said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, If any time has been fixed for bringing to a close the enormous expenditure at Alderney, and if the Estimate of £1,300,000 was to be exceeded?

Sir, the total expenditure at Alderney to the 31st of December last is stated in the Estimates, now in the hands of hon. Members, to have been £1,175,346. To complete the work to the point known as D, without constructing the eastern arm, will cost less than £100,000 more, of which amount £50,000 will fall on the present financial year, and the remainder on the financial year 1866–7, but there is also a claim on the part of the contractors on account of damage done in the gales of last year which may slightly increase this amount. But all the work which Government now contemplates doing is expected to be completed within the £1,300,000, and the final payment will he in 1867–8. The House will remember that an Act was passed last year transferring Alderney from the Admiralty to the Board of Trade, and no further work would be undertaken there except on the recommendation of the Board of Trade to the Treasury. The formal transfer has just been completed, but I have no reason to expect that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) contemplates any further works there.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Dean and Chapter of Westminster are about to surrender their Capitular Estates to the Ecclesiastical Commission; and, if so, whether they are to receive in exchange an annual "commutation" payment, and of what amount, or a re-transfer of a portion of the Capitular Estates, and of what annual value; and whether any and what arrangement has been come to upon such surrender for securing adequate stipends to the Non-capitular Members of the Collegiate Church? He also wished to ask if the scheme was prepared, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay it on the table?

I am informed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are in negotiation with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for a commutation of their capitular estates, but that the terms of the transfer have not been yet settled.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called by the Medical Officer of Health for the parish of St. Marylebone to the dangerously filthy condition of the Ornamental Water in the Regent's Park, and whether he proposes to take any steps to cause the same to be cleansed; and whether he has any objection to lay upon the table of the House the Report and Analysis of the same forwarded to him by the Medical Officer.

in reply, said, before sanitary facts were attended to the owners of houses used to drain them into the nearest river or ornamental water. This practice prevailed to some extent in Regent's Park, and in 1862 he discovered that the sewage of one of the villas was flowing into the ornamental water. He then succeeded in diverting the sewage, and last year, during the hot weather, the medical officer of Marylebone reported to him that there was a smell from the ornamental water which was very disagreeable and injurious to health. He then had to consider what was to be done in that state of things, and whether he ought to draw off the water and clear out the mud; but the exposure of decomposing mud would have been dangerous to health and very disagreeable, and he caused two millions and a half of gallons of water to be poured into the lake, and since that time the water in the lake had been higher in consequence of the rains, and no unpleasant effluvium had been apparent. He was prepared to lay on the table of the House the documents to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, When the Report of the loss of the ship London will be laid upon the table of the House; whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps for the better regulation of Passenger Ships generally, and the introduction of more stringent enactments as to their equipment, cargo, and crew; and whether some restraints should not be put on the departure of such Vessels under circumstances that threaten danger?

Sir, the Report relating to the loss of the London shall be laid on the table immediately. The London, as to her construction and equipments, had been inspected and passed as a good ship by three sets of surveyors—namely, Board of Trade surveyors, Emigration surveyors, and Lloyd's surveyors. The Emigration surveyors exercised a control over her departure till the last moment before her sailing. It is not the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to propose any Bill containing more stringent enactments respecting the equipment, cargo, or crews of passenger ships.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary for India, When the India Budget is to be brought forward; whether the late Secretary of State for India has communicated with the Government of India, as he promised this House in 1864, as to the practicability of making up the Indian Finance Accounts to a period which would enable him to lay them upon the table of the House at the opening of the Session of Parliament; and whether it be the intention of the Secretary of State for India in future to make such arrangements as will enable him to bring forward the Budget at the beginning of the Session, instead of at the close, as heretofore.

in reply, said, his noble Friend the late Secretary of State had communicated with the financial member of the Council, to whom the subject had been referred. The answer he received was under the consideration of the present Secretary of State, but it did not appear to be sufficiently definite. The Indian Government had been officially communicated with, and when their answer was received he would communicate it to the House.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive the answer?

The communication has only been ordered to-day.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my first question.

said, that the finance accounts would be laid upon the table, according to the provision of the law, before the 14th of May; and, as far as the Indian Department was concerned, he should be prepared to introduce the Budget on the earliest day afterwards consistently with the necessities of public business and the convenience of the House.

said, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government propose to introduce any measure relating to the Standing Order of which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. T, Hughes) had given notice?

I presume, Sir, the Question of the hon. and gallant Member refers to a Bill which I introduced last Session containing certain clauses in the public interest with the view of its being incorporated in any special Railway Act affecting the metropolis. That Bill would not have met the proposal of the hon. Member for Lambeth, as his suggested Standing Orders are to apply to all companies asking powers to take lands and houses for any kind of works. Our Bill was limited to railway companies. We are in communication with the Metropolitan Board of Works on the subject of the Bill we introduced last year, and I hope to be able to lay it on the table shortly.

Will it be convenient to introduce the Bill of the Government before the discussion of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. T. Hughes) Standing Order?

I will undertake to bring in the Bill in the course of a few days.

I wish to give notice that on Monday, March 12, I will call the attention of the House to so much of Her Majesty's gracious Speech as relates to the constituencies of counties and boroughs, and move for leave to bring in a Bill founded thereon. I may also state that the Returns which are in preparation for the information of the House, and which will amount to a volume of several hundred pages, are undergoing a final revision; but I cannot promise that they will be in the hands of Members till the end of next week, and possibly not until even the day after my statement. No time, however, shall be lost in placing them on the table.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that the Bill shall be read a first time before the statistics are in the hands of Members? If so, it will be in direct contradiction to the statement in the Queen's Speech.

I am not aware of any such contradiction. My Motion will be for leave to bring in a Bill. After that Motion is granted it will be quite competent for any hon. Gentleman to raise the question as to the first reading of the Bill. ["No, no!"] I say it is perfectly competent to raise the question on the first reading. ["No!"] Well, then, Sir, I am in your hands.

When a Bill is brought in it is at once read a first time.

When it is brought in, then. I do not know what the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne) means when he speaks of a direct contradiction to Her Majesty's Speech. However, I will refer to the terms of Her Majesty's Speech, and then I shall be prepared to-morrow to answer that part of the Question.

in rising, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the Government to certain statements as to the manner in which Dockyard workmen who are Voters for the Borough of Devon-port have been examined in the Dockyard with reference to their intended evidence before the Election Committee for that Borough, and to ask for explanation, said: I am sincerely sorry that I am compelled by a sense of duty to ask the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and of the House, to the statements that have been laid before me with regard to certain proceedings that have been taken during the last few days in the borough of Devonport. I confess I had hoped that the day of political scandal and intimidation, or even of the suspicion of either in our dockyards, had passed away; and I very much hope that my noble Friend opposite (Lord Clarence Paget) may be able either to state that I have been misinformed, or to offer a satisfactory explanation with regard to the allegations that I am about to lay before the House. Sir, the facts to which I wish to draw attention are very simple, and I think I shall be able to state them in a very few sentences. The first fact to which I wish to call attention is a telegram which I am informed was sent down by the Admiralty to the borough of Devonport last week. It is dated February 20, but it was not sent down to Devonport until the following day, the 21st. The wording of the telegram is as follows:—

"Admiralty, Feb. 20, 1866.

"Every facility is to be given for serving the Speaker's warrant on the workmen in the yard in the ease of the petition against the sitting Members for Devonport.—For the information of the officers."

Sir, I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in bringing this matter before the notice of the House, has not accompanied his speech with any very strong remarks; but, on the contrary, he has made a temperate statement, and calls upon me to reply as to how far it is correct. I will, therefore, in a very few words explain all that I know of this transaction. The right hon. Gentleman first asks me whether I was cognizant of the telegram that was sent from the Admiralty to the Admiral Superintendent at Devonport. Well, what I am about to read to the House will show that it so happens that I was not cognizant of this transaction until it was brought to my notice by him. On Monday evening my right hon. Friend came to me in the lobby and said, "I find it necessary to give a notice for Thursday next, which I request you to read." This is the paper which he placed in ray hands—

"To call the attention of the Government to certain statements as to the manner in which dockyard labourers, who are voters for the borough of Devonport, have been examined in the dockyard with reference to their intended evidence before the Election Committee for that borough, and to ask for explanation."

