the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite go for nothing. It is that, when you appoint a naval officer, he shall be a man who has a technical knowledge of the duties he is expected to superintend. Was anything more rational ever proposed to Parliament? I shall not say was anything so rational ever refused by Parliament? That would be an absurd question to ask. But if the noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) should persuade the House to refuse this Resolution it will be tantamount to obtaining from Parliament an acknowledgment that it is right to appoint to the office of Superintendents of dockyards men who, being naval officers, know nothing of the duties which they are expected to discharge. I will undertake to say that if the proposition be now negatived it will be obtaining from Parliament a sanction to a gross abuse—namely, that you should place men in charge of the expenditure of something like £3,000,000 a year, and that there shall be no blame attached to the Department if these men so placed in charge know nothing of the matters they are expected to superintend. I ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it would not be much better not to divide the House, and to accept these words—not to accept them as a stringent rule which shall bind them down to do a certain thing, but that they shall understand that in the judgment of Parliament it is desirable that when officers are appointed Superintendents of dockyards they should know something about the business which they are expected to superintend. With regard to the question whether the Superintendents should continue in office for a longer period than five years, that, perhaps, is not a matter of quite such importance, but it does seem unfortunate that there should be a change in the men just at the time when they become competent in their departments. Aware of the views of reform entertained by the noble Lord in regard to the Admiralty, and of the anxiety which, I have no doubt, he sincerely entertains and feels, that that Department of the Admiralty should be conducted in a manner more in accordance with the interests of the public and the views of this House, I ask him to accept the words of my hon. Friend as a positive assistance to him in the right performance of his duties. I think if he rejects them that he will weaken his own power and that of his Colleagues, and will do that which for years past I have heard him assert in this House most strongly ought not to be done in the interests of the public.

said, he was of the opinion that the resolution was a most proper one. What did the Admiralty themselves do with regard to the officers whom they had appointed to steam vessels? In the first instance they had obtained incompetent men to manage them, but now they would not appoint an officer to command unless he had attended at Portsmouth a regular course of steam instruction. On these grounds the noble Lord would be well advised to accept the Motion.

said, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had thrown a new light upon the resolution of the hon. Member for Lincoln. So far as he (Mr. Corry) understood its meaning it went to say, not that naval officers, but that civilians possessed of a technical knowledge of shipbuilding ought to be appointed to the office of Superintendent. He was not present when the hon. Gentleman made his statement, but he was told that that was the sense in which he spoke. He (Mr. Corry) should like to know if the interpretation which was now put upon the Resolution by the hon. Member for Birmingham be correct, what right had the hon. Member for Lincoln to assume that naval officers placed at the head of the dockyards had not that competent knowledge of shipbuilding which he deemed so necessary? He spoke with some experience of the Admiralty when he asserted that the Board always endeavoured to select the best qualified officers that could be found to occupy the post of Superintendents of Her Majesty's dockyards. He should like to hear the name of a Superintendent who had been found to be incompetent. He maintained that, as a general rule, they had been well selected, and performed their duties satisfactorily. It was a mistaken opinion that it was necessary that the head of the dockyard should be a shipbuilder. They might as well say that artists should be canvas-makers, because they painted on canvas. If the object were merely to build ships it would be different, hut after a ship was built there was much to be done to put her into a proper state for sea, and to fit her as a man-of-war, and it was not to be expected that an officer of the rank of Staff Commander, exercising the duties of a master attendant, in whose department this lay, would take his orders from a master shipwright. Although the plans, &c, were laid down in the office of the Surveyor of the Navy, Superintendents of dockyards frequently communicated valuable suggestions respecting the fittings and arrangements of a ship to the Surveyor, and they were in many instances acted upon. The presence of an experienced naval officer, as the head of a dockyard, was of the greatest advantage. So far from dockyard work costing more than contract work, as stated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, he (Mr. Corry) would undertake to prove to the satisfaction of a Select Committee that extravagant expenditure was occasioned by the latter more than by the former. It had been said that it was absurd that the cost of repairing a ship should be greater than the cost price, but he knew of no such instance in the case of ships built in our dockyards, though it had not been rare in the case of contract-built ships. If the dockyards cost a great deal the country had the worth of its money.

said, that he did not think that this Motion had anything to do with the total exclusion of qualified officers of the navy from the superintendance of the dockyards. All they asked was that qualified Superintendents should be appointed, whether officers of the navy or not. There was a prevailing impression throughout the country that the dockyards were not managed with that consideration for economy which was desirable. It was, therefore, most important that Superintendents of dockyards should be men who knew something of accounts, and were qualified to attend to the management of large concerns. As sailors, the present naval Superintendents might be efficient, they might have distinguished themselves in fighting their ships, but, after spending many years of their lives at sea, they were not fit to manage large manufacturing establishments. He hoped, therefore, that the House would agree to accept the words proposed.

said, the Resolution was not an abstract proposition as to these appointments, but a distinct assertion that it was inexpedient to continue an existing practice, and therefore implied a censure on the present mode of appointment of naval officers. His hon. Friend (Mr. Seely) bad brought forward a mass of figures, and in doing so he made an extraordinary statement—namely, that his only wish was to see them to-morrow in the newspapers. How was it possible for his noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) or himself to refute figures some of which his hon. Friend would not even read, and which he handed over to the reporters to he put in print? What his hon. Friend did on a former occasion was to communicate with him beforehand, and to tell him what were the items he meant to discuss. This was a course which enabled him to meet his hon. Friend, but it was impossible to discuss figures some of which were not even read. However, since the division he had had time to look into one or two of the figures read by his hon. Friend, and he would tell the House what those figures actually were. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the cost of certain milled lead and lead pipes, the items referring to which he extracted from the balance-sheet of 1862–3; and he said that such was the extravagance of the Government system of manufacture, that the Government lost upon the year, he believed the hon. Gentleman said, £1,090. Now, the whole amount of the account of the year was, on the debtor side, £10,048 for materials, £185 for labour, £165 for general expenditure, and £1,015 as percentage to meet those general charges which his hon. Friend said were not brought in at all. The only expenditure, therefore, over which the dockyard authorities could have any control was £185 for labour and £165 for general expenditure, the total being £350. With the purchase of materials the dockyard authorities had nothing to do. The materials were placed at their disposal by the authorities of Somerset House; the price at which they were purchased was furnished to them, and they had to produce a manufacturing balance-sheet. How his hon. Friend could make a loss of £1,090 out of £350 did not appear. Perhaps he would say that he did not find fault with the dockyard authorities, but with the Storekeeper General. But this had nothing to do with his Motion, which referred to the present practice of dockyard appointments as an unsound one, and one which led to extravagance. An instance like this ought to warn the House to be a little careful in accepting general figures like those of his hon. Friend. For the purposes of debate it would have been much more convenient if his hon. Friend, instead of reading off certain figures so rapidly that it was difficult to follow them, had done him the kindness to place those figures in his hands, that he might look into them, and then he could probably have done justice to the department, and have put the House right as to the mode in which the accounts were prepared. As to the balance-sheet of the manufacturing departments, bethought he had wearied the House by his explanations. He would remind the House that he had already stated the changes which were in process of introduction, and which the hon. Gentleman himself had admitted were a great improvement. All the objections of the hon. Gentleman referred to a past state of things—namely, the accounts in 1862; the basis of which had been since revised by himself and his predecessor in office.

