The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-17 00:00:00

SOUTH KENSINGTON ROAD BILL.

Mr. H. SEYMOUR moved that the South Kensington
Road Bill be re-committed to the former committee, and
that they do proceed therewith on Monday next. The
object of the bill was to authorise the construction of a
road from Sloane-street to South Kensington through
Hans-place.

A short discussion arose, during which Mr. SCOUR-
FIELD said the scheme was promoted by a company who
had no claim to it. If such applications were allowed no
man's house would be his castle whenever a company got
up a little capital for the purpose of turning him out.

The motion was ultimately witdrawn.
NEW WRIT.

On the motion of Col. WHITE a new writ was ordered
to issue for the borough of Devonport, in the room of Sir
A. Buller, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
SALMON FISHERY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.

The subject of protection to salmon and salmon fisheries
has for years occupied the attention of Parliament, but the
discussions in the house have generally been dull and un-
interesting. The proceedings to-day were no exception to
the rule. There were about 30 members present, and the
endeavours of nearly all the members was to make the law
more stringent against salmon poachers, and the different
illegal modes in which the fish was captured.
The various clauses of the bill were adopted with a few
verbal amendments, and at four o'clock the sitting of the
house was suspended.
At six o'clock the house resumed, and Mr. DODSON re-
Ported progress in the Salmon Fishery Act committee.
Mr. LAYARD stated, in reply to Mr. HADFIELD, that
the British consular officers had either been replaced, or
continued were they had not left, at the following ports on
tl,O seaboard of the Southern States of North America—
"11'6Y, Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, Galveston,
and Mobile.

Mr. CARDWELL ,
Nam, announced replying to a question of Mr. A
vernment and the Canadian
the conferences between the Go-
that on commissioners had terminated
that day, and
day
next he should lay the
papers explaining the result upon the table of the house.
SUPPLY—THE DOCKYARDS.
On the order for going intolvcommittee of supply,
Mr. SEELY moved to soe that it was inexpedient to
continue the practice of appointing naval officers, who
were not possessed of a technical knowledge of the busi-
ness carried on in her Majesty's to the offices of
'of limiting their
superintendents thereof, and the practiceYa
tenure of office to a Period of five years.
Mr. WHITE having seconded the motion,
Lord C. PAGET defended the existing system Of dock-
yard management. He contended that irrespective of the
question of expense, the country ought to be independent
of private shipbuilders, and that the maintenance of public
naval yards was a security for the quality of materials and
workmanship. With regard to taking the management of
these yards out of the hands of naval officers, if he turned
to see what was done in France and America he found that
in both countries naval officers were at the head of the
shipbuilding departments; and even in this country not
less than four of the principal private yards were under the
management of naval officers. In the case of a purely
building yard there were no doubt many arguments in
favour of a civilian management ; but as regarded fitting-
out yd
dissatisfaction
appointment of a civil manager would lead
to much in the country, because the work
would not be so well done, whilst great additional cost

would bo incurred. In short, the whole system would
break down.

Mr. BRIGHT charged the Admiralty with e .fiavagance
and waste, and declared that their managem silt was not
reputable to themselves, was discreditable Parliament,
and oppressive to the country. The Secret.tr. to the Board
was the great reformer of this departm .1t 1 efore he took
office, and used to make speeches to wh ' those of Mr.
Seely were mere whispers of discontent. He had now been

in office six years, yet none of his predecessors had been so
perpetually found fault with on all sides, whilst none had
ever been so confident and plausible in the answers he gave
to those who contended with him. The only excuse he
could make for him was, that the Admiralty was so vast,

so expensive, and the whole concern so chaotic, that it
was hopeless to attempt any improvement.
The house having divided, the motion for going into
committee of supply was negatived by 36 to 34, being a
'majority of two against the Government. Thus the amend-
ment of Mr. Seely became the original motion. This un-
foreseen result appeared to take the Ministerial bench com-
pletely by surprise. At once the four Government whips,
Mr. Brand, Colonel White, Mr. Hugessen, and Mr. Adam,
were summoned to the presence of their chief, who had
been in the house all the evening and voted in the divi-
sion, and who now dispatched them to beat up the haunts
of his supporters. Meanwhile, the debate continued, and
the motion was opposed by Mr. Scourfield, Mr. Neate,
Lord R. Montagu, Mr. Corry, Mr. Childers (lay lord of the
Admiralty), Admiral Walcott, Mr. Finlay, and Mr. Laird.