"H. M.'s Dockyard, Devonport, Feb. 27,1866.

"My dear Lord Clarence Paget,—I send you copies of the orders under which I have acted, also of the applications made to and approved by me in obedience to the two orders, which contained the same words, 'on workmen in the yard.' I therefore ordered that the people sought and applied for should assemble at the hour requested in a quiet part of the yard, instead of their being sought separately at their work—

"Where they saw the parties applying by Speaker's warrant, and were perfectly uninterfered with by their own officers. You have everything I can think of.—Yours faithfully,

"T. M. SYMONDS."

"Is not this much in favour of disfranchising dockyards?"

"We have the honour to inform you that a petition has just been presented against the return of the sitting Members for the borough of Devon-port. A large number of the witnesses who will be required to attend on the Speaker's warrants are employed in the dockyard, and the hours of their attendance are very long. It would not be necessary that they should be disturbed at their work for more than a few minutes in the case of any witness, but it would be a matter of very considerable inconvenience and annoyance to the men, as well as of the utmost possible difficulty to ourselves as agents having the conduct of the petition, if it were necessary to find them at their own residences after the hours of work. Under these circumstances, we have to request that we may be favoured (should there riot be any objection to such a course being taken by the Department) with a letter addressed to the Port Admiral requesting that officer to afford our chief clerk facilities for serving the Speaker's warrants in the dockyard, and seeing the men during hours of work for that purpose. We believe we are not wrong in saying that in an analogous case pending before the courts of common law where it would be necessary to serve a subpoena this facility would be given. We may mention that the Speaker's warrants went down by special messenger this morning, and we shall, perhaps, under these circumstances, be permitted to beg that our request may receive immediate attention.—We have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient and faithful servants,

"TRAVERS, SMITH, and DE GEX."

"Every facility is to be given for serving the Speaker's warrants on workmen in the yard, in the case of the petition against the sitting Members at Devonport."

"In confirmation of my telegram of this day, their Lordships desire that every facility may be afforded for serving Speaker's warrants on workmen in Devonport yard, in the case of the petition against the sitting Members for Devonport. By command of their Lordships,

"W. G. ROMAINE."

"Sir,—We have Speaker's warrants to serve on the following persons in the matter of the Devonport election petition."

The latter part of the noble Lord's speech appears an anticipation of a proposition which we are to expect on the 12th of March. I think it will be convenient to defer the consideration of that question until we have arrived at the much wished-for day. Coming, however, to the subject immediately before the House. I do not know whether the answer given by the noble Lord to my right hon. Friend's Question will be considered by the House as exceedingly satisfactory. I confess for my own part, when I hear any person accused of a particular charge praised for his excellent character, I am inclined to think that there is nothing else to be appealed to; and, therefore, when the character of the Duke of Somerset is praised by the noble Lord—a course which is universally adopted at the bar, but never when any other course is open to the defence—I think the noble Lord misapprehended the real nature of the charge made against the dockyard authorities. There is no doubt, Sir, that your warrant has access to all the dockyards, and if these workmen had merely been assembled together and the warrant placed in their hands, no human being could have a word to say against it. But what really happened was this—The counsel for the petitioners were given a facility for getting up the case for the petitioners during the time when these workmen were earning public money, and under the sanction of officers to whom these men look for their daily bread. I want the House to imagine in what light the workmen looked upon the attorneys' clerks who were authorized to subject them to a hostile examination. They were summoned by their own authorities, they were taken to "a quiet part of the yard," and a gentleman came forward, called them out in an authoritative manner, and subjected them to a cross-examination, which no one had a right to do except in a court of law; and, as I understand, two policemen were actually employed to enable them to carry it out. Now, this House has always shown the greatest jealousy of the interference of executive Governments in the conduct of an election. We know how these things are done in France; and the spectacle of what goes on there has perhaps sharpened our zeal to prevent any imitation of them on this side of the water. Therefore the slightest expression of preference for any candidate on the part of any officer in the employment of the Executive has always been looked upon by this House as deserving of censure. The House will recollect the deep censure that was passed on an officer of the Admiralty, because he was seen in company with a candidate for a dockyard constituency. But this case is at least equally bad—it is taking distinctly the part of one of the candidates, and every man in the dockyards must know that they to whom he looks for support are plainly aiding those who desire to upset the case of those who sit for the borough. But this is not the gravest part of the matter. Supposing the evidence of these men to be true, I think the case is bad enough; but, supposing it should turn out to be false—supposing it should appear that some of these men, having been submitted to this sharp cross-examination under the sanction of the Admiralty, come and give perjured evidence to the House of Commons, and this be afterwards proved—what do you imagine the public will believe, and what will they have a right to believe? Why, that some subordinate officer of the Government has been engaged in suborning evidence for the purpose of ousting a Member opposed to the Government. And if the case rest on perjured evidence, the responsibility will lie with those that have illegitimately assisted in procuring it. I am sorry this way of putting the question is so distasteful to hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, but I will test their opinions in this way: I will ask, do they suppose that, if the Portsmouth Election Committee had come first and Devonport afterwards, the electors of Portsmouth would have been taken into "a quiet part of the yard," and that the Conservative attorney would have been allowed to cross-examine them? If the noble Lord will answer me that question in the affirmative, I will give him credit for great presence of mind. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I did not hear the question.] The question is this—Supposing the Portsmouth election case had come first, whether he imagines that a similar telegram would have been sent down to that port, and the electors gathered into a quiet corner of the yard to be cross-examined by the Conservative attorney?

I believe the same course would have been pursued.

Well, I will keep my promise, and I give the noble Lord credit for the utmost presence of mind. Is there any other virtue you would wish me to ascribe to him? I do not wish to pursue this discussion further. I hope, however, that the Election Committee upon the case will take into their serious consideration the statements that have been made this evening, and will consider what weight they are to attach to the evidence sent up to them by the electioneering agents.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down (Viscount Cranbourne) that an impropriety has been committed in this case. It is quite clear to me it was not right that these men should be cross-examined by the attorney for the petitioner in the dockyard, and in the manner described, because they must necessarily have felt that they were under duress to answer questions which it is not likely they would have answered if put to them in their private houses. Looking at the matter fully and fairly, it is quite clear that the question we are really concerned with is, not whether the clerk of the petitioners may have been a little over-zealous in pressing this matter, and have availed himself to the utmost of the advantages he obtained, but whether any serious blame or discredit rests upon the authorities by whom he was enabled to take this advantage. I listened as carefully as I could to the statements that have been made, and it appears to me that all that was done by the authorities of the Admiralty in London, was to permit the Speaker's warrant to be served in the dockyard. That, I think, was perfectly reasonable. It was more convenient for the petitioners to execute their warrant at the dockyard, and probably it was more convenient for the men than if they had been waited upon at their own houses. In this way time and expense were saved—though that, perhaps, is not a matter much considered- in election petitions. I think these circumstances ought not to be lost sight of; and I am not able myself to say that the Admiralty authorities are in any degree to be blamed in permitting the execution of the warrant in the dockyard. Whatever was done beyond may have been a matter of indiscretion or oversight on the part of the local authorities of the port. I am not, however, of opinion that because this authority was in some degree abused in the manner I think it was, from the facts stated by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, there is any ground for a charge against the nobleman who has presided over the Admiralty during the last seven years—I am sorry to say, probably from circumstances not under his own control, without giving us a satisfactory new ship or new gun—but certainly without the slightest stain on, or doubt respecting, his absolute integrity.

