The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-27 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following biils were read a third time and passed :
—Thames River Purification, Pembroke and Tenby Rail-
way, and Eltham Valley Railway.
THE REFORM DEMONSTRATION IN HYDE PARK.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY asked the First Lord of
the Treasuiy whether the statement made by Mr. Beales,
the chairman of the Reform League, as to the correspon-
dence between him and the Secretary for the Home De-
partment, in reference to the proposed R3fol al demonstra-
tion in Hyde-park, which appeared in the public journals,
was correct? _ _ .

The Earl of DERBY said that the accounts which ap-
peared in the daily papers were quite correct, and he
availed himself of that °ppm ',unity of disabusing the public
mind of some erroneous impressions in respect to this very
important subject. His i:ght hon. friend the Secretary
for the Home Department was responsible for the preser-
vation of the public peace, and the proposed de-nonstration
on the part of those who had taken up certain views on
the subject of Thiform were in his opinion calculated to
lead to a breach of the peace. His right hon. friend had
communicated with Mr. Beales, and as the legal question
raised had not been decided by the law authorities of the
Crown, it was understood between Mr. Beales and the
Hun° Secretary that there should be no meeting in Hyde
park on Monday evening. However, that arrangement
had not been carried out. He could assure the house
that there was no disposition on the part of the
Government to interfere with any constitutional pi:vilege
of the public in giving expression to the opinions they had
entei ..ained on any particular subject. (Hear.) R3verting
to the communication between the Home Secretary and
Mr. Beales, he expressed his regret that the lattergentle-
man had laboured under some misunderstanding, and that
the disorder which had prevailed on Monday evening
should have taken place. The Secretai yof State for the
Home Department had acted under the direction of the
law officers of the Crown, and he contended that the course
pursued by Government was justified by the circumstances
of the case.
STANDING ORDERS.

Lord REDESDALE moved the suspension of the re-
solution of the 25th June last, viz.:—" That no piivate
bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a
second time after Friday, the Gth of July, in respct to the
ldillwall Canal Company Bill."
The motion was agreed to.
Some other orders of the day were than disposed of, and
their lordships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' Amendments to the North Eastern Railway
(Leeds and Wetherby Branch) Bill were considered and
agreed to, and the bill was read a third time and passed.
The following bills with amendments were considered,
and ordered for third reading :—Bute Docks, Cardiff ; Car-
marthen and Cardigan Railway, Midland Railway
(Branches, ke.), North Metropolitan Railway, Weariale
and Shildon District Water Bill.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
—East India Irrigation and Canai, Madras Irrigation and
Canal, Rawson's Estate, and Sutherland- Walker's Estate.
On the motion of Mr. C. FORSTER, the order for the
second reading of the Dagenham Dock Railways Bill was
discharged, and the bill was withdrawn.
THE GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS.
On the motion for going into committee of supply on the
Naval Supplementary Estimates,
Mr. SEELY crThd the attention of the House to the
general administration and to the accounts of her Majesty's
dockyards, and the two returns, Nos. 465 and 465 1, dated
the 4th day of July, 1863, and moved the following reso-
lutions :—" 1. That the course pursued in paving the road-
ways,
workshops, and other places in the dockyards with
iron ballast was inexpedient. 2, That anchors are pro-
vided for the use of her Majesty's navy without a due re-
gard to economy. 3. That the manner in which the affairs
of the dockyards have been managed in these and other re-
spects renders it desirable that the superintendents should
be possessed of a practical knowledge of the business car-
ried on therein, and that it is also desirable that their term
of office should not be limited to a term of 5 years." The hon,
member then entered into details to prove that the expen-
diture on the vessels constructed and repaired in the Go-
vernment dockyards was extravagant. That statement
of things was not denied by the late Admiralty authorities,
but they promised to remedy it ; yet he did not see any dis-
psition on their part while in office to make any
improve-
ments in the existing system. Ho thought that there should
be something on the face of Government accounts
to show exactly the financial position in which
the Government works were, which desideratum
was not supplied under the present system. He
trusted that, as there was a transfer of authority on the
part of the Admiralty, that the present First Lord of that
important department of the public service (Si" .1. Peking-
ton) would introduce those alterations in the accounts
which would represent the actual position of the naval
Government works, and which had been adopted in a
sister department of the public service. He instituted a
comparison between the manner in which Government
works were carried out in the dockyards and by indi-
vidual enterprise, which was much in favour of the
latter both as to economy and efficiency. He then
described the inaccuracies in which the military accounts
were kept, which exhibited clearly the position in which
that branch of the public service was placed, and be could
not understand why a similar system of accounts should not
be introduced in the naval department of the public ser-
vice. He referred to the fact that a vessel called the
Frederick William had been constructed in one of the
Government dockyards last year at an excess of £147,000
more than she could be built for in a private dockyard.
The hon. member then proceeded to contend that the de-
fects in the Government works of the naval department
were so glaring that they were actually disgraceful. Ile
referred to the construction of the anchors manufactured
Captainh
tlmihsaahntm
supervisionefh
aneetySsuirvw ca ra rwsseSullivanhland o nwi
h:said
agnoai
inferior
ehe
rit in the
carried
rt
thioteehdtehGovernment competent
opsoueevtrepsrronit produced
sacnpeolaertanndoi sdb
by private
sh
ow
that
practical
o w
in the Government works, and called the authority of
rvffid.
)aotcceHekr
dockyards
ees sawrtreaidatbsdh-,
and until that was supplied there would be a most serious
requirement in the public service which was disreputable
'.,eox
tar
agcrtesaltroma r
et mimettletters
s countryfloin A mlikei
cEanngal annddn.
a view to confirm his statement as to the inefficiency of
the naval deprrr.ment of the publ:c service so far as related
to the operations of the dockyards.

