Commons Sitting of 25 July 1859

MINUTES
. PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Militia Ballots Suspension; Military Savings Banks; Roman Catholic Charities; County Cess (Ireland) Acts Continuance; Manufactures (Ireland) Acts Continuance; Dublin Police; Colonial Legislatures' Power of Repeal; Barbuda Government; Thames Watermen and Lightermen.
2° Queen's Remembrancer, AMP; c.; Police (Counties and Boroughs) Law Amendment; Vexatious Indictments; Fireworks Act Amendment; Universities Incorporation Act Amendment.
3° Westminster New Bridge; Consolidated Fund (£7,000,000;; Pawnbrokers.

SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
MR. LAINGsaid, he rose to move that the House go into Committee of Supply, and he would take the opportunity to appeal to hon. Gentlemen who had notices of Amendments upon that Motion to defer them until the evening sitting, when Supply would again be taken.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to inquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to proceed that evening with the Income-tax Bill, which had not yet been printed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that the Bill, although printed, had not yet been distributed to hon. Members, and therefore he could not press the second reading that evening. He would propose to take it the next day.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he was willing to yield to the appeal of the Secretary for the Treasury, and postpone his Motion.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he should defer his Motion until Thursday.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERobserved that he thought he ought to proceed with his Motion respecting Greenwich Hospital.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would remind the hon. and gallant Member that when Supply was fixed for morning sittings the attendance consisted chiefly, if not entirely, of Members who wished to discuss the Estimates, and therefore the hon. and gallant Member would be doing himself an injustice if he did not postpone his Motion until he had a more extended audience. SIR CHARLES NAPIER said, in that case he would accede to the suggestion, and defer his Motion until the evening sitting.

MUTINOUS PROCEEDINGS IN THE ROYAL NAVY.—QUESTION.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to ask a question on a matter which he believed and hoped had been much exaggerated. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the report which had appeared in the public papers, with reference to certain occurrences alleged to have taken place on board Her Majesty's ships the Liffey, the Cœzar, and the Hero, was true, and if so what steps the Admiralty had adopted in reference thereto. In putting this question he wished to disclaim all intention of cavilling at the conduct of the officers on board any of Her Majesty's ships. He apprehended that that House would feel it to be its duty at all times to support the officers of the navy in the discharge of the very onerous functions which devolved on them. Much less was he there to apologise for crews who, through misapprehension or error of judgment, might have been led into any acts of insubordination: but owing, perhaps, to exaggerated statements which had appeared in public journals a great deal of misapprehension and some degree of alarm had been created in the public mind, and he was most anxious that an authoritative statement from his noble and gallant Friend should put the public in possession of the real facts of occurrences which had taken place on board the three ships to which his question referred. The first case to which he would refer was that of the Liffey. That ship had sailed from Devon-port to Liverpool and back from Liverpool to Devonport. She was commanded by a gallant officer, Captain Preedy, and though not actually under orders to proceed to sea
364
she was expecting them from day to day. The crew asked for leave to go on shore, which the captain did not feel himself justified in giving. On his refusal some mutinous conduct was exhibited on board. With regard to the Cœzar he need only say one word; because, if his information was correct, the disturbance was originated amongst and confined to the men employed in the dockyard, and the crew of the Gœzar were not implicated in it. With regard to the Hero he felt more interested, because the commanding officer of that ship was a relative of his own, and a gallant officer who had always shown himself to be up to his duty, and had on two or three occasions conducted himself with great credit and honour. The disturbance on board that ship had, he believed, arisen from an error on the part of the crew, in thinking that the crew of the Liffey had obtained then-end by the exhibition of insubordination. He believed that the crew of the Hero was a very raw one, and that the number of officers on board were smaller than that which was generally considered to be sufficient for the purposes of discipline. It was important that the public was fully informed on the subject, and he therefore hoped his noble and gallant Friend would make a short statement on the subject.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Admiralty felt indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the temperate tone of his question, as it would be for the public advantage that the truth should be known, instead of exaggerated reports. With respect to the particular cases referred to, he would say a few words upon each. The Liffey was commanded by an officer well known as having commanded the Agamemnon during the successful attempt to lay the Atlantic cable, and who upon that occasion exhibited such remarkable seamanship—Captain Preedy. That officer had made a report to the Admiralty, which was as follows:—
"Her Majesty's ship Liffey, Plymouth
Sound, July 7.
"I have the honour to communicate that on Saturday last, at about 9.30 p.m. (Her Majesty's ship under my command having recently arrived from Liverpool) it was made known to me that a noise had taken place on the lower deck, caused by a few shots having been rolled about the deck. Immediately on its discovery I assembled the ship's company at quarters, and sent for the petty officers on the quarter-deck, with the view to arrive at the cause of the circumstance, but notwithstanding my questioning them collectively and individually they expressed ignorance of the transaction, and on closely being questioned as to whether they or the ship's company had any complaint