said, he had not his figures with him, and he could not refer to them, but if his hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) would do him the favour, as he did on a former occasion, of meeting him at Somerset House, he would go into the question with him, and he would venture to affirm that in less than half an hour his hon. Friend would admit that he was right. The difference in price between ingot lead and pipe lead in the market was 3d. per cwt., one being 20s. 3d. and the other 20s. 6d.; and in calculating this account he deducted from the total cost of the ingot lead, and then he said so much was for labour, and he put it to the House whether that was not a fair way of estimating the cost of the labour. The cost for labour in the Government manufactory was 1s. 8½d., as against 3d. for the milled lead, and 4s. 8d. or 4s. 10d. for pipes, as against 3d., the cost in the open market. When he met his hon. Friend, the junior Lord of the Admiralty, at Somerset House, he must admit that nearly every statement he (Mr. Seely) made in the House on a former occasion was found to be correct. As regarded balance-sheets it was absurd to say that such charges as interest on capital laid out were not to be taken into account in estimating the cost of an article.

said, that as the hon. Member had challenged him as to certain matters, it was necessary that he should explain. The hon. Member had on a former occasion quoted certain figures from a Report, which were in black and white, which it was impossible for him to contradict, and he never had. What he did contradict——

called the hon. Gentleman to order.

said, he repeated his challenge to meet the hon. Gentleman at Somerset House, and if he did not make good his statement about the lead he would apologise to the House. With regard to the balance-sheet referred to, it was necessary to take into account the charges for labour, gas, rent, and other matters of that kind, which should be charged in ascertaining the cost of an article. It was an absurdity to argue this question without that were done.

said, he hoped he might he permitted to explain. He had been stopped in the middle of a sentence.

said, the hon. Gentleman might explain what required explanation in his own speech, hut he must not reply.

said, he must appeal to the House whether, having been challenged, and the cheers of the House requiring that he should answer it, he was to be stopped in the midddle of a sentence.

said, the hon. Member was not in order. If it were permitted, he might go on making half-a-dozen more speeches.

said, he believed that the Admiralty in selecting the Superintendents were not actuated by party feelings, but chose the officers most capable of presiding over the dockyards. If the Superintendents were acquainted with shipbuilding they would be more efficient, but that knowledge was not indispensable, as they had under them assistants who possessed experience in the construction of vessels. He admitted that the expense was considerably more in the Royal dockyards than in the private yards, but that was owing to the contracts, with the making of which the Superintendents had nothing to do. The present Motion might be of advantage in directing the attention of the Admiralty to many points which had been touched upon, but he thought that naval officers were the most suitable persons to preside over the Royal dockyards. The most important duty they had to perform was to examine ships when they came home from foreign stations, and put them in an efficient state to proceed to some other distant station—in fact, they were called upon to discharge duties which no Superintendent Shipwright would be able to perform. In case of war, or of a ship requiring to be immediately refitted on her coming home from a foreign station, it would be impossible to rely on the yards at Liverpool and Glasgow, and in the Thames. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

said, he admitted that with regard to economy the Royal dock- yards could not be compared with private yards; hut that was not exactly the question before the House. The question was, whether naval officers who were without a peculiar technical knowledge were suitable for Superintendents. It was impossible for any one person, whether naval or civilian, to have a technical knowlege of all the various branches of the business carried on in the dockyards; but he maintained that a naval man was better qualified than any other for the post of superintendent, because an important part of his duty was to take care that ships were sent to sea in a fit state to meet an enemy. The effect of the Resolution would be entirely to disqualify naval officers from holding these offices, and he therefore hoped that the House would not agree to it.

Sir, it seems to mo that the question is a very simple one, upon which the good sense of the House can hardly fail to come to a right conclusion. My hon. Friend (Mr. Seely) who made the Motion contends, and contends with some force—if all that is required is to construct a wooden frame that shall float and be a good ship to go through the water—that a civilian may be as fit, and possibly a more fit person, to superintend a dockyard than a naval officer. But the business of the Royal dockyards is to construct, not simply vessels to go through the water, but vessels adapted to the purposes of war; and I think that my noble and hon. Friends (Lord Clarence Paget and Mr. Childers) have shown conclusively that none but a naval officer, who knows what a ship of war ought to be and is conversant with all those details which adapt her to the purposes of war, can properly superintend the construction of vessels intended to servo those purposes; and, therefore, that if you were to exclude naval officers from the superintendence of the dockyards, you would be doing a great injury to the public service. The Resolution as it stands seems to me not only to affirm that which I think is erroneous in reason, but to pass a censure which is not deserved, because it says that the practice of appointing naval officers who are unfit for the offices to which they are appointed ought to cease. My hon. Friend ought to show that such a practice exists. We deny that it does. We say that the naval officers who have been appointed to the superintendence of dockyards, and those who are now filling such offices, have been and are perfectly competent to perform the duties which specially belong to an officer who has to produce a ship of war for the service of the nation. I should therefore hope that the House will be content to allow my hon. Friend who made the Motion (Mr. Seely), to meet my hon. Friend the Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers) at Somerset House, and fight their battles over pages of figures in the way in which the hon. Member for Lincoln proposed that the duel should be carried on. I have no doubt that, the result of that single combat between the two champions would be that they would come to some conclusion with reference to the facts which would be satisfactory to both. I am quite sure that neither of them will endeavour to arrive at anything but the truth; and, under these circumstances, I trust that the House will not agree to a Motion which points to a conclusion which is not founded in reason and seems to cast an imputation upon officers who do not at all deserve it.

said, that he on the contrary hoped that the House would accept the Resolution in the sense in which it was intended. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had entirely misconceived its meaning. It declared that it was inexpedient to continue the practice of appointing naval officers who possessed no technical knowledge of the business of the dockyards. He was sure that the noble Lord would not assert that the naval officers who had been made Superintendents had been appointed in consequence of their technical knowledge. It was matter of notoriety that they were appointed because they were distinguished fighting officers. All that the Resolution affirmed was that if a naval officer was appointed he ought to be a man who possessed technical knowledge, and that if no officer so qualified could be found the Government ought to look elsewhere.

said, that he entirely approved that part of the Resolution which condemned the practice of changing the Superintendents of dockyards every five years. He could not see any reason for such a course, except to increase the patronage of the Admiralty. As to the Superintendents themselves, in his opinion the best man to be at the head of a dockyard was not a gentleman who possessed merely a technical knowledge of one branch of the work which was performed there, but a good man of business and practical knowledge, who should exercise control over the heads of departments, and see that the various officers carried out the works intrusted to them.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair what was the Question before the House? The original question had been that the Speaker do leave the Chair, to which an Amendment had been moved, and the House decided that ail the words after the word "that" should be omitted. Now the House had decided that other words should not be added, and the consequence was that the word "that" was the only question before the House. He wished to know whether it was competent for an hon. Member to put a Question upon that word.

I beg to move that this House do on Monday resolve itself into Committee of Supply.

The noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) has justly pointed out what the course of the House has been. It has negatived the Motion that I now leave the Chair, and it has declined to add the words which were just now the subject of discussion; but I apprehend the hon. Gentleman who has now risen (Mr. Hanbury Tracy) is going to supply the deficiency by suggesting some words to be added to the word "that" which may perhaps be more acceptable to the House.

said, he rose to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government the question of which he had given notice, and in doing so claimed the indulgence of the House, feeling that he was treading on somewhat delicate ground. The appointments to and promotions in the Order of the Bath which had recently been made had attracted the attention of officers of all grades in both branches of Her Majesty's service, and they found themselves unable to reconcile those appointments and promotions with the original design with which the order was instituted. The decoration of the Bath had, above all others, been looked upon as the reward of merit exclusively, but some of the late appointments had given rise to the suspicion that it was in danger of losing its distinctive character and of being lowered to the level of those foreign insignia which meant so little and were so easily acquired. He did not know whether it was in contemplation to make a fusion of the several distinctions which were comprised under the general name of the Order of the Bath, but it seemed that what had lately been done was a step in that direction. It was hardly necessary to remind the House that the Order of the Bath was revived by George I. in May, 1725, and was further enlarged by the Prince Regent in 1815, he being desirous of commemorating the auspicious termination of the long and arduous contest which the country had been engaged in, and of marking in an especial manner the valour and devotion shown by officers engaged by sea and land. It was then directed that the Order should in future consist of and be divided into three classess—the Grand Cross, Knighthood, and the Companionship of the Bath. The regulations connected with it were expressly laid down by statute, and it was ordained that no person should be admitted to the third class

"Unless his services should have been marked by especial mention in despatches, as having distinguished himself by his valour and conduct in action against the enemy whilst in command of a ship of war, of troops, or while at the head of a military department, or as having by some actual service under his immediate conduct and direction contributed to the success of such action."

