The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-02 00:00:00

NAVAL ESTIMATES.

On going into supply oo the naval estimates, Mr. 11.
TRACT—To call attention of the house to one of the re-
cent promotions made by the present Board of Admiralty,
and to move resolutions.

BITNHILL-FIELDS BURIAL GROUND.

Mr. It. MILLS asked the Judge Advocate General' if,
when the present lease of the ancient burial ground of
Runhill.fields to the corporation expired, it was the inten-
tion of the Ecclesiastical Conunissioners to preserve it
inviolate and in perpetuity, together with the vaults and
graves, and to provide for its future maintenance in decent
order ; if so, whether it was intended to promote a bill in
parliament for these purposes.
Mr. BIOWIIRAY said it bad been throughout the in-
tention of the Fcclesiaatical Coninduioners to preserve the
burial ground inviolate and in perpetuity, and that inten-
tion was fully expressed in the correspondence which had
been laid before the house. With respect to the future
maintenance of the ground, questions were rending
between the commissioners and the Corporation of the
City of London. The commiasioners had offered to refer
the matter to arbitration, but that offer had not been
accepted. It was repeated on the 27th of February last, but
no answer had yet been received, and until they had an
answer no further steps would be taken on the subject. It
was not the intention of the government to originate any
measure for the purpose mentioned by the hon. member
in the present session.
JCRYBIEN IN THE METROPOLIS.

Mr. LUSK asked the Solicitor-General if his attention
had been called to the length of time jurymen in the
metropolis bad frequently to wait before they were called
on the trial for which they were summoned, to the incon-
venience of their having three or four summonses for dif-
ferent courts in one week, and to the frequency with which
the same persons had to serve; and if so, whether it was
his opinion that a measure could be devised to fix the day
when jurymen were actually required to attend, to make
the fees of special jurymen more in accordance with the
time theyare compelled to serve, and if it would not be to
the public interest that trials should be shortened.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his attention had
been directed almost daily to the time jurymen hail to
wait before cases were called on. This was, however,
unavoidable. Special jurymen were summoned for parti-
cular cases, and tt sometimes happened that those before
it in the 16t lasted for a considerable time. With respect
to the inconvenience of one person having three or four
summonses for different courts in one week, that arose
from the existing state of the law applicable to London
and Middlesex, which was not interfered with in 1852,
when an alteration was made in the law respecting juries
in the provinces. Special jurymen now received a guinea
each for every case they tried, and though be could easily
understand it being proposed to increase the fee, it would
not be just to do so unless something were done for the
common jurymen. (Hear, hear.) In the Windham case
each juryman received thirty-five guineas for thirty-five
days' attendance. With respect to the latter part of the
question, he knew of no means for shortening trials ; in-
deed, the complaint generally was that trials were too
short, and that a sufficient time was not allotted to parti-
cular trials. Nor did be think it was for the public inte-
rest that trials should be shortened.
TENDERS FOR GUNROALTf3.

Mr. HENDERSON asked the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty whether specifications for building iron gunboats and
other ships of war were not being prepared ; and whether
it was the intention of the Admiralty to invite tenders
from the builders on the Thames exclusively, or whether
builders in other parts of the kingdom would have the op-
portunity of tendering for such vessels.
Sir J. PAIIINGTON said it was the intention of the
government to make a proposal in the navy estimates for
building two iron gunboats, and the spicifications were
now being prepared, with a view to inviting tenders as
soon as possible. This course had been taken on account
of the great distress prevailing amour the shipbuilders in
the east of London. It was, however, not the intention of
the Admiralty to confine the tenders to the Thames ship-
builders; on the contrary, although they would have the
advantage of early employment if their tenders were
suoceasful, all the shipbuilders employed by the Admi-
ralty would be invited to send in tenders, and the most
satisfactory one would be selected.
ARREST OF A REPORTER IN IRELAND.

Mr. O'BEIRNE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland
whether it wax true that a reporter employed by the Cork
Herald newspaper was arrested at Killarney, and had been
imprisoned and WWI still in close confinement, because, in
the discharge of what he considered to be his duty, he
offered for transmi,sion by telegraph a message bearing the
heading, " Disaffection amongst the military ;" and if it
were true, by what legal authority that arrest had been
made.

