SUPPLY. (Hansard, 3 June 1852)

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, the Civil Service Estimates had progressively increased of late years. These Estimates were very different from the Army and Navy Estimates, which had been allowed to pass without discussion, the Government stating that they had taken them on the authority of their predecessors. The Estimates now submitted had been in the hands of the Government three months, and were signed by the heads of the respective departments. They presented a most extraordinary increase. In 1835, under Sir Robert Peel, they were 2,107,000l. They had gone on progressively increasing, and had now attained the extraordinary amount of 4,182,000l. Such a large increase required explanation. The cost of the Royal Palaces was perfectly astounding, and ought to be checked by Parliament. The Chief Commissioner of Works had now a Bill before the House to make improvements at Pimlico, in connexion with Buckingham Palace, which would be attended with an enormous outlay. The clearing away of buildings had cost 70,000l., although a great part of the property was only leasehold, and the freehold belonged to the Crown. He had complained for years past that the Crown property had not been fairly treated. The income awarded to Her Majesty was a vast amount beyond the receipts from the property of the Crown; but he believed, if managed economically, the property of the Crown would be almost sufficient for the income of Her Majesty. The fact was, the Crown property was squandered in all sorts of ways, for all sorts of purposes, to a great extent wasteful and unnecessary. Last Session it had been ordered, on the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan, that all the receipts of the department of Woods and Forests should be paid into the Exchequer, and every item of expenditure voted by that House. He believed that upwards of 2,000,000l. were yet unaccounted for. If the property was fairly dealt with, he believed it would be sufficient to defray the entire cost of the Civil List.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, one of the principal causes of the increase of the Estimates was, the transfer from the Woods and Forests of services which had been before deducted from the land revenues of the Crown. Those services were transferred under the Act passed last Session, in consequence of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, and they amounted in these Estimates to a total of 76,532l. He was quite ready to explain the reasons of the increase; but he would suggest that it would be more convenient to do so as each class was brought before the Committee.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, it was quite true, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), that that House, by a majority of one, affirmed a Resolution which he moved—that in future, the whole amount of the Land Revenues of the Crown should be paid into the Exchequer; but, unfortunately, the House, to a certain extent, reversed that decision. When the Bill for the Separation of the Woods and Forests was brought forward, he tried the question again, and was unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) was quite correct in stating that 76,532l. was now transferred from one account to the other, and gave an appearance of an increase of the Estimates, but that was the last thing he should find fault with; all he regretted was, that the Resolution was not carried, by which the whole sum would have appeared on the Estimates.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he objected to a charge of 511l. for the rent, &c, of offices of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Whitehall Place; when they knew that the revenues of the Church were so enormous, and that immense sums were raised for the extension of the Church, they ought not to vote such a sum, in addition to salaries connected with the Commission. He objected, also, to a charge of 1,600l. for the rent of offices of the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners. The public were charged for the maintenance of some ten palaces belonging to the Crown. Only three or four were ever occupied, or ever seen, by Her Majesty. He thought they ought to be relieved from charges for so many palaces which could not in any way contribute to the convenience of the Queen.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, as he was in office when the house was taken for the Tithe and Copyhold Commissioners, he 1385 considered himself responsible for that item. He was told the Commissioners had a number of very valuable maps, and the public paid some small fee for the advantage of consulting them; the sum so paid by the public exceeded 1,700l. a year, or more than the rent of these offices; upon the ground that it was most desirable the maps should be placed conveniently to be seen, he agreed to taking a larger house than he should otherwise have done, that the public might have every facility in referring to them.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he considered the charge of 9,454l. for rent of houses taken for the accommodation of public departments excessive, and that a saving might be effected by making some allowance for the official residences, to which he should not object.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, it was impossible any arrangement like that suggested could be carried into effect.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, it was very properly stated in the Estimate that this was about 24,000l. in excess of the preceding year, and he hoped some explanation of that excess would be offered. As far as his own experience went, he did not think the roads in Hyde Park were in that state which the public had a right to expect after so large an outlay in keeping them in repair; indeed, several accidents had occurred in consequence of the bad state of those roads. With all submission he would throw out a suggestion to his noble Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, that some contract should be entered into with the metropolitan road commissioners for the repair of all the roads in the parks. He understood the different roads in the different parks were each under a separate management. He saw in St. James's and Hyde Parks, in the department of the ranger, an item of 1,506l. a year. In Greenwich-park there was also a department of the ranger, and an item of 223l.; in Richmond-park there was also a ranger, and the very large expenditure incurred under that head of 2,312l. He was anxious to know what were the duties of the rangers, what services they performed, and of what use they were in these parks. He was led to put these questions by observing that the Re-gent's-park, Victoria-park, Bushey-park, Holyrood-park, and Phoenix-park were managed without a ranger; and as far as 1386 the Regent's-park was concerned, it seemed to him the management was quite as efficient as the management in Hyde-park. In the Committee over which he had the honour to preside, this subject was brought prominently forward, and it was found that great inconvenience and considerable confusion was caused by conflicting orders being given by different officers. He wished to hear what were the advantages to the public service that these separate departments should be kept up, and whether the expenses of the rangers' department were subjected to the control of the Office of Works.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, with regard to the increase of this Estimate, it included Richmond, Hampton-court, and Bushey-parks, which had no place in the Estimate of last year, because those parks were assigned to the Department of Works, while the Bill for dividing the Woods and Works was depending in Parliament, and after the Estimates for the current year had been voted. That would account for 7,827l. There was also a sum of 4,950l. for widening the road in Hyde-park near the Serpentine, and for draining the Regent's-park; and another sum of 4,976l., for maintaining and keeping up various parks which used to be defrayed out of the land revenues of the Crown. A further sum of 5,000l., usually in Estimate No. 1, had been transferred to No. 2, by the alteration last year. That, with some other small items, which he could state, made a total of 24,342l., or more than the excess in the Estimate over the Estimate of 1851. As regarded the office of ranger, it might certainly be a question whether some arrangement in the nature of that suggested by the noble Lord might not be made, and he was sure his noble Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would give it that consideration which it required.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he considered that the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) was worthy of consideration, and should be attended to.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, he thought of all the items in the Estimates, this was the one which the public would the least grudge. Almost twenty years ago he moved for a Committee on the subject of providing public walks and parks in the vicinity of the metropolis. Since then, three parks had been gained to the public; and he should be glad to know whether Finsbury Park was likely to be formed, and also what was the state of the im- 1387 provements in Battersea, and when that park would be opened to the public. He concurred in the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) as to the consolidation of the management of the roads in the different parks.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
considered the management of roads was not a fit matter to be intrusted to the Department of Works. The state of the roads in Hyde-park was certainly very unsatisfactory. An accident had recently occurred to an hon. Member of that House (Mr. J. L. Ricardo), owing, it was said, to some holes in the road in Hyde-park not having been properly filled up.

§ MR. J. L. RICARDO
was bound, in justice to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works, to state that he (Mr. Ricardo) owed his accident entirely to the bad shoulder of his horse, and to his own clumsiness. If, therefore, the noble Lord had allowed holes to remain in the park in order to catch unwary Radicals, certainly he (Mr. Ricardo) was not caught in that trap.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that with regard to the park at Battersea, he had done everything in his power to forward the improvements going on there.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
was of opinion that the expenditure of 60,546l. on account of the Royal parks, pleasure-gardens, &c, was enormous. By the Estimates it appeared that no less than 15,836l. was charged on account of the three parks, namely, St. James's, the Green, and Hyde Parks, for one year only. When such heavy sums were paid by the public to maintain these parks, they certainly ought in return to have the full enjoyment of them; and yet such were 'the restrictions imposed, that no man knew whether he could pass the parks or not. Some time ago, he had occasion to come down to the House from Oxford-street in a hurry, and he took a cab and passed under the marble arch into Hyde-park, without any objection having been made; hut when he arrived at the gate leading into St. James's-park, he was stopped in a most insolent manner, and was obliged to go back to Oxford-street. It was well known, that while some persons were permitted to go through the Horse Guards, others were turned back. These distinctions ought not to be made. It was not his wish to see the parks made a common road for omnibuses, waggons, and carts, or suchlike modes of conveyance; but, at the same time, considering the large sums 1388 paid by the public for the maintenance of the parks, the restrictions ought to be less stringent.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
very seldom agreed with the hon. Member for Lambeth, hut he could not help concurring in what had fallen from him on this occasion, for he really believed the public were improperly debarred from the fair use of the parks. But he rose chiefly for the purpose of expressing a hope that the return for which he some time since moved, and which he understood was already prepared, would soon be laid on the table. He alluded to the charge for the removal and reconstruction of the marble arch. The noble Lord the late Commissioner of Works had said that the expense would not exceed the Estimate, which was 4,056l.; but there was a report that it had exceeded 9,000l., nay, he had heard as much as 12,000l. If so, it would be a most shameful waste of the public money. He would beg to ask the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) what had been the expenditure of removing the marble arch, and whether the expense had been in accordance with the statement made to him by the noble Lord? Both with regard to the marble arch and to the demolition of the trees in Hyde Park, caused by the Crystal Palace, there had been a very gross expenditure of the public money, and a great infringement upon the rights of the people.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, that the hon. and gallant Member anticipated that the cost of the removal of the marble arch would very much exceed the Estimate. He believed he (Lord Seymour) was correct in saying that the cost of taking down the arch and rebuilding it was within the Estimate. No doubt there were works and other expenses connected with Buckingham Palace which had cost some money, but that ought not to be set down to the account of the marble arch.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
thought the country was very much indebted to the noble Lord for having removed the arch, and having placed it in a situation which, in his opinion, made it one of the finest ornaments of the metropolis. With regard to the impediments thrown in the way of the public in the use of the parks, he might state that, in his own case, when Parliament was sitting he was allowed to pass through the Horse Guards, but when Parliament was not sitting he was imperatively refused permission to pass through, and was referred to a list of some privileged names, among which his own did not 1389 appear. Now, considering that he was living among his constituents, and was actually engaged in the discharge of duties as their representative, he thought it illegal so to stop him, notwithstanding Parliament was not sitting. He was desirous of hearing from the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) some information as to the drainage of the parks, and the state of the water of the Serpentine. Was the water to be stagnant or kept flowing?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that if the hon. Member for Lambeth would look to the aggregate of the items in this estimate, he would find that there had on the whole been a saving effected; hut in respect to some charges great improvements had been made; for instance, the lighting of the parks had been increased, and there had been a large additional supply of water to the Serpentine. With respect to the drainage and cleaning out of the Serpentine, that was rather a delicate affair to meddle with; his attention had been drawn to it, and plans had been submitted to him. He had also given orders that fresh gravel should be laid down on the roads in the parks where required.