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in absolving the heads of the Admiralty from all blame in this matter, although, perhaps, the consequence of the permission given by the Duke of Somerset was not, in the first instance, properly attended to. Now, let us observe how the case stands. We all know that, according to the best authorities, the warrant of the Speaker can be served perfectly well, not personally, but by being left at the dwelling-houses of the persons required to give evidence. All that was necessary on the part of the agents for this petition was the service of the warrant. They knew where these men lived, and all they had to do was to leave the warrant at the dwelling-houses of the witnesses. But I must do the agents the justice of saying that nothing could have been more explicit than the statement they made to the Duke of Somerset. In the letter to the noble Lord, if I correctly heard the words, the agents of the peti- tioner in substance said, "We have got the Speaker's warrant." Here let me observe that the ordinary course of procedure before you get the Speaker's warrant is to find out the persons who are to be called as witnesses, and then to obtain the warrant and serve it on them; but the agents do not stop there; they say, 'We have got the Speaker's warrant to serve upon these men; we know very well where they live, and we also understand that they are employed for a number of hours in the dockyard. We want some conversation with the men which will take a considerable time; but this we cannot obtain at their own houses."["Oh, oh!"] I am not repeating the exact words of the agents; but I think, that if the noble Lord will read the letter again he will find that it bears this interpretation. The agents say, "We must have some time with the voters for conversation, which can only be obtained at the dockyard." Now, my belief is that the proper way of serving the Speaker's warrants is either personally or at the dwelling-house. Well, what does the head of the Admiralty say in his letter? He says, in effect, "I will put the men at the disposal of the agents, allow them to be assembled in a quiet part of the dockyard, and cross-examined to the extent required." I am quite willing to believe that the Duke of Somerset did not perceive the consequences of granting such a permission. But any person on reading the letter of the agents ought to have seen that their object was to get the authority of the heads of the Admiralty in order to obtain what the Scotch call a precognition of these witnesses. Observe what the agents have done. They have actually got the Speaker's war-rant to be served upon, as far as I can learn, 100 persons, without knowing anything as to the evidence any one of them would be able to give. The agents wanted to make up their case, and they went down under the colour of a Speaker's warrant to conduct an inquisition, and I will say that it was an abuse of the authority of the House. It was not merely an abuse of the Speaker's warrant, but it was an abuse of the power of Parliament, to obtain warrants for the purpose of assailing 100 persons who had never been examined; and when it was not known what they would say, to take them out into a private yard, and search out their consciences and see what evidence they would give. Remember, they were not examined as to what they could tell of their neighbours, but as to what they could tell about themselves—they were examined in order to make them criminate themselves, without any kind of assistance—they were called upon to give answers under the supposed authority of the Lords of the Admiralty, which might be used against them on other proceedings. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty has answered one question in the most solemn and emphatic manner. I take the liberty of asking him another. Does he suppose that if the gentleman had gone to the house of each of these workmen, after the hours of labour, and said, "I am agent for the petition founded upon certain charges against the sitting Members for the borough. Will you be kind enough to tell me did you get a bribe or anything of that kind for the vote you gave?"—does he suppose that these men would have answered the questions in their own houses? I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks the same sort of answer would be given by a man in his own house and by a man in a corner of the dockyard when summoned by the Admiralty?

The hon. and learned Gentleman asks for information as to a particular passage in the letter of Messrs. Travers, Smith, and De Gex, which I have already read to the House.

Would the noble Lord kindly read the whole letter?

The whole letter? ["No, no!"and "Yes, yes!"] Well, I have no objection to read as far as the hon. and learned Gentleman likes.

"We have the honour to inform you that a petition has just been presented against the return of the sitting Members for the Borough of Devon-port. A large number of the witnesses who will be required to attend on the Speaker's warrants are employed in the dockyard, and the hours of their attendance are very long. It would not be necessary that they should be disturbed at their work for more than a few minutes in the case of any witness, but it would be a matter of very considerable inconvenience and annoyance to the men, as well as of the utmost possible difficulty to ourselves as agents having the conduct of the petition, if it were necessary to find them at their own residences after the hours of work."

I wish to say merely a word or two upon this question. It may be difficult to determine—my learned Friend himself has not a decided opinion upon it—whether personal service of the Speaker's warrant is necessary or not, and I will for the present assume that such service is not absolutely required. We all, however, know that it is no easy matter to find the place of abode of those dockyard labourers. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I have canvassed the borough of Plymouth myself, and, speaking from experience, I can safely assert that it is uncommonly difficult to catch dockyard men at home. Any prudent attorney would, of course, under those circumstances, be aware that it would not be sufficient for his purpose to leave a warrant at the place where one of those men was said to be lodging, and that it would be his duty to put it, if possible, into his own hands. That is the course which any attorney who knew his business would take; and if he were to act otherwise, and content himself with simply leaving the warrant where he was told a man lived—not knowing whether it would ever reach him or not—he would be guilty of gross neglect. It was, therefore, clearly the duty of the attorney in the present instance to serve the warrant on the men personally if he could, whether it was absolutely required by law or not, and all the Board of Admiralty did was to afford facilities for the discharge of this duty in a proper manner. That is the whole question. ["No, no!"] It is the whole question, at all events, so far as the Admiralty are concerned ["No, no !"], and my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) saw no ground for blaming their action in the matter. I do not know exactly what occurred in the dockyard. I have not heard the whole of the discussion, for I have only just come into the House. It may be that it would have been better not to cross-examine the witnesses, if, indeed, that was done. At the same time, we all know that it is not very easy to stop the months of attorneys if they are determined to ask a number of questions. All that we are concerned with, however, is the conduct of the Admiralty, and that has been, I contend, entirely free from blame in the transaction.

My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General does not apprehend the nature of the case altogether, if he imagines that the main issue is involved in the service of the warrant. At the close of his speech he touched indirectly upon the graver part of the subject. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) that no Minister of the Crown has ever conducted himself more ably, and, I believe, more honourably, than the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty. But really that is not the question before us. The question is, not as to the conduct of the Admiralty, but whether, having regard to the perfect freedom of election and electors, any undue and improper influence has been exercised over the electors of the borough of Devon-port under the guise of the Speaker's warrant, which need not have been taken into the dockyard, but might have been served on them in another place. In my opinion there was very great impropriety, in the first instance, in the solicitors making the application which they did. They knew they could serve the warrants without such application by going down to the dockyards, and the whole object in their minds in getting the authority of the Admiralty was to exercise an improper influence over the men. With regard to the other part of the question, which the Solicitor General did not advert to, I believe I am right in saying there is nothing which the courts of justice are more anxious to set their faces against than that those who are liable to be criminated in any way whatever should be bullied into statements by means of an inquisitorial examination which may afterwards in any way tend to their prejudice. These witnesses, or supposed witnesses, were first of all brought together, as I understand the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, and one witness was examined and cross-examined in the most hostile manner as to his conduct at the late election. The witness gave a denial; but the gentleman who had cross-examined him did not hesitate to direct the other witnesses—all having been in the first instance brought together—to go out from that place. They were then brought in one by one, so that even they could not bear witness to their fellow-workmen as to whether improper treatment had been dealt out towards them I say again, the question is not one affecting the Admiralty, but it is a question affecting the independence of elections and of electors; and I think that the explanation which the noble Lord was invited to give cannot and ought not to be considered satisfactory by this House, and I hope that such proceedings will not occur again.

There are two questions arising out of this discussion as to which I cannot, from the explanation which we have received, arrive at a distinct understanding, and with respect to which I hope to hear something further from my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty. There is, in the first place, the question of the facilities given by the Admiralty for serv- ing the Speaker's warrant, and then that of the facilities afforded for taking evidence in the dockyards. As far as I can gather from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), he seemed to me to convey tlre idea that the Government had authorized the giving facilities in the former, and that they had also sanctioned or afterwards approved of their being given in the latter instance. Now, I want to know whether that is or is not the case. So far as we can gather from the Admiralty telegram, they directed the authorities at Devonport to give facilities for serving the Speaker's warrant. It appears that those authorities afterwards afforded facilities for taking evidence in the dockyards. I should like to be informed whether the Admiralty sanctioned that course, whether they were aware of its having been taken, and whether they approved or disapproved it?

I regret that the Government should appear to have sanctioned in any way interference with those voters. The real ground of complaint is not that they were collected together, but that they were subjected to cross-examination; and I should be glad, Mr. Speaker, if you would be good enough to inform me whether your warrant did justify anything beyond the mere service on the persons to whom it is addressed.

The Speaker's warrant is simply a warrant commanding attendance before an Election Committee; and the only reason for applying to the Speaker for his warrant is, that until the Committees are appointed there is no Chairman with authority to issue his warrant to summon witnesses before them. Application for the purpose is, therefore, made to the Speaker until the Committees are appointed, and he issues his warrant requiring the attendance before them of witnesses. If it be agreeable to the House, I will read the form of the warrant. It is as follows:—

"Whereas a petition of, complaining of an undue election and return for the of has been presented to the House of Commons, the matter of which petition is to be tried by a Select Committee to be appointed under the 'Elections Petitions Act, 1848;' these are, therefore, to re quire you, to be and appear before the said Select Committee at such time or times as shall be notified to you by the parties, or either of them, the said petition, or their or either of their agents or agent; and to receive and obey such further order as the said Select Committee to be appointed to try the matter of the said petition shall make concerning the same. As you will answer the' contrary at your peril.—Given under my hand, the day of, 186."