No one could for a moment dispute the fact that it was the intention of the Prince Regent when he expressly laid down the rules which were to form a guide for the entrance into the lower grades that the same should apply to the higher, and that, therefore, no officer should have the Grand Cross or Knighthood of the Order conferred on him unless he were qualified to become a Companion of the Order. But, as if to show this more distinctly, in the year 1847 Her Most Gracious Majesty was pleased to still further enlarge the Order by the construction of a Civil branch, comprising three grades as in the military. This branch had enabled Her Majesty to confer the decoration on those who by long meritorious service and devotion to the Sovereign in a civil capacity were entitled to some such mark of distinction. But the very creation of this division unmistakably pointed out that it was the wish of the Sovereign that military and civil services should receive distinct rewards, and that the prestige and dignity of the military decoration should be kept alive intact. Such, at any rate, had been the principle and character of the Order as viewed by officers both of the army and navy. The value of a decoration consisted entirely in the rigid observance of the regulations under which it was first instituted. In a service where there were few such decorations, in a country disliking ribands and insignia, that which distinctively pointed out a man as having distinguished himself in action as well as having served his country for a long number of years was naturally regarded as the only Order of merit, and was prized accordingly. Among the appointments which had lately been made there were cases which had created the impression that the old constitution of the Order had been altered or was about to be changed. They found officers who had never distinguished themselves in action, officers who by the rules expressly laid down in 1815 were not qualified even to become Companions, receiving the Grand Cross and Knighthood of the Order, and, what was even still stranger, it was found that officers had been transferred from the civil to the military branch. If it was urged that whether the country was at peace or at war it was necessary that the number in the higher grades should be kept complete, and that therefore during peace officers must receive the decoration without any very distinguished service, it was a sufficient answer that there were very many officers now Companions of the Order who were well qualified to enter on the higher grades, and that as England always had some little war in hand there never would be a lack of distinguished officers. When he looked among the list of Companions he found officers whose services none could dispute, and whose deeds of gallantry before the enemy had appeared in despatch after despatch, but who were passed over, while others with no military claims whatever under the existing statute received the highest honours. He thought that no more remarkable instance could be shown than in the case of an officer well known to that House for his deeds of daring. He alluded to "Nemesis" Hall, now an admiral, but who ever since he received the Companionship of the Order had been placed entirely in the background. Was it to be wondered at that under these circumstances great dissatisfaction should prevail both in the army and navy, and that officers who for heroic conduct and bravery in action received the Companionship, thinking at the time it was but a stepping-stone to the next, should look with dismay at these decorations, and were anxious to know whether the C.B. was in future to be the only military decoration, and what were the regulations to be enforced? He hoped that in what he had said he would not be thought to dispute the Royal Prerogative to confer this Order on whom it pleased. He had raised this question with the view of guarding that gift most jealously from being lowered in value. His only object was to set at rest a feeling of uneasiness which had pervaded both services during the last few months, and in justice to those gallant officers who had received the Military Order in former years for actual service. He felt confident that the statutes of the Bath were either entirely misunderstood by the army and navy, or that the regulations had undergone some silent alteration. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend to the Crown the amalgamation of the Civil and Military Orders of the Bath; and to move an Address for returns of any alterations and the regulations.

said, that when he had called attention to the subject of the Order of the Bath upon a former occasion, the noble Lord had conferred a boon upon the gallant officers admitted to the Order by remitting the fees of which formerly they had been mulcted. On this occasion he did not intend to animadvert upon any recent appointments, believing that it was the Royal Prerogative to confer the distinction as it pleased. The Order had always held a distinguished place in the annals of the kingdom. Originally, no doubt, it was a personal mark of honour from the Sovereign. Henry IV. at his Coronation gave a large number of such distinctions, and Charles II. at the Restoration gave away a large number of Red Ribands, and thereby lowered the value of the distinction. In the reign of George I., Walpole met many claims for the Order of the Garter by creating thirty-six Knights of the Bath, and mulcting them of £1,000 each. He took the Order himself, and met the remonstrances of the Duchess of Marlborough, as to her grandson not receiving the Garter, by the reply, "Madam, who takes the Bath now may take the Garter hereafter." The title of Sir Robert Walpole was derived from the Bath; and in later times some of our best known characters, such as Sir Philip Francis and Sir Joseph Banks, were indebted for their titles to this Order of which they had been made Knights. To the end of the Peninsular War the members styled themselves simply Knights of the Bath; hut a time arrived when it became necessary to imitate the foreign Orders of Knighthood, and the Prince Regent was advised to divide the Order into three Classes—Grand Crosses, composed principally of soldiers, but with some civilians, and two other Classes, composed entirely of soldiers. It still, however, retained its character of being in the main a military Order; and the Duke of Wellington, who usually held these honours very cheap, was so attached to this particular distinction that after the battle of Vittoria, when it was intimated that the Prince Regent intended to confer on him the Order of the Garter, application was made by him to Lord Bathurst that the usual practice of giving up the Red Riband on receiving the Blue might be departed from in this particular instance. The answer was that it could not be permitted; but the year following the Order was remodelled, the original K. B. 's being made into G. C. B. 's, and the Duke of Wellington, of course, was one of the first to receive the new dignity. It was a curious fact that the Duke of Wellington received the identical Red Riband which Lord Nelson vacated by his death. At the close of the Peninsular War a large number of Ribands were given; but afterwards matters remained for many years without change. There was another Order, not, strictly speaking, English, but Hanoverian, which was lately in the gift of the Crown, and was conferred for some time with judgment and discrimination, until the reign of William IV. who was so good natured a Monarch that whether the request preferred was for a Riband or a Reform Bill he found the greatest difficulty in saying "No." The result was that the Guelphic Older became inundated with Knights; and the anecdote was told, that the King having complained one day at dinner of the pertinacity with which a country Mayor pursued him with Addresses, one of the King's relations sitting by said, "I should 'Guelph' him, Sir, at once!" On the separation of Hanover from England the Guelphic Order ceased to he given in England, and it was now an Hanoverian Order, bearing a high character. Twelve years ago the second and third Classes of the Bath began to be given to civilians; previously to this the First Class only had been conferred on Cabinet Ministers and Ambassadors, and others whose position and services might fairly be viewed as equalling those of men who had won the Order on the field of battle. This extension of the Second and Third classes to civilions rankled in the breasts of Military men, and it would, in his opinion, have been more prudent to avoid interference with a Military Order, and to have established an Order of Civil Merit. It might be said that Members of Parliament might wish for the Order; but he could not see why it should be harder to draw the line in Civil than in Military life, as to those rendering conspicuous service to the State. In old days there were sinecure appointments, which, no doubt, were abused at one time, but which, nevertheless, were very useful. An officer who had served with distinction abroad came home and was made governor of some undiscovernble fort, with a salary of some £300 or £400 a year. His country recognized his services and he was happy. But now that the wisdom of the present generation had swept away all those sinecures no means existed of rewarding long and meritorious conduct, save by continuing men in Office until they had long become incapable of serving the State—a practice which nobody could defend. He could not help thinking that an Order connected with our Protectorate of the Ionian Islands, but which did not pass away when we surrendered those territories to the King of Greece, might be now made use of with great advantage. The Order had always been one of distinction, conferred principally on Governors of the Island of Malta, Lord High Commissioners of the Ionian Islands, and other important bearers of Office; the officers of the Order performed functions which were altogether honorary, and no fees were demanded of the Knights. In these days it might be said that to institute an Order was an anachronism, but except the Garter, Golden Fleece, and the principal Order of Denmark, there were none of great antiquity really extant. The Order of the Star of India, created by Her Majesty only a few years ago, he had seen quite lately sparkling on the breast of Sir Hugh Rose, one of the most distinguished generals whom this country had ever produced, and he believed it was held in the highest estimation throughout Her Majesty's Eastern dominions.

