said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, What progress has been made in the revision of the Statute Law, and how soon an Expurgated List of Statutes will be presented to Parliament?

said, in reply, that the statutes down to the 10th Geo. III. had been already revised, and there was a Bill in preparation for the expurgation of statutes from that time to the present. The gentlemen employed upon the work had already prepared a statement showing the precise condition of every statute down to the end of last Session, and a revised edition of the statutes was now being printed.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay before the House Copy of all Reports connected with the expenditure on the Persian Gulf Submarine Line of Telegraph, and the land line connecting it with Bombay; also of any Reports referring to expenditure, whether by way of advance or subsidy, in connection with the land line from the Persian Gulf through Persia and Turkey?

Sir, In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I cannot give him precisely what he asks for, as there is only one formal Report on the subject referred to in existence. That, however, I shall be happy to lay on the table, together with other Papers containing ample information.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum of £20,579,434 9s. 9d. in No. 38, the sum of £11,405,057 15s. 10d. in No. 39, and the sum of £7,340,268 15s. 11d. in No. 40 of the Finance Accounts to the 31st of March last will together, make the total amount of advances issued from the Exchequer by way of loan for Land Improvements, &c. during the reign of Her Majesty; and, if not, from what date have those issues been made?

said, in reply, that the hon. Member's language was somewhat vague, and he rather hesitated in replying to a Question in which the word "&c." found a place; but he might inform him that the total in those accounts included advances made prior to the present reign. If the hon. Gentleman would look at the items and the explanatory notes attached to them, he would find that they went back in the case of Ireland to the year 1800, and in the case of Great Britain to 1817.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to a statement contained in several of the daily and weekly newspapers to the effect that, on Saturday the 12th, forty-one established men were discharged from Devonport Dockyard without a day's notice, and without waiting, as has hitherto always been the practice, for the arrival of their pension papers; and whether that statement is correct?

In reply, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I have to say that on receiving his Notice of Question I telegraphed to Devonport for the facts, and I have since seen the Admiral Superintendent. It appears that thirty-six men, who had received ample notice of their intended discharge, but whose pension papers had not arrived, were, through some misapprehension, discharged on the 12th instant. Orders were issued to continue the pay of these men according to custom until the arrival of their pension papers, which in come cases have been received. I cannot hear of any other case, and, as I have stated, this arose through some misapprehension at Devonport.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement made in the Canadian papers is true, that after the recent massacre of Indians in the territory of Montana, the United States troops were allowed by the British authorities to cross the frontier in pursuit of the fugitives who sought refuge there?

said, in reply, that he was unable to give the hon. Gentleman any information upon the matter. There was no such information in the Foreign Office, and he had inquired but could obtain none from the Colonial Office.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General or in his absence Mr. Solicitor General, Whether he will inform the House against what persons prosecutions have been commenced or are contemplated by the Government in reference to the Bridgwater, Beverley, or Norwich Elections?

said, that in regard to prosecutions actually commenced, he had to reply that in the case of Beverley sufficient informations had been exhibited against two persons—Sir Henry Edwards and Mr. Burrell; and in that of Bridgwater against four—Dr. Hamilton Kinglake, Mr. Vanderbyl, Mr. Fennelly, and Mr. Lovibond. He had, however, to state with respect to Mr. Lovibond, that though those who advise the Crown in those matters were not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench as to the power of revision where a certificate had been refused by Election Commissioners, yet, after the strong opinion pronounced by the Queen's Bench, the Attorney General considered that, whatever might be the law of the case, the prosecution against Mr. Lovibond ought not to be proceeded with. In that view he entirely concurred, and though informations had been exhibited against Mr. Lovibond, he would not be prosecuted. In the case of Norwich the prosecutions would be against Sir Henry Stracey, Mr. Hardiment, Mr. Towne, and Mr. Pennefather.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the Returns ordered in reference to the Coast Guard Service, on the 23rd of July last, which were very voluminous, will be laid upon the Table of the House?

said, those Returns were in preparation, and, he hoped, would be laid on the table by the end of the month.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any and what further information has been received from Her Majesty's Minister at Rio de Janeiro as to the trial of the crew of the "Mary Hamilton," who have been detained in prison in Bio since the 26th March 1869, and if the Government will urge upon the Brazilian authorities the necessity of their case being inquired into without further delay?

said, in reply, that the latest information in the Foreign Office as to the trial of the crew of the Mary Hamilton was contained in a despatch from Mr. Mathew, received on the 18th instant, by which he learnt that the trial of the crew for the murder of the captain occurred on the 20th of December, when the men were acquitted. The Public Prosecutor, however, has appealed against that decision, and the Government was informed that a fortnight at least must elapse from the date of appeal before the case was finally decided. As regarded the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, he would say that when attention was drawn by himself and others to the prolonged imprisonment of these men, Her Majesty's Minister at Rio was instructed to remonstrate with the Brazilian Government, and to point out the extreme hardship of detaining British seamen ten months in prison without bringing them to trial. Mr. Mathew was also further instructed to employ legal aid, if it should be considered necessary, for the defence of the crew.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Council, Whether in poor and populous districts, where it is reported that school accommodation is insufficient, the Government, for the sake of stimulating local efforts, will be prepared to offer grants for building on a more liberal scale than at present during the year of grace allowed to school districts under the Bill upon Elementary Education?

said, in reply, that the Question of the hon. Gentleman referred not so much to the Bill before Parliament as to the conditions upon which the public money should be given for the purposes of education. He must repeat the answer that he gave the night before last to the hon. Member for Southwest Lancashire (Mr. Assheton Cross), that upon the Bill becoming law, and the Government becoming aware of the precise form in which it had passed, they would re-consider all matters in relation to grants.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Report of the International Commission upon Consular Jurisdiction lately sitting at Cairo is in the hands of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, if it is his intention to lay it upon the Table of the House, with any other Papers relating to the subject?

, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to lay on the table the Report and some other Papers relating to the proceedings of the Commission; but owing to the mass of documents being printed in the Foreign Office, it would be some time before they could be distributed unless his noble Friend thought fit to move that they be printed by order of the House.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any final decision has been arrived at with reference to the number of appointments in the Indian Civil Service, which are to be competed for at the approaching examination?

said, in reply, that it had been decided that day that the number of appointments in the Indian Civil Service to be competed for at the approaching examination should be forty.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said that, in answer to the appeals made to him from various seaport towns, he had agreed, after the Bill had passed the present stage, to refer it to a Select Committee. He had some time ago decided to refer the compensation clauses to a Select Committee; but, on looking closer into the matter, he found it was difficult to separate those clauses from the other provisions of the Bill. He, therefore, upon further consideration, thought it better to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committe.

said, he was sorry to hear that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee. The pilotage question had already been, in his opinion, sufficiently considered, and the propriety of abolishing compulsory pilotage was universally admitted.

said, he begged to thank the Under Secretary for the Board of Trade for the course he had decided to take. Looking to the large questions involved—questions much larger than hon. Members, without practical acquaintance with the subject, had any conception of—he thought the hon. Gentleman had come to a very wise decision on the matter. So far from coinciding in opinion with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), he (Mr. Graves) thought that the question involved was much larger than a mere question of pilotage. He spoke not only for the pilots of Liverpool, but for the whole commercial interests of that important port. He was prepared with facts to satisfy the House that this Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He had received communications from the Chairmen of the Liverpool Dock Board, the Underwriters' Association, and the Mercantile Marine Association, and from at least half-a-dozen of the most eminent shipowners of Liverpool, in favour of referring the Bill to a Select Committee, and stating that they had not had time fully to consider all the important details of the measure, much less to decide between the principle of voluntary and compulsory pilotage. He believed the course taken by the Government would in the end lead to a more rapid settlement of the question than if the Bill were loft to be discussed in the House itself.

, on behalf of the pilots of Dover, thanked the Government for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, and hoped they would deal liberally with the compensation clauses. Everyone who considered the present state of the law, which protected shipowners from the consequences of collision when a licensed pilot was on board, must be convinced that it required some alteration.

said, he regretted that the Government had consented to refer the principle of their own Bill to a Select Committee. He believed, howover, that the Bill would come out of the Select Committee with the principle unimpaired, that shipowners should be free to engage such servants as they preferred to do their work.

said, that, however great might be the gratitude of Liverpool and Dover, he felt certain that the other portions of the kingdom would hear with disappointment that the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee. There was no burden which the shipowners were so anxious to remove as that of compulsory pilotage.

said, that his constituents had long been in a state of uncertainty on this subject, and were most anxious that the question should be settled this Session. The pilots were naturally desirous that in the settlement of the matter vested interests should be fairly considered. He thanked the Government for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) that the House in sending this Bill to a Select Committee is referring the principle of the Bill to that Committee. We ask the House to read the Bill a second time, and thereby to affirm its principle, and then we propose to refer its details to a Select Committee. Nor can I agree that it would have boon right to pick out the financial clauses and to send them alone to a Select Committee. Any one who considers our Parliamentary practice will see that such a proceeding as that of separating the financial clauses from the rest of the Bill would be trenching on those duties which should only be exercised upon the responsibility of the Executive Government. It would lead to the establishment of an inconvenient precedent, and possibly to great and reckless expenditure. I think it much better that the whole Bill should go to a Select Committee than to pick out a particular point and make that the subject of investigation.

said, he had received a communication from the Chairman of the Shipowners' Society of London, authorizing him to state that they were perfectly satisfied with the principle of the Bill, and saw no necessity for referring the details to a Select Committee. As, however, the general opinion of the House seemed to be in favour of the Select Committee, he should not oppose the proposal of the Government.

, on behalf of a considerable shipping port, begged to express his general approval of the Bill before the House, more particularly as Clause 3 of the Bill still provided for efficient pilotage, and effectually shut out a body of men called "hobblers" who usually prowled about pilotage waters. From the port of Greenock seaward there was at present no compulsory pilotage; but between the port of Greenock and Glasgow, a narrow river of twenty-three miles long, compulsory pilotage does exist, and he was not prepared to say it should be done away with. He had received from a number of the chief pilots on the river Clyde, between Greenock and Glasgow, a remonstrance against the Bill, and he was not sorry that it was to be referred to a Committee upstairs, when all interests, both vested and otherwise, would be duly heard and considered.