Sir J. PAKINOTON said that he made no complaint of
the manner in which the last speaker had brought the
subject before the house, and he only regretted that
his present tenure of office was too brief to enable him
to follow the hon. gentleman through all the details into
which he had entered. He considered that the house and
the country were indebted to the hon. member (Mr. Seely)
for the speech which ho had just delivered, and which, in
the mates;
in-
volved of which it was composed, necessarily d
large amount of labour on the part of the hon.
' such as payi-ig double
ge'...cleman. He took exceptions to some of the statements
foofrthreephaoirns.
ogfean:bleonaitant,ofowrhiant ftstanscee
wash uction would cost.
He thought thelv must be a good deal of mis-
understanding on the part of the honourable member
in resrect to this and other statements which he
had made in the course of his observations, for he

considered that no branch of the Executive would
bo so neglectful of their duty as to permit the anomalies
mentioned. He certainly agreed with the hon. gentleman
that the Government accounts in respect to naval matters
were susceptible of improvement. He h3lieved that the
Government would feel justified in having vessels for the
public service which were built of iron made in plivat.)
docks with a view to economy. It was in conscquenco of
the vessels being previously made of wood that contracts
were not given to wivato shipbuilders, for the quality of
the wood employed in their construction requi-ed the
greatest ca-e in its selection. Ho would mike in-
quit:es into thor.e questions in reference to some
alleged deficiencies brought More the house by the hon,
member, and he referred pat ticularly to the sale of refuse
iron and the construction of anchors in the Government
docks.

baronet (S'r Pak'n-gLon)
Mr. WATKINS expressed his hope that the right hon•
would introduce all the im-
provements that were necessary to give efficiency to the
working of the Government dockyards.
Mr. T. C. BARING defended the system adopted by
successive Administrations in respect to naval matters, and
denied that that system was open to the exceptions taken
by the hon. member (Mr. Scaly). The hon. gentleman
entered into several &tags with a view to show that
there was no ground for imputing neglect to the execu-
tive who had been outlasted of late years with the admi-
nistration of naval affa'-s. He denied that there was any
fairaess in the comparison which had been made by the
hon. member (Mr. Seely) as regarded the relative cost of
works produced in private and Government dockyards,
br•cause the ar i,icles were different. He ridiculed the idea
of any parsimonious spirit being resorted to in the reg a-
latami of the Government dockyards or other military esta-
blishments of the country.
Col. SYKES congratulated the hon. member (Mr.
Seely) on the industry and ability he had displayed in re-
ference to this subject, and was glad that the hon. meml sr
seemed disposed to follow in a paracular department the
footsteps of the late Mr. Joseph Hume, who at present had
no successor in the house. The wrangement adopted in
the naval depa.iortent in France was 6ape ior to that
our own country, and the expenditure was clearly shown.
Mr. SAMIIDA expressed his approval of the v:e vs of
the hon. member who had brought the subject before the
house (Mr. Seely) in a speech of considerable ability.
What they required in -the department of the Govern-
ment dockyards was a simplification of the accounts, such
as was adopted in private establ'shments, which enabled a
person at once to see his financial position. He referred to
matters which had come under his own observation in his
business experience to show that a great improvement
was necessary 'a the rnanesement of the Government
dockyards.

After some cl4scussion in wPch Mr. Childei Mr.
M'Laren, and Mr. Henley took pa:',
Mr. SEELY m:thdrew b's amendment.
The house then saspendel the sitting until 6 o'clock,
when it resumed.