said, the Order of the Bath was so strictly a Military Order that according to its statutes no officer ever could receive it whose name had not appeared in the Gazette for actual service in the field. Generally speaking it had been accorded to very proper claimants, but one case came to his knowledge where the officer who obtained it was three miles from the spot where powder was being burnt in anger. The name of Admiral Hall had been mentioned, and he felt it right to state with regard to that officer, that while Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company he had felt it right on public grounds alone, without the least personal acquaintance with him, to offer him command in the Indian Navy. The services in India of Captain Hall failed to obtain for him the Order of the Bath, but he afterwards made a new claim for himself by services in the Baltic, which obtained for him the reward that his antecedents ought to have secured. He hoped the public mention of his name on that occasion would give him that further rank to which he was entitled by his services. It was, he thought, very much to be lamented that the real object of according these distinctions was sometimes lost sight of, and that family influence succeeded in obtnining what meritorious service simply had failed to attract.

said, he felt convinced that his hon. Friend who had brought forward this Motion (Mr. Hanbury Tracy) would be the last to desire to interfere with the Prerogative of Her Majesty, and that he only wished that some remedy might be devised which would put a stop to the dissatisfaction which existed with regard to the distribution of these Orders—a dissatisfaction about the existence of which there could not possibly be any doubt. The improvement desired was not dictated merely for sentiment, but would be found advisable in a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view, because gentleman could not be said to enter the Army as a rule merely for the emoluments which the service afforded them. He should regret if anything were done to diminish the value attached to those honours. He knew officers of the Army and Navy who, when they lost their good service pensions by a rise in rank desired that the records should be preserved, so that it might be known that they had received those pensions. It was highly desirable that the feeling of the Army and Navy should go along with the grant of these distinctions.

Sir, I quite agree with what has fallen from my hon. Friend who spoke last, that it is most desirable, especially in the distribution of honours, that the general feeling of the army and navy should go along with the grace of the Crown. At the same time it is in human nature that many people should not be disposed to agree precisely in the particular selection that may be made, and it often happens that a person who is perfectly fit for the honour he may have received, may by others be compared with friends of their own, and there may not be universal acquiescence as to the relative merits of the individuals. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that those who advise the Crown in the distribution of honours both to the army and navy are most anxious to do full justice to those services according to the ordinances and regulations of the Order, and that those should be selected who are the best entitled to the distinction. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury Tracy) who made this Motion that it is desirable to consolidate the civil and military Orders of the Bath. They are entirely separate. They are given for distinction in careers altogether different. I think it would diminish greatly the importance which the army and navy attach to the distinction of the military Order of the Bath if civilians wore precisely the same decorations, and were in no way to be distinguished from the others. I think it of great importance to separate the two Orders. No jealousy whatever is felt by the army and navy with regard to conferring the civil Order on those who by civil services have served Her Majesty. Although no doubt the services performed by the army and navy are far more brilliant than those of any civilians, yet there is great merit in the Civil Service, and there are many men who have distinguished themselves in different positions in the Civil Service, and upon whom it is very fitting this honorary distinction should be conferred in acknowledgment of the services they have rendered their country. I am not aware that any change has been made lately in the statutes of the Order of the Bath, and I trust, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion for a return the particulars of which he has not stated. Some years ago there was an augmentation of the class of the Civil Service, and I think also of the Military. There is a circumstance to be borne in mind with regard to the military and naval branch of the Order. The regulations of the Service require that the person shall have been mentioned in the Gazette, and performed certain duties in the field before the enemy to entitle him to the decoration of the Order, Of course, in proportion as peace continues the candidates who have fulfilled this condition must progressively diminish, and it becomes matter for consideration whether, in view of the long continuance of peace, service of great merit, although not rendered in the field, may not be considered as coming within the fair spirit of the regulation by which the Order is conferred. My hon. Friend thinks that there is some partiality in the distributions. Of course, as I have said, persons may attach more value to the services of those they know, but I am perfectly satisfied that there has been no intentional departure from the most perfect justice in the distribution of the honours of the Order. With regard to the Mediterranean order of St. Michael and St. George, the hon. Baronet (Sir William Fraser) proposes that it should be enlarged and made applicable to services performed generally. That is a rather taking proposal at first sight, but it seems to me that the Civil Order of the Bath is sufficient for the purpose of awarding civil merit, and there is a great objection and inconvenience in multiplying unnecessarily these orders and decorations. There arises a great embarrassment in selecting persons peculiarly fitted for these distinctions, and as you multiply the means of rewarding services, in that proportion you multiply the claims that are made and the embarrassment of those who have to deal with them. In foreign countries these orders abound greatly, and in proportion as they abound their value is diminished. And so it would be here, nor do I think it is in accordance with the character of the country that we should see a great number of persons walking about the streets with decorations, in regard to which they could not, perhaps, very easily furnish the grounds upon which they were conferred. That would give rise to criticisms such as the hon. Gentleman has bestowed on the distribution of the Order of the Bath, and I think it would be better that the Order of St. Michael and St. George should be confined to those who have done service in the Mediterranean, and should not be made a general Order, like the Guelph for instance. We all recollect that the Order of the Guelph was so lavishly bestowed that its value was greatly diminished, and the anecdote is, I believe, perfectly true that was related by the hon. Gentleman, and that it was said to the monarch of some one—"It would serve him right to Guelph him."

who had given notice to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty—

"If there was any special Report made to the Lords of the Admiralty, by the Admiral of the station, as to the loss of ninety-two Sailors and Marines from the burning of Her Majesty's Ship Bombay, off Monte Video, on the 14th of last December:

"If he can state the number of Marines and Sailors who were drowned, separately, and the length of time that elapsed from the first breaking out of the fire to the sinking of the ship:

"If there were any patent Life-Belts on board; and, if so, if they were used:

"If there is any order, rule, or system in the Navy, or the Marine Corps, under which the recruits or men are taught to swim; and if the boys in the service are instructed in the art of swimming:

"And, how many the crew of Her Majesty's Ship Bombay were on the 14th of December?"

said, he was, he believed, precluded by the rules of the House from putting the Questions then, but would do so if the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would allow him on another occasion.

thought that his hon. Friend would be in order, because this was a new Motion before the House.