MR. KINNAIRD
wished to know whether any papers were before the House showing the names of the rangers of the parks, what were the duties they performed, and what were the salaries they received?

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, a return had been moved for, which, when produced, would show what were the duties of the rangers.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, that the names of the rangers might be found in the Red Book; and, as to their salaries, that question was easily answered, for they received no salaries at all.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
asked, if the rangers received no salaries, whether the noble Lord would explain this charge for the rangers' department of 1,506l.

LORD SEYMOUR
replied, that the ranger received nothing, and the item of 1,506l. referred to persons employed as gatekeepers and others, who, if not paid under the ranger, would be equally paid under the Board of Works.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, the rangers had lodges in some of the parks, which lodges were kept up at the public expense. He again repeated that it was inconvenient to have two sets of servants in the parks, one under the rangers, and the other under the Woods and Forests. He was 1390 much pleased to hear that this anomaly was to be remedied by the doing away with this divided jurisdiction.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
would remind the noble Lord that rangers of parks were Royal gifts. The Duke of Wellington was ranger of Hyde-park, but had no house. The rangership of Richmond-park was given to one of the Royal Family, and a house was provided. He presumed the noble Lord had no wish to interfere with these Royal gifts.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
did not wish to interfere in the remotest degree with the rights of the Crown. His noble Friend had mistaken what he said. His belief was there were several lodges in the parks which were not occupied by members of the Royal Family. They were occupied by deputy rangers, and kept up at the expense of the public.

§ MR. SLANEY
thought the Crown ought to have the power of appointing to these rangerships, as he believed they were given as equivalents yielded by the Crown. It would not be quite the thing to say that the Royal residences should be let and thus made the most of.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
could not understand why 1,500l. should be required to keep up the lodges, when all the duty for parties living in them to do was to open and shut the gates.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that there was a charge of 80,000l. for works at the Channel Islands, and he wished to know how and on what island the money already expended had been laid out.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, the particulars would be found in a return which had been presented to the House during the present Session.

§ MR. THORNELY
said, that the whole amount from first to last which had been spent upon Harbours of Refuge was between 2,000,000l. and 3,000,000l., which he considered a great deal too much for such an object.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
believed that the money spent in the Channel Islands was sunk, not upon Harbours of Refuge, but 1391 upon fortifications. The whole extent of the outlay was quite astounding.

§ MR. STAFFORD
said, it was one thing to determine whether it was wise to commence these undertakings, and another to say that it would be prudent to stop works which were partly completed. He had visited the Channel Islands since his appointment to the office which he now held, and he could state that nine-tenths of the works were really required for Harbours of Refuge, which, without doubt, when completed, would be highly useful. But if these works were not completed, all the money which had been already spent upon them would be thrown away.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Admiralty had put it to them whether it would be wise for them to abandon works which had cost so large a sum, or to go on expending more in finishing them. Now, he believed that if justice was done to the people, they would abandon those works at once, and save the money which he was sure would never be of any advantage to the public.

§ MR. STAFFORD
said, that the hon. Member was very much mistaken in supposing that any considerable amount was spent upon fortifications in the Channel Islands. There was, it was true, a fortification at Alderney; but nine-tenths of the expenditure, as he had just stated, both at Alderney and at Jersey, were for Harbours of Refuge, and all the money hitherto spent upon these would be useless unless the works were completed. The fortifications at Jersey were not even begun. There was a sum of 50,000l. appropriated for Alderney, and 30,000l. for Jersey. The periods of completion would depend upon the money voted on account of the works by this House.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
would ask the hon. Gentleman to state what was the amount of the original Estimate, and how much money had been already voted.

§ MR. STAFFORD
replied, that the original Estimate of the works at Alderney was 620,000l., and for those at Jersey 700,000l. There had been spent at Alderney 195,000l., and at Jersey 192,000l.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he still was of opinion that it would be better to abandon the works, which could never be of public advantage to the hundredth part of what they would cost.

MR. VERNON SMITH
wished to call attention to the fact that of this sum 13,000l. was appropriated to the erection of a new Custom House and Post Office at Belfast. He thought this Vote ought to be confined exclusively to the maintenance and repair of existing buildings; that new erections should form the subject of a separate Vote.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
admitted the public convenience would be better consulted by that arrangement, but the sum was placed under this head that the whole amount for public buildings might be seen at once.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, with reference to the Estimate of 684l. for the Queen's Colleges at Belfast, Cork, and Galway, he believed it was distictly understood, when Sir Robert Peel brought in his Estimates for these colleges, that both their erection and maintenance afterwards were provided for, and that no money would be required beyond the sum then agreed to. This charge, however, was brought forward year after year, and, though the amount was not large, he objected to it on principle. Then there was the Royal Irish Academy, the amount estimated for which was set down at 3,076l.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that with reference to the last item alluded to by the hon. Member, the lease of the house in which the Royal Irish Academy were located expired last year, and an arrangement was therefore made by which a new house was provided. There could not be a more useful, interesting, and important institution that this was. With regard to the Queen's Colleges, the fact was that in the Act of Parliament by which they were established, no provision was made for their maintenance; and the sum of money originally voted out of the Consolidated Fund for the erection of these colleges having been expended, some means had to be taken for repairing and maintaining them. The sum proposed to be devoted to this object in the Estimates before the House, was a very small one, and he could not imagine that it would be refused.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that he noticed in this Vote a charge of 3,900l. for Phoenix Park. There was, in another Vote, a similar charge on the same subject, he wished to know how that arose.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, that the one amount related to objects connected with 1393 the recreation of the public; and the other to Vice-Regal lodges and expenditure connected with the Lord Lieutenancy—charges which it would have been very improper to have mixed up together.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he must again complain that the Votes connected with this department were constantly increasing. In 1844, the whole sum voted was 757,000l., while this year the Estimate amounted to 1,032,000l. He could not understand how the Vote should have increased to such an extent since 1844.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS
wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Commissioner of Works to the state of the Parliamentary buildings. At present Westminster Hall was running with water, and there was hardly a part of the House where leakages were not occurring. He also wished to know whether there was now a sufficient supply of water in case of fire? They all knew that expensive works had been erected in Orange-street to furnish a supply of water to the Houses of Parliament in case of fire; but when a case of fire did occur last year, it was found that no water was forthcoming.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, it was impossible but that in the present state of the building, defects would arise from time to time; but when complaints were made, they were invariably attended to. With regard to the supply of water in case of fire, he believed that an ample supply was now provided.

