Spike Island and Haulbowline being so near, it was thought that convict labour might be rendered available, but that supposition had not been realized, the number of convicts having diminished. The Government had been compelled to fall back on free labour, and of the 150 men employed, only thirty were mechanics. The work was carried on in the most lingering manner and, if the present rate of progress were continued, the work would take fifty years for completion. There had been a grant of £150,000 for the work, but of that sum only £38,000 had been expended, and he did not think proper value had been obtained for the expenditure. All naval authorities agreed that it was most important that they should have a dry dock in that part of Ireland, so that iron vessels might be examined and cleaned. He hoped his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty would give assurance that these works would be carried on more rapidly, and completed within a reasonable time. him an MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS said, he wished to make a few observations with reference to Woolwich and Deptford Dockyards. It appeared that the work of Woolwich Dockyard was to be transferred to Chatham. He would not dwell upon the policy of this, but he could speak of the great distress that was consequent upon such a decision. If the transfer must take place, why should that valuable shipbuilding space immediately opposite the river be left to lie waste and unoccupied? Great facilities for shipbuilding had been provided both at Deptford and Woolwich, and, both as regarded the national resources and the interest of those localities, he thought some promise ought to be made by the Government that this valuable space should be used for some purpose, if possible, equivalent to that for which it had been turned to account for so many years. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to give him a satisfactory answer. The distress at Woolwich was very great, and he was daily receiving letters from men who said if they could not get work here they were willing to emigrate. He understood that Government were going to send out transports to Canada to bring home the troops which were no longer needed there, and he hoped that he might receive a promise that some portion, at all events, of these vessels might be utilized for the purpose of carrying out the distressed artizans of Woolwich and Deptford. MR. TREVELYAN said, in reply to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire), that the House of Commons had assented to the construction of the dockyard at Cork only on the understanding that the works were to be executed by means of convict labour. At first that labour was not found to be available, and the construction of the dockyard proceeded very slowly; the number of convicts employed at the outset for a period of eighteen months or two years being not more than eighty. Of late, however, the Government had recourse to free labour, and at the present moment 589 convicts and 189 free labourers were engaged. Not only, he might add, had £20,000 been expended on the works last year, but also a sum of £14,000 spared out of another Vote, and he could assure his hon. Friend that they were now being prosecuted pretty quickly. He was, moreover, informed on high professional authority that they were likely to be completed within a period, not of fifty, but of five years. MR. MAGUIRE said, he was a Member of the Committee which had reported on the subject, and could most distinctly assert that it formed no part of the conditions on which the works were to be undertaken that they should be executed solely by convict labour. It would be an insult to say anything of the kind and no Irish Member would submit to it. could also state on the best authority that, owing to the want of adequate local superintendence, a great deal of the money granted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out those works had, as it were, been thrown into the sea, so imperfectly were they prosecuted. He SIR JOHN HAY said, that as a Member of the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and having the Report before him, he felt bound to corroborate his statement as to no stipulation having been laid down in their Report that the docks at Cork should be constructed by means of convict labour. MR. CHILDERS said it was true that there was nothing in the Committee's Report about convict labour, but it was also true that the first Votes had passed the House with the understanding that the work was to be performed by convict labour, and this was mentioned in the Appropriation Act. That condition to be looked after and prevented. With protection, because the lines for the nent fr le work into the secuted Me the hor the Be O COLO pulation Repr ve cons ur. rue that mittee's : it was passed that OF COD ned in wich, and he would also give up Pembroke rather than Woolwich, because Pembroke, however much it was fitted for our purposes in the days of wooden shipbuilding, was at present of comparatively little value. He thought it was absurd for the Government to give up Woolwich Dockyard to a private firm, and expect to be able profitably to reclaim it at some future period. In /chinery was for the factories, the tools the first place the dockyard was upon in which required expenditure as imtoo large a scale for the requirements of provements were made. The amount any private firm, and the alterations for shipbuilding machinery was very which would have to be made in it would small. quite destroy its usefulness as a public MR. BREWER said, that the Governyard. Should the Government plan, ment, in assisting their employés to emitherefore, be carried out, and should it grate, only took on themselves the rebe found necessary hereafter to take sponsibility which attached to employers back the yard, the expense would be of labour, but it would be a great blunvery great, and what was saved just der if they undertook