It has been stated to the House that there is at present no Motion before the House. The only member of the sentence that remains is the word "That," and I think it necessary, in order to the due forms of the House, that if any hon. Gentleman wishes to address it he should conclude with a Motion. It will also be necessary that notice of such Motion shall have been given. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) has given notice of his intention to move for copies of correspondence, and he is therefore is order in addressing the House.

rose to address the House on the subject of his Motion—

rose to order. He was sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but as he stood before him on the paper, and had given notice of his intention to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to explain the grounds of his statement relative to the dockyard at Sheerness, he would place himself in order by moving after the word "That" to add "it is desirable that the Secretary to the Admiralty should explain the grounds of his statement, &c."

said, he had pointed out to the House that the state of the Question did not permit any hon. Gentleman to make a speech unless he was prepared to conclude with a Motion. Another rule of the House was that a Motion could not be made without notice; and in conformity with that rule the hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. W. O. Stanley) had stated that he would take another opportunity of addressing his Question to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. Under these circumstances the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who had given notice of his Motion, was rightly in possession of the House.

again rose to speak—

rose to order. He understood the word "That" was the only word which remained of the Motion before the House; to this the last Motion was an addition, and the whole of that Motion being withdrawn, a new Motion might be put.

The Motion has been withdrawn, and the word "That" remains.

said, he had to call the attention of the House to the purchase of the Soulage Collection for the South Kensington Museum, and to move for Copies of Correspondence and Papers relating to it. He believed he should find favour in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Motion, as upon a recent occasion he had severely reprobated the suggestion of paying for public works by deferred payments, designating such a course as a contrivance for concealing from the public the real amount of Public Expenditure. The facts were, that a collection, commonly known as the Soulage Collection, of majolica ware and Palissy ware, and other things of that sort, many very ugly, were acquired and brought into this country by some guarantee society of which Mr. Cole, of South Kensington, was an influential member. It was to be shown at the Art Exhibition at Manchester. When that exhibition was over it was offered to the city of Manchester, but declined, and it was subsequently purchased for South Kensington at about £14,000. The payment was deferred, and 5 per cent interest was to be paid on the unpaid portion. The sum, however, never appeared in the Estimates; in fact, South Kensington appeared generally to have acquired its property by deception, and in this case the transaction had certainly been kept from the knowledge of the House. There could he no doubt the purchase had been made; interest was also charged, and the whole amount of the purchase-money was only paid during the spring of the present year, the original purchase having been made in 1858. He desired to put a stop to any department acquiring property in this way, without the knowledge or authority of Parliament, and he also wished to know whether there were any other transactions of a like nature? A short time ago they had voted a sum of £10,000, which had been expended in a manner of which they knew nothing, and he wished to learn whether that sum had been appropriated towards the payment for that collection. South Kensington had also been flying in the face of a Resolution of that House. Last year there was a Select Committee on Schools of Art, and it was especially recommended that sums paid for certain objects should be kept distinct; but in the Report given this year there was no account whatever of the money which had been expended. At an earlier period of the Session he should have asked the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of this transaction, which he thought a very discreditable one. He hoped the Treasury knew nothing of these proceedings, and that those connected with the Science and Art Department would take care that no such acquisition should be again made without the knowledge and consent of Parliament. He should also like to know whether the item of "£500 for the hire of specimens" had not been intended for the hire and use of this collection; and, if so, why it did not appear in former years.

said, he wished to remind the House of the exhibition which had taken place of the Soulage collection at Marlborough House in 1857, when there was an affectation of consulting Parliament, and tickets were sent to hon. Members with a view to encourage its purchase by the nation, It was, indeed, a most wretched display. The greater part of the collection consisted of old locks, in which there was neither art nor mechanical skill. He had never heard till to-night that it had been purchased, and he hoped the information sought would be granted.

said, he wished to say a few words with respect to this Motion. He held in his hand a copy of a Correspondence for which he had moved in 1858 respecting this collection, which had been described as the greatest rubbish in the world. Certainly in matters of taste there would always be disputes; but if the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) referred to that Correspondence he would find that seventy gentlemen interested in art and manufactures—manufacturers, art-workmen, and others—subscribed £24,000 in order to purchase this collection as a nucleus for South Kensington before the Government interfered in the matter. At the head of that subscription were the names of some of the first men in the country, such as Lord Granville, the late Lord Ashburton, Mr. Napier, of Glasgow, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Sheepshanks, and, in short, the names of all the manufacturers in Great Britain who had acquired a reputation between 1851 and 1862. The Go- vernment afterwards purchased it of them, and deserved well of the country for so doing. It was the opinion of foreigners that the manufacturers of this country had made a great stride between 1851 and 1862, as the Exhibition of that year showed, and, if so, it was owing to this collection. Therefore, the Government and the managers of the Museum deserved praise instead of censure for what they had done, and for enabling our manufacturers to rival those of France. He did not stand up to defend the Kensington Museum. He thought it had exhibited a somewhat monopolizing tendency, but perhaps success had produced that effect. However, let the House give justice where justice was due, and they must all admit the great success of the Museum with respect to early Italian art. Our collection in that respect was one of which Englishmen might be justly proud, and which they might show to foreigners without grudging and without shame.

said, it appeared, after all, that it was Government money which the gentlemen of whom the noble Lord had spoken had expended on the collection, and not their own. How was it that the gentlemen who purchased the collection did not present it to the Museum?

said, they purchased it to prevent its being dispersed, and then offered it to the Government at cost price.

said, he thought the matter ought to have been brought before Parliament in the first instance. The collection was a paltry one. The Government seemed to have adopted a system of spending the public money for those things which did not lead to any practical use. They were all agreed that the expenses of the collection at Kensington were increasing every year, and nobody could enter the Museum there without seeing the absurd waste of money there was upon bits of pavement of antiquated pattern and little broken stones. Those who represented people who paid for such collections without seeing them had a right to complain.

said, he did not understand what was meant when hon. Members charged his Department with spending money without the authority of the House. The House had year after year voted sums to be expended in making a collection of objects of art in the Museum, and an account was annually rendered of the manner in which the sums granted have been expended. With respect to the Soulage collection, he should say a few words in explanation, which the House, perhaps, would accept all the more readily because the Government of which he was a Member were not responsible for the purchase. He found no fault with the parties who were responsible, but the credit or discredit of the transactions was due to the Government of Lord Derby. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had very correctly stated how that collection was offered for sale, and how a number of gentlemen who saw it were anxious to secure it for this country. Accordingly they bought it out of their own funds, and offered it to the Department for £14,000. Application was made to the Treasury to buy it for that sum, but the Treasury refused. Lord Salisbury, who then presided over the Department, endeavoured to discover some means by which the collection could be secured to this country. The House of Commons had for some years previously voted sums for the purchase of objects of art; and the objection of the Treasury applied not to value or importance or fitness of the collection for the purposes of the Museum, but only to the immediate outlay of so large a sum, A rule, however, had been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) when he was at the Board of Trade, which had then the direction of such matters, that art objects might be taken on hire for the purpose of testing their genuineness. By a somewhat elastic application of that rule this collection was hired, and every year from that time a portion of the money voted by Parliament had been applied to the purchase of some part of the collection. The practice, however, originated in a Minute of Lord Salisbury's, and after the lapse of seven years it was hardly worth while to give it up. The Statute of Limitations ought to be applied to such transactions. The country by this time had acquired a very valuable collection. With respect to the charge brought against the Department of concealing what they had done, he might say in explanation that he undertook last year, when bringing forward the Estimates, that for the future they should be given in greater detail. The Estimates of the present year accordingly gave much fuller details than formerly. The account was divided into different heads, showing the cost of hiring as distinguished from the purchase of works of art; and distinguishing the estimates on account of the Schools from those of the Museum. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Potter) complained that the table of expenditure, usually inserted in the annual Report of the Department was not to be found in that for the present year. For that omission the hon. Gentleman was himself responsible, the publication of the Report having been made earlier by two months than usual at his urgent request, and having been issued at Easter instead of July, the materials for making a correct account of expenditure were wanting.