365
to offer, they said they had none whatever; on the contrary, they were very happy and comfortable, but supposed it was owing alone to there being no liberty granted them to go on shore. This was out of my power to accede to, seeing that the ship was under orders for foreign service. On reflection, notwithstanding the crew had been recently granted leave at Liverpool, I thought fit to submit for your consideration their being allowed liberty here for the purpose of taking leave of their friends prior to quitting England, which you were pleased to permit. I beg to observe that I do not at all conceive that these disturbances are to be attributed to the ship's company in general, who are well-conducted, but confined to a few bad characters, who I regret to the present moment I have not been able to discover for the sake of example."
As to the case of the Hero, lying at Portland, the following report had been sent in by Captain Seymour: —
"Her Majesty's ship Hero, Portland, July 19.
"I regret to have to report a show of insubordination on board Her Majesty's ship under my command. Yesterday evening, at 8 p.m. considerable noise and the rolling of shot about the lower deck took place. Mr. Strickland, the first lieutenant and commanding officer, immediately turned the hands up to muster. A large part of the men (among whom were all the petty officers) had already separated themselves from the disturbers, and fell in at once. Mr. Strickland very judiciously passed the word that the well-disposed men should immediately give their names in to certain officers that he had instructed to take a list of the men who wished to separate themselves from those who were trying to make a foolish disturbance. This had the desired effect, and everybody came up and put their names down. Before this was accomplished I returned on board by a boat that had been sent to me to Her Majesty's ship Emerald, where I was dining. I addressed the petty officers and asked the cause of discontent; they replied that they had nothing to do with the disturbance, but believed it was in consequence of general leave being refused on Sunday. I then told the men I must repeat what I had said on Sunday last,—namely, that I was not authorized to give general leave, and that the admiral in command had now authorized me to repeat this to them, if I found that want of leave was the cause of the disturbance. I pointed out to the men that they had been but two months and ten days out of Sheerness harbour, that they had received all indulgences of advance, bounty, clothes, Ac., granted to them, and that they would not gain their object or receive any support from anybody by an insubordinate act; that I would bring any one I could trace as ringleader to a court-martial, and that the law would be enforced against such evildoers. I then desired the men to retire, which order was obeyed, and the duties of the ship have since gone on as usual. I beg to bring to your notice that the judicious steps taken at the commencement of the disturbance by Lieutenant Walter Strickland probably prevented a more serious outbreak."
The other case, that of the Cœsar, was, as had been stated by the hon. Member, simply a disturbance caused by dockyard
366
men, with which the crew of the ship had nothing to do. Those were all the facts, and he thought such occurrences were inseparable from a large fleet, in which 10,000 men had been lately introduced, as it were, at railroad speed, who were unacquainted with each other and their officers. Indeed, it was marvellous that there had been so few difficulties of that kind, and the fact reflected no small credit upon the zeal, assiduity, and firmness of the officers in command. Now, one word with respect to corporal punishment and the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams). Every one abominated corporal punishment. No officer ever directed the infliction of that punishment without deep regret and anxiety; but if we desired to maintain the efficiency of our fleet with its ancient renown, it was necessary to maintain its discipline. They could not all at once put an end to corporal punishment; it would die out, but it must die a natural death, and could not be strangled. The hon. Member for Lambeth had asked him a question on Friday last which, according to the rules of the House, he was unable to answer at that time—viz., what was the name of the captain of the Princess Royal, on board of which ship there appeared to have been an undue amount of corporal punishment. He (Lord C. Paget) hoped the hon. Member would not press his inquiry, considering that to drag an old and meritorious officer thus before the public would be most injurious to that officer. Besides, it would be unjust to give the name of the officer without also stating the grounds upon which the undue punishment complained of had been inflicted. He knew nothing whatever about the merits of the matter; but for the reasons he had stated, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his inquiry.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, his only reason for having asked for the name of the captain was because he thought the case which he had cited was one of undue punishment, He would not, however, press his request, understanding that it was now in contemplation by the Admiralty to take the question into their serious consideration. The subject was one of great importance. The Commander-in-Chief at Devonport had attributed the difficulty of getting men for the Navy to the prevalence of corporal punishment. He wished to state that the present commander of the Princess Royal, Captain Bailey, was not the officer who ordered the undue punishment he com-