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman), who asks whether the Admiralty gave any authority in the present instance beyond that which relates to the serving of the Speaker's warrant, I have to state that the only authority given by them had reference to the service of that warrant, and that they knew nothing whatsoever of any further transaction until my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) laid the circumstances of the case before them this evening.

Then I understand 'the noble Lord to tell us that, until he heard the speech of my right hon. Friend opposite, he was not aware that evidence had been taken in the dockyards, and that the Admiralty, therefore, had no opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject.

That is exactly what I wish to convey.

Although this question has in all probability been discussed sufficiently to enable every hon. Member to make up his mind upon it, yet I would ask? permission of the House to say a few words before the discussion closes. Shortly after the meeting of Parliament, during the time when Lord Derby held the post of First; Minister to the Crown, serious imputations were made by Sir Benjamin Hall (then Member for Marylebone) upon the conduct of the Board of Admiralty then presided over by the Duke of Northumberland—in reference to the elections which had just taken place, and pointing to the interference of Government officers in the dockyards, and also to improper appointments which had taken place in the dockyards, upon—as was stated at; the time—political grounds. A Committee was appointed upon the subject, and it was my misfortune to be a Member of that Committee. I say it was my misfortune, because the inquiry was a long and intricate one, and because it became the duty of the Committee to report unfavourably on the proceedings of the then Board. Inasmuch as Lord Seymour, now Duke of Somerset, was the Chairman of that Committee, my attention has been especially awakened at hearing imputations cast upon the Board of which he is now the head. With reference to the important part of this discussion—which, no doubt, is that relating to the examination of witnesses in the dockyard, and with reference to the permission asked of the Duke of Somerset to afford facilities for the serving of the warrants in the dockyard—recollecting, as I so well do, the feeling displayed by the Duke of Somerset throughout the inquiry to which I have just alluded, and recollecting the straightforward course he pursued during the continuance of that inquiry, I cannot bring myself to believe that if he had known that permission was unnecessary for the serving of the Speaker's warrants in the dockyard, and if he could have foreseen the possible use that might have been made of that permission, he would have listened to the application for one single moment. The noble Lord (Lord Clarence Paget), at the end of his speech, asked whether this discussion did not prove the necessity of providing that the men in the dockyards should not have votes. It did not need this discussion to prove that; for one of the recommendations of Lord Seymour's Committee was the disfranchisement of the Government men in the dockyards, and, therefore, during the time that the Duke of Somerset has been in office he has had the opportunity, if so disposed, at any rate to propose to his Colleagues in the Cabinet to carry into effect the measure which that Committee recommended. With reference to the examination of men in the dockyard, no justification, I think, can possibly be put forward for that. I know very well, and so does every one else, even if he be a Member of this House for the first time, what is the construction put upon such interference, and especially in the dockyards. Believing as I do that the Duke of Somerset has not changed his opinion upon the subject of interference in the Government dockyards, I can only say I shall be greatly surprised if, after what has taken place in respect to the examination of these men in the dockyard, if the noble Lord is not instructed on a future day to come down and declare on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty not only that this has been done without his knowledge, but that it meets with his most serious and entire disapproval.

There are one or two points to which I desire to call the attention of the House arising out of the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Clarence Paget). The agents have the opportunity of gathering all the evidence in the first instance, before they apply for the Speaker's warrants; because I suppose each warrant is addressed to a particular person by name. They must therefore know the quality of the evidence and what direction it will take beforehand; and if it be adverse to their case, they do not apply for a warrant. The Solicitor General has said it would be difficult to serve men at home when they live in lodgings; but I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that if they lived in lodgings they would have no votes, and therefore there would be no warrants to serve. It is as easy to serve the warrants at the men's houses as at the dockyard—what object then could there be in assembling a number of men together, to the number of fifty at once, unless it was for the purpose of "coaching" them up in their evidence? In the letter from Admiral Symonds, which the noble Lord has read, an observation is made in favour of disfranchising the dockyard men. May I ask the noble Lord why the Admiral chooses this occasion to advocate that they should be disfranchised if there has been no illicit influence exercised over them, and they have given their votes fairly and honestly. Did not the Admiral make that suggestion because he knew that the men were especially open to illicit influence, that it had been exercised, and that it might be exercised again? Let me remind the noble Lord that this has not occurred at a time when a strong Government appears before the House; but it is when a Government is tottering to its fall that it endeavours to snatch from every one else that power which itself has abused.

The charge against the Admiralty is, that permission was given to serve the Speaker's warrant in the dockyard, and that the opportunity was taken to examine the witnesses. I cannot conceive that any reproach can be directed against the Admiralty in this matter, although there may be some blame attaching to the agent for having exceeded the powers given him. That blame, however, rests with him, and does not extend to any Members of the Government. With regard to the serving of the warrants in the dockyard, I presume that hon. Gentlemen whose seats in the House are menaced do not sit idly by and allow them to be lost without taking the opportunity of defending them, but I suppose they have the same privileges afforded to them as are afforded on the other side. I should like to know what would be the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite if they, having asked for permission to serve the Speaker's warrant on men employed in the dockyards, had been refused by the Admiralty. I apprehend that in that case there would have been a still more grave charge brought against the Government. And I think such a charge would have been much more just than that which has been brought this evening.