said, he had been reminded by some remarks which had fallen in the course of the debate, of a lady's maid, who, having gone to the British Museum to enjoy herself for the day, was asked upon her return what she had seen, and she replied that she had seen a number of marble statues which appeared to her to be a representation of a railway accident. He did not mean to say that hon. Gentlemen looked at things in the same light. But it was difficult to know how people would regard certain things. What might appear only mutilated bodies and trumpery to one, to another might be works of art. He remembered several years ago his hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) and himself sat upon a Committee before which Mr. Cole was examined, and the great object of his hon. Friend seemed to be to learn from Mr. Cole whether the Kensington Museum had been the means of bringing out anything new. The great struggle of Mr. Cole was to show that it had, but, when pressed, he was obliged to admit that they had only produced "a combination." Since then many new things had been done. The working classes, studying probably some of what hon. Members had called wretched old rubbish, had, in many instances, struck out something beautiful for themselves. Whatever it might have done some years back, it was quite evident that original designs were now being introduced through the influence of the collection at Kensington; and, therefore, he thought that those seventy gentlemen who had combined together to purchase this collection had done the State some service, and that they were subsequently quite justified in getting the Government to make the purchase instead of themselves.

said, that to all intents and purposes the Government had purchased the collection, and the mat- ter which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had brought forward well deserved the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whether it was fair to rake up that faux pas of Lord Derby's Government; but the consequences of that faux pas had only just been paid by the country.

said, that a number of gentlemen had purchased this collection in 1856. The Government of that day refused to have it, and as there was to be an exhibition of art treasures at Manchester in 1857 the executive Committee, of whom be was one, applied for the loan of the Soulage collection, but the owners of it declined to lend it. They then wished the city of Manchester to buy it for a public museum. Mr. Cole, however, offered to purchase it, and it ultimately went to South Kensington. He believed that the purchase was a good one, and he had no wish to say anything whatever upon that subject. But he was very anxious for a statement of this account. He could not understand why a simple statement of the account could not be put at the end of it. Mr. H. A. BRUCE said the account was not yet made out.] He thought that the House was entitled to the statement asked for.

said, he had omitted to notice one portion of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillwyn)—namely, that respecting the production of certain papers. He certainly objected to the production of the Correspondence between the Departments, but he would not object to produce the Correspondence between the owners of the collection at Manchester and the department in question.

Sir, I rise to move an Amendment—

"That, as a General Election is impending, and we have no Law which can put down the intimidation of Voters nor prevent Bribery, it is, therefore, expedient that a trial should he given to the Vote by Ballot."

At this period of the evening (eleven o'clock) it is impossible I can hope to have that support from hon. Members which I might have had if circumstances had allowed me to have brought this question on at an earlier period. At all times it is an irksome task to bring on what is called an annual Motion, but cases will occasionally arise in which duty must take the place of pleasure. I consider the ballot to be one of those questions which, when considered, will bring the mind to but one conclusion, We say it is impossible to defend the position that it is proper for the Legislature to confer the right of voting upon a body of men and to refuse them adequate protection for the exercise of that right. These are the grounds upon which we stand. I believe the ballot to be preferred by the public before any other reform, In 1852, in an able speech made by Mr. Cobden, that eminent man said that there was no new argument for the ballot since the admirable speech of Mr. Grote, and he added—

"I look upon the ballot as the primary step of all reform. Of all the points of what is called the People's Charter there is nothing so odious to the aristocracy, to the landocracy, and the monied oligarchy that governs elections as the question of the vote by ballot."

Mr. Cobden likewise gave it as his opinion in one of his speeches that if any hon. Member would take the trouble to lay before the House the malversations of the franchise as carried on in several constituencies it would form a book of evidence, or an appendix to the body of evidence taken before the Election Committee, which would render the demand for the ballot one that could scarcely be refused. Now my speeches can only be looked upon as practical illustrations of the theories of Mr. Grote. It has been my custom to garrison the fortress raised by Mr. Grote, and to destroy those ghosts of arguments which have been killed over and over again, but which, nevertheless, crop up on all occasions, and never so much so as on the approach of a general election. Now, that is the course which I shall pursue on this occasion. I shall first take the instance of a young gentleman who has assailed some of Mr. Grote's theories. I will take that of a young gentleman who is now asking the suffrages of the ancient city of Chester. This young gentleman bears an honoured name, for which I, in common with the vast body of my fellow-countrymen, feel the greatest respect. It becomes me the more to take into consideration the arguments used by this young gentleman, inasmuch as I believe him to be wrong, and as I think I have it in my power to set him right. Mr. Gladstone, jun., ensconces himself under the gabardine of the Rev. Sydney Smith and Mr. John Stuart Mill. The ballot, said Mr. Gladstone, junior, in an off-hand way, received a quietus from the pen of Sydney Smith, and again from the pen of John Stuart Mill. As to the authority of Sydney Smith, that reverend gentleman wrote a sparkling pamphlet, though a superficial one, abounding in witticisms without logic, and in numerous jokes without argument. As to Sydney Smith giving the quietus to the ballot, it is somewhat ridiculous to imagine that he should be able so easily to dispose of the arguments of Jeremy Bentham, of Mill the elder, of Fonblanque, and of Grote. So far from Sydney Smith thinking he had given the quietus to the ballot, looking into his life I find a letter addressed by him to the late Lady Grey, in which he says—

"I have written a pamphlet against the ballot very clever, of course, but the ballot will come write I never so wisely."

So much for Sydney Smith's notion of the quietus given to the ballot. Next, let me turn to John Stuart Mill, a gentleman of great ability, who has written many clever things, but I take his views to be of a purely theoretical kind, because I do not think he has had much experience, living as he did, until he was superannuated, at the India House. But Mr. Mill is the cheval de bataille, not only of Mr. Gladstone, junior, but of The Times newspaper. Mr. Mill said—

"If I thought the electors of this country were so hopelessly and selfishly dependent on the landlords I should be, as I once was, a supporter of the ballot."

This, I must think, is a slovenly and slipshod way of getting rid of a former opinion. Why did he stop short at the intimidation of the landlord? Why did he not touch on other classes of intimidation, on intimidation by creditors, and by the inquisition of attorneys prying into all their affairs and holding men down with the screw, which was applied in the most Satanic manner? If the upper classes had become politically virtuous, and the under classes politically independent, I would not ask for a protection which I thought the electoral classes did not want; but I can show that the electoral constituencies, taken from 1835 to 1865, are in precisely the same condition, and that if there be any change it is for the worse. We have all read the evidence taken before Mr. Grote's Committee in 1835. That evidence was extensive, and brought the conclusion to the mind of every man who read it that the state of electoral affairs was getting worse. I will show shortly that, up to the present moment, the state of the franchise is what it was in 1837. I will state it first in the words of Lord Palmerston, who, at the nomination at Tiverton, on Tuesday, July 25, 1837, said—

"My belief is founded not merely on what I have heard from others, but upon my own observations. I believe a system has been extensively pursued, to deter electors, by threats of injury to themselves, from electing the persons whom they think most fit to represent them."

