SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I give | name, relative to the Nawab Nazim of Notice that I shall to-morrow ask the Bengal ? First Lord of the Admiralty what was the offence of which the corporal of Marines had been guilty?

MR. BRYAN: I shall certainly take the earliest opportunity of bringing this subject under the consideration of the House next Session; more especially in consequence of certain observations which

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT fell from the Under Secretary of State -COUNTY OF LOUTH, &c.

QUESTION.

for India the other night in Committee on the Indian Budget.

EX-LORD CHANCELLORS' ARBITRA.

TIONS QUESTION.

MR. CALLAN asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, considering the eminently satisfactory condition of the borough of Dundalk and the county MR. EYKYN said, with the sanction of Louth, as evidenced by the calendar of the First Lord of the Treasury, he of prisoners and the charges of every wished to draw attention for a moment going Judge of Assize during the years to a subject which was of considerable 1869, 1870, 1871, and 1872, both as re-importance to the legal profession. It gards offences against the person and against property, and the statement of Mr. Justice Lawson that "the county of Louth and borough of Dundalk, he might with truth say, challenged comparison for peace and order with any portion of Her Majesty's dominions," he is prepared to remove the Proclamation of that borough and county under the Peace Preservation Acts?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the hon. Member had asked him a similar Question some months ago, and in consequence of that Question and other explanations from districts in Ireland which had for some time been entirely undisturbed, the Irish Government had given instructions to the resident magistrates to relax in certain districts the stringency of the regulations with regard to the licensing of arms. He had stated on the former occasion his reasons why he did not think it expedient at present entirely to remove the proclamation from those counties, and he had not had reason to form a different opinion as yet. He could therefore only say that the subject of the condition of Louth and other counties in the same condition would be considered by the Government with the view of removing the proclamation as soon as possible.

related to a Motion of his which he had had on the Paper for a considerable time. ["Order!"]

MR. OSBORNE: May I ask how this comes on? It is not on the Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: I was about to call on the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, and, the hon. Member for Windsor having risen, I was waiting to hear what the hon. Member's Motion was.

MR. EYKYN was much obliged to his hon. Friend for setting him right. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question. The Motion of which he had given Notice was to the effect that it was inexpedient that ex-Lord Chancellors should receive pay for acting as Arbitrators or Referees unless instructed by the Government. Did the Government concur in the principle implied in that Motion?

MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that this subject had attracted much public attention of late, and he thought it was perfectly clear that his hon. Friend had exercised a sound discretion in not asking the House to proceed upon it by Resolution; because, in the first place, however reasonable any proposition of that kind might be, the House had no power to enforce it, and the House would expose itself to disparagement by passing such a Resolution; and in the second place, the passing of a reasonable Resolution upon such a subject might be MR. R. N. FOWLER: Sir, I wish to made a precedent for passing conclusive ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny a and arbitrary Resolutions unduly interquestion of which I have given him pri-fering with private contracts. He was, vate Notice, Whether he intends to bring therefore, of opinion-and he believed forward early next Session the Motion that his Colleagues concurred with him which lately stood upon the Paper in his-that it was a subject that, if dealt with

NAWAB NAZIM OF BENGAL.

QUESTION.

at all, must be dealt with by legislation, | ance of Kew Gardens and the payment and not by an expression of opinion, at of the staff, he was strictly in order in least by that House, as they had no ex- referring to the position in which Dr. Chancellors there, and were not likely Hooker was placed. He desired to avoid to have any. If his hon. Friend asked controversial matter, and merely wished him whether he thought such legislation to elicit some explanation from the Prime ought to take place, that was not a Minister showing an adequate appreciamatter upon which the Government had tion of the eminent services of Dr. collectively deliberated, or arrived at Hooker, and of what would be the any opinion. But he owned that there great loss which the country would suswas a great deal to be said in favour of tain if it should be deprived of the such legislation, provided that it could services of one who had served it so be put in a fair, equitable, and unexcep- well and with so much distinction and tionable shape. with so much zeal as Dr. Hooker. It was of importance that what had been done should be made clear and intelligible. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had, no doubt, been actuated in the course which he had taken only by friendship and esteem for Dr. Hooker; but still it was necessary that the country should have some ex

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAIL-
WAY-ACCIDENT TO THE IRISH MAIL.