said, he thought that the Government had done wisely to refer the whole Bill to a Select Committee. There were two points in the Bill which the Select Committee would have to consider—one the question of pilots, and the other of shipowners. As ten years had elapsed since the question had been considered by a Select Committee, and as that Committee had pronounced its opinion with rather a faltering voice, a great deal of dissatisfaction would have been felt by the pilots generally if the measure were passed over too rapidly by the House. By referring the Bill to a Select Committee the time that must necessarily elapse before communication could be held with the pilots, many of whom were at sea would be gained, and the dissatisfaction that would be certain to arise if the matter were disposed of too hastily and without due investigation would be avoided. There appeared to be a wide difference of opinion among the different ports upon the question of the abolition of compulsory pilotage. In many ports, no doubt, compulsory pilotage might be abolished at once, while in others it was stated, upon authority which could not be lightly passed over, that the adoption of such a course would be exceedingly dangerous to the shipping interest. It was evident the question was not one that could be fully discussed in that House, it being one of detail, and therefore more fitted for discussion before a Committee. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. E. Smith) treated the subject as though no middle course could be adopted; because it was quite impossible to do away with what was the greatest abuse of compulsory pilotage that—namely, of the owner throwing the responsibility in all questions of damages upon the pilot—he seemed to think that either there must be an abolition of compulsory pilotage or that that rule should be kept up. But he begged to remind the hon. Member that under this Bill there was the same compulsion upon the owner of a ship to take a man who was not his own servant. It might be said that it was not right or fair, and that it was contrary to law, that when you obliged a shipowner to take a man who was not his own choice he should be held responsible for his acts. But they would do so by this Bill as it stood, because if the owner took a pilot at all, he must take one from among a certain number, and, therefore, notwithstanding the limited number from which he could select, he was still responsible for the acts of a man who was not his own servant and over whom he had no control. Even the Secretary to the Board of Trade had some doubts whether the future profits of pilots would not be lessened by the Bill, and the case that was mentioned, that of the Bristol Channel, evidently admitted of another explanation. These were questions that might well be considered. He had no wish to obstruct the progress of the Bill, having, on the contrary, every desire to facilitate its passing. The course adopted by the Government would have the effect of giving time and of preventing dissatisfaction.

said, he thought the Government had done right in referring this subject for further consideration. The hon. Member for Sunderland thought he understood the interests of the shipowners; but, in his opinion, the shipowners of Liverpool themselves wore the best judges of matters that concerned them. In Sunderland a pilot standing on the quay might see a vessel in the distance and might go out to her in a small boat and bring her in without difficulty; but in Liverpool the pilots had to thread their way among twelve miles of sandbanks to do the like duty. Under those circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that differences of opinion on the subject of compulsory pilotage should exist at different ports. It would be desirable before any steps were taken in the matter that there should be further investigation.

, on behalf of the port which he had the honour to represent (St. Ives), expressed his pleasure that the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee. The more the subject of compulsory pilotage was ventilated, the sooner we should come to free trade in pilotage. The Bill provided that a shipowner might select his own pilot, and he believed that by the time the Education Bill now before the House had had its due effect, there would be an ample supply of duly-qualified pilots to pilot ships to any port in England.

remarked that in respect to pilotage between London and Gravesend there were pilots employed, but the Trinity House did not license more than seventy five, and therefore the bulk of the work was done by the unlicensed men and watermen of the Thames. The Trinity House was not likely to increase that number, particularly as the 6th clause of the Bill gave them no inducement to do so. The case of the pilotage of the Thames was a special one, and he hoped the Select Committee would bear that fact in mind. The free watermen and unlicensed pilots who had served a long course of apprenticeship tinder their masters were in the habit of piloting vessels up and down the Thames, and possessed a more intimate knowledge of the river than the licensed pilot, and an hon. Member, a shipowner, had assured him that between London and Gravesend he employed for that reason an unlicensed as well as a licensed pilot. This Bill would place those free watermen and unlicensed pilots in a worse position than that in which they were at present by increasing the monopoly of the licensed pilots.

said, that he hoped the House would not be led into a discussion upon those different points and details in the Bill which would certainly come under the consideration of the Select Committee. If the Government were to blame for consenting to this Committee, he was anxious to share their responsibility to the fullest possible extent, since he had given his opinion, most earnestly and emphatically, that this was the fair and just course to pursue. What he understood by referring a Bill to a Select Committee after its second reading was this—that whilst the House conceded the principle of the Bill, it left it to the Committee to inquire in what manner that principle should be applied—whether its application should be universal or only partial, and how it could be applied so as to avoid hardship or injustice to any persons who would be affected by it. As reference had been made to the Report of the Select Committee upon Merchant Shipping in 1860, he wished to point out what that Committee had actually said. It had certainly reported that a system of voluntary pilotage might safely be established in most parts of the Empire; but it had evidently had in view a system under which, as was also stated in the Report, the regulations and limitations which were imposed upon the pilots at present should be removed. This question would naturally come before the Committee, who would have to consider whether, in making the proposed change, vexatious restrictions might be got rid of, any subjects of complaint on the part of the pilots removed, and a continued supply of competent pilots secured. Herein lay the only justification of compulsory pilotage—that it secured a competent and efficient body of men. As you paid a policeman in quiet as well as disturbed times, in order that you might have him ready to hand whenever he was wanted, so the shipowners had been called upon to pay for pilots in fine weather, so that fit and proper persons might be forthcoming when the weather was foul and the coast dangerous. He could only say, as representing a large body of licensed pilots, that they feared no inquiry. They were a useful body of public servants; and if it seemed good to Parliament to introduce legislative changes which might materially affect their position, and the occupation upon which they had entered after a special education and upon certain terms, they only asked that such changes might not be adopted without that full and fair inquiry into ail the circumstances of their case which they thought they had a just right to demand at the hands of Parliament.

remarked that he had assented to the second reading of the Bill on the understanding that the whole subject was to be referred to a Select Committee, who should have power to take evidence, and not on the undertanding that the principle of the Bill should be taken as accepted.

said, the only understanding of which he was aware was that the Bill should be read a second time and then be referred to a Select Committee.