No man will turn away from words uttered by my noble Friend; they always carry weight with me, whether uttered for me or against me, and here we have evidence from which we cannot turn away. Sir Henry Ward showed the franchise to be in a most deplorable state in 1847. In 1848 I had, for the first time, the honour, not of my own seeking, to lead the question in the House of Commons, and I stated a number of instances in that speech, after which I was successful enough to carry the Motion; but that was an accident, and did not truly represent the opinion of the House. I know the feeling of this House is against the ballot, and I do not speak to this House, but to the people out of doors. From 1848 to 1852 nothing could be more decisive than the evidence given before the Committee. Not only were the old impenitent boroughs committing their usual sins, but the modern boroughs were just as bad, or worse than the old boroughs. I do not know whether there was a pin to choose between Wakefield and Gloucester. At that time Lord Aberdeen admitted that our electoral system was in such a deplorable state of profligacy that everybody must be ashamed of it. A Committee was formed of almost all the lawyers in the House, and they produced a very bad Bill. The Attorney General was upon it, as were others looking for judgeships, and those who hoped to succeed to the office of Attorney General. Lord Derby said of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill, that it was worth so much waste paper. From 1852 to 1865 the debates on the ballot showed an increasing malversation of practice. The old constituencies and the new rivalled each other as regards intimidation, and if I want proof of this let me refer to the election at Exeter nearly twelve months ago. The last election for Exeter presented a sad picture of profligacy and intimidation; for if the Tories were bad, the Whigs rivalled them. A very distinguished member of the Bar, the son of an eminent judge, and the nephew of a poet in whom we all rejoice—Mr. Coleridge—was a candidate for the vacant seat, and he said, after the contest was over, that the election had convinced him that the ballot was necessary, and he had no idea that in the year 1864 such protection would have been required, and that at the present day men would have been so lost to a sense of what was just and fair between man and man. He had commenced his political life rather late, but it was never too late to mend. He had no idea there was that amount of moral coercion existing, and he should not have believed it if he had not witnessed it. A great many instances had come under his knowledge where many men had informed him they would gladly have voted for him, but they had been prevented from doing so from coercion. Nothing, however, could be much worse than what was practised on the other side, and the Exeter Tory papers complain of intimidation to a vast extent. I have received a letter from Sir John Bowring, who is a resident of Exeter, and he says that never in his experience had he seen intimidation so rife in Exeter as at the last election. The Tory papers of that city complained, amongst other things, of the intimidation practised by the Whigs on the clergy of the city; and they also spoke of violence offered to the persons of the electors. There was one outrage in particular to a poor man who had a cart drawn by a donkey. They threw the cart into the river and they cut off the jackass's tail. The people of Exeter were insolent, contemptuous, and metaphorical, and they said that at the next general election that was not the only Tory donkey that would lose his tail. In reference to the character of the election for Truro, Mr. Williams described the contest as a riotous one, not arising from any doubt as to the opinion of the majority, but from the influence that had been brought to bear to prevent the exercise of the franchise; and Captain Vivian, the losing candidate, said that if any argument was wanting to convince him of the necessity of the ballot the re suit of the contest would have furnished him with one, and of course three cheers were given for the ballot. I submit that I have pointed out sufficient evidence to induce an incredulous man to be- lieve that we have not improved in our electoral morals, but on the contrary—that we are as bad as ever we were; and what, I ask, has happened to convince Mr. Gladstone, jun., and Mr. Stuart Mill, to cause them to turn short round on the question of the ballot. Both the dominant parties are going to the country, as Mr. Dickens terms it, in an auriferous and malty shower, in the shape of sovereigns and beer, and if the House is convinced that the landlords have, as Mr. Mill says, ceased to intimidate, where is the evidence to be found? Is Mr. Mill actually convinced of it, or is it a mere pretence put forward by him to cover his ratting from his principles. Let us look northward, and ask ourselves why it is that at all the clubs where they bet upon political as well as turf events they lay five to four on Mill-bank against Morritt for the northern division of Yorkshire. Now, the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Morritt) is known to us all, and as I believe no hon. Member has carried out his political opinions better than he has, why is he to be removed? It would appear marvellous wore not the real cause known—namely, that the late Duke of Cleveland was a Tory and the present Duke is a Whig, and that, therefore, all those men who supported Mr. Morritt at the last election will now vote against him. Of course, being mere voting machines of the Duke of Cleveland's, they must do it. They have no consciences—nobody ever thinks they have a right to exercise the franchise. I will next take the southern division of Durham, and ask, why instead of one there will be two Liberals returned for that division of the county? Why, simply because it is overshadowed by Raby Castle, and the present Duke being a Whig, these free and independent electors, as you call them, but voting machines, as I venture to think them, must vote according to the orders of their landlord. Before I leave Yorkshire I will take a trip to the borough of Ripon. There used to live at Fountains Abbey Miss Lawrence, a lady who was very much respected, but she in good time left this world, and the property fell into the hands of Earl De Grey and Ripon. The borough of Ripon was a place of refuge for every Tory gentleman who could not obtain a seat for any other place. It was a refuge for the destitute. There he found a home and comfortable quarters, and I dare say very good Members of Parliament they turned out. When the property fell into the hands of Earl De Grey and Ripon it turned out there was not a sounder Whig borough in England than Ripon, and if I were called upon to point out one more good honest reformer than another it is Earl De Grey and Ripon. The voting machines at Ripon do not, however, like the position in which they are placed, and they have presented a petition to the House of Lords since Earl De Grey and Ripon has been their ruler in favour of the ballot, and I believe that nothing would please Earl De Grey and Ripon better than for them to vote by ballot. I think we have reason to say that the state of things which existed up to 1865 will continue during the ensuing elections, so that to tell the electors they can vote free and independent is a misnomer, for they can do nothing of the kind, except to their cost. Mr. Brougham, thirty-five years ago, alluded to the power of landlords over tenants in a way I cannot approach. That eminent statesman said—

"Watch the proceedings of a landlord with his tenants, and mark how he seeks to extinguish in them all sense of public obligation."

And how could we come to any other conclusion when we see what is the result? Before I conclude my remarks upon, or rather my review of, Gladstone on Mill, let me earnestly entreat the attention of the House to an extract from a speech made last autumn, the authority of which will be acknowledged by Mr. Gladstone, junior, and by Mr. Mill—

"What is at stake (said this speaker) is nothing less than the vitality of the representative body. If ever the majority, or a preponderating portion of the Members, represent only their own pockets, we shall have indeed what Mr. Disraeli calls a Venetian constitution, and that in a very bad form. It would be a great mistake to suppose that we have seen the worst of this evil. I am persuaded we are only at the beginning of it when we see the number of persons constantly becoming wealthy, whose sole anxiety is to attain what alone wealth has not given them—namely, position. It is this class of persons who make this evil an increasing one—the vulgar rich—to whom it is worth while to spend any amount of money for the sake of distinction in society."