LORD SEYMOUR
said, it was true that about a year and a half ago a deficient supply of water did exist, but since that time he had given directions that the water should be gauged twice a day, and that the report should be sent up to the Office of Works every week. This had been constantly done, and there was now no fear of there being an ample supply of water in case of emergency.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
wished to make one or two remarks on this Vote, which was one that was proposed for the first time. The Committee would recollect that last year a Bill was introduced, by which the office of Public Works was separated, and properly separated, from that of the Woods and Forests. For the separation of these two offices, the public were indebted to the late Government. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was, the great expense which had been incurred in consequence of the separation of the two offices. He thought that the separation of the two offices ought to have been attended with some economy; but he found that, before the separation, the charge for the two had amounted to 33,600l., while it had since risen to 43,465l., showing an increase of not less than 10,000l. He also found that at the time the change had been effected, a number of old clerks had been discharged on retiring pensions, while a number of new hands had been put in at a great expense to the public. Then, again, it appeared that the sum to be paid to the Solicitor to the Board of Works, and his clerks, amounted to not less than 3,900l. a year, and that the sum to be paid to the Solicitor to the Woods and Forests and Land Revenue Department, and his clerks, amounted to not less than 7,000l. a year. He certainly thought that those were enormous sums to pay for legal services; and he regretted that the separation of the two offices had been rendered so unpalatable by the addition of about 13,000l. a year to the expenses for clerks and other officers.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he believed the noble Lord was mistaken with reference to the increased charge. There were before the separation of the offices seventy-three officers of different kinds, and the salaries amounted to 23,013l. The numbers of officers in the Board of Works was twenty-eight, whose salaries amounted to 10,385l.; and in the Woods and Forests Department the number of officers was thirty-six, with salaries amounting to 12,596l., making a total of 29,981l.; so that, in fact, there was a small diminution in the expenditure. The solicitor's expenses were formerly 10,018l., but now the charge was 3,900l. and 5,400l., making together 9,300l.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, it appeared that the salaries of the solicitors and their 1395 officers in these two departments, amounted to 9,300l. a year, while the Solicitor to the Treasury received only 2,000l. a year. He could not understand why the latter charge should be so much less than the former.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, that the Vote for the Solicitor to the Treasury did not include the salaries of clerks and other expenses included in the Vote then under their consideration. If all those charges wore added to the Treasury Vote, he believed that Vote would amount to 23,000l. a year.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
said, the item in the Votes was "Solicitor for the Land Revenue, England and Wales (salary of himself and clerks), 3,250l."Then there came" estimated amount of disbursements, 1,500l."The charge for the" Solicitor for the department of the Royal Forests "was 3,900l., the estimated amount of disbursements being 6,500l. The solicitors in Scotland were paid on the average of the three preceding years. The whole principle of paying the Government solicitors required revision.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he was informed that the arrangement for the payment of the solicitors had been made by the noble Lord lately at the head of the Woods and Forests, and that it had been based on the principle that they ought to receive an amount equivalent to their average receipts during a certain number of years.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon this Vote. He thought that nothing could be more discreditable than that the public should be charged with the expense of an office created for the management of the funds of our enormously wealthy Church Establishment.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he wished to know why it was that a portion only of the expenses of the Commission were included in the Vote?

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that that subject had been carefully considered in the year 1847; and it had then been thought that as the duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not wholly 1396 connected with the Church, but embraced such questions as the Tithe-composition, which affected the land, it was but fair that a portion of the expense of the Commission should be defrayed out of the public funds.

§ SIR BENJAMIN HALL
said, he had always objected to this Vote, believing that the Commissioners, out of their enormous revenues, ought to support their own establishment. He remembered that last year the minority who had voted against it had been a large one. He did not think that the public ought to be called upon to bear any portion of the expenses of a Commission which had to manage millions of Church property every year. On that very Commission there was serving one bishop, who, as it appeared from a return lately laid before the House, had an income equal to the united incomes of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Secretary for the Home Department, the Secretary for the Colonies, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the Commissioner of Customs; while there was serving on it another bishop who had an income equal to the united incomes of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and the Serjeant-at-Arms attending that House.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he believed the Commissioners had no duties to discharge except duties connected with the management of the revenues of the Church.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
trusted the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board would turn his attention to the improvement of the agricultural population and of the agriculture of the country generally. He should be very glad to see the establishment of an agricultural department, under which many most valuable statistics might be collected. One matter to which he particularly wished to direct the attention of the Committee was the large quantity of uncultivated land in this country. Whilst our poorhouses were crowded with able bodied labourers, or means were taken to send them out of the country, there were at least 6,000,000 of acres of uncultivated land in England; and within an hour's ride of the place where they now sat there were not less than 30,000 acres of land lying waste. The administration 1397 of the Poor Law required to be watched with great vigilance; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would display as much energy and perseverance as had been manifested by his able predecessor. The administration of the Poor Law had, he willing confessed, been much improved of late years, but it was yet capable of great changes for the better; and he trusted the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) would be turned to the subject of a change in the Law of Settlement.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
said, with regard to the Vote now under consideration, there was no increase beyond the gradual increase which might be expected from the increase of business. With respect to the employment of the poor, and their general condition, particularly as it was affected by the Law of Settlement, he could state to the Committee that the subject had engaged a large portion of his attention, and also of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hull (Mr. Baines). In the ensuing Session he should be prepared to take the whole subject into consideration, and hoped to be able to effect a legislative settlement which would be satisfactory to the country and beneficial to the labouring classes. With respect to the cultivation of waste land, that was, in his opinion, a subject on which no Governmental department could enter. It must be left entirely to individual enterprise. He would merely add that he hoped he might be able, at the end of his stewardship, to give as good an account of it as his predecessor had done.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, the increase in the cost of Poor Law establishments was really astonishing. In the year 1844, the whole charge, for England and Ireland, was 49,700l.; but, in 1847, it amounted to 182,200l.; last year, it was 211,500l.; and this, 221,360l. The greatest increase was in the items with regard to the Irish Poor Law establishments. Last year the items amounted to 46,400l., but in the present to 55,400l.

§ SIR JOHN TROLLOPE
said, the increase in the items with regard to Ireland was attributable to the Medical Charities Act passed last year. With respect to England, no new offices or salaries had been created; the increase was owing to the progressive increase of clerks' salaries.

§ MR. BAINES
said, he thought it an act of common justice to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Trollope) to exculpate him from any blame, if blame it was, belonging to so much of the present 1398 estimate as regarded the English Poor Law Board. He (Mr. Baines) was solely responsible for it, and he was perfectly willing to avow that responsibility. The increase over the estimate of the preceding year was 850l. It arose chiefly from an increase in the salaries of three of the inspectors, which had become an act of common justice in consequence of the additional duties devolving upon them under a recent arrangement. When Lord Courtenay was appointed, at the end of 1850, to the office of Secretary of the Poor Law Board, which he had so ably filled, the inspectorship which he held became vacant. He (Mr. Baines) arrived at the conclusion, after a mature consideration of the subject, that the number of inspectors might be reduced from thirteen to twelve, and he had consequently not filled up the office which had become vacant by Lord Courtenay's promotion. He had certainly hoped that this arrangement would effect a saving of the whole expense of one inspector. It was found, however, in the new distribution of duties which became necessary, that a great amount of additional labour and responsibility devolved upon three of the remaining inspectors, and it had consequently been found necessary to make an addition of 200l. to each of their salaries. Even then, the saving to the country effected by the reduction in the number of inspectors amounted to 580l a year, as the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) would find on a comparison of the present estimate with that for 1850. In the course of this discussion, the House had had the satisfaction of hearing from the right hon. Baronet the President of the Poor Law Board (Sir John Trollope) a distinct pledge, that he would apply himself to the Law of Settlement, with a view of submitting to Parliament a measure upon the subject. A great mass of information had been collected both by Parliament and by the Board over which the right hon. Baronet presided; and that information was now so full that he (Mr. Baines) trusted the subject would be dealt with promptly and manfully. He (Mr. Baines) believed that it would be difficult to point out any one cause which produced an influence so baneful upon the sanitary, the social, and the moral condition of the humbler classes, as the present law of parochial settlement. He (Mr. Baines) would most cheerfully and unreservedly give to the right hon. Baronet his best aid in carrying through Parliament any improvement of the law upon this most important subject.

§ LORD NAAS
said, he could confirm the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trollope) as to the increase on the Irish Estimate being occasioned by the Medical Relief given under the sanction of the Act passed last Session on the subject.

§ SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE
said, that the Estimate was in a certain degree retrospective, and included the salaries of officers under the Irish Poor Law Board for a year and a quarter.

§ MR. HINDLEY
thought that this Vote should be passed as quickly as possible, for he observed in the public prints that a cheque of the Poor Law Secretary had been refused payment at the Bank of England, because the supplies had not been granted.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
thought that the Poor Law officers in Ireland ought not to be paid so highly as those in England, who had more onerous duties to perform.

§ MR. HINDLEY
said, he wished to point out to the Committee that in some districts the provisions of the Factory Act were being violated with impunity. He hoped that the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department would pay attention to this matter, for this violation of the law had given much dissatisfaction.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in stating that there were certain districts in which the Factory Act had not been properly observed; but these districts were few in number. A deputation had lately waited upon him on the subject; and, in consequence of the information which he had received, he had despatched inspectors to those districts where the law had been more notoriously violated than in others; and, if necessary, proceedings would be immediately commenced against the proprietors of such mills. If the law required amendment, Parliament would be asked to make the law sufficiently stringent.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to instruct the Factory Inspectors to work the law in a more rigid and annoying mode than at present. It was easy to say that the law in all cases was not carried into effect; but where was the law that was? He could bear testimony to the activity of some of the Sub-Inspectors. He had heard of one 1400 leaving his gig in a road or lane, and scrambling over hedges and ditches, for the purpose of sneaking into the neighbourhood of a mill before-he could be discovered. Another Sub-Inspector, the son of a bishop, he believed, was observed running a race with two factory girls; but he was beaten by the girls, who got to the factory first and gave intelligence of his coming; for it was not only the employers, but the working people themselves, that were irritated by the mode in which the inspection was carried on. The inspectors were not generally persons who knew so much about their business as they ought; and he warned the right hon. Gentleman against issuing instructions to them to make the law more galling than it now was in many cases, because that would interfere with the present somewhat harmonious action between the employers and the employed, in reference to a law against which he had not a word to say.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, it was not the intention of the present Government more rigidly to enforce the law, but it was the intention of the Government to see that the law was duly observed. The hon. Member (Mr. Bright) was probably not aware that the information with respect to the few instances in which the law was violated, reached the Government in the first instance, not from inspectors, but from master manufacturers in Manchester, afterwards from the working people themselves, and, subsequently, from a deputation, which had waited on him. The law was violated in distant places by working overtime, so as to make the labour hours of children longer than they ought to be; and the moment an inspector went down by train or carriage to inspect the mills, it was found that information was given at the factories, and whatever was contrary to law was stopped before the inspector could obtain admission. If the present law was to be the law of the land, it was only proper that it should be observed, and that the manufacturers who obeyed the law should not be subject to an undue competition with other manufacturers, in distant places, infringing the law by working children beyond time.

