Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in England, the alterations about to be made in the constitution of the offices of the Registrar and Marshal of the Court, and the changes proposed in the examination to which candidates are subjected.

In reply, I am to state that the Commissioners will be prepared to carry Dr Lushington's wishes into effect, as regards the examination of candidates. With reference to the higher limits of age (35 for the Registrar's Office, and 30 for that of the Marshal), I am to observe that they exceed the usual maximum, and that although in your letter of 6th February 1858 a reason for the peculiarity is assigned, it appears possible that the re-organisation now in progress may so far diminish the force of that reason as to render it expedient that the question should be reconsidered. Dr Lushington will be aware that under the general Superannuation Act (the schedule to which includes the Act 17 & 18 Vic. c. 78), the maximum pension attainable is two-thirds of the salary previously enjoyed, and that for the attainment of this maximum forty years' service is required. A person admitted at 35 will not acquire this claim until he has attained the age of 75, and there will probably be a period (ordinarily not less than 10 years) during which he is, on the one hand, becoming less and less efficient for the duties of a clerk, while, on the other hand, he is annually gaining a title to increased superannuation. Under these circumstances, it will be difficult to press his retirement, and it will be still more difficult if, as is not very unusual, the failure of bodily or mental vigour should begin at 55, when the superannuation allowance will be only one-third, or at 60, when it will be only five-twelfths of the salary.

Of course it is impossible to avoid all risk of this inconvenience, but it is less likely to occur in the case of a public servant appointed while under 25 than in that of one who enters at 35.

The same considerations apply, though with less force, to the higher limit (30) at present fixed for the Marshal's Office.

The commissioners have thought it right to bring this question again under Dr Lushington's notice; but if he should be of opinion that the reason originally assigned still renders it necessary that the limits for the two offices should be exceptional, they will readily defer to his judgment. I have, &c.

Sir,

(No. 2.)-Mr Rothery to Mr Maitland.

Admiralty Registry, Doctors' Commons, 27th April 1860.

I am directed by the Right Honourable Stephen Lushington, the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23d instant, stating that the higher limits

of age proposed for admission to this and the Marshal's Office exceed the usual maximum, pointing out the inconveniences that may attend the appointment of clerks at the age of 35 years, who would probably become incapable of efficiently performing their duties long before they were entitled to the maximum pension, and suggesting whether, now that these offices have been re-organised and extended, the reasons assigned in my letter of the 6th of February 1858 for this deviation from the usual practice still prevail.

In reply, I am directed to inform you that the reason which originally induced Dr Lushington to think that an exception in regard to the maximum limit of age on admission might be made in this office was, that occasions might arise, as on the breaking out of a war, when it might be necessary suddenly to increase the establishment, and if in that case there should not be found amongst the junior clerks any who were capable of discharging the more important duties of the office, it would be necessary to appoint persons who, from professional experience, might have acquired a knowledge of the practice of the Court.

These reasons, in Dr Lushington's opinion, still prevail, although, it must be admitted, not in so great a degree as when the office was smaller. The same remarks apply to the Marshal's Office. And as the Commissioners have been good enough to say that, should Dr Lushington continue of the same opinion, they would defer to his judgment, he desires me to inform you that he thinks that it would be better to retain the limits of age as originally proposed, viz., from 17 to 35 years on admission to this office, and 17 to 30 on admission to the Marshal's Office. At the same time, I am desired to state that, in making any future appointments, care will be taken that the limits of age usual on admission to other public offices shall be maintained, except when the nature of the duties to be performed renders a deviation therefrom necessary. I am, &c.

4.

(No. 1.)-Mr Macaulay to Mr Maitland.

Audit Office, 13th July 1860.

Sir, The attention of the Directors of Prisons in Scotland having been called to the appointment of a warder of Perth prison to the situation of clerk in the steward's department in that establishment without a certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commissioners, I am directed by the Commissioners for auditing the Public Accounts to transmit to you a copy of the query and of the reply to it, and also of a letter from the Directors, forwarding the same, and I am to request that the Board may be apprised of the opinion of the Civil Service Commissioners upon the subject. I have, &c.

ENCLOSURE.

General Board of Prisons, Edinburgh, 6th July 1860.

Sir, In reference to the accompanying answer to a query relating to the appointment of an officer in the general prison at Perth, who has not received a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, I am directed to make the following explanations. The person in question having been merely transferred from one office in the prison to another, it was not supposed that under any circumstances the regulations of the Civil Service Commission would apply to his case. On a previous occasion, however, when they appointed two persons not previously on the staff of the prison to clerkships, the Board took the matter into consideration, and made inquiries to satisfy themselves on the question whether the staff of the general prison could be brought within the arrangement referred to. The Board found some practical difficulties in their way, and they have not found it expedient to deal with these, as there is at present a bill before Parliament which provides for the Board coming to an end in December next, and for the administration of the general prison being placed more immediately under the control of the Secretary of State.