Lord NAAi said that on the 20th of February a tele-
gram was token to the telegraph office at Killarney to this
effect: "Rumoured disaffection of troops.—Officers
beard men singing songs with civilians. Removed by
police. Military sent to quarters. Fourteen soldiers
missed this morning. A wire cut last night at Cluan-
matinee." He need hardly assure the house that,
with the exception of the last fact as to cutting the wires,
the whole was entirely false. (Hear, hear.) The magis-
trates ordered the arrest of the person who proposed to
send the telegram, and it turned out that he was a gentle-
man of the name of Tracey, the reporter of the C,,rk
Herald newspaper. The maguttrates, considering that he
had been guilty of a very serious offence against the law of
the land, committed him for trial at the ensuing assizes,
but he was admitted to bail. As, however, a trial was
pending, and as he had given notice of his intention to in-
stitute an action at law against the magistrates for false
imprisonment, he was sure the house would feel that he
was exceeding his duty if he expressed any opinion upon
the case. (Hear, hear.)
THE GOVERNMENT REFORM BILL

Mr. WHITE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether, is the preparation of the promised Reform Bill,
the practice adopted in NM of availing himself of the ser-
vices of the professional agents of the conservative party.
in lieu of the ordinary advisers of the government, would
be followed, seeing that such a mode of procedure led to
a cost of 3,08/. 17s. 2.1., as per Treasury minute of the
13th June.. 1559... (Laughter.)

The CHANCEILAtuor the EXCHEQUER—The hon.
gentleman, the narinher for Tlrizliton, I AM sorry to say,
is under an erroneous impression as to the ordinary ad-
visers of her Majesty's government in drawing bills. I
beg to say that at the Treasury at the present moment
there is no equity draughtsman who can asst the govern-
ment in that respect. There ought to be one. I made
an offer t►is year to one of the meet distinguished men in
the profession to undertake the office, but so great is the
professional reward which Brat-rate talent now com-
mands—and I ant very glad of it—that the application

was fruitless, and I did not feel justified, as the salary I
offered was considerable, in increasing the amount of it.
The hon. gentleman perhaps refers to Mr. Thring,
a very eminent man who is gerterilly professionally em-
ployed by the government in drawing bills. The &lice
really filled by Mr. Thring is that of counsel to the Home.
office, and he is employed in drawing government bills,
but at this moment he is so overworked in consequence
of the nummous bills brought in by the government, that
we have been obliged to give him extra assistance, and to
appeal to him to aid the government in drawing ups reform
bill would be an insult, considering the labours he has to
perform. I trust the house will feel that the government do
not ask for too much confidence when they express a hope
that it will allow them to select the best talent they can
for that duty. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the sum of
3,60ut. which appears in a Treasury minute in connection
with the Reform Bill of 18. 9, I beg to observe in the first
place that that sum does not describe the entire cost of
the bill, because beyond the actual expense of the bill
itself, which was comparatively small, payments were
made to some of the must eminent statisticians and men
of science whose labours were engaged in procuring evi-
dence and information on the subject. And my answer to
the hon. gentleman is, that if he supposes 3,600/. is an
extravagant coat for the preparation of a reform bill,
he labours under a very erroneous impression. (Laugh-
ter.) From my knowledge I can say that there
have been other reform bills which cost much more
than 3,G00/., but I am quite sure the house will never
grudge any conscientious payment for such a purpose.
(Hear, hear.) I may say, in conclusion, that the cost of
the present reform bill will amount to a sum which will be
quite satisfactory, to the hon. gentleman, but this is in
consequence of the accumulated information which has
been previously collected.

Mr. GLADSTONE—The right hon. gentleman has not
merely vindicated the right of the government—which is
undeniable—to employ persons the best qualified for ■
particular task, but he has mentioned the intention of the
government to appoint a new drawer of government bills
in special relation to the Treasury. I would suggest
to the right hon. gentleman, that in making such
an appointment the gentleman selected should be informed
that it is subject entirely to the judgment of this house.
(Hear, hear.) I wish to put a question to the right lion.
gentleman with a view to remove any misapprehension
which may exist on a subject of great public interest— I
mean with respect to the time when we may anticipate the
introduction of the measure of the government relating to
the amendment of the representation of the people. On
Tuesday last I understood him to state that be could not
at that time name the day fur the introduction of that
bill, but that he could state with confidence that it would
not he later than Thursday in next week. I understand
from other sources that an answer to a different
effect was gives last night, and that an assurance was
conveyed to the house that before the bill was
introduced notice would be given of the day. Perhaps
Ihe will have the goodness to state in what way these
different answers are to be reconciled, or which of them is
correct. (Hear, hear.) Of course great anxiety prevails
as to the steps to be taken on a subject, of so much im-
portance. I will only add that I hope the first answer is
correct. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I think
the two statements are perfectly consistent. I expressed
a hope that I would be able to introduce the hill on Thurs-
day next, but I particularly guarded myself against giving
any definite promise. (Hear, bear.) The right hon. gentle-
man said very courteously and fairly that it was a business
in which a minister ought not to be bound to any par-
ticular day. Afterwards there was some further con-
versation in the house on the subject, and I said that fair
notice would be given, ►nd I propose on Monday next to
name the day. (Hear, hear.)