And with power to the Committee to take evidence?

Yes; but not to hear counsel.

I do not rise to offer any opposition to the second reading of this Bill, but to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the position and duties of the two new officers he proposes to create, seeing they are to be called by the names that existed in former times—namely, Clerk of the Ordnance and Financial Secretary, and whether he intends that the latter officer shall represent in this House the position which former Secretaries of War held, that of Financial Secretary. It is desirable that the exact duties which these two officers have to perform should be fully stated to the House, and how far they will interfere with or alter the functions and position of the Secretary of State for War. Another point upon which information would be acceptable is whether, in the event of the Secretary for War having a seat in the other House of Parliament, the Under Secretary would sit in this House, and who in that ease would represent the War Department here—the Under Secretary or one of the newly-appointed officials? I quite recognize the necessity of giving assistance to the Secretary of State, but we should be better able to judge as to the expediency of the arrangement proposed if my right hon. Friend would give us some further and more precise information as to the functions of the several officers.

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for the very candid manner in which he receives the Bill, and I am most anxious to afford him and the House all the information in my power in addition to what I stated the other evening. In the first place, with regard to the number of officers of the War Department qualified to sit in this House, I may state that a Return moved for by the right hon. Member for Devonshire (Sir Stafford Northcote) shows that of late years there has been a considerable, or, at least, some diminution in the number of Members of the Government, as a whole, who can sit in the House; and, as regards the War Department, there has been a signal diminution, for, as I stated the other night, the War Department was represented in this House when I first entered Parliament by the Colonial Secretary, the late Lord Derby, Lord Hardinge, and an Under Secretary; General Peel and Colonel Boldero representing the Board of Ordnance; the Militia was under the control of the Home Office; the Commissariat was in the hands of the Treasury, and there were no Volunteers. I do not propose to return to the Parliamentary strength of the Department in former times; but it is very important to divide the business of the War Department under three heads, the chief of which should be the military, for which, of course, the Secrecretary of State for War will be particularly responsible, and which will be represented in the House in which he does not sit by the Parliamentary Under Secretary, whose position I do not at all intend by this Bill in any way to diminish or impair. In all probability, in the majority of cases the Secretary of State will sit in the House of Commons, considering what great public expenditure the War Office is responsible for. There is no intention on our part to diminish in the slightest degree the responsibility of the Secretary of State; our desire is to divide only the labour of superintendence. We wish to combine division of labour with unity of responsibility. It is absolutely impossible for anybody to be in the full sense of the word responsible for such a Department unless he has responsible assistants to carry on the business for which he is reponsible; and I think that when the organization of the War Department was reduced to the appointment of a single Secretary of State and Parliamentary Under Secretary, the principle of consolidation was carried further than good sense required. This House cannot have proper control over the War Department when the Secretary of State stands by himself, and there is no one to represent the great manufacturing departments, and none to assist him in finance. In former times the Secretary at War had great responsibilities, and was not unfrequently a Member of the Cabinet. I have not sought to create an appointment of that importance, because I have not the smallest desire to relieve myself of any of the responsibility which ought to belong to the Secretary of State; but any one acquainted with the work of the War Office must be perfectly aware that financial details should be controlled immediately by a Parliamentary officer, because proper attention cannot be given to the multifarious financial details by one having to control the whole policy of the War Department. Taking these points into consideration, I desire to appoint a Clerk of the Ordnance, and I have chosen the title "Clerk of the Ordnance" in preference to "Surveyor," because I think it more indicative of the financial character of the work he would undertake. He would be directly responsible for the preparation of the Estimates of this great Department, and he would combine in his own person the responsibilities and duties that formerly devolved upon the Surveyor General and the Clerk of the Ordnance, except that they had a more independent character in their relation to the Secretary of State.

As I understand it, he would have the control of the manufacturing departments.

He would be regarded within the office as head, tinder the Secretary of State, of the manufacturing departments. Then with regard to the financial officer, I propose that he should assist the Secretary of State in that complete and minute control of the financial arrangement of the office which I believe it is the pleasure of Parliament that the Secretary of State should exercise, and I trust it will be also the pleasure of Parliament that he should have assistance to enable him to execute it satisfactorily. With regard to the details of the duties of this officer I may mention that he would review all the Estimates as the assistant of the Secretary of State, that every proposed change in those Estimates would be brought by him under the notice of the Secretary of State; that every proposed change in establishment, in regulation, or warrants affecting in any way the expenditure of the Department would be within his province, together with all questions of allowance; and that, in fact, he would be in all respects the responsible financial official under the Secretary of State.

I presume the Control Department would be under the Clerk of the Ordnance.