I have, &c.,
(Signed)

Copy of the Query and Answer.

head

Salaries and Wages. Appointment of Mrwarder, as clerk in steward's department, at a salary of £85 per annum, with house and garden.

J. H. BURTON.

Query.

The name of this person does not appear in the return of certificates of qualification furnished to this office by the Civil Service Commissioners. Explanation is requested.

Reply.

The officers in the general prison do not require to possess certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners. They are appointed by the General Board of Directors of Prisons under the following statutory powers in 2 and 3 Vic., cap. 42, sec. 22:-"The said General Board shall have power to appoint keepers, chaplains, medical officers, and teachers for the said general prison at Perth, under their own immediate superintendence and management, together with all officers, clerks, and other persons required for the said general prison at Perth, in execution of this Act, and to assign to all such persons such remuneration for their services as they shall think proper.' (Signed)

J. H. BURTON.

Sir,

(No. 2.)-Mr Maitland to Mr Macaulay.

19th July 1860.

In reply to your letter of the 13th instant, enclosing correspondence relative to the appointment of a warder of Perth prison to the situation of clerk in the steward's department in that establishment, without a certificate of qualification, I am directed by the Civil Service Commissioners to state that Mr Burton's letter does not appear to them to assign any sufficient ground for the exemption of the officers of Perth prison, and that as at present advised they can only express their opinion that a certificate of qualification was required. It is probable that the practical difficulties apprehended by the Board might have been removed if there had been any communication with this office previously to the appointments which Mr Burton mentions as having preceded that now under consideration.

Sir,

I have, &c.

(No. 8.)-J. H. Burton, Esq., to Mr Maitland.

General Board of Prisons, Edinburgh, 1st August 1860.

Referring to your letter of the 19th July to the Secretary of the Commissioners of Audit, relating to the appointment of a clerk in the general prison at Perth, which has been transmitted to this office, I am directed to request that you will have the goodness to furnish me with the latest regulations or instructions of the Civil Service Commission in relation to officers in Government prisons, for the purpose of enabling me to lay full information on the matter before the General Board of Prisons in Scotland.

I have, &c.

(No. 4.)-Mr Maitland to Mr Burton.

7th August 1860.

Sir, In reply to your letter of the 1st instant, requesting to be furnished with the latest regulations or instructions of this Commission in relation to officers in Government prisons;

I am directed by the Civil Service Commissioners to state that no documents relating especially to the class in question have been issued by them. The officers of Government prisons have been considered as holders of junior situations within the meaning of the Order in Council under which the Commissioners act, and this being the case, it appears that regulations as to the age, health, and character of candidates, and also as to the subjects of examination, should be settled with the assist

ance of the Commissioners, at the discretion of the chief authorities of the department.

Correspondence relative to the department of Convict Prisons in England will be found in the Appendix to the Fourth Report of the Commissioners, but the Commissioners are of course unable to judge whether the circumstances are so far similar as to render a reference to it desirable.

I have, &c.

B.-Write an Abstract and Summary of each of the following reports:

1. General Report, for the Year 1861, by Her Majesty's Inspector, Matthew Arnold, Esq., M.A., on the British and other Schools not connected with the Church of England, inspected by him in the Counties of Berks, Bucks, Essex, Herts, Kent, Middlesex, and Oxford.

School premises.

Pupil.

teachers; their instruction

My Lords,

London, January 1862.

In my last report I complained of the dirty condition in which school premises in London were too often permitted to remain, and I contrasted them unfavourably in this respect with the school premises which I had seen in Paris. In the course of the year just ended, the managers of several London schools under my inspection have exerted themselves to remove the stigma thus cast upon them, and I can now report a somewhat improved state of things. There is still, however, a great disposition on the part of managers to consider sufficient for public school premises a degree of cleanliness which is really not sufficient; to think that all which is necessary is something far less, at any rate, than what is proper. And I venture to predict that the greater the "liberty of action" given to managers in fixing the standard of needful school cleanliness, the dirtier will our public schools become.

In my examinations of pupil-teachers during the last year, I have been struck with the commonness of the failure in in grammar grammar. This failure has been yet more evident to me in the papers (which I have just been revising) of the candidates for Queen's scholarships at the recent Christmas examination. In general, the pupil-teachers seem to me to do worse in this branch of their instruction than they used to do. Many objections have been raised against the teaching of grammar in our elementary schools, and I believe that there are even inspectors who somewhat discourage it. But I confess that I should be very sorry if this study should be discontinued, or