§ SIR JOHN TYRELL
said, in reference to accidents by machinery at mills, that the official report showed they had occurred to the number of 2,800. He imagined that if this horrible amount of maiming had taken place in agricultural districts, the hon. Member for Manchester would not have been so silent on the subject.

§ MR. BRIGHT
said, perhaps the hon. Baronet was not aware that Mr. Horner himself, one of the Factory Inspectors, had intimated to the Secretary of State for the Home Department that it would be advisable to alter those clauses of the Factory Act which related to accidents. At present accidents of the most trifling nature must be reported by the surgeon to the inspectors, and by the latter to the Home Office. A smaller number of accidents of a serious character happened to those engaged in the cotton factories, than to an equal amount of working people in any other occupation whatever. When in the lapse of time thrashing machines worked by steam should be used in Essex, the hon. Baronet would then find that they could be worked without giving rise to all those accidents which he conceived to be the necessary consequence of machinery.

§ SIR JOHN TYRELL
trusted that the agriculturists in Essex would at any rate never be found watching the railway trains, when inspectors were sent down, for the purpose of defeating justice.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he could not understand why a charge should be made under this head for Her Majesty's Limner and Clockmaker. There were also items for the Queen's Plate, to be run for at Edinburgh, the Caledonian Hunt, and the Royal Company of Scottish Archers. He could not admit that the people of this country should be taxed for these purposes, especially for the purpose of horse-racing, and, though he would not divide on the present occasion, he should certainly take the sense of the Committee against the item of 1,574l. in the next Vote for fifteen Queen's Plates, to be run for in Ireland.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he must express his dissent from the remarks of the hon. Member, who, it was evident, was no sporting character. He (Colonel Sibthorp) thought it not undesirable to afford some amusement to the people, especially the lower classes, who took great delight in horseracing; which, besides, tended to promote the breed of horses, and increase the consumption of the produce of land.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, there was a long list of the officers of the Household.
1402 There was one item which ran as follows: —257l. 17s. for two gentlemen "at large." Now he should like to know what their duties were. Then there was 250l. Charged for the Lord Lieutenant's Master of the Horse. Why, what a farce was this list of regal attendants attached to such a trumpery office as that of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which it was most desirable should be abolished. There was a charge of 1,574l 6s.2d. for fifteen Queen's Plates for horse races in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Sibthorp) had said that horseraces tended to improve the breed of horses; but he believed that the people of Ireland thought that the good was much counterbalanced by the immorality produced by horseracing. The public feeling was outraged by being called upon to patronise horseracing by grants from the National Exchequer. If Ireland wanted horseraces, let her contribute the expense by private subscription, as was done in this country.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, the hon. Member for Lambeth was very much mistaken if he supposed that the people of Ireland had a strong moral objection to horseraces. No people on the face of the earth enjoyed that sort of amusement more than they did. With regard to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he must also say that the hon. Gentleman laboured under a mistake. There was no subject with respect to which the people of Ireland had expressed so decided an opinion. They were unanimous in the opinion that that office should be retained. That was proved when the subject was mooted two years ago. So strongly was their opinion on that subject expressed, that the Government then in office deemed it advisable to abandon the Bill which they had introduced for the abolition of that office. The centralised system was in bad odour at the other side of the Channel.

§ MR. STANFORD
thought that horseracing was an innocent amusement. It was an innocent amusement which tended to improve the breed of our horses, and that was a matter of no small moment, for we exported horses to every part of the world. As the subject of horseracing had been introduced, he would ask for the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments whilst he adverted to the demoralisation consequent upon the numerous "betting shops" in the metropolis. Since he had brought this subject under the attention of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home 1403 Department he had received numerous communications respecting it from chaplains of gaols and stipendiary magistrates in London. Mr. Serjeant Adams, chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, had written a letter to him in which he stated that the "betting shops" were producing the most mischievous results. A tradesman of Great Russell-street, in a letter which he had written to him on the subject, stated that there were no less than four betting-shops in that street, that he had observed a thousand persons pass out of one of them in an hour and a half, and that the conduct of their frequenters was such that it was almost impossible for a lady passing in front of the shops to escape insult. He wished most earnestly to call the attention of the Secretary of State to these nuisances. The "Derby sweeps" had been put down by the magistrates refusing those publicans who encouraged them, a licence. He thought some system might be devised whereby those receptacles of blacklegs and blackguards might be abolished. They certainly had a most demoralising tendency.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
said, he had received several letters from his constituents on the subject. He did not expect that in the present position of affairs the Government could devote much of their time to "betting-houses;" but he thought something ought to be done as soon as possible to suppress this disgraceful nuisance.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, the attention of the Government had been drawn to the subject. He believed that this evil greatly militated against the welfare of the lower classes, and the mode of suppressing it engaged the anxious attention of the Government.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
believed the best and most effectual mode of suppressing the evil was to put down horseraces altogether. However, not considering the present Government responsible for the items in the Estimates, and seeing that he had no chance of a majority, he would not divide the Committee. But he must state that he objected most strongly to the pay of the gentlemen ushers and gentlemen at large of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He wanted to know of what use were "gentleman at large?"

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
"Gentlemen at large" are so called, because they are free, or "at large," to act upon the orders of the Lord Lieutenant.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
said, he did not think the explanation a satisfactory one.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, that ever since he had a seat in that House he had constantly opposed the voting of any money for secret purposes, and he must now renew his protest against it. He maintained that no money ought to be taken out of the pockets of the people without the people receiving an account of how that money was expended. If the Government wanted a sum for any necessary purpose, let them come forward openly and state its object. He would never lend his sanction to anything that was not all fair and above board.

§ MR. MACGREGOR
said, there was hardly a petty Court in all Europe which did not spend a larger sum than we did for what was called Secret Services, but which in reality were not secret. He knew from official experience that the money was every shilling of it well laid out in obtaining information most important for the State, and having reference to the navigation and commerce of the country, which information could not be had by any other means. He need not refer to the vast sums voted by Austria, Russia, or France for these purposes; but the United States of America and all the free Governments of Europe entrusted their Executive with much larger votes than we did for acquiring this necessary information.

§ SIR GEORGE PECHELL
still thought that the country was entitled to an explanation of the disposal of this Secret Service Money. He wished to know if there was any probability of this item being decreased in future years?

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
thought it was rather strange to say, "We will give you a vote of Secret Service Money if you will let us know how it is spent." Certainly it could be no longer a vote for Secret Services if the Committee was to be told exactly for what various sums were wanted. The proper course would he for the Committee to pass a resolution that there should be no further voting of money for Secret Services. He 1405 agreed with the sensible observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor), and no one would deny that there was no other first-rate Power which did not spend quadruple, and even quintuple, the amount of our Secret Service Vote, which was only 32,000l In troublous times the Foreign Department alone had not only been obliged to spend the whole of that sum, but a much more considerable one; whereas the Vote now before the Committee was for the Secret Service of all the departments of the State. Nor was it all applied for present purposes; there were many pensions to the widows and relatives of persons who had formerly given important information to the country, which had now to be defrayed out of this sum of 32,000l. As to there having been no diminution in the amount, he had in his hand a statement of the annual sums voted for a series of past years, and with the exception of the last year, when the vote was the same as the present, the amount had never been so small as it was now since the year 1822. Yet the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Pechell) could not fail to remember the extension of commerce and the increase in the population of the country which had occurred since 1822—circumstances which necessarily multiplied the demand for information which the State had the means of supplying, but the measures employed in procuring which it was inexpedient that the Administration should publicly promulgate. Instead, therefore, of looking upon this vote with supicion, the hon. Baronet ought rather to see in the fact that a country of the great power and importance of England expended much less for the Secret Service of its Government than any other first-rate Power of Europe or America, cause for congratulation and for confidence in the stability of our institutions. In addition to what he had stated, it must be remembered that not a single shilling could be expended except under the warrant of a Secretary of State. Every Secretary of State was personally responsible for the money expended in his department; and, looking at the smallness of the sum, the importance of the service, the manner in which it was expended, and the vouchers offered at the Audit Office, with the securities for good administration thereby ensured, he could not think the Vote ought to be looked upon with suspicion.

§ COLONEL SIBTHORP
said, he was not convinced by the speech of the right hon. 1406 Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was nuturally ready to justify any expenditure of the public money.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was a great mistake to suppose that a Chancellor of the Exchequer was always disposed, from his position, to defend any expenditure of the public money. On the contrary, he would naturally be always anxious to oppose it. Really nobody should understand the value of money, or the necessity for the strictest economy, so much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, from his daily experience of the innumerable applications that were made to him, he must always be painfully impressed with the poverty of his means.