In common with the greater portion of the House, I have felt considerable difficulty in ascertaining the real nature of the facts in this matter. The Government have heard now for the first time the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington), and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman made it most conscientiously; but it would have been a great advantage to us, and would have saved the time of the House, if we had been in a position to admit or deny with precision, or to qualify in any way, that which has fallen from the right hon. Baronet. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: The noble Lord has admitted it.] I assure him that my noble Friend, not being in a position to deny the statement he has made, has cautiously and properly abstained from denying it; but my noble Friend by no means affirms or admits it, otherwise than by not being in a condition to question it, without having other information to give the House. I have no option but to follow the same course, and to assume the right hon. Gentleman to have been accurately informed—which may or may not be the case, but if not, it is not his fault. There is, then, but little room for difference of opinion. If we take the sole and single act which the Admiralty has done in this case, I think the severest judge would admit that no considerable blame could be ascribed to that Board for desiring that every facility should be afforded for serving the Speaker's warrant. That is a document of authority, and it is directed to a large number of persons in a public establishment. The parties armed with the warrant appeal to the Admiralty for facilities to serve it; and I think it was the duty of a public department, primâ facie, to give those facilities. But it is plain that if there were any covert intention on the part of the Admiralty, and if the intention was to give facilities for more than serving the warrant, such an intention would have been exceptionable, but there is no proof of its having been entertained. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to make that imputa- tion; but I will take his statement as implying that the facilities given were not confined to facilities for serving the warrant. I conceive that personal service was probably necessary, and I believe that the service might obviously be accomplished without interruption to the work in the dockyard; and that the whole of the officers of the establishment studiously kept themselves away, so that there might be no appearance of intervention whatever; yet the fact of the gathering together of these men within the walls of a public establishment, and ostensibly under the authority of the directions there given, was a proceeding which savoured somewhat of influence, and consequently it is one with regard to which we, always assuming the precise accuracy of the statement, do not hesitate to say that we regret and censure. This is all we are able to say on the subject, except this—that my noble Friend near me will make careful inquiry into the circumstances. If he finds he is not able materially to alter the statements made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, the strictest directions will be given to prevent the recurrence of any such proceedings; and if, on the other hand, he finds that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled, it probably will be only justice to the parties that he should make it known on the first convenient opportunity.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any just cause of complaint against my right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) for the manner in which he has brought this question before the House. Certainly not on the ground of want of sufficient opportunity on the part of the Admiralty for obtaining the information which was required. What is the case? My right hon. Friend, four days ago, gave private notice to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty of his intention to make the statement he has brought before us. Surely that was sufficient notice in these days of railroads and electric telegraphy—and we have seen that the Admiralty know how to work a telegraph. And then there was also the public Notice given in the usual form in the printed paper. I, therefore, do not clearly understand what is the purport of the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For I put this question—if transactions of the character now before us occur, how are they ever to be made known to the House or the country unless the course pursued by my right hon. Friend is followed? A complaint of a grievance is placed before a Member of this House; what is his duty under the circumstances? He makes those inquiries which guard him against making any misrepresentation to the House; he looks into the matter; he convinces himself that the complaint is just; he makes himself master of the facts that he may place them before the House; he gives ample notice to the Minister whose conduct is impugned, or whose Department is brought into question, in order that, with a general knowledge of the matters to be brought forward, he may have the opportunity of obtaining the information required; and after due notice the matter is brought before the House of Commons. I want to know in what other manner than that which has been pursued by my right hon. Friend the present case could have been brought before the consideration of Parliament. Then what is the use of the osbervations—the somewhat querulous observations—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does the House approve the conduct pursued in the Dockyard of Devon-port with regard to these men who are voters? Do they approve the dockyard men who are voters being assembled in the manner which has been described? I do not agree that the Speaker's warrant should have been served upon these men as it has been served. I think the proper answer of the Admiralty to these election petition-mongers should have been, "If you want to serve the Speaker's warrant we leave you to take that course which the law of the country prescribes, and which your own discretion must guide you in pursuing." That should have been the answer of the Admiralty. But I ask the House this question—Do they approve the conduct pursued in the Dockyard of Devon-port with respect to the workmen who were voters? I take it for granted they do not. What was that conduct? It is not the act of insulated indiscretion described by the Solicitor General, who informed us that he was not present early in the debate—a piece of information that was quite superfluous—it was not an act of insulated indiscretion on the part of an attorney's clerk in a moment of excitement asking a question which he was not justified in doing of any single voter. Why, this examination was a prolonged examination ! The average time occupied in the examination of each voter was from one hour and a half to two hours. ["No!"] There was at least such a waste of time that the Se- cretary to the Admiralty felt it his duty to write to inquire what loss would be occasioned to the public service by this proceeding. But, says the Solicitor General, there may have been a question asked which I do not mean to say was at all justifiable. Why, the examinations were going on for three days. These examinations did not consist of merely a single inquiry. This prolonged inquiry was going on for three days in the dockyard, with the cognizance, with the sanction, and by the authority of the Admiral Sperintendent. The Admiral Superintendent by his letter tells us candidly that in all he was doing, in securing to those agents of the petition-mongers this opportunity of fishing for evidence, he was obeying the orders and acting according to the instructions he received from the Admiralty. Well, but, says the innocent Admiralty, we never heard of this matter till it was brought before the House of Commons by the right hon. Member for Droitwich. But they have heard of it now for some time, and have they disapproved the conduct of the Admiral Superintendent? The conduct of the Admiral Superintendent, according to their own views, was extremely blamable; have they censured the conduct of the Admiral Superintendent? It is impossible not to feel that no answer whatever has been given to the matters brought under the consideration of the House. No man of the world after the discussion which has taken place can for a moment be mistaken as to the real character of this transaction. No one can doubt that your warrant, Sir, was used to fish up evidence for an election petition. I see by the arrangements made to hear the election petitions that the petition against the return for the borough of Devonport could not, by any possibility, be brought on till after Easter. There was no hurry, therefore, to serve the Speaker's warrant in order to obtain the presence of witnesses. And who is the petitioner in this case? It is impossible to shut our eyes to the charactor and status of the petitioner. I remember the gentleman who is the petitioner—a very respectable gentleman. He was a Member for some time of this House. He was made counsel for the Admiralty. He retired from that honourable post to become permanent Secretary to the Admiralty. He is the petitioner for the borough of Devonport. Certainly, therefore, it cannot be said that he lacks experience or opportunity to avail himself in the most efficacious way of the mode in which the object of his honourable ambition may be attained. Well, I say, these are circumstances of very grave suspicion. I think no man can deny that the Speaker's warrant has been used in a colourable manner, and for a purpose that has not been avowed; and when these matters are brought before us, which no one defends, which oven the Chancellor of the Exchequer apologizes for—when these irregularities, and more than irregularities, occur, what is the natural question? The natural question that arises is—Who is responsible? Is it to be tolerated that the head of a Department should get up and say, "All that occurred we highly disapprove, but we are perfectly innocent?" What, then, is to become of the responsibility of those who administer the affairs of the country? When a transaction of this kind has been, I will not say proved, but acknowledged, confessed, not even defended or denied by the Government, the next question is to ask who is responsible? No one will deny that the person responsible is the chief of the Department. This matter requires more inquiry than it has yet received. I am very glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are to have some further inquiry; but I do not think the matter ought to end by the Government merely saying they are not prepared to defend their conduct, which they confess is liable to blame. ["No, no !"] Not liable to blame! Then, you vindicate the conduct of the Admiral Superintendent? Not liable to bame! Then you vindicate—you are proud of your singular indiscretion? You go into partnership with the agents for the petitioner, and give them every facility. I say that wants further inquiry. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised further inquiry. But that further inquiry should not terminate, I think, in merely furthering fresh instructions to the authorities at Devonport, saying that the Government regret they have been placed in an indefensible position, and they beg for the future that affairs may be managed with more discretion.

I should not desire to prolong this discussion at all were it not for the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House referred to the notice which he supposes the Government to have had of the particular statements, or their effect, made this evening by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington). Now, I cannot but think that this mode of bringing forward a subject of this kind is, to say the least, not that which is most advisable to adopt, if it is intended to give the Government full opportunity of ascertaining the actual facts of the case and dealing with them as they may require. The House would suppose, from what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, that the right hon. Gentleman had communicated to my noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty the substance of the statements he intended to make. Such is not the fact. What took place was this. The right hon. Gentleman on Monday put into the hands of my noble Friend a mere copy of the Notice which is upon the Order of the House to-night—"to call the attention of the Government to certain statements"—What statements? Until we knew the substance of the statements to be made ["Oh, oh!"] how could we know what the statements were? Hon. Gentlemen on the other side seem to be able to understand what statements would be made before they hear them. ["Oh, oh!"] At all events, on the part of the Government I disclaim any such knowledge. The language of the Notice is—

"Certain statements as to the manner in which dockyard workmen who are voters for the borough of Devonport have been examined in the dockyard with reference to their intended evidence before the Election Committee for that borough, and to ask for explanation."

"I send you copies of the orders under which I have acted, also of the applications made to and approved by me in obedience to the orders which contained the same words, 'On workmen in the yard.' I therefore ordered that the people sought and applied for should assemble at the hour requested, in a quiet part of the yard, instead of their being sought separately at their work, when they saw the parties applying by Speaker's warrant; thus giving them 'every facility,' and were perfectly uninterfered with by their own officers. You have everything I can think of."

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman who last addressed us would have done better had he left the case of the Government in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for certainly his arguments have done nothing to mitigate the opinion the House must have formed of this transaction. The hon. and learned Member said that the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) did not give the Government a sufficiently detailed notice as to the subjects on which he required explanation. But every Gentleman who reads the Notice which was put into the hands of the noble Lord will see that it contains every information it is possible to give. The hon. and learned Gentleman further says neither did the letter from the Admiral convey any information to the noble Lord that any man had been examined in the dockyard, and that therefore the Government could not be aware that any such examination had taken place. But I say that it is stated in the Notice of Motion given by the right hon. Baronet that such an examination did take place, and that, therefore, it was the bounden duty of Government to have again communicated with the Admiral Superintendent, and to have asked him for an explanation of this grave charge. But what did the Government do when they became aware of the nature of the right hon. Baronet's Question? Being in possession on Monday night of the Notice of the Question to be put by the right hon. Baronet this evening, the Government do not appear, up to the present moment, to have communicated with any of the authorities of the dockyard upon the subject of this most serious charge; and now, when the debate is about to close, the Attorney General gets up and says it was impossible for Government to have been aware of the Question to be put to them from the Notice given them in private by the right hon. Baronet. I believe this to be mere special pleading, and I believe the House and the country will form a similar opinion on the subject. We are now told that the matter will be inquired into further. I hope that the further inquiry will be prosecuted in an impartial and free manner, and that, at any rate, in the long run we shall derive this benefit from it—that gentlemen who may be connected in one way or another with the Admiralty, will no longer be able to turn the Government Dockyards into a kind of political Star Chamber.

wished to explain that if he had led the House to suppose that Lord Clarence Paget knew of the telegram before it was sent he was in error. Of course, he now knew that it had been sent.