Last Monday week in "another place" a very distinguished nobleman who brought the matter forward said that he would not ask the opinion of that branch of the Legislature, because a Motion was going to be brought forward in the House of Commons in order to test the state of opinion there. As a decision had been avoided in the other branch of

In reply to Mr. Serjeant SHERLOCK, MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE said, that a Report had been made to the Board of Trade in reference to the accident that happened to the Irish mail train on the 21st July last. The acci-planation as to what had been done. dent appeared to have been caused in this way. The Irish mail train was an hour late at Chester, and the foreman at Bangor blameably, as the Inspector thought, allowed a train of empty goods waggons to go on before it at an interval considerably less than that allowed by the company's time table. That train of waggons, from insufficient steam, appeared to have stopped in going up an incline near Holyhead, and the mail train ran into it. The immediate cause of the accident was the neglect of the lad who was acting on that occasion as breaksman, and who did not take the proper means to go back and stop the approaching mail train. The Inspector added that had the absolute block system been in force, this collision would in all probability have been prevented; but he stated that the absolute block system was being substituted for the permissive system by the company as fast as the arrangements could be perfected.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA-
TION) BILL.-THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.

THE ROYAL GARDENS, KEWDR. HOOKER, AND THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS.

OBSERVATIONS.

MR. FAWCETT said, that as this Bill appropriated the money voted by the Committee of Supply for the mainten

the Legislature, if this House were offered no opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the subject he was sure that the public might misunderstand the matter; and what he greatly feared was this-that some might think that the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), after reading the Papers upon the subject, had changed his opinion, and that this might have induced him not to bring forward the question. He (Mr. Fawcett) believed that this was not the case; but that the hon. Baronet was under the impression-which would probably be confirmed by the Prime Minister-that the personal element in the controversy being eliminated, the administrative question would be easily settled, and that it was in course of being settled. He believed that nothing more was required than that Dr. Hooker on his part should say that nothing in this Correspondence was intended to be personal, and that the Government should say on their part that nothing was intended that should, in the slightest degree, be discourteous to Dr. Hooker. This seemed to him to be the natural course to be adopted between

two gentlemen. He should carefully that the matter should, if possible, be abstain from entering into any contro- arranged without being brought pubversial matters, because he was afraid licly before the House. There were that if he entered into controversy he many things which, if privately exmight do something which would render plained, could be satisfactorily settled, a settlement of the difference more diffi- which might become difficult to arrange cult. He hoped to hear some state- | amicably when once they had been made ment from the hon. Baronet (Sir John the subject of public discussion. He Lubbock), and also from some Member could not help feeling some regret that of the Government, which the House his hon. Friend the Member for Brighwould deem to be satisfactory; and he ton had compelled him to address the was quite certain that he was expressing House; but the hon. Member's remarks the unanimous opinion of the House, left no other course open to him. If the and of almost everyone out-of-doors, House would indulge him, he would when he said that considering the great state the circumstances which, in Dr. services that Dr. Hooker had rendered Hooker's opinion, were calculated to to this country, and also to India; con- weaken his authority at Kew, and to sidering that Kew Gardens were an in- render his position one of great diffistitution that we had a right to be proud culty, and he was anxious to do so in of, and that every foreigner said that a manner which should not excite any Kew was an institution which he had greater amount of hostility and ill-feeling nothing to compare with in his own than already existed. He had not the country; bearing all these things in mind, slightest personal feeling towards the and that the Gardens had, to a great First Commissioner; he wished to avoid extent, been created by Sir William uttering a single word of which the right Hooker and his son, Dr. Hooker, he hon. Gentleman could have reason to thought that he was but expressing the complain; and he only hoped the right unanimous wish of the House, that few hon. Gentleman would give such an exthings would cause more disappointment planation as would be satisfactory to the and regret than that the public should House, to the public, and Dr. Hooker. lose the services of Dr. Hooker. There were few questions which had latterly excited more interest throughout the country than this. It was one which not only affected Kew Gardens, but it concerned the whole Civil Service of the country. He approached the matter from the point of view of those scientifically interested; resolutions had been passed by the principal societies connected with botany and horticulture; he had also received communications referring to the great value of the services Dr. Hooker had rendered to the Colonies and the West Indies, and expressing a hope that nothing done would prevent his continuing Director of Kew. It was only the other day that in that House a well-merited tribute was paid to Dr. Hooker on the part of the Indian Government. What, then, were the points with reference to which it was thought there was some reason to complain? The First Commissioner had been but a very short time in office when he sent Dr. Hooker a reprimand founded on a misapprehension. It was the first time in Dr. Hooker's long career that there had been anything but friendly communication between him and his official superiors,

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK said, that the question before the House fell naturally into two divisions-the first, administrative; the second, personal. Into the first he should not enter at length; though the Treasury Minute, however satisfactory in other respects, left two questions still open-namely, the management of the heating apparatus, and of the so-called pleasure grounds; which were said not to form part of the botanical establishment. He thought it undesirable that the heating apparatus should be removed from the control of the Director of Kew; it had been well said that you might as well remove from a surgeon the control of his instruments. He pointed out that the pleasure grounds were the Arboretum, and that trees and shrubs formed a most important part of the botanical establishment. He was sure, however, that the Prime Minister was anxious the Gardens should be maintained in their present state of efficiency.