§ MR. P. SCULLY
thought the Committee need be under no difficulty in understanding how this Secret Service money was applied, as far, at least, as the sister country was concerned. The recent Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) now the Chief Secretary for Ireland, must have thrown very considerable light upon that point. They had all heard how certain newspapers had been hired to write in support of "law and order." He objected to the principle of voting public money for such a purpose, and he hoped the Committee would feel it to be its duty to guard against the recurrence of such transactions. He trusted the present Government would carefully abstain from engaging in them.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I certainly have no hesitation in telling the hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to make any investments of the kind he has referred to in the cause of law and order. I appreciate, and appreciate probably as much as any person in this House, the influence of the press; but I have always observed this, that there is no newspaper whoee support is worth having, that will give its support from corrupt considerations.

§ MR. MACGREGOR
said, he believed every shilling paid by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the editor of the World newspaper was paid out of Lord Clarendon's own pocket.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
believed a portion of that money was at first taken from the Secret Service Fund, but that ultimately all came out of the Lord Lieutenant's pocket. He entirely agreed in the remarks of the right, hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the 1407 value of an uncorrupted press, and was glad to see that Birch had met condign punishment.

§ MR. P. SCULLY
said, there could be no doubt but Birch was, in the first instance, paid out of the Secret Service Money.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, it was rather strange to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor) justifying the example of England by that of despotic Governments.

§ MR. MACGREGOR
said, he had, in an especial manner, referred to the Government of the United States.

§ MR. COWAN
said, that the salaries of the seventeen procurators fiscal, which were fixed, appeared to amount to 11,130l.Now he wished to know whether the diminution in the cost of criminal prosecutions, which was expected to arise from paying these officers by salary instead of fees, had in fact taken place; for he saw that there was an increase of 36,000l. in the whole Law Expenses for Scotland as compared with last year.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that as the salaries of the present procurators fiscal were fixed upon an average of the fees for the five years preceding the change of system, no saving in the sum paid to them could take place during the continuance in office of the present procurators. The saving to be derived from the change was prospective.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that it seemed extraordinary that the Law Expenses for Scotland should be so much larger than for Ireland, which was only 57,909; and he asked for some explanation of the increase on the Scotch Law Expenses as compared with last year?

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, the present vote included a sum for arrears and deficiencies, carried over from previous years.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, that he thought the smallness of the amount of profit derived from the labour of the criminals was not creditable to the management of our prisons. He found, for instance, that the nett produce of the labour of 1,300 persons confined at Millbank was only 4,000l. for the year, while the cost of the various officers and teachers required to superintend their labour was 2,638l., leaving a nett profit of only 1,300l. upon the whole, or 12. per annum, or about ¾d. a day for each prisoner. He thought that was a very sorry result, particularly when it was compared with what was done in America. He was told when he visited the United States, by the Governor of the State of New York, that the labour of the criminals confined in the prison there not only defrayed the whole cost of the establishment, hut left a surplus, which would in ten years actually pay the expense of the erection of the prison.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, that free labour being worth twice as much in the United States as here, it was evidently much more easy to make a profit upon forced labour in that country. The great difficulty we had in England was to prevent labour carried on in prisons and workhouses competing injuriously with free labour.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, he was of opinion that the great object of prisons—the punishment of criminals—was not sufficiently kept in view in some of these establishments, and that the discipline was not of adequate severity.

§ MR. P. SCULLY
thought the reform of the criminals was the great object to be kept in view in prison discipline. He thought it was the duty of the Government to encourage the employment of the prisoners in useful and profitable labour; for the experience of some of the Continental prisons had shown that to instruct criminals, particularly juvenile criminals, in some useful trade was a most efficient means of inducing them to pursue a course of honest industry after quitting the prison.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, he fully concurred in this view of the case. The expenses of gaols and other convict establishments at home and abroad were alarmingly on the increase, which he attributed to the recommendations of the 1409 Prison Committee over which Mr. C. Pearson had presided, not having been Carried out. The fact was, that the visiting justices took it upon themselves, acting generally upon the reports of the chaplains, to dispense with portions of the sentence. This took place wherever the prisoners showed any signs of repentance—whenever their "hearts appeared to be touched," and the reformation which took place under the circumstances was something quite wonderful. He suggested that some limit should he put to the power of the justices in this matter, for wherever it had been exercised to the prejudice of strict prison discipline, crime had increased.

§ MR. PACKE
said, that in the prison in the county with which he was connected, discipline of a most wholesome and reformatory character had for the last few years been enforced, and the consequence was, that whereas criminals used to return to them over and over again, they now very rarely returned a second time.

MR. SLANBY
said, that he did not object to discipline of a reformatory character being adopted in our prisons, but he thought it was quite vain to expect that prison or workhouse labour could compete with free labour without that assistance from the county or poor-rates which he did not think it was fair to give.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, that in consequence of the difficulty of disposing of our convicts which had been felt for the last few years, the Government had been driven to increase the convict establishments both at home and abroad, which had necessarily led to an increase of expense. The adoption of a system of discipline of a reformatory character had also tended to increase the charge. The convict was now kept in solitary confinement for a year; he was then sent to one of these establishments, where he was kept to hard labour for a year and a half, and then if his conduct had been sufficiently good, he was sent out to a Colony with a ticket of leave, or under such regulations as the. Secretary of State might appoint. All this entailed additional expense, but he trusted that the system was operating beneficially upon the persons submitted to its influence. A portion of the Vote for the Convict Establishments for the present year was for the cost of the new prisons; for instance, that at Dartmoor (which was only occupied in the spring of 1851), and that of Portsmouth. 1410 During the period that the prisoners were undergoing solitary confinement, they were in some instances allowed to labour, but in others not. While undergoing this part of their sentence, they were subjected to a moral discipline to prepare them for the subsequent portions of it.

§ SIR CHARLES BURRELL
thought it most desirable to employ prisoners in some profitable work—first, because, if they did nothing, the pressure upon the rates would be heavier; and, secondly, because the best way to make prisons distasteful would be to keep people hard at work while they were there.

§ CAPTATN SCOBELL
hoped, if this subject were to be inquired' into, that the dietary question would not escape attention. In some places it was on a scale which positively made prisons attractive, and in the county where he acted the magistrates frequently sentenced prisoners to only two or three weeks' imprisonment, when they might give them much more, because the diet increased so rapidly after that period that these persons thought it a good thing to be in prison. It was well known that the prison dietary was far superior to that of the workhouse, and he believed also beyond that of the peasantry of this country generally.

§ MR. JACOB BELL
said, he fully concurred in the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Bath with reference to the superiority of the prison over the workhouse dietary, and he would instance, as a proof of it, the fact that paupers frequently broke the workhouse windows in order to he sent to gaol.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, it too frequently happened as he had previously mentioned, that, instead of carrying out the sentences on prisoners, those men were given up to the care of the chaplain, or some other inspector of morals, who, after a while, says the hearts of those prisoners are beginning to be touched, and they are then sent to a better dietary; and, of course, under those circumstances, an immense number of conversions are constantly taking place. He thought it would be much better if the prisoners were employed in some useful labour, which would occupy the whole of their time, and which would contribute in some degree to defray the enormous expense to which they put the country. In Reading gaol, for instance, the inmates were infinitely more comfortable than paupers in a workhouse.

§ MR. STANFORD
said, that he thought that the philanthropic portion of the community who recommended that prisoners should be better treated, and better fed, and be relieved from all hard labour, committed a great mistake, and were guilty of injustice to the honest and industrious poor. In Reading gaol, which was regarded as a model prison, there was no hard labour, but a reformatory system was adopted. He looked upon that as a kind of inverted process, which first allowed a man to commit flagrant delinquencies or gross crimes, and then fed and clothed him, learnt him habits of cleanliness, and provided him with mental entertainment. It was, in fact, offering a premium for the commission of crime, placing a criminal in a position which was infinitely preferable to that of the inmates of workhouses. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Slaney), whose exertions in favour of the working classes he was always ready to admit, had enunciated a principle against employing prisoners in gaols and paupers in workhouses, which was so dangerous in its character, that it ought not to be passed sub silentio. He said, if they allowed a shoemaker or tailor to exercise his trade, while supported by the county rate, they would bring his labour in competition with that of the honest and unassisted workman. Now he (Mr. Stanford) would refute that assertion by putting a case, which, he contended, was irrefutable. Supposing forty persons had to contribute to the maintenance of five others, who were tailors, shoemakers, or belonged to other trades, would it not be to the advantage of the former to allow the five to exercise these trades, and then to sell the produce of their labour, and apply the funds to the diminution of the expense incurred for their maintenance? It was a gross fallacy to permit the inmates of workhouses and prisons to lead an entirely indolent life, on the ground that if they were employed, their labour would be brought in competition with that of other portions of the community.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, he was of opinion that the inmates of the workhouses ought to be constantly employed; but not on labour of that nature which, by the aid of parish bounty, might be brought in competition with the free labour of others. Every one who considered the subject, found that to be a very embarrasing question.