to relieve the disnow would be more than lost ultimately. tress existing among all other classes. It would be much better to preserve Vote agreed to. such dockyards as were shut up in a state of proper efficiency, so that they (7.) $79,300, Medicines and Medical could be easily and quickly re-opened Stores. again should the requirements of the (8.) £18,144, Martial Law. public service demand such a step. (9.) £120,650, Miscellaneous Services. Mr. LAIRD said, he had been a Member of the Dockyard Committee (10.) £723,331, Half-pay, &c. which sat in 1864, and he could state SIR JOHN HAY asked whether it that the whole subject had been very was intended to take the Vote that night, fully and carefully considered. That as some discussion would arise on the Committee unanimously recommended proposal which the First Lord of the that Deptford and Woolwich should be Admiralty intended to make with reclosed, and by a large majority the Com- ference to a scheme of retirement for mittee also recommended that Pembroke officers ? should be shut up. He was sorry that MR. CHILDERS replied that he prothe case of Sheerness had not been posed to bring in a Bill on the subject of brought forward, because he believed compounding half-pay and retired pay, that the Committee would also have ad- and the subject could be discussed on the vised that it should be closed. The introduction of the Bill. Committee, among other things, had con SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE said, sidered whether the work of the country he hoped the Vote would be postponed. could not be efficiently done if concen- Some discussion would arise on it. trated in the three great dockyards of MR. CHILDERS said, the Vote was Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport, word for word what the right hon. Genand the opinion prevailed that it could. tleman opposite proposed. No change His own belief was that the work would had been made. It was a mere formal be as well done, and £250,000 a year Vote for Half-pay. would be saved. He hoped that the MR. CORRY said, he wished to know Admiralty would take into their serious whether any increased expenditure was consideration the advisability of closing contemplated in the Bill to which his Pembroke and Sheerness. right hon. Friend had referred ? MR. CHILDERS said, that the pro- MR. CHILDERS replied, that if there cess of abolition, whether in respect to should be any increased expenditure it dockyards or clerkships, was not a very would be put into an Estimate and agreeable one for anyone to undertake. brought before the House in the usual The abolition of Deptford and Woolwich way. Dockyards was an operation of great diffi Vote agreed to. culty, and he was not prepared to take in hand, besides, the closing of Portsmouth (11.) £569,728, Military Pensions and and Sheerness. His hon. Friend behind Allowances. him (Mr. Samuda) had made some re- (12.) £222,566, Civil Pensions and marks in reference to the expenditure on Allowances. new machinery, but the amount, £16,000, (13.) £316,348, Freight, &c. (Army was not very large, when it was con- Department). sidered that the dockyard work represented £2,000,000 a year out-turn. The MR. LIDDELL said, he wished to put greatest part of this charge for new ma this charge for new ma- a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Estimates for Greenwich Hospital usually followed the Navy Estimates, and as an impression prevailed out-of-doors that a Bill was in preparation on the subject of the general arrangements of Greenwich Hospital, he wished to know whether the Estimates relating to it would be postponed till the House had an opportunity of considering the Bill? MR. CHILDERS said, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was an exceedingly proper one. They intended to introduce a Bill on the subject of Greenwich Hospital, which would take effect on the first of October; but they would only the Estimates for six months, so that the House would have an opportunity of considering the Bill before the Estimates for the remaining six months were taken. propose House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again upon Wednesday. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS (COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER) BILL. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." MR. SERJEANT SIMON said, he would move, "That this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee." Every piece of legislation that sought to set up anew, and revive such medieval institutions as this court was likely to retard any comprehensive system of law reform. The curse of our system of judicature was the number and variety of our courts of law. This was an ancient court, established when counties palatine were erected, with a view to protect the inhabitants from the incursions of the people of Scotland and Wales, but now there was no use for it, and why should this special jurisdiction be not only preserved but encouraged? In 1867 a similar measure was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, at that time Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it was withdrawn on the ground that the Judicature Commission was about to issue. That Commission had just made its first Report, which would be on the table in a few days; and considerable changes had been recommended. The object of the present Bill, which had been introduced and pressed forward with undue haste, was to defeat the measure proposed by the Commission. The Judges of this court were generally the Judges who attended the circuit, but the centre of the court was in Preston, and no attorney in Manchester and Liverpool would think of bringing an action there unless he expected to get a judgment by default, preferring to come to London, where he had the advantage of the best legal advice. In the last cause list at Liverpool out of seventythree cases only eleven were taken out of the Court of Common Pleas of the County