I can scarcely think that the Attorney General any more than his Colleague the Solicitor General can have been present throughout this debate, or else he would scarcely have complained of the terms of the Notice given by the right hon. Baronet. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had no means of knowing what had taken place. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman been in the House he must have heard the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty state that he had caused inquiries to be made into the subject of the examination of the men, and that he was informed that each examination had lasted more than an hour. The fact is, that the simple service of the warrant signed by the Speaker would not have occupied more than half a minute; and, therefore, when the petitioner's agent wrote to the Admiralty for facilities in serving the warrant, stating that only a very few minutes would be required in the case of each witness, the Admiralty should have foreseen that something else was intended besides the mere service of the warrant. But, notwithstanding the suspicious circumstances under which the application was made, they sent a telegram and a letter to the Admiral Superintendent, directing him to give the facilities asked for. They learn afterwards that the men were each occupied for an hour—and that in the case of fifty workmen—and I want to know how they supposed that hour was occupied. I say the conclusion the Admiralty should have come to upon the receipt of the letter from the petitioner's agent was that something more was intended than appeared upon the face of it. And I go further and ask why, when they heard that something else had been done, they did not institute inquiries in order to find out the real truth of the matter?

I do not wish to make any attack upon the character of the Duke of Somerset, because I believe that his impartiality is notorious to every Member of the House; but, although we may fully acquit the noble Duke of having done anything further than to give directions for facilitating the service of the warrant, yet I think that he was guilty of a certain amount of indiscretion in not confining his instructions to a direction to the Admiral Superintendent to give a simple opportunity to the petitioner's agent to serve the warrant. It is not to be forgotten that the First Lord of the Admiralty, holding as he does the whole patronage of the navy in his hands, is a very powerful person, and a gallant sailor like Admiral Symonds, accustomed to obey orders, might doubtless, in his zeal, have a little exceeded his orders. I approve the a pologetical tone taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I trust that the discussion will turn out hereafter to have been of benefit to the Admiralty.

The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) asked the noble Lord to read one letter only; but had he asked for the other letter, it would have been found that facilities were to be given to the agent for the petitioner alone. If this had been done when the Gentlemen on this side of the House were in power, a Committee of the House would have been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the matter; and I think that that course ought to have been pursued on the present occasion, because I do not believe that the public generally will be satisfied with a private inquiry instituted by the Admiral, who is himself implicated in these transactions.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the experiments made as to the cure of the Cattle Plague have not been laid upon the table of the House? The country had been told that the "stamping out" process was the only mode of eradicating the cattle disease, This, he thought, showed a very retrogressive tendency on the part of medical science, and especially in its veterinary branch. For the sake of the agricultural interest generally he sincerely hoped that the disease was not so incurable as it was represented to be, because, as they could not prevent importation of foreign cattle, they would always be liable to the recurrence of the disease. For himself, he was one of those who held the opinion that all the pestilences which visited us were more or less amenable to medical treatment, and it was stated in the newspapers that the remedies employed by Mr. Worms had in many instances proved successful. He should very much like to learn the particulars of the experiments made by that gentleman, and it was, he believed, the duty of the Government to lay any information they may obtain on the subject upon the table of the House at the earliest possible moment.

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that the Government were fully sensible of the importance and interest attaching to the experimental treatment of animals affected with the cattle disease, and their attention was drawn to the subject at the very commencement of the outbreak in this country. As the House was aware, a Royal Commission was appointed for the express purpose, among others, of inquiring into the mode of treatment likely to prove successful in the case of animals affected with the plague, and the Government thought it would be far better to intrust such an inquiry to one authority, instead of committing it to the care of two separate bodies. That Commission had not neglected their duty. On the contrary, they had prepared a scheme of the most exhaustive character, for the purpose of giving to the world the most complete and accurate information with regard to the nature of the disease, the different modes of treatment, contagion, and other matters most interesting to the public and most likely to be attended with advantage on future occasions. The nature of the scheme was most fully described in the second Report of the Royal Commission, which his hon. Friend had probably not yet seen. He would find that not only many eminent veterinary surgeons, but also men of distinction in the medical profession had been engaged in conducting the inquiries, and he would find certain general statements made regarding the result of their labours. The Commissioners stated that no remedy which had hitherto been discovered could be relied upon, that vaccination had not proved a safeguard, and that they purposed giving the public more details with reference to inoculation. The Commissioners, in their third and final Report, promise to give full and complete accounts of the experiments which had been made, and the results of investigations which had been instituted by the medical gentlemen to whom they had been intrusted. Under those circumstances, it would have been impossible for the Government up to the present time to furnish the House with complete information upon the subject. [An hon. MEMBER: When will it be presented to the House?] Of course, the third Report of the Commissioners would be presented as soon as it was made.

in bringing under the notice of the House the grievances of which the Masters in the Royal Nary complained, said, that the Masters in the Royal Navy were astonished at the way in which their case was stated to the House on a previous occasion by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, and at the earliest opportunity they had drawn up a statement, in which they alleged that the valuable services of the Masters in the navy during late years could not be disputed. They then particularized the grievances under which they laboured, and embodied them in a pamphlet. In that pamphlet they alleged that the Masters did not gain the advantages to which they were entitled, that they were placed in an unfavourable position, and that the recommendations of the Committee of 1862 had never been carried out; and they alleged further, that when the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty stated, as he had upon one occasion, that no memorials had been received from the Masters in the service with regard to their pay, it must be well known that the framing and signing such memorials were contrary to the Queen's Regulations. By the Naval Discipline Act of 1863 any officer was fully authorized to make known to his superior officer any just cause of complaint; but he was not permitted to combine with others for the purpose of obtaining redress. Finding individual remonstrance of no avail the Masters presented a memorial, which would be a sufficient answer to the assertion of the Secretary to the Admiralty, that they had asked for no increase of pay. It prayed that, with regard to relative rank, pay, pensions, and social position, they might be placed on the same footing as medical officers, of whom they had always had precedence since the Order of March, 1808. The noble Lord had also stated that the recommendations of the Committee which inquired into the grievances of Masters in 1862 had been carried into effect; but no assertion could be more incorrect. The title of "Staff Commander" was, as he had said, simply a delusion, conferring no rank, pay, or privileges. When it was granted, Masters expected some privilege, such as an allowance for travelling expenses incurred in surveying, for which £1 a day was allowed to Commanders; but the position of Masters in this respect remained unchanged, so that a Commander when travelling received 10s. a day more than a "Staff Commander," although the latter often discharged lieutenant's and other duties. He could not sit on a court martial; in action his place was by the side of the captain; on an enemy's coast his duties were most hazardous. At the time of the Crimean War, when the crew of a line-of-battle ship were paid off, the captain received the decoration of a Commander of the Bath; the first-lieutenant, the commander, the surgeon, and the captain of marines were all provided for; and the only officer who was neglected was the Master, who retired on 5s. a day. Under all these circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that the number of Masters had been for some years past steadily on the decline. In 1840 there were 140; in 1850, 90; in 1859, 85; in 1860, 74; and in 1861, 76. He did not pretend to say that there was any advantage to the navy in having this class of officers. It was considered a great boon by old officers to have their sons educated at a comparatively small cost and brought up as second-class cadets, to be eventually Masters in the navy. As such they ought, at least, to be dealt with fairly and honourably, and if injustice were committed Parliament was made particeps criminis. He was glad to see the Secretary to the Admiralty in his place; and he would therefore say that, although on several occasions the noble Lord had led the House to believe that it was the earnest wish of the Admiralty to deal fairly, liberally, and generously with the Masters in the navy, they had received the reverse of such treatment. When complaint was made, the noble Lord promised that, if patience were shown, a boon should be conferred; but would the House believe that the Admiralty had withdrawn from the Masters the privilege of being able to enter their sons as second-class cadets? As an instance of the treatment received by Masters in the navy, he would cite the case of a man who became a volunteer of the second-class in 1825, and who, after serving in every clime, and being twice shipwrecked and twice invalided, was assigned Coastguard duties, which required the strength of a man in the prime of life, at the most exposed station on the coast of Cornwall, where he was obliged to walk many miles over slimy rocks, night and day, in all weathers. Having fulfilled these duties six or seven years, he received a letter informing him that he had been placed on the reserve list of Masters, that he would lose no advantages that he then enjoyed, and that he would be retained on Coastguard service; and he thereupon wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty. The Lords of the Admiralty in their reply expressed their regret that his services did not, under their regulations, entitle him to Greenwich out-pay; but, as a favour, he was placed on the 6s. list, and about a month afterwards he was promoted to the rank of Staff Commander, without increase of pay. The memorialist concluded by stating that, at fifty-seven years of age, he found all his prospects destroyed by ill-health, contracted in a service which had brought him no rewards, save a number of highly-commendatory certificates, a rank equal to that of lieutenant-colonel, and a pension of 6s. a day, on which sum he had to endeavour to support himself and his family in the position of a gentleman and an officer in Her Majesty's service. Such was the position in which an officer in that navy of which Englishmen were so justly proud found himself placed. Masters in the navy had rendered to their country many most important services by surveying dangerous coasts, not only for the purposes of war, but, what was still better, for the sake of the safety of the mercantile marine. These officers, who had deserved so well of their country, and who had been treated so badly by that country, worn out, and with starvation staring them in the face, had the consolation of reading every day in the paper accounts of the honours, promotions, and increases of pay which were received by officers who had entered the navy at the same time that they had; reading, perhaps, at the same time the fallacious promises of the Secretary of the Navy, and the unfounded accounts of the great things which had been done for them. He had often heard it stated that the present expenditure of England was excessive; and they knew what enormous sums were spent in building ships which would never be used; and it was a source of great mortification to find that the country was so poor, so mean, or so parsimonious as to neglect in their old age officers who had faithfully served her. He would by one illustration show how unfairly, as compared with other officers, Masters were treated. Under the present regulations the pay of a Staff Commander or Master was £182 10s. per annum, that of a surgeon was £273 15s., and that of a paymaster £249. After ten years' service, the pay of a Staff Commander or Master was £237 5s., that of a surgeon was £328 10s., and that of a paymaster £349 15s.; after twenty years' service the Master or Staff Commander received a salary of £328 a year, the surgeon £401 10s., and the paymaster £600 14s. But the Master was not only paid badly, but he was also debarred from receiving the same honours and rewards as the other officers. When a great service was performed by any of Her Majesty's vessels, every officer on board that vessel could receive a reward except the Master, to whose skill the successful performance of the service may have been in a great measure due. What the Masters asked was really not much, considering the onerous nature of their duties. The Masters said, "If you think the service would be better without us abolish the class; but if, on the contrary, you think we have done our duty, treat us fairly. Do not give us a name which in reality you withhold. If you give us the rank of Staff Commander put us on an equality with the commanders in the navy. If you think our services worth recompensing, give us justice, and let us have a chance of rising in our profession." Taxed as the country might be, it was rich enough to award justice to its public servants, and he trusted, therefore, that the appeal which he now made to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty would not be made in vain. If, however, the Admiralty continued to deny this class of officers justice, they might fairly appeal to the country and to Parliament to see them righted.