The Clerk of the Ordnance would be the superintendent of everything that is now under the Controller-in-Chief, and I should hope in a short time that the office of Controller-in-Chief would be only temporary as a separate office.

said, it was obvious that the consolidation of the War Department had been carried too far, for whereas before we had a Secretary of State for War the normal expenditure on account of the Army did not exceed some £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 it had increased some 50 per cent of late. Now, when the Consolidation Act of 1863 was passed he deemed it expedient, considering the confusion which had arisen in consequence of the authority being so much divided, that the responsibility in regard to the whole of the Department should be centred in some one person. He confessed, however, that he then entertained great doubts as to whether the responsible official ought, ex officio, to be a member of the Cabinet. In former times the Master of the Ordnance and the Secretary at War were sometimes members of the Cabinet; but, in his judgment, it was not, as a rule, desirable that the Secretary who administered the military affairs of this country should be one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State. If he were made more dependent than at present on the Chancellor of the Exchequer there would not be so much reckless expenditure. It would not be desirable to revert to the old system in its entirety, but when the War Department was reconstituted he should be pleased to see the great talents of the right hon. Gentleman transferred to some position which he might adorn without any loss of rank, and that we should revert to that rule of the old system whereby the War Secretary was not, by virtue of his office, a member of the Cabinet.

rose to elicit a further explanation with regard to the Clerk of the Ordnance. From the right hon. Gentleman's last answer to his right hon. Friend near him he was led to look forward to a time, and at no distant date, when the office of Controller-in-Chief would be merged in that of Clerk of the Ordnance. Now, when the office of Controller-in-Chief was instituted it was intended that he should be a permanent officer, and not go out with the Government. If, however, the office were to be merged in that of the Clerk of the Ordnance, who was to have a seat in Parliament, he would change with the Government. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was intended that there should be in the War Office a permanent officer subordinate to the Clerk of the Ordnance.

, in reply, said, he anticipated that when the Control system was completed—and he was looking forward to that—it would in all probability be unnecessary to retain both the offices of Controller-in-Chief and Clerk of the Ordnance. If two permanent officers were appointed—one for supply and transport, and the other for munitions and stores—there would, he thought, be a better discharge of duties. This, however, was a matter which did not form part of the present Bill.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would state what the salaries of these new officers would be. The 5th clause of the Bill left that matter wholly undecided; but he thought the House ought to have some control over the amount of emolument to be given to the officers.

said, he thought the question respecting the salaries to be given to these gentlemen was comparatively unimportant, because if these extra appointments were made it might be fairly expected that there would be a more economical management of the War Department. Up to the present time economy had not been sufficiently attended to, many things having been done on a most extravagant scale. Merely as an ousider, he thought he might say, without any reflection on his right hon. Friend, that, looking at the Estimates, economy had been carried out much more satisfactorily in the Navy than in the Army. In the Army, there had been a mere cutting down of the number of men, whereas, in the Navy, it appeared to him that many gross anomalies and excrescences had been cut off. In future, he hoped we might look forward to a more satisfactory Return respecting Army expenditure. He was going to put upon the Paper a Notice to the effect that he should, on Monday next, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would lay upon the table of the House a tabular statement of the sums expended for experimental trials of ordnance during the last ten years, and a similar Return as to small arms; also a Return of the sums paid to inventors by way of reward during the same period. This subject, which would henceforward come under the notice of the Clerk of Ordnance, was one with which the country was not at all satisfied, and he trusted that in future the accounts with regard to it would be better kept, and that the expenditure would be less.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill, or of denying that there was a necessity for the proposed changes. But if he understood the matter rightly, the new Clerk of the Ordnance would have the control of the largest manufacturing and the largest purchasing department in the world. The question therefore was, not what salary he should receive, but whether he would be a fit man to discharge the duties of the office. A military officer, however gallant and skilled in his profession he might be, could not be expected to watch over and control efficiently the large purchases made by the War Department, any more than he could be expected to manage one of the large manufacturing concerns in the North of England or the City of London. There was no Department of Her Majesty's service so badly and unsatisfactorily managed as the Department of the Ordnance. No doubt all the civil servants who were under the right hon. Gentleman were honourable men. He (Mr. Mundella) would not suppose for a moment that there could be any persons in that Department who could be suspected of any practices such as had been found in the Navy, though, at the same time, he did not know why human nature should be different in the Departments connected with the Army from what they were in the Navy. It was a popular belief that there was gross mismanagement and gross bungling in that Department, and no manufacturer could be satisfied with what went on. He had had abundance of proof of it again and again. And however active the right hon. Gentleman might be it was impossible for him to superintend it, control it, and keep it in subjection to him, for he would be deceived under his very eyes, because he did not possess the necessary knowledge to keep it under proper control. In regard to purchasing supplies for the British Army, it was a question far more of getting the right man than of the salary that was given him. If they succeeded in getting the light man, though they paid him ten times the amount the House would be willing to give, they would save a hundred times what he was paid, while the service would be much more efficient than at present.

said, he thought the object aimed at by his right hon. Friend in the appointment of these two officers was a division of labour accompanied by unity of responsibility; but if the position of these officers was to be considered as in any way equivalent to the independent position formerly held by the Clerk of the Ordnance and the Secretary of State for War, the House ought to proceed with great caution, or we might drift back into the divided responsibility which existed at that time. He presumed that the object of the House in sanctioning a Bill of this kind was to provide that the Secretary of State for War should have undivided responsibility, and also that he should have assistance such as was necessary and desirable, and such as was given by the different officers who under the old system occupied seats in the House. Supposing, however, that these new officers were appointed, and an hon. Member wished to ask a question concerning artillery, small arms, camp duty, or a matter of finance, to whom was he to address it? For his own part, he should be disposed in such a case not to address his question either to the Clerk of the Ordnance or the Financial Secretary, but directly to the Secretary of State for War. As the House was aware, questions relating to the Admiralty were addressed not to the Secre- tary to the Admiralty nor to the First Sea Lord, but were put direct to the First Lord. If, therefore, the practice grew up of asking questions of the Financial Secretary and of the Clerk of the Ordnance he feared something like divided responsibility would exist, and the object of tins measure be to a great extent defeated. Then, with regard to the Clerk of the Ordnance, why should he be so called? The former officer was no designated because he really was Clerk of the Ordnance, at that time a separate Department, for which he annually moved the Estimate. He apprehended, however, that after this Bill passed the Secretary of State for War would continue to move the Estimates, although in passing them through the House he would, of course, have the assistance of the two new officers.