§ MR. JACOB BELL
said, that the inju- 1412 rious competition which had been adverted to depended on the goods being sold for half the price for which they could he obtained by free labour.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, if the system of transportation, which this money kept alive, were beneficial to the mother country and the Colonies, he would be the last man to object to the Vote; but he believed, that instead of acting as a warning to persons at home, the punishment of transportation was looked upon as leading to a life of comfort, if not of affluence, in another land. He considered that the system of transportation had signally failed; and that at present a strong incentive was held out to criminals to risk detection for the purpose of being sent to the neighbourhood of the gold fields. So strong was this impression in the Australian colonies, that the colonists, who had formerly been the strongest agitators against the continuance of transportation, had lately ceased to make any active opposition to the system, because they believed it impossible that the Government could hesitate a moment as to the expediency of immediately abolishing transportation. The temptation to free emigration, in consequence of the discovery of the gold-fields, was pretty strong, but he believed the temptation to crime was equally strong. The Government had reduced the military force in New South Wales, and the consequence was, that the Governors now dreaded an armed invasion of convicts from the penal settlements of Van Diemen's Land, while they had not force enough at their disposal to keep order. By continuing the present system, they were ruining Van Diemen's Land, and endangering the existence of neighbouring Colonies, while at the same time crime increased instead of diminished.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, that while they were boasting of the prosperity of the country and of the comfort of the people, an immense increase of criminal offences had of late years taken place in this country, and a material addition to the cost of convict establishments had consequently ensued. In 1805 the number of persons committed or held to bail in England and Wales was 4,600; in 1815 it was 7,800; in 1821, 16,500; in 1831, 19,600; in 1841, 27,740; and in 1848, 30,300. He believed the cause to be, that while the comfort and prosperity of the rich and mid- 1413 dle classes had increased, the comfort of the humbler classes had not increased in the same proportion. He thought they were mistaken in supposing that mere imprisonment would prevent the increase of crime; that object could only be attained by improving the condition of the youth of the country, and by giving them a religious education.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, it was astonishing to see the increase in every one of these items. In this item alone there was an increase of 40,000l.; in the next, of 17,000l.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, that one cause of the increase was the increase of prisoners; another cause was an additional amount for their maintenance. These were the principal causes of the increase.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, he considered that a large proportion of the expenditure for the maintenance of prisoners might be avoided, if greater efforts were made, particularly in the agricultural and rural districts, for the prevention of crime. He thought more attention should be given to the selection of the county police. In rural districts he found that great laxity had obtained in this respect.

§ MR. F. SCULLY
wished to know how it was that while there was an increase of 38,000l. in these Estimates for England, the increase was only 2,000?. for Ireland. Was it owing to the smaller increase of crime in the latter country? This was a gratifying view for his country.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIPFE
said, the fact was, the sum in both cases was as nearly as possible alike. The prisoners in borough gaols, as well as those in county gaols, were now supported out of the Consolidated Fund, it having been felt that an injustice was done to the boroughs, and this accounted for the greater part of the increase. A further sum was also incurred in sending out 100 boys to the Colonies.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, there was an excess of 3,000l. in this Vote over that of last year. Some of the difference might be accounted for by arithmetical errors in the Estimates of last year—a proof of the slovenly manner in which these things were got up. There was an 1414 item for religious instructors for the convicts. This duty used to be discharged by the surgeon-superintendents; he presumed the parties now employed were not clergymen, but Scripture readers; and their presence might be apt to cause insubordination on shipboard. He doubted very much if any advantages would arise from the employment of this class of instructors. A sum of 2,000l. was charged for those persons, including retiring allowances.

§ SIR HARRY VERNEY
said, he was glad that there had been no response to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member in condemnation of the religious instructors.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, there was here another increase of 70,000l. over last year: surely some explanation would be given for this enlarged expenditure. The items showed that there was great want of economy; 6,087l. was a large sum to charge this country for providing religious instructors for the convicts of Van Diemen's Land, which had three places of worship of the Established Church. There was not a district in the island which had not a beneficed clergyman; so that the convicts had ample spiritual assistance. Let them compare the state of things in this Colony with Bermuda and Gibraltar, in which there were many convicts. He believed that 300l. would be sufficient to meet any useful purposes intended by the Vote.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
explained that the increase in the Vote was owing to its being found necessary to have a new convict establishment in Western Australia, where there were now 1,450 convicts. With regard to the salaries and allowances for religious instruction to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Anstey) objected, hs begged to say that there were only three Colonies in which the expense was incurred, namely, Bermuda, Gibraltar, and Van Diemen's Land. In New South Wales and Western Australia no public provision had yet been made for the religious instruction of the convicts. He was sure that the House and the country would not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that although there were 21,000 convicts in Van Diemen's Land, it was only necessary to provide religious instruction for 4,000.

§ MR. TUFNELL
said, that by the Estimates, it appeared that there were 1,450 convicts in that Colony, and yet the salaries of the convict officers amounted to 15,200l.; perhaps the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary could account for that?

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that this was the first year of the new establishment in Western Australia, when larger expenses would necessarily be liable to be paid, that were not to be properly included in the usual current expenses of the establishment. Moreover, the establishment had been built for a much larger number of convicts than was now in occupation of it; and, taking all things into account, the sum sought in the Vote did not form a fair criterion of what were to be the average annual expenses under this head. However, his attention had been called to the large amount of the expenditure which was incurred in these Colonies, and he would see whether by any means it could be reduced.

§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE
said, that this year's Vote for Western Australia included, also, certain arrears of expenditure incurred last year.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, he did not consider that either the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) or the hon. Under Secretary (Sir W. Jolliffe) had given a satisfactory explanation of the salaries and allowances for religious instruction. If New South Wales and Western Australia made provision for that on the voluntary principle, why should not Van Diemen's Land do the same? He found that there was an unaccountable increase in other items also. For instance, for stores, repairs of hulks and boats, buildings and repairs of buildings, the Estimate last year was 7,420l., while this year it was 20,703l. He retained his objection to the Vote, but he should not give the Committee the trouble of dividing. Vote agreed to; as was also—(47.) 160,000l. Public Education (Great Britain).

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
then proposed that 52,343l. should be voted for the salaries, house expenses, &c, of the British Museum. (This estimate stood No. 12 on the list.)

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he objected to taking this Estimate out of its regular order. In fact, he had not expected it would come on that night, and had not had time to examine it.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
stated that the Government had no interest in pressing this Vote; but it had always been customary to allow precedence to the Estimate for the British Museum. The late Sir Robert Peel, and the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell)—greater authorities than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was—had always accorded this privilege to the Estimate for the British Museum.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
hoped the Committee would do what they had always done, and allow this Vote to have precedence; but at the same time he must observe that on the present occasion it had not had that precedence it usually had.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
explained that it was his fault entirely, having at the moment forgotten the usual custom.

§ MR. STANFORD
said, he had been requested to bring before the Committee the case of certain persons connected with the British Museum, who complained of a grievance to which they had been subjected. The attendants were divided into three classes, one being engaged in the department of antiquities, and others in the departments of natural history, and of manuscripts and literature. By a recent regulation, the three classes were amalgamated, and an attendant, commencing now under the new arrangement at a minimum salary of 50l., would not attain the maximum salary of 105l. for a considerably longer period of years than under the old system.

§ MR. GOULBURN
said, that there was no ground for dissatisfaction to the attendants under the new arrangement, which had been adopted by the Trustees in conformity with the recommendations of the Report of the Committee of that House. That arrangement was, that the attendants should be paid by salary instead of by fees, and that, in accordance with the principle adopted in most of the public offices, persons appointed to offices, as attendants, should enter in the lowest class, from which they could rise, by intelligence and ability, to the highest class. But the trustees, in making that arrangement, stated that it would not apply to those who had been ^appointed under the old system.

§ MR. STANFORD
said, he could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, because he understood those attendants would be affected. They said that the recent change made their position 1417 worse, and not better; that the rate of promotion was slower; and that a great many years must elapse before the maximum salary could be attained.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, he must complain that the Vote was taken out of its proper place. He did not think it fair to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), who had a Motion on the paper on the subject.

The CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was the custom to take the vote for the Museum before certain other Votes; and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart), who was an experienced Member of the House, and who, indeed, was seldom absent from his seat, must have been aware of that circumstance. All that the Government wanted was, that the business should be proceeded with.

§ SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS
said, that he had only followed the precedent of last year. He left it to the Committee to decide whether he should go on with this Vote.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN
hoped that if No. 12 was to be taken first on this Vote, it would in future be placed as No. 1.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
would take care that this should not occur again, but he had only followed the precedent of former years.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he had reason to complain that this item was taken out of its order, but, as he had no objection to the Vote itself, he would not oppose its being proceeded with.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, that if the Vote was persisted in, he would move that the Chairman report progress.