said, he rose to ask Mr. Speaker whether on going into Committee on the first naval Vote Members would be allowed to discuss the Estimates at large?

said, that the question should be addressed to the Chairman of Committee.

said, that the Chairman of Committee had for many years permitted Members to make a general statement on the Estimates when the first Vote came on for discussion.

said, he could fully bear out the observations of the hon, Member for Devon (Sir Lawrence Palk) with respect to the value of the services of the Masters in the navy. He had with him a list of nineteen whom he had known, of whom only one ever failed in his duty in any instance, and even he afterwards recovered his character. But it was far from being the case that their services were left unrewarded; the rewards given them were often very ample in degree. Taking the cases of fifteen with whom he was acquainted he found that five had been appointed Masters Attendant of dockyards, receiving pay to the amount of £500 or £600 a year; two were in command of ships, with the pay of commanders; one held a high situation in the compass department at the Admiralty; and one was at the head of a branch establishment in Portsmouth Dockyard; leaving only six with no pay beyond that of their naval rank. It was impossible in the nature of things to give men employed for special duties and general service the same rate of pay. The most difficult duty of Masters was that of pilotage which was not to be learnt in a day, and, in fact, required almost a lifetime. The old Admiralty regulations ordered that, with the view of encouraging Masters to attain excellence as pilots, they should be paid for every port into which they took a ship half the amount that would be paid to a regular pilot. He believed that the hydrographers of the navy, many of whom were among the foremost in setting forth the hardships and advocating the claims of the Masters, were the very persons who virtually deprived them of that advantage; because, at the end of the ship's term of service, when the certificates of pilotage were sent in by the captains, they were thrown together, and very often only a small sum was awarded to the Master instead of the full pilotage to which he was justly entitled. If that question of half pilotage were only looked into by the Secretary to the Admiralty, he would probably find that it would form a considerable addition to the income of the Masters. With respect to the improvement in the pay of the Staff Commanders, to use the rather fantastic denomination given them in the Navy List, he might mention that the Staff Com- manders had not been neglected, for he found that before 1855 the highest amount of pay was 11s. 8d. a day, and Masters of the Fleet 16s. 6d. In 1860, the highest rate was £1 a day, and Masters of the Fleet £1 6s. He did not mean to say that that was a very high rate of pay for men who had served half their lives in the navy, but still there was no class of naval officers, as far as he was aware, whose pay had been so much increased. In conclusion, he ventured to express a hope that his noble Friend would take the question of pilotage into consideration; and he trusted, also, that the entry of young men for the rank of: Master might be again resumed, and that a system of education which would give those young men a knowledge of pilotage might again be established in the navy.

said, he had served on the Admiralty Committee, and had put many questions to the different witnesses in reference to the position of the Masters. On no question, however, did he receive such a diversity of answers. As to the question of pay, he did not wish to offer any opinion, because, from the evidence which was given, he was totally unable to come to any conclusion on the subject.