, in reply to a question which had been asked, stated that in the organization proposed there would be a complete subordination of the two new offices to the Secretary of State. The salaries under the Bill, he added, were to be £1,500 a year; but if the Controller were also Clerk of the Ordnance, he would have a professional salary of £2,000 a year. An hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Barttelot) had expressed an opinion to the effect that the organization and economies of the Admiralty were more satisfactory than those which had as yet been accomplished by the War Department, and his right hon. Friend was not disposed to question for a moment the accuracy of that statement, but the answer to it was that the First Lord of the Admiralty entered upon the duties of his office, not only familiar, as he was by previous experience, with all questions of Admiralty organization, but surrounded by Colleagues who were entirely at one with him, and able to carry out his views. Now, the Secretary of War came and asked hon. Members to provide him, too, with Colleagues, in order to place him in a position to carry out those reforms which had been effected in the sister service with so much success. He might further observe that, pending the decision of the House on the matter, his right hon. Friend had not failed to consider very closely the question of War Office organization even in its details, and had submitted the subject to the investigation of a Committee, of which he himself had the honour to be a Member. The points which had been submitted to them that Committee had considered with great care and labour for several months, and their Reports had boon presented to his right hon. Friend, and when they were made public they would, he trusted, be found to be satisfactory.

, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Feudal and Burgage Tenure, and to amend the Law relating to Land Rights in Scotland, stated, in the first place, the objects he had in view in the introduction of the Bill; and, in the second place, the nature of the Bill by which he proposed to accomplish those objects. The question had often been asked how it happened that the title of property in land could not stand upon as simple a looting as any other subjects of property; and why it might not be as simply transferred from one proprietor to the other? The title to a ship was exceedingly simple. It was easily transferred; but notwithstanding its simplicity and the easiness of transfer, it was perfectly secure, the bill of lading being a good title to as large a cargo as a ship could carry. A delivery order transferred to the holder the entire of the merchandise, however great that might be. Its possession, was a good title to pictures, jewels, and other property, however valuable—a good title against everyone who might say that he was the rightful owner, and that the possession of a delivery order had been obtained in some improper way. But when they took land, however small in quantity and worthless in quality, or anything that was built on it, be it a cottage or any other form of building, conveyances intervened, and required a complicated and intricate system of titles. He was free to confess that he had never heard, and he found it impossible to discover, any satisfactory reason why, in this matter, the title to land should be so different from that to all other subjects of property. In saying so, he was not blind to the consideration which had been urged in support of our existing highly artificial system, and which would tend to make it still more artificial and complicated than it was now. It was urged with perfect truth that land was more enduring and more permanent than any other subject of property; with equal truth it was said that it was not capable of the same kind of possession as movable subjects; but he failed himself to see the cogency of these considerations as a defence to the existing system of land light. He was well aware that land was naturally and necessarily the subject of settlements and provisions altogether different from those which could be made with respect to any other property. But upon the question as to what might be conceived as reasonable and plain evidence of proprietary right—the consideration of how the proprietor might deal with the property when he had no legitimate bearing—there was no other subject of property with respect to which more complicated settlements were made than money, and yet, with respect to title nothing could be more simple. There was one view of any system of laud rights, short but at the same time comprehensive and undeniably true, which was sometimes lost sight of in considering this subject; it Vas this, that any system of land right which could prevail, was neither more nor less than a system of evidence. And perhaps the only useful system of titles was to ascertain with reasonable certainty, in the first place, who was the proprietor of any estate; and, in the second place, what rights, otherwise than those of the proprietor, existed upon it, and in whose favour; and a system was satisfactory, or the reverse, according as it required reasonably some evidence of safety, and required no more. He would not dwell further on this subject, but proceed to consider what was the state with regard to land rights at the present time in Scotland. The systems of land rights in England and Scotland, he need hardly say to those who were at all acquainted L with the laws of those countries, were originally the same; and although they had come to differ in the course of centuries, they still bore, as strongly as possible, a family likeness, showing a common origin. They were both based on the feudal system of tenure. That system still greatly influenced, and he thought he might say embarrassed, the conveyancing of both countries. In both countries, also, the feudal system, he need hardly say, had ceased to have any reality, and continued to exist only as a mischievous phantom—mischievous because of its influence on the conveyancing of both countries. It would be quite superfluous, and an unnecessary waste of time, were he to attempt any exposition of what the feudal system really was. Such knowledge as was sufficient for the present purpose was possessed by anyone who had read, even cursorily, modern history. All land in Scotland was held by the real substantial owner as a vassal and under some superior or over-lord. The substantial proprietor was a vassal, the superior had no real estate, although he continued to have a formal title in the land, his only substantial interest consisting in certain payments, which, according to the original feu right, might be made in his favour, and certain annual payments called feu duties, and certain casual payments on certain occasions called casualties, beyond which he had no substantial interest in the land at all. Conveyancing was entirely based upon the system of maintaining that relation between superior and vassal, one of the consequences of which was that, whenever the substantial proprietor of an estate died, his heir was required to make out a title under the superior, and being admitted as vassal in the room of his deceased ancestor. A great deal had been done of late years to mitigate the evils of this feudal system. Much was done by many of his predecessors in the office which he now unworthily held, among others by the late Lord Rutherford, by the present Lord Colonsay, by his immediate predecessor (Mr. Moncreiff), and also by the Lord Advocate under the administration of the late Government, who introduced a statute which consolidated many of the previous statutes relating to land rights, and in introducing altogether new though substantial and valuable improvements. But the time had come for abolishing this phantom, for enacting, by the authority of Parliament, that the feudal system of tenure should altogether cease to exist. He had given to the subject his most anxious attention with a view of simplifying, strengthening, and, at the same time, reducing the expense of titles to land without interfering with real substantial interests now existing. He might slate the object which he had in view in preparing the Bill which he was now asking leave to introduce, had been, in the first place, as he had stated, not merely to reduce the expense of titles by simplifying them, but, at the same time, and through the medium of the same simplification, strengthening and securing the title, for it had always appeared to him that by extending the surface by multiplying the deeds you extend and multiply the risks of error. One of his objects in preparing the Bill had been to invest the heir with his ancestor's estates, so that if he died without having made up any title, the estate should nevertheless pass, which it did not now. According to feudal rules, if any heir, after the succession to his ancestor's