367
plained of. The leniency of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty stood out in favourable relief to the harshness of other commanders, as he had commanded the same ship for two years without inflicting corporal punishment at all.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, that as the statement of the noble and gallant Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty might lead to much misapprehension and possibly mischief, he thought the noble and gallant Lord ought to state distinctly whether the present Board of Admiralty had determined to abolish corporal punishment in the Navy.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied that he had not intended to convey the idea that the Board of Admiralty intended to abolish corporal punishment. He had only said everybody was anxious it should die out, but that it must die a natural death, and could not be strangled suddenly.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYbelieved the disturbance among the dockyard men that had been referred to was caused by the infliction of corporal punishment upon a sailor within the view of the whole of the dockyard men, which was an unnecessary aggravation of the punishment.
SIR CHARLES NAPIERobserved that he was desirous that corporal punishment should be done away with, but the greatest possible caution was required in allowing it to die out. After the statement of the noble Lord, the first step which the Admiralty should take would be to deprive all captains of the power of inflicting corporal punishment, and to delegate the trial of all offenders to a court-martial on board the ship. The time was come when, for the sake of discipline as well as for the comfort of the men, they should know that when any one of them committed a crime he would be regularly judged by a court-martial.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he understood the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty to imply that coporal punishment would die a natural death from the status of the sailor being so raised as to render it unnecessary. It certainly was most objectionable that a man should be so punished at the fiat of a captain acting under an article of war. In the East India Company's Navy, in which he had served for sixteen years, discipline equal to that of the Royal Navy had been maintained for 200 years by a system of courts of inquiry, consisting of the four superior officers of the ship and the paymaster. All their
368
proceedings were entered in a book for future reference; but although there was no legal power to inflict punishment, there had never been a case in which a jury would have convicted a captain for punishing a man who had been judged by a court of inquiry. It must not be imagined, however, that the introduction of a system of courts-martial on board all ships would lead to a cessation of flogging. At present the Admiralty bore hardly upon an officer who, getting a bad ship's company, was obliged to inflict more than usual punishment, and a bad mark was put against his name. He (Sir James Elphinstone) had heard of a ship in the Black Sea on board of which was a nest of London thieves, who, after a detective had been sent from England, were discovered, and twelve of them punished. The consequence was that the punishment list of the ship appeared to be excessive, and although the captain had only carried out the punishment under the orders of the admiral, he was reprimanded from home. In fact, he believed many captains hesitated to inflict punishment in cases where it was merited solely for fear of giving offence to the Admiralty. At the same time he was assured that there was a great objection among merchant seamen to enter the Royal Navy because the captains had power to inflict corporal punishment under an article of war. He might add that courts of inquiry were in use in the French Navy, and were found to work satisfactorily.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee).
Motion made, and Question proposed,
—"That a sum, not exceeding £63,394, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of the General Management of the Department of Science and Art, of the Schools throughout the Kingdom in connection with the Department, and of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain and Ireland, AMP; c, to the 31st day of March, 1860."
MR. CONINGHAMobserved, that there was an increase upon the Estimates of last year, and there was an idea abroad that the scheme of moving the National Gallery to Kensington was to be revived. He believed that nearly every one agreed that the air of Trafalgar Square was not more destructive to pictures than that of Ken-