The gentleman who made this speech in 1864, standing by the ballot, and pointing out the ballot as the only remedy for this state of things, is the very Mr. Mill who, in 1865, turns round and opposes it. I say nothing of the insult to this House by the phrase "vulgar rich," because if there is anything we are more proud of than another it is the men amongst us who have made their fortunes by trade and commerce; but what an insult to the City of London if this Mill from off a shelf in the India House is thus to treat its representatives—its Rothschilds, its Crawfords, its Goschens, and its Dukes—who have all made their money by commerce. I think, instead of Mr. Mill giving me a quietus, I have now from his own mouth given him one. Now, I come to what ingratiated Mr. Mill with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made my right hon. Friend point him out as a fit tutor for his son, and likewise it is an argument which my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) has sometimes indulged in when he has wished to give me a quietus in this House—namely, that in a free country voting for a Member of Parliament is a public act and ought to be performed in the face of the people, and that the manner in which the elector exercises his privilege ought to be the subject of comment and criticism for the entire community. This is an argument I have often heard from the noble Lord at the head of the Government and from Lord John Russell, but if it is so necessary that the act of the voter should be so public, have we no precedents to the contrary? Let us inquire into that a little. There were great men before Agamemnon, and there were great statesmen before the noble Lord, although I, for one, can do and say nothing to detract from his merits. Now, on this point of protection to the voter (not by means of the ballot, but a general protection by secrecy) we have the highest authority. We have the authority of the great founders of English liberty—those men who guided the counsels of what Lord Macaulay said were the greatest of England's parliaments—Sir Edward Coke, Sir John Elliot, John Hampden, John Pym, and Selden; and they have left their testimony on the Journals of this House. I will venture to state the remarkable case to which I allude, and which is not a little interesting. On the 17th of April in 1628, by the Report of the Committee of Privilege, which Committee included the great names I have mentioned, it is stated that in the election for Yorkshire certain electors presented themselves to vote. They answered the questions put to them satisfactorily as to their having the 40s. freehold and being resident in the county; but, on being asked their names, they declined to give them, on the ground that they would expose themselves to the displeasure of certain powerful personages. They claimed the right, not- withstanding, to have their votes recorded, and it was done. A petition was presented against the return of Sir H. Bellasis and Sir Thomas Wentworth, on the ground that these votes were improperly recorded. The Committee declared that the declaration of their names need not be required, and that it was unnecessary to insert the names of freeholders in the indenture of return, because notice might be taken of it to their detriment, and it accordingly reported that Bellasis and Wentworth were duly elected. The House the same day, by a unanimous resolution, confirming the judgment of the Committee, declaring that if the name of a freeholder was demanded at the poll by the sheriff, and he declined to give it, he should not thereby be disabled from voting. This is not exactly a case on all fours with the ballot, but it affirms the principle, and no man can rail the stamp off that document. Is not this an answer to the frivolous plea that secrecy is cowardly, unmanly, and un-English? If not, it must fall with the galaxy of great names I have mentioned. I have on former occasions referred to an argument which the present Lord Chancellor, when Sir Richard Be-thell, completely upset. It has been said that the voter has no personal beneficial interest in the franchise, and that he is a trustee who acts for the non-elector as well as for himself. But what is the operation of that doctrine? At an election for Cork, the priests, who were then in the interest of Lords Palmerston and Russell, told the non-electors to watch the polling-booths, and see how their trustees voted. They did so, and all those who voted for General Chatterton, the Conservative candidate, were denounced as false trustees; and, accordingly, the non-electors broke their heads and stoned them. He would call the attention of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) to a case which occurred at Salford. An individual of the name of Stork placed a board in his window with the following inscription:—

"All persons residing in this street and the neighbouring courts who have no votes, are requested to call and tell me whether I must vote for Garnett or Brotherton at the ensuing election."

This notice brought a number of persons to his shop, all of whom being bonâ fide non-electors, were requested to sign their names, and write opposite to them the name of the candidate of their choice. The poll was kept open till ten o'clock, and then Mr. Stork put forth the following state of the poll:—

"In favour of my voting for Brotherton, 57; in favour of my voting for Garnett, 23; majority for Brotherton, 34. Consequently I shall vote for Brotherton."

If that be not the reductio ad absurdum of the noble Lord's argument, I do not know where it can be found. He did vote for Brotherton, and so represented the non-electors. The man whom the law invested with the duty of voting disfranchised himself and enfranchised those whom the law declared to be unfit to vote. If the non-electors were to dictate to the electors, it would be much better to have universal suffrage to give them votes and allow them to vote themselves. Mr. Grote called the ballot the silent vindicator of liberty. Demosthenes—mark what Demosthenes said—addressing a jury he said—

"You vote in secret. You have nothing to fear, for safety is secured to you by the wisest legislation our lawgivers ever knew."

He now asked the House to adopt his Resolution, and thus give practical effect to the words of Demosthenes.

Sir, my hon. Friend said, I imagined that on some occasions I had given him his quietus. Now, I should be very sorry to give him his quietus, for I am sure the House will agree with me that the annual exhibition of my hon. Friend is very amusing and highly diverting, and therefore I should be sorry to give him his quietus, and so prevent him from affording us the treat we are now enjoying. The arguments which my hon. friend has used are those which he has often repeated; and the arguments which I would suggest can only be those which I have often repeated. It is often said—my hon. Friend has often said it—that nothing new can be urged against the ballot. Truth is not new, and nothing is stronger than truth; and therefore if I were called upon to say something new against the ballot, I could only use weaker arguments than those which I used before. My objections to the ballot may be comprised in a short statement. My hon. Friend has to-night given a somewhat different description of the nature of the vote from that which he gave on former occasions. I think on former occasions he treated the vote as a personal right—as a right which the voter was entitled to exercise without exposing himself to any consequences arising from the way in which he might use it; but to-night he has represented the vote as a function confided to the elector for the benefit of the nation at large. [Mr. H. BERKELEY intimated his dissent.] Then my hon. Friend does not adopt this view, but falls back on the ground that the vote is a personal right which the person is entitled to exercise freely without being liable to any consequences. Well, if the vote be a personal right, on what ground does my hon. Friend punish a man for taking money for his vote? If the elector possesses the vote as a personal right, he is entitled to exercise it from whatever motive be pleases. He may exercise it from personal affection, from political agreement, or for personal advantage. The moment you narrow the vote by describing it as a personal right, you take away the ground on which you now punish a man for the corrupt exercise of the franchise, But I deny that the vote is a personal right. I say it is a trust. Even if universal suffrage were adopted, it would be a trust which each person would have confided to him for the benefit of the nation. I say, therefore, that, not only according to the English Constitution, but according to the sense of mankind, the man who holds a trust for others is bound to account to them for the manner in which he exercised the trust so held. I hold, then, that the ballot, the object of which is to screen the trustees, to screen men from the consequences following on the exercise of their votes, is contrary to the British Constitution, contrary to common sense, contrary to the nature of things themselves. But my hon. Friend thinks that the ballot would free the voter from those influences which mankind never can be free from. He has given us examples of the places in which territorial possessions have changed from the hands of owners professing one set of political opinions to those of persons holding other political views, and he has stated that these changes have made a change in the exercise of the franchise. But men must be influenced by one cause or another, and it is a natural thing that there should be harmony between the proprietors of land and those who carry on their occupations under them. Whether it he territorial influence, whether it be the influence of mercantile wealth, or whether it be the influence of commercial engagements, you cannot divest mankind of those influences which are inherent in the nature of things, and must influence the conduct of men. I contend it is a perfect fallacy to affirm that secret voting would prevent the exercise of the influence of the landlord, the merchant, or the customer. Any person in any one of these capacities who might think he could influence a voter, would ask him to promise his vote. If my hon. Friend thinks that the promise made under such circumstances would be broken, he pronounces the strongest condemnation of the voters; because, he says, they would promise one thing today and do a different thing to-morrow. Now, I do not believe that. I believe that if the landlord or employer, thinking he might have a legitimate right to influence a voter's conduct, should go to him and say, "Promise me so and so," the man, if he wished to perform the act, would make the promise. If he refused, the landlord or employer would know what that meant, so that the voter would be exposed to exactly the same influences as he is at present. I think, therefore, that the ballot would be inconsistent with the principles on which human society is constituted; I think it would be at variance with the principles of the British Constitution; and I think it would be immoral in its effects, for if it accomplished the object which few have in view, and enabled a man to break his promise, instead of raising the character of the voter of the country, it would degrade him in his own esteem and lower that character in the eyes of the world.

I think I answered the speech of the noble Lord before he made it.

merely rose to thank the right hon. Gentleman for this Bill which was for the same object as that which he (Sir Charles Douglas) had last night withdrawn, respecting "the discretionary powers of Justices of the Peace;" but he must record his protest against one principle it appeared to recognize—namely, that of committing an offender to prison for a longer period for non-payment of a pecuniary penalty, than the law allowed as a punishment for the offence itself, for which the fine could be inflicted.