estate, should die without having made up his title, and become vassal in the room of his ancestor, he was dropped out of the feudal chain altogether; and the next heir, not to him, but to the last entered vassal, was entitled to take up the estate, and to take it up without even any liability for the debts of the heir so dying with his title not made up. This was considered so unjust, so hard upon the creditors, that an Act M-as introduced a long time ago and passed, giving relief in this way, that where an heir died so possessed, and without having made up his title for a period of three years, then the heir succeeding should be bound to pay his debts but not otherwise. It was one of the objects of this Bill to give a complete relief and remedy in this matter by investing the heir with his ancestor's estate immediately on his succession, and making him substantially the proprietor, notwithstanding that he should die without having gone through the formality of making up his title, so that the estate, upon his death, should pass according to the deed, or failing any other provision should go to his heirs, and be liable for his debts. The third object in view was to repeal the law which was all but universally condemned—the law which distinguished in this matter between heritable and movable estate, and which disabled the proprietor of land from making a settlement of heritable property after he became ill of the decease of which he ultimately died. According to the present law, in England as well as Scotland, a man might make a settlement of his personal or movable estate up to his last moment of existence; although he might have money or other personal property to any amount, any deed in reference to his heritable property, however insignificant in value, was reducible, and in practice, indeed, was frequently reduced, if it be proved that at the time he made the deed he had contracted the illness which ultimately proved fatal to him, unless he should survive the execution of the deed by sixty days, or in the interval between those times had gone to church or market. He felt justified in saying that that law was all but universally condemned, and he would abolish it altogether by the Bill. Another purpose he had in view was to remove a variety of legal objections in the preparation of deeds of settlements. In many cases within his own knowledge and experience these things had operated very harshly and unjustly. For example, the law required, in order to the formal execution of a deed, that that deed should bear in a certain clause the number of pages of which it consisted, and should contain the name and designation of the writer of the deed, as well as the names and designations of the witnesses in whose presence it was made. He had known a deed of great importance set aside because of an error in stating the number of pages. Deeds had been frequently reduced because of an omission to insert the designation of the clerk who wrote them; or some omissions or inaccuracies with respect to the designation of the witnesses who attested. Frequently the genuineness of the deed had been proved in the most satisfactory manner, in order to establish the omission of some formality, as at the time of making the deed one of the persons present as a witness was in another room. There they had the very strongest evidence that the deed was genuine; but the deed was set aside as informal, because one of the witnesses at the time it was making happened to be out of the room. He proposed in the Bill to remove all those objections, but allowing the law to stand substantially as it is with respect to the requirements made in order to constitute a deed of probity. In case any of these formal requirements had been overlooked or unguardedly attended to, it would be provided that the same proof of the genuinness of the deed should be proof upon the party using or opposing it. Another purpose was to shorten the period of prescription, after the lapse of which deeds should be unchallengable except only on the head of fraud. He thought he had now stated all the purposes—certainly all the leading purposes—which he had had in view in the preparation of the Bill which he now asked leave to introduce to the House. He had, at the outset, abolished feudal tenure absolutely, and the relation of superiors and vassals. The difficulty he had in dealing out justice to all parties was to make it clear that those who at present stand in the relation of superiors should not be deprived of their rights. These rights subsisted in the receipt of a certain annual sum, and also the right to certain casualties of uncertain occurrence which were payable on the transition of an estate to the single successors. The Bill contained a provision for abolishing burgage tenure, with respect to which it was unnecessary to say more than this—that it was a peculiar tenure which held only within Royal Burghs. It was not more intricate—it was rather more simple—than feudal tenure elsewhere; and he proposed to abolish it only because it was unnecessary and of no advantage whatever that any distinction should exist in regard to title to land within burghs and without burghs; on the contrary, it was convenient and desirable to have the same system of title in both. The Bill contained provisions for dividing any feu duties, or other money returns payable by the proprietor of land in respect of property upon the acquisition of the land, by splitting it into different parcels for building or other purposes, allocating the payment of the whole upon the different proprietors of the parcels. In that way the superior, or whoever was entitled to the returns, would be perfectly secure. The Bill also contained provisions enabling superiors or others entitled to annual returns out of land to sell their rights as proprietors, and that notwithstanding any restrictions in the title. The Bill also contained certain short forms of conveyances and securities, all their common incidents being matter of enactment, without the necessity of expressing them in words at length; so that such simple conveyances and securities as these provisions had in contem- plation might be made with the utmost facility and certainty even in printed, or partly printed and partly written forms. The Bill would contain a clause shortening the period of proscription, after the lapse of which a title might be considered secure from challenge. So long ago as 1617 an Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed rendering proprietors secure in their possession after they and their predecessors had possessed continuously upon an ex facie valid title for the period of forty years. The circumstances of the country were, indeed, very different now from what they were in 1617; and it was a question very well deserving consideration whether that long period, which it was quite reasonable to require then should elapse before the challenge of a title was altogether excluded, should continue now. Possession was now infinitely more open, better known, more notorious in every way than it could be 200 years ago. Not only was the system of registration more complete, but we had local registers in every county. There was a Valuation Roll in which not only was there a record of every proprietor and tenant, but of the annual value of their possession. There could, therefore, be no dubiety as to who was in possession of land as proprietor; if it was not in his own natural occupation, it was just as well known who was in receipt of rent drawn from the tenant; and if a title was ex facie valid, and possession had followed upon it for a period far short of forty years, that possession being not only open, but matter of record and notoriety, it numbly appeared to him that the period which should be required to elapse before all challenge of that possession was excluded might be with perfect safety very much shortened. In the case of a bonâ fide purchaser for a fair price, who got, in return for his money, ex facie a valid title upon which he was allowed to possess continuously and uninterruptedly, he should say for a period of seven years—although the period was open to consideration and discussion—his property ought not to be any longer open to question on the ground of any defect of title. Of course, this did not interfere with the existing law, which deducted from the period of prescription the minorities of those who were in the right of challenge; nor did it interfere with the existing law in this other respect, that prescription did not run against falsehood or fraud. But if there was perfect good faith in the acquisition, and if possession continued without challenge for seven years, it did appear to him that thereafter the title ought to be considered secured. These were the main provisions of the Bill, with a view to simplify land rights in Scotland, which he now asked leave to introduce.