Palatine of Lancaster. The Bill would establish prothonotaries at Liverpool and Manchester, for the purpose of saving agency fees for the attorneys in those towns. He would undertake to say that it would not confer the slightest benefit on suitors, or lessen in any appreciable degree their expenses. It would simply Manchester, who were promoting it. benefit a few attorneys in Liverpool and Why should not Bolton, Warrington, and other large towns in Lancashire be considered, as well as Liverpool and Manchester? These prothonotaries, considering the important powers they would have to exercise, must be paid large salaries. Why should this expense be put upon the country, and that, too, when we were on the eve of a great reform of our judicature? If they were once appointed, it would be impossible to get rid of them without heavily compensating them. There was no public ground whatever on which the Bill had been brought forward, and it ought to be rejected. There was not, he believed, a single Petition in its favour. Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 66 this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"-(Mr. Serjeant Simon,)—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. WEST said, that the feeling in Lancashire was almost unanimously in favour of the Bill. He was surprised that it should be supposed that the Bill would occasion any charge on the Consolidated Fund, for since the reign of Henry IV. the funds of the Duchy of Lancaster had been kept separate and distinct. The measure could hardly be said to have been brought on hastily, for legislation on the subject began in 1867, and this very Bill had been read three times in the House of Lords. In former days the Assizes for the county palatine were held in Lancaster, but by an Act passsed in the reign of William IV. the Crown was enabled to give Assizes to other places. The southern division of the county had now become more important than the northern, and in 1835 Assizes were given to Liverpool, and subsequently to Manchester. The prothonotary's office, however, still remained at Preston; and to this day all the solicitors in the county having to transact business similar to what was transacted by the Master of the Queen's Bench at Westminster, had to repair or send to Preston for the purpose. It was extremely important that prothonotaries should be appointed for these towns, in order that writs, &c., might be obtained there at once, without the necessity of employing agents at Preston. In fact, the opposition to this Bill proceeded from the attorneys of Preston, who were afraid of losing their fees for agency. It had not been deemed necessary that the office of prothonotary should be held by a lawyer. From the time of John of Gaunt, almost, it had been held by some one who was either a favourite of the King or a friend of the Chancellor of the Duchy for the time being. The last holder of this somewhat lucrative sinecure was the late Sir Charles Phipps, who probably never was at Preston in his life. He had, however, a deputy, a most excellent officer, to whom he paid a small salary, and by him the duties of the office were performed most efficiently. On the death of Sir Charles Phipps it was suggested to Her Majesty that the office ought not to be filled up; and Her Majesty, ever willing to subordinate her undoubted rights of patronage to the benefit of her people, acquiesced in the proposed surrender, so as to admit of the appointment of competent officers in the different districts. Before the arrangement, however, was completed, a change of Government occurred; but hon. Gentlemen opposite took the same view as their predecessors, and a measure was introduced which was only defeated by the pressure upon the time of Parliament occasioned by the Reform measure. Now that this difficulty was removed, the Bill, which had obtained the sanction of two Governments, ought surely to be passed. MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the hon. Member who opposed this Bill (Mr. Serjeant Simon) must be aware that the court to be affected by it was to all intents and purposes a Superior Court. That the number of cases tried in this court at present was comparatively small was, he thought, an argument in favour of the Bill. If a man was to send out of his town for a writ for the purpose of trying his cause, he might as well send up to London for one at once. There was another court as ancient as the one in question - namely, the Court of Chancery in the County Palatine of Lancashire, and they were only now asked to do with reference to the court in question what had been done with reference to that court. The offices in connection with that Court of Chancery were formerly in Preston alone, but by an Act, which was passed a few years ago, they were extended to Liverpool and Manchester. Since that was done the business of the court had increased in an untold degree, and he was convinced that a similar benefit would result from the passing of the present Bill. MR. CRAUFURD said, that the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill (Mr. West) had shown himself very oblivious of the objections that had been urged against it. He should like to know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty was in favour of the scheme. His hon. and learned Friend had entirely evaded the question, whether this court should be continued or not. There could be no necessity whatever for hurrying through this Bill when the Report of the Judicature Commission, of which the First Lord of the Admiralty was a Member, would be presented within a few days. He hoped the House would not go into Committee on this Bill. VISCOUNT SANDON said, the legal profession in Liverpool were decidedly of opinion that considerable advantage would result from the Bill, and the Bill was generally approved of there. The whole course of legal reform had been to bring justice to the door of the populations of the large towns, and, in ac |