said, that though this Bill was one of great importance no explanation had been given at its introduction; and though he understood the Bill was to be referred to the Committee which had been appointed respecting the Public Accounts, he thought its principle ought to be known to the House before it went into Committee. The Bill was practically an abolition of all control of that House over the issues by Votes of Supply. He was not going to object to its principle, but it was a very important one. The Committee on Public Money which sat several years ago discussed very fully the nature of the control exercised by the Comptroller of the Exchequer over the public issues of all money from the Exchequer. After a Vote by Parliament an application was necessary to be made to the Comptroller of the Exchequer, and his sanction was given if he ascertained that the Vote was in accordance with the Act of Parliament. This was the check which the present Bill would abolish. He perceived that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented from this statement. He admitted that the opinion of the Committee on Public Money appeared to have been that the check was of no very practical importance. Still it had had the sanction of Parliament from time to time, and the Comptroller of the Exchequer had been supposed to hold an office of great importance. This Bill was to unite the office of Comptroller with that of Auditor. Now, the duties of the Comptroller and those of the Auditor were two sorts of duties which had always appeared to him, and had, he thought, appeared to the Committee, to be very different the one from the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented from his statement that such was the opinion of the Committee; but the Committee never had recommended that they should be united and discharged by one officer. It might be wise to abolish the office of Comptroller and make the real check that of the Auditor. It was true that while there had been a control over the issues there had been none over the expenditure. No issue could be obtained without Parliamentary authority; but the moment the issue took place Parliamentary control ceased. The recommendation of the Committee was that the Audit Office should be made a more important one, and that it should be made so efficient that, early in the following year after the various Votes of Supply were passed, every Mem- ber of Parliament might have a document before him signed by the Auditor—the Auditor being appointed by the Crown—which would contain a complete account of the expenditure. The Committee attached less importance to the control of the issues which was exercised by the Comptroller. The control of the Comptroller of the Exchequer was to be exercised before the money was issued, and the object of the Audit was to see whether the money, after being issued, had been properly spent. It was not a very intelligible principle to vest these two functions in the same person. It would be better ostensibly to abolish the office of Comptroller of the Exchequer altogether. A Bill of that importance ought not to pass a second reading merely pro formâ, without discussion.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it would be wrong and even indecent to read a Bill of such cardinal importance a second time without some discussion. It related to a matter which really lay at the root of the functions of the House of Commons—namely, the granting of money; and it appeared materially to alter the principles on which Parliament had proceeded. They were not, however, in a satisfactory position then to discuss the subject. The question was one with which comparatively few Members of the House were acquainted, and even those few could not speak authoritatively on the merits of the measure till they had had an opportunity of looking more closely at its clauses, and examining officers outside of the House as to the operation it might be expected to have. They might talk very easily as to the matter of principle, and say it was a question whether they would have two checks or one—whether they would have the principle of control, and the principle of audit, or whether they would trust mainly to the latter. But if they were to substitute the principle of audit for the principle of control, they must show that by their regulations they made the principle of audit thoroughly effective; and for that purpose it would be necessary to examine those Gentlemen who were practically concerned, as representing the Audit Office and other Departments of the State, as to the exact effect of some of these clauses. That was just one of those questions upon which they were bound in duty not to trust the Government, but rather, if he might say so, to distrust it. He did not intend to speak disrespectfully of Government, for he thought it was a very good and safe rule to trust Government on most questions on which the Government were probably well informed, and the House imperfectly informed; but when they were granting the public money they were bound to require, and to insist on, and to see that they got a security that the money granted by the House for the public service should be spent in the manner which the House intended it should be. As to the control of the Comptroller of the Exchequer, whatever it might have been formerly, it had of late been merely a nominal control; because, although it was necessary that the Treasury or other Departments which applied for the issue of money should apply for it in such form and for such purpose as the House had voted it, and the Comptroller would not otherwise allow it to go out of the Exchequer, he afterwards entirely lost sight of it, and: it was in the power of the Treasury, for anything he could do to prevent it, to spend the money on any other service. Then the Comptroller became useless, and even mischievous, because he caused Parliament and the country to shut their eyes to a danger that was real, and prevented their turning their attention to what was a real security—namely, an efficient system of audit. True, they might have made the power of the Comptroller a real living power, capable of preventing the expenditure of any money except in the way directed by Parliament; but then they must have much hampered the action of the Executive, and kept up a number of separate balances in the hands of separate paymasters; which would have been the reverse of an economical proceeding. Most people would agree that it was desirable to keep the balance as low as possible, and to have one balance instead of a large number. Undoubtedly, the system of audit had not been as thoroughly elaborated as it might and ought to have been, and the great merit of the present measure was that it did at least attempt to make that system fully efficient. The proposal to send the Bill to a Select Committee was a very wise and proper one, because the Committee would be able to satisfy itself by the evidence of the officers of the Audit and other Departments whether such proper provision had been made as to the mode of keeping accounts, the way in which the audit was to be conducted, and the thorough independence of the auditors, as would really accomplish the end in view. It ought to be clearly understood, when the Bill went be- fore the Committee, that the Committee were to be free, and the House free also, to adopt or reject it as they thought best, after the examination to which it would be subjected. The Bill was to be referred, he believed, to the Committee on Public Accounts; but the House ought to understand what were the functions of that Committee, and that it was not a Committee to which every question of finance was to be referred. The Committee of Public Accounts was appointed as the organ of the House for a very special and rather uninteresting purpose, and the House ought to take care not to withdraw the attention of its members from their special duty, that of revising the audit of public accounts. There were two kinds of audit. First the administrative audit, conducted by the officers of the Audit Board under the directions of the Treasury, in order to see whether the money had been expended in accordance with the directions of the Treasury. The auditors examined into and reported to the Treasury upon the expenditure of money, and the Treasury took note of any irregularity that might have occurred in regard to that expenditure. Next, there was the Appropriation Audit, which was performed, not for the Treasury, but for that House. It was with reference to the latter that the Committee of Public Accounts was appointed, and it was their function to examine every year the audited accounts of the previous year's expenditure. He had had the honour of sitting upon the Committee since its appointment and during the six years of its existence; and he confessed that the members of it found it more agreeable and interesting to devote their attention to questions of general principle than to the dry work of looking into the details of the accounts. He hoped the House would be cautious how it supplied them with matter more attractive than their proper business. He thought that they ought to thank the Government for having framed so efficient a Bill, which would, in his opinion, effect a great improvement in the mode of auditing the accounts, and would establish a simple and more effective system.

said, he agreed with almost everything that had been stated by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). The Bill, no doubt, was a very useful one, and it was incumbent on the House to see it thoroughly carried out. When the House voted money it parted with it for certain uses, and it then passed under the control of the financial department of the Treasury, and was distributed among various organs of the State all over the world. The accounts were then made out and sent permanently to the Board of Audit; but the last portion of the circle remained incomplete until the Committee of Public Accounts had done its duty. It was not till then that it could fairly be said that the office of the House, as the real authoritative steward of public monies, had been discharged. It was with no wish to press their opinion on the House that the Government had come to the conclusion that this Bill had better be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts; and if the House thought it ought to be referred to another Committee, the Government would gladly give way. His hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson Hankey) objected to the two offices of the previous control and the final audit being conferred on the same person. No doubt, the functions were perfectly distinct in themselves, but they did not occupy the full time of a public officer, and no advantage could be gained by separating them. It was impossible to make the previous control of the accounts absolutely efficient. If all the money were paid in London, it might be done; but the expenditure was distributed all over the world, and it was physically impossible to make the Exchequer control that which in theory it ought to be. He agreed with his hon. Friend that that which was intended for a good purpose would become a mischievous purpose if it went out to the world that the public had a security for the laying out of the money which really did not exist. The Government were not entirely spontaneous and independent agents in the introduction of this Bill; but the Bill was of great importance, because it embodied a final decision that the theory of the law was to be made to conform to the established and recognized practice, instead of the practice being made to conform to the theory. For a long series of years that the practice under the law had not been in conformity with the law was a matter of perfect notoriety. If the Members of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred should come to the conclusion that it was not well suited for its objects, they would properly decline to consider themselves bound by the step which it was now proposed to take.

said, he took great interest in the question, having really been the originator of the Public Monies' Committee. Reference to the Parliamentary proceedings of the period when the matter was before discussed would show that high authorities, such as Lord Grenville, Lord Lyndhurst, and Lord Monteagle, attached great importance to the powers exercised by the Comptroller of the Exchequer over the issue of public monies. Recent proceedings in Prussia also showed the constitutional importance of control over the issue. As he understood the question which arose in Prussia, it was that their House of Commons refused to vote the supply for the army. The Crown, however, on the plea that it felt bound to provide for that branch of the Administration, expended the money. If a control over the issues had existed, that course would not have been pursued by the Crown. And the fact that the Comptroller had no power over the items after they had left him did not detract from the constitutional importance of the office as a control over the issue of public money. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the Comptroller of the Exchequer had not enough to do, and that, therefore, as his time was not fully occupied, it was undesirable to keep up his office separately. He did not concur with that view of the matter. If a public officer's time were not fully occupied, that was no reason for jumbling his duties with those of some one else. They might as well have said if the Commander-in-Chief was not fully occupied, that he should also take office as Archbishop of Canterbury. He noticed that all through the Bill the functions of receipt and issue and the functions of the Audit were confounded together, when they were actually very different portions of the administration. In the whole system the great difficulty which had struck the Committee on Public Monies was this. There was a control over the issue, but when the money was issued there was no control at all; so that' between the issue and the audit the Treasury could do just as they please with the money. The control over the issue was a constitutional control; and the control by the Audit an administrative control. But the Audit Department was by no means effectual. The accounts of the Secretary of State were not audited by it. The Board of Audit was subject to the Treasury, whereas it should, in his opinion, be superior to it in the matter of account, just as the Chamber of Accounts in France was. The French Chamber of Accounts had jurisdiction over all accountants; it had power to summon them to account and to produce vouchers and papers, and to examine them on oath, and to hear and determine all questions of account and to enforce its orders by fine and imprisonment. It was the Supreme Court of accounts. The Board of Audit in this country should have similar powers. The French Chamber of Accounts was most perfect in its machinery; and he believed the Board of Audit would never work effectually until it was endowed with a constitution somewhat similar, and was possessed of the powers he had described. The Board of Audit ought not to be at the mercy of the different Departments, but to have the power of acting judicially, and making orders upon the accountants to appear for examination, and produce such vouchers as might be deemed necessary for the rendering of the accounts. Till that should be done the House would not have a complete audit.

said, he did not think the hon. and learned Member could have read the Bill, which provided that accountants should transmit their accounts, together with the authorities and vouchers relating thereto, to the office of the Commissioners, in such form, and for such periods, and under such regulations as the Commissioners might prescribe. The Bill would extend the audit to all branches of the public service, and effectually prevent the intentions of Parliament being contravened.