_
Mr. BRIGHT urged the Government not to divide a
second time, but rather to accept the motion, which had
been framed in terms which were equally reasonable and
gentle, and would really assist the Admiralty in the right
performance of their duties.
Mr. 0. Stanley, Mr. Dalglish, and Mr. Ayrton supported
the motion. _ _

Lord PALMERSTON argued that no other than a naval
officer could efficiently superintend the fitting out of a ship
intended for warlike purposes. Those who now held the
office were perfectly competent to:perform its duties, and
as the resolution was erroneous in the conclusion to which
it pointed, and unjust in regard to the censure it appeared
to convey, he hoped the house would not assent to it.
The whips now returned to the house jubilant and re-
joicing. They had done;their spiriting efficiently and,well,
if not gently; for upon a second division the motion of Mr.
Seely was negatived by 60 to 33.
Mr. H. TRACY inquired whether it was intended by the
Government to recommend to the Crown the amalgamation
of the civil and military Orders of the Bath ; and moved
an address for returns.

Lord PALMERSTON replied that such an amalgama-
tion was not in his opinion desirable, and stated his reasons
for coming to that conclusion.
The motion for returns was withdrawn.
Mr. DILLWYN drew attention to the purchase by the
Government of the Soulages collection for the South Ken-
sington Museum ; and moved for copies of the correspond-
ence and papers relating thereto.
Mr. WARNER ridiculed the idea of expending a large
sum of money upon a collection which was of the most
trumpery and worthless description.
Lord ELcHo approved and Mr. LOCKE questioned the
wisdom of the purchase.
Mr. POT TER explained that he was one of the persons
who had originally bought the collection at Manchester
for £14,000, and he considered that the Government had
got a great bargain.
Mr. H. BRUCE observed that persons of the highest
taste and consideration approved of the purchase, which
had given a great impetus to the development of the
ceramic art in this country.

The motion was then withdrawn.
THE BALLOT.

Mr. IL BERKELEY rose to move that, as a general elec-
tion is impending, and as we have no law which can put
down the intimidation of voters, nor prevent bribery, it is
therefore expedient that a trial should be given to the bal-
lot. The hon. gentleman, svho was not very distinctly heard,
was understood in the commencement of his observations to
refer to Mr. Cobden's declaration in 1852, that he regarded
the ballot as the primary step to all reform. He then went
on to say, that all speeches and all arguments in favour of
the ballot were deducible from the arguments of Mr. Grote,
delivered many years back—arguments which kept crop-
ping up upon all occasions, but never so visibly as on the
approach of a general election. Mr. Gladstone, junior, had
recently stated that the ballot had received its quietus from
the pen of the Rev. Sydney Smith, and again more lately
from the peu of Mr. Mill. He did not explain how the
ballot could receive more than one quietus. (A laugh.)
Now with regard to Sydney Smith, no doubt be had writ-
ten a sparkling and superficial pamphlet against the ballot,
but, so far from thinking that he had given it a quietus, he
thus expressed himself in a letter addressed to the late Lady
Grey : " I have written a pamphlet against the ballot—very
clever, of course—but the ballot will come, write I never so
wisely." (Hear.) Then, as to Mr. J. S. Mill, who was the
cheval de bataille not only of Mr. Gladstone, junior, but of
the Times newspaper, Mr. Mill said : "If I thought the
electors of this country were in a state of hopeless and
slavish independence upon particular landlords, I should
be, as I once was, a supporter of the ballot." That was
certainly a slovenly mode of getting out of his former
opinion, for he did not touch upon intimidation by cus-