§ MR. W. J. FOX
begged to inquire on the subject of Education, whether the Grants for Education would continue to be distributed on the same principle as last year? It was desirable that some statement should be made on the subject, considering the change of Administration which had taken place, more especially as it was believed that the views of the present Government were not altogether coincident on the subject of Education with those of former Governments. He did not know an opportunity so fitting as the present for a statement of their intentions.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the question which the hon. Member for Oldham had asked was, whether any change was in- 1418 tended to be made relative to the system of National Education in Ireland? One or two questions had already been asked of the present Government since it came into office on that subject, and the answer which had been given was, that with respect to the combined system of education in Ireland, so far as it could be carried out, it was the wish of the Government to further and promote that object. But in endeavouring to carry out that system, he might say that hitherto an injustice had been done. Certain members of the Established Church in Ireland, who from conscientious motives objected to the mode in which a portion of the grant was applied, complained that they did not receive any aid from the grant in support of the schools immediately conducted under their notice. In addition to that, another objection was raised with reference to the peculiar encouragement given by the Government to those who adhered to the national system; for while all those who supported the national system were patronised by the Government, every minister of the Established Church who conscientiously differed from that system was not only precluded from taking any portion of the grant, but was also precluded from any chance of preferment in the Church. The effect of this was to exclude 1,700 out of 2,200 of the clergy of the Church of England in Ireland from all chance of ecclesiastical preferment, although many of them were in other respects strong supporters of the late Government. These objections prevailed in the Established Church of Ireland to a great extent—first, as to the mode in which the money was applied—an objection which was strongly and often urged—the answer of the present Government as to any change in that respect was this, that certainly with a view of encouraging members of the Established Church as well as members of every other religious body in promoting education in Ireland, the Government thought that a variation ought to take place from the practice that had previously prevailed in the distribution of the grant. And, with regard to patronage, they thought that upon every principle of justice and fairness it ought to be dispensed in favour of those who conscientiously took objection to the combined system, as well as of those who supported that system. The Government were anxious that those who desired to support the national system should have the combined system 1419 carried on; but they did not think that they ought to exclude from sharing in the grant, or from partaking of the patronage of the Government, those who from conscientious motives were opposed to that system.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, it had been his misfortune to differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) on former occasions with reference to this Vote; but when he so differed from him, he had to defend a measure of a former Colleague of his, the present head of the Government; and the injustice, if there were injustice in the matter, as alleged by the parties adverse to the grant, was an injustice which was well weighed from time to time. When the Earl of Derby was his (Sir J. Graham's) Colleague, he was not only the author, but the steady defender and supporter of this measure; and he never admitted there was any injustice in the mixed grant.

§ MR. WALPOLE
begged to state that he had never said there was any injustice in the mixed system. On the contrary, he said that the injustice was, that those who objected from conscientious motives to the mode in which the grant was applied, were precluded from any chance of preferment, merely because of their conscientious objection to the mixed system.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he had understood the right hon. Secretary of State to say that there were two objections urged on this subject, and that the second objection was not with reference to the application of the grant, but with reference to the distribution of the patronage of the Government. But it appeared to him (Sir J. Graham) that the right hon. Gentleman implied that there was also injustice in the mixed system of education itself, from which 1,700 clergymen of Ireland were conscientious dissentients. Now, what he (Sir J. Graham) confidently contended, and what the Earl of Derby contended on a former occasion, was, that if you departed from the system of mixed education—if you attempted to rectify what was deemed to be an injustice in that system, you must come to a system of separate grants, to be made in proportion to the population of Ireland; and he was much mistaken if the Established Church in Ireland would gain materially by such a mode of distribution. If the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox) had not pressed for some information on this subject, they 1420 would not have heard one syllable in reference to it that evening. He (Sir J. Graham) said he was responsible as a Minister for the share he took in that measure. The policy of it was to be traced directly to the fixed opinions of the Earl of Derby, who was its author; and until it should be declared to he the policy of the Government in regard to the distribution of this grant, which had been moved for by the hon. Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Hamilton), notwithstanding his former hostility to it, without mentioning anything respecting the intention of the Government respecting it, to make an alteration in its mode of distribution; until a change should be proposed on the responsibility of Ministers with reference to the policy of education in Ireland, which policy had been hitherto regarded as that of the present Prime Minister, who was the author of the measure—until he heard such a proposition from the Ministerial side of the House, he would not press the quastion upon their attention. With respect to the distribution of patronage, the complaint on that head must apply to the last Government, and not to the Government of Sir Robert Peel; because, as he (Sir J. Graham) had stated on a former occasion, there were three bishops in Ireland who, if he mistook not, unfortunately, most unfortunately, were opposed to the system of mixed education; and although they were all three elevated to the bench by his late lamented Friend Sir Robert Peel, yet they used all their episcopal influence against the mixed system of education in Ireland.

§ VISCOUNT EBRINGTON
said, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) spoke of the exclusion of the clergy of the Established Church from all hope of preferment, he seemed to forget the enormous amount of patronage in the hands of the bishops of the Established Church in Ireland, and a great part of which had, in past times, been sedulously employed by them for the encouragement of resistance to that combined system of education which successive Governments, down to the present time, had thought it their duty to defend.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
would entreat the Government to consider whether what at first sight might appear to be a desirable alteration in the present system of education in Ireland could safely be made. They might depend upon it that that system was only carried on by mutual forbearance and compromise, and by the cooperation of good men, who were content 1421 to sink minor differences for the sake of promoting an object of such paramount importance. He could not avoid taking that opportunity of expressing Lis sense of the deep obligation this country was under to a lamented prelate now no more, who in his life was an example of every Christian virtue—Archbishop Murray. It was to the firmness as well as piety and active charity of that eminent man, that the success of this mixed education system was attributable. Let the Government beware how they touched the outworks of that edifice, without being sure that the whole fabric would not fall. They were treading upon ground of a most perilous and unsafe description.

§ MR. WALPOLE
begged to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), and from the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere). He (Mr. Walpole) was in the recollection of the Committee when he declared that not one word escaped from him by which it could be inferred that the combined system of education was intended to be superseded. On the contrary, he had already stated, in answer to a question put by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord John Russell), that there was no intention on the part of the Government to interfere with the open system of national education; but he said then what he had said to-night, that he thought when public grants of money were made for the purpose of education, it was but reasonable that every portion of the community should receive a share of that grant; and that it was worthy of consideration whether those who on account of their conscientious scruples were at present excluded from participating in that grant, should not be included in it in future. He had gone on to say that he did think it an injustice to the members of the Church of Ireland who conscientiously objected to that grant, to be excluded from it merely from the grounds upon which they were now prevented from participating in it. That was all he had said—["No, no!"]—at all events, that was all he had meant to convey; and he did not believe a word had ever fallen from him which would justify the inference that the Government had ever intended to supersede the present system of education in Ireland.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what was intended by the Government? The right hon. Gentleman had 1422 told the Committee what was not intended; but in a matter of this great importance, affecting as it did in the highest degree the feeling's of the people of Ireland, it was desirable to know exactly what was intended. The right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that at present there was an injustice in the system, and he (Sir J. Graham) wanted to know wherein was the injustice in the present distribution of the money. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that in his opinion, as now distributed under the mixed system, there was an injustice, and that that injustice ought to be remedied. It was not unreasonable, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he were of opinion that there was a practical injustice, to what extent he intended to adhere to the system, and how he intended to include the members of the Established Church in the participation of this grant, the mixed system of education being retained.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he could not do better than repeat the observation he had made to the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. He said then it was worthy of consideration whether some portion of that grant might not be applied to those members of the Established Church and others—for there were others in Ireland who objected equally with them—whether some portion of that grant might not be applied to those who, from conscientious motives, objected to the present mode of distribution. He had never intimated that there was any plan on the part of the Government as to the way in which it should be done; but he had said simply that it was a matter deserving of consideration. The term "injustice" he intended to apply to the refusal of preferment and patronage to persons merely on the ground that they would not give their adhesion to the mixed system of education in Ireland. That was an injustice of which he thought they had a right to complain; and in answer to the question of the right hon. Baronet, he might say that the remedy for that injustice was to distribute the patronage fairly amongst those who dissented from, at well as those who were in favour of, the combined system of national education in Ireland; and he believed that the patronage had been so distributed since Her Majesty's present Government had come into power.

§ MR. G. A. HAMILTON
said, he was quite prepared to propose the Vote, under 1423 the impression that there was a full under-Standing in the Committee, in consequence of what fell from his right hon. Friend some time ago, that it was the intention of Government to take that Vote into their consideration, and to adopt some means of ascertaining whether the system which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had taken upon himself to assert was a united system, was a united system or not, for that was a point upon which great difference of opinion prevailed in Ireland. He was unwilling to enter into a discussion upon the subject, because he thought that, all things considered, it was not desirable that a discussion should be proceeded with on a question of this nature at that partiticular moment. He repeated, however, that he was quite willing to propose the Vote, upon the understanding, which he believed the Committee had come to, that the Government had signified an intention of taking means to ascertain whether this system was a combined system or not; and, further, of considering whether some mode might not be devised by which to remove the conscientious objections entertained by a considerable portion of the members of the Established Church in Ireland. With regard to the course which he himself had taken upon the question, he remembered stating in that House, on one occasion, that the national system of education in Ireland was one of the institutions of the country, and that, considering the number of schools in connexion with it, it would not be consistent with what was right and just to divide the House against it, but that he thought such modification might be introduced into it as, without subverting the system, would remedy the injustice of which a large proportion of the Protestant population of Ireland complained.