took exception to the constitution of the Committee. Of the twenty-one Members of which it was composed, eleven, according to the usual practice in such matters, were chosen by I the Government, and ten from among the Members of the Opposition. Upon the personal qualifications of any of the Members named, he had not a word to offer; but it was remarkable that the Committee did not include a single Irish Member. There ought, in these matters, to be some rule by which a due proportion of Members from each of the three kingdoms should be appointed upon important national Committees. In the present case he suggested that the list should be so arranged as to include a direct representation of Ireland; and one name he would venture to mention which the House, he thought, would recognize the expediency of placing upon the list. The hon. Member for Galway, from the advantages he possessed and the opportunities he had enjoyed, was peculiarly fitted to take part in an inquiry relating to the Diplomatic and Consular Services.

said, his countrymen were a wandering race, and they felt a peculiar interest in Consular and Diplomatic appointments. In anything connected with British influence abroad, and the protection which was extended to British subjects, they had a direct concern. To exclude Irish Members, therefore, from all share in inquiries such as that now proposed, was an outrage upon Irish national sentiment.

No person can hear the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway mentioned without acknowledging that, in such an inquiry as that now proposed—or indeed, in any inquiry—his co-operation would be of advantage. My right hon. and gallant Friend, however, must bear in mind that according to the usage which has prevailed for some time—and which my right hon. and gallant Friend has recognized in his own speech—Committees are constituted of Members chosen from both sides of the House, a majority of I being given to that side which possesses the majority in the House itself. And this advantage results from the arrangement, that it gives to Gentlemen on which ever side of the House they sit, an opportunity of serving in turn upon Committees. On the other hand, it is plain that if the present constitution of the House be such as popularly reputed, eleven Gentlemen from this side will not represent anything like the same proportion as ten Gentlemen chosen from the other. If my right hon. and gallant Friend desires to alter the present arrangement, that is a subject which may well be worthy of consideration; but it should only be done after full notice and ample discussion. I do not agree with him that minute attention should be paid to the representation of the three kingdoms exclusively. I think there is another nationality in this country quite as contact as the Irish or the Scotch—I mean the Welsh; and if we are to drive home too closely this doctrine of representation, regard must be paid to their representation also. The name which my right hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned is one that would carry with it universal acceptance upon any Committee; but in this instance I trust he will not feel it necessary to disturb the arrangement which has been made.

Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. BOUVERIE, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. RICHARD SHAW, Sir HENRY LYTTON BULWER, Sir CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. HOLMS, Mr. WILLIAM CART-WRIGHT, Mr. ARTHUR RUSSELL, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Viscount SANDON, Mr. EASTWICK, Mr. BARING, Mr. WILLIAM LOWTHER, Mr. CAMERON, Mr. FREDERICK STANLEY, Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE, Viscount HARRINGTON, Mr. FREDERICK WALPOLE, and Mr. OTWAY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Seven to be the quorum.