Coming to the question as one between the Director of Kew Gardens and the First Commissioner of Works, he had been anxious, acting under advice,

Shortly afterwards arose a question | the duties he was called upon to perform. about the appointment of a clerk. Dr. The next ground of complaint was, that Hooker and the Treasury considered the superintendence of the heating was that this was an appointment which taken out of Dr. Hooker's hands-that he should be made under Clause VII. of was not informed of the change, but left the Order in Council-that is to say, to discover the fact by accident. Another that the candidates should be restricted was, that considerable changes were proto those who had had some preliminary posed in the Museum, without consulting training in a post of a similar character; him. On another occasion, the First on the other hand, the First Commis- Commissioner went down to Kew, had an sioner insisted on an open competitive important interview with the Curator, examination. Without expressing any and gave him to understand that he was opinion of his own on the manner in not to mention the object of his visit. which this correspondence was con- The First Commissioner explained that ducted, he would quote a letter which what he said was merely that the Curator Mr. Lingen wrote from the Treasury to need not mention the matter to Dr. the First Commissioner. Mr. Lingen Hooker, as he would do it himself; but wroteit was unfortunate that the First Commissioner did not carry out that intention. Although a considerable time elapsed between the ordering and the production of the Correspondence, it was so ill-arranged that reference was very difficult for anyone who had not gone into the matter that the First Commissioner, without thoroughly; but it appeared at page 59 communicating with the Director, instructed Mr. Smith to meet him in Hyde Park to undertake the control of some important works there. This appointment would have taken a great part of the Curator's time for some months; and yet in this case again, no communication whatever was made to Dr. Hooker.

"No doubt, the First Commissioner of Works, and not the Director of the Gardens, is ultimately responsible for the expenditure of the Vote upon

the Establishment at Kew, nevertheless it appears to My Lords that there should be very serious reasons, such as they do not see in this instance, before the latter's recommendations are

overruled, and My Lords think that this is peculiarly the case as regards a Director of such standing, experience, and success in managing the Gardens,

as Dr. Hooker."

own view.

Still, in spite of that, the First Commissioner persevered and maintained his The Treasury acquiesced; but a subsequent letter of the 26th of June to the First Commissioner contained these remarks—

At the time when My Lords ordered their letter of the 2nd ultimo to be written, they had not seen Dr. Hooker's letter to yourself of the 6th of September, 1871. After having done so, they have to observe that your letter of the 8th of September, 1871, to the Civil Service Commissioners, does not enclose a copy of it, does not contain the whole of the recommendations which Dr. Hooker makes in it, and does not mention him by name or office."

The result was that a gentleman was appointed by open competitive examination to the vacant post. He had previously been at Kew as under-gardener, and was well known to Dr. Hooker, who was satisfied that he was incompetent to do the work for which he was chosen. Dr. Hooker accordingly reported this to the First Commissioner, who, after some delay, sent his accountant to report upon the qualifications of the clerk, Mr. Robert Smith; and when the accountant asked Mr. Smith whether he was qualified to perform the duties of the office to which he had been thus appointed, to his credit, be it said, Mr. Smith at once candidly admitted that he was quite unqualified for

Without enlarging on that part of the case, he thought it natural that such circumstances, coming one after another, should have created an improssion on Dr. Hooker's mind that there was an intention to give offence, and it could not be denied that the course pursued was calculated to raise difficulties and to embarrass him in his relations with his subordinates. Still, a courteous explanation from the First Commissioner would have put everything in a very different light. He had been told that Dr. Hooker was too thin-skinned, and took offence too easily. But that depended on whether there was any intention to give offence. The First Commissioner did not, in his Memorandum of the 15th July, take that line. On the contrary, the Memorandum seemed as if intended to confirm the impression on Dr. Hooker's mind. For instance, in the first page of the Memorandum, the following reference is made to the circumstances attending the publication of The Flora of Tropical Africa, as an instance

in which the First Commissioner had ment had been injudicious; he thought been bound to interfere :the First Commissioner must have been under the impression when he wrote the passage, that the circumstance referred to happened under Dr. Hooker's management, because, if not, the passage seemed quite irrelevant. As a matter of fact, however, the sale of the elms took place some years ago, and under the late Director. It is only fair to add that the closing remark, as to the absence of other shrubs, does not appear to be borne out by the Correspondence. Again, in the same page, the First Commissioner said