§ MR. KEOGH
said, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and his right hon. and learned Colleague in the representation of the University of Dublin, had hitherto been the most consistent and determined opponents of the national system of education; and now the hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of a modification of that system. Now, that was exactly the same expression which was applied to every other subject, religious, social, commercial, or political, on which hon. Gentlemen opposite had to touch. He asserted that two-thirds of the Derbyite candidates in Ireland had distinctly pledged them-selves—not to support national education as 1424 it existed—not to support Mayhooth Col-lege—but actually to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act of last Session. This, he would admit, was perhaps only a modification. But what was the modification that was wanted? He knew that Government dealt in negatives, and that they could enumerate a long catalogue of things they did not mean to do; but he wanted to know what they meant to do. He had heard that it was essential to have consistency in public men. It had been generally admitted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had formed and marked out the present system of national education in Ireland. But when the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and who was now the Secretary to the Treasury, had asked the House every Session to inquire into the national system, with a view to its total alteration; and on the last occasion that he did so the noble Lord then Member for King's Lynn, the late Lord George Bentinck, representing not only his own sentments but the opinions of his noble sire, was the eloquent and determined opponent of the Motion then made by the present Secretary to the Treasury, who was now moving the Vote of which he always had been the consistent opponent. That also was a modification. Well, then, if there was to be a modification in Maynooth, and in this most important matter to the people of Ireland—if they were to have every day and night perpetual modifications, and a Secretary of the Treasury saying one thing at Liverpool, while the First Lord of the Treasury was saying another thing in London, he would say there was no confidence to be placed in political men, and that the sooner a declaration was extracted from them of what they intended to do, the better it would be for the character of Parliament for their consistency and for the country.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, he considered that the worst argument that could be employed was the argumentum ad hominem; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman had criticised the consistency of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he had himself adhered to the line of politics which he had originally adopted; for if he did not greatly mistake, the hon. and learned Gentleman entered public life as a member of a Conservative body, and as a Conservative? A change, however, had "come o'er the spirit of his dream;" and the hon. and learned Gentleman, who 1425 had joined a totally opposite party, now advocated totally opposite principles with as much talent and as much honesty as he had formerly advocated Conservative principles. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), and the hon. and learned Gentleman, in their remarks, had used the term the people of Ireland. If the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to assert that he represented the entire population of Ireland, he must beg to dissent; and though he was desirous of paying due respect to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, yet he must, at the same time, declare that the Protestant and Presbyterian part of Ireland were equally entitled to the attention of that House, for they represented a large proportion of the wealth, intelligence, and commerce of that part of the Empire. The late Sir Robert Peel appointed three members of the English Church to the prelacy in Ireland, and these three bishops were all of opinion that the national system of education ought to be reconsidered with a view of discovering some mode by which 1,700 members of the Established Church in Ireland might be able in their parish schools to read the Scriptures. Had the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) read the debate on the question, he would have seen that one of the most learned of those prelates (the Bishop of Ossory) had not asked for a reversal of the system, but had recommended a reconsideration of it, so as to allow clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland to do as clergymen of the Established Church did in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Home Department had not disentitled himself to the respect of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland for what he desired to do. The right hon. Gentleman did not desire to withdraw a sixpence of the grant from the Roman Catholics; hut he wished to devise some change which in his (Mr. Whiteside's) belief, if carried out, would improve the system both in Ireland and Scotland. He would beg to remind hon. Gentlemen, that out of the number of pupils in the national schools, there were between 36,000 and 40,000 pupils members of the Church of Rome.

§ MR. KEOGH
said, he must beg leave to answer the statement made so openly by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he (Mr. Keogh) had entered that House as a supporter of the Conservative party. Now he had very frequently heard that same statement made, but not at such a time 1426 and in such a manner as to permit him to give an explanation and contradiction. It ought to be known to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as it was certainly known to many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom he was addressing, that such a statement was wholly and entirely unfounded. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) knew that the statement was untrue; he had the most entire and perfect reliance on that hon. Gentleman's honour, believing that no consideration would induce him to travel out of that line which conscience dictated, and truth enjoined. He (Mr. Keogh) entered that House at a peculiar time—he entered it when to he a supporter of the right hon. Baronet the late Sir Robert Peel was to place himself in a position of great unpopularity in Ireland. He believed he was the only man in the country who ventured to put himself in that position. He would, however, claim no merit on that ground. Conscience dictated to him the course he should pursue, and he followed that course. He placed prominently in his addresses, which appeared in every newspaper in Dublin, the fact that he avowed himself to be a distinct, direct, unequivocating supporter of the commercial and political policy recommended by that right hon. Baronet; and that right hon. Baronet having been driven from power by those hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite, by a combination which it was unnecessary then to describe, he was perfectly prepared to support the policy that right hon. Baronet advocated. He might say, the records of that House and the recollections of hon. Members would prove that to that commercial policy ever since he had entered that House he had firmly and continuously adhered; and further, that he had never given a vote in contravention of that policy. He should be sorry to recriminate with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside); but, as far as his policy and consistency were concerned, he would say for himself that he never was the person to go into private quarters and private circles, and hold himself out as the supporter of a policy he afterwards opposed. He did not profess in early life to be an advocate of a reform in the representation of the people. He never held out to the people that he preferred republican to monarchical principles. He did not go down amongst a portion of the people of Ireland, with whom republican principles were a matter of history, and hold himself out as a person pre- 1427 pared to carry those principles to their uttermost limit. He took his principles from a more moderate level. He saw the right hon. Baronet, Sir Robert Peel, was prepared to do justice to the people of Ireland, and he gave him his support. He now declared his honest conviction to be that the right hon. Baronet was worthy of support. He had sat in that House for five years, and the records of the House would bear out the assertion he now made. He had declared on entering that House, that he was a free-trader. He still adhered to that opinion; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had reflected, he would not have dwelt on such topics, the more especially if he looked to the hon. Gentleman who sat on his left.

§ MR. WHITESIDE
said, that if the hon. and learned Member asserted that he (Mr. Whiteside) had ever expressed anti-monarchical opinions at any time of his life, he could only tell him it was simply a fiction. He had always maintained monarchical principles. For the twenty years that he had practised at the bar, he bad maintained what he considered true and sound Conservative opinions. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, as many of his countrymen had done before him, drawn, in what he had said, on his imagination for his facts.

§ SIR JOHN TYRELL
said, he regretted that the debate bad taken this personal turn, but he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) was entitled to lecture Her Majesty's Government, or Members on that, the Ministerial, side of the House, on modification of opinion, unless he could show some consistency in his own personal conduct. Now he had a strong recollection that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he first entered the House, took his opinions from the moderate level of the Carlton Club. If that were so, why was he not now sitting on this side of the House? Besides, if he (Sir J. Tyrell) was not mistaken, the hon. and learned Gentleman looked up to a superior, and took his opinions from the Synod of Thurles, and his Holiness the Pope, who had' denounced the system of mixed education which was so much patronised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), and the Members of Her Majesty's late Government. If the Government felt that there was an injustice is a portion of Her Majesty's subjects being debarred by their conscientious opinions 1428 from sharing in the education grant, there was no inconsistency in their attempting to remedy the evil; and, certainly, a lecture came with an ill grace from the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was supposed to represent—he would not say a great boroughmonger, but at all events a gentleman who was anxious to send a number of Members to that House, among others the hon. and learned Member for Athlone. He could not congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on raising this debate at four o'clock in the morning—[An Hon. MEMBER: It is only half-past twelve.] Well, as it was an Irish debate, it would probably last till that time, and that, too, when at an earlier period of the evening the leader of the Opposition had pressed upon the Government the necessity of expediting the public business.

§ MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY
said, he must congratulate the hon. Baronet on being in advance of the time. It indicated a favourable change on the part of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House; but he certainly must say that the hon. Baronet was the last person in whom he could have expected so happy a phenomenon. But the hon. Baronet appeared to him intentionally to mislead the Committee as to the real question before them. The question they had to decide was not the consistency of hon. Members on either side of the House—the question was, What did Ministers mean? In the case of Protection, modification meant Free Trade, and it also meant the restoration of protection: for the noble Lord—[A cry of "Question!"] This was the question. The question was the meaning of "modification." He would refer them to the great lexicographer of the Protectionists—the Duke of Richmond. By modification, that noble individual understood the restoration of Protection, pure and simple. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was a Free-trader, understood by "modification," the maintenance of Free Trade. Now, he wanted to know what was the meaning of the modification of the national education system as it was in Ireland? Did it mean a total repeal of that system, or its maintenance? The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had told them that it was unjust to withhold support from the 1,700 parsons in Ireland, each of whom had a school in which he taught the sacred Scriptures, according to the doctrines of the Established Church. Now there were 4,000 schools 1429 which were benefited by the grant; and if it was proposed to apply any portion of the grant to these 1,700 schools, he wished to know whether the Government intended to make any allowance to those Roman Catholics who, like the parsons to whom he had referred, were opponents to a mixed system of education, and had schools under their care which received no aid from the public treasury? If it was the intention of the Government to take any steps that would do damage to the present system of national education, he could assure them that the carrying out of such intention would be most displeasing to the great bulk of the people.

§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he wished to remind the Committee of the question before them. That question was the Vote for the combined system of education in Ireland, and as that Vote had been proposed by the Government, and, as far as he could collect, hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to maintain that system, the best thing they could do in the present state of Parliament would be to support the Vote. A great deal had been said as to the intentions of the Government on this subject. He might be permitted to inform those hon. Members who had addressed the Committee, that when the Government had to propose any change in a subject of so much importance as that under consideration, they would not do so in a Committee of Supply. They were all anxious that the combined system of education should be properly supported; and whether they thought it should be permanent, or whether they were in favour of modifying it, they were all prepared at present to support it as it existed. It could not be supported without the passing of this Vote, and he therefore hoped the Committee would agree to it.