369
sington. As to the question of space, the Directors of the National Gallery had only to remove the worthless pictures bought within the last few years, and there would he abundance of room. There was a kind of mysterious protection hanging over this matter, which paralysed the action of the House, and which required close watching. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to strike at high places and put a stop to this extravagance. He wished to add that it was owing to the Estimate coming on earlier than was expected that his Motion of Friday failed to find a seconder. At the same time he was surprised that the financial reformers in that House, who privately had expressed to him their concurrence in his Motion, should have allowed it to fall to the ground when he did make it.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, that as the object of the Education Vote was so very useful, it was difficult to propose any reduction in it. He found, however, that the expenditure for the Museum at South Kensington, commonly called the "Brompton Boilers," was increasing every year; and, though he did not object to the national collections in the metropolis, such as the British Museum, yet he did not think that the majolica and the china ware which were put into the Kensington collection justified the expenditure upon them, and the nation would he all the better for it if an earthquake swallowed them up. He should, therefore, in order to mark the sense of the House that that expenditure ought to be diminished, move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £62,394, be grant. ed to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of the General Management of the Department of Science and Art, of the Schools throughout the Kingdom in connection with the Department, and of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain and Ireland, AMP; c, to the 31st day of March, 1860."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in reply to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coninghani), he had to observe that, whatever rumours might be in circulation, no step whatever had been taken by the present Government to his knowledge on the subject of the removal of the National Gallery. The Government had given no authority for any such rumours; and the question must therefore be considered as standing pre-
370
cisely as it did two months ago. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), he must say that he had not expected that the late Secretary to the Treasury would be ready to aid the present Government in cutting down the Estimates proposed by the late Government. However, the hon. Gentleman's assistance would be most welcome, if put in a practical form; but the Committee could do nothing useful by cutting down the Vote by £1,000, unless they knew what part of the expenditure it was intended to retrench. The hon. Member described the majolica and china wares as useless, and thought that if they were swallowed up by an earthquake the country would be all the better for it. He entirely differed from the hon. Member. They formed a very valuable collection, and he believed that on the whole the collection was a cheap one; and if the country must part with it, he would much rather than see it swallowed up by an earthquake sell it at Christie's, for the country would then get more than it gave for it. The collection told in industrial pursuits, and nothing was more marked than the revolution which had taken place in the last few years in the production of earthenware in all its forms. One could not pass a mere crockery shop in a country village without seeing that this outlay of public money had been most fertile in results. Though he could not go along with his hon. Friend in this his first attempt to reduce the Vote, he trusted the hon. Gentleman would not be discouraged in his economical efforts, and that he would in future be more specific in informing the Committee what was the particular retrenchment he desired.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he thought the best answer that could be given to the Motion of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was to state the simple fact that no less than 450,000 persons had visited the museum at Kensington, and its success had somewhat defeated the vaticinations of some people, whose only objection to the museum seemed to have been founded upon the remoteness of the locality. The wonderful patronage bestowed on the School of Art was the best answer to all strictures.
LORD HADDOsaid, he wished to call attention to the exhibition of nude living models in the Government Schools of Art. He had on one occasion been accidentally a witness of the mode of study pursued in

371
Government Schools of Art, and he felt bound to say that he had never witnessed a more painful or scandalous exhibition. He brought forward the subject with feelings of shame and disgust, but after what passed under his own observation, he could not conscientiously agree to the Vote for this object, unless the studies were placed under proper restrictions. As far as art was concerned, he believed it was the opinion of the best writers on the subject that the introduction of the voluptuous school had occasioned the decay of art and the decline of public taste in ancient Greece, and that of the age of Phidias and of Pericles not a single example of an undraped female figure was known to exist. It was quite unnecessary to give public aid to a mode of study which was evidently so attractive and remunerative as that to which he referred. The claims of morality were more important than those of art, and if the two were inconsistent the latter ought to give way. Seeing £100 put down in the Vote for what was called "professional assistance," and which he supposed meant the exhibition of the nude female figure, he moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100.
MR. LOWEsaid, that the term "professional assistance" did not refer to the models in question, but to occasional assistance in teaching. According to a return moved for by the noble Lord, of schools connected with the Department of Science and Art, where female models were employed, it appeared that there two such schools; but in one the model was always draped. In the other, the School of Art at Manchester, be believed the model was undraped, but that was a matter entirely under the management of the local committee. The Government money was strictly appropriated, and none of it was given for the payment of the nude female model.
LORD HADDOsaid, that in an imprinted return in the library there appeared a statement to the effect that under the Board of Manufactures in Scotland there was a school in which for years the nude female model had been exhibited five times in one week and four times in the next, making nine times a fortnight, during nine months in the year. He wished to know whether the public money would be given to this school at Edinburgh.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, as the Vice President of the Council for Education, had explained
372
the principle on which the Government acted in giving aid to schools was that of direct and specific appropriation, which did not allow any discretion to the local authorities as to how the money granted should be spent; and whatever course these schools pursued at their own expense, the Government had taken care that the public money should not he appropriated to the purposes to which the noble Lord objected. If the school at Edinburgh were an exception to the rule which obtained with respect to other schools, he had no hesitation in saying it ought not to be an exception, and inquiries would be made with the view of putting that grant on the same footing as the others. He was quite sure that every one would feel that the public discussion of this question was not desirable on the grounds of public morality.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the school at Edinburgh where the naked figure was studied was not a part of any establishment aided by the Government, but was connected with the Royal Academy of Edinburgh, which had nothing whatever to do with any public grant. The grant for the school in Dublin where the naked figure was introdued was to cease; and, therefore, there only remained the school at Manchester which the Committee needed to consider. He did not think the answer given, that these grants were strictly appropriated, was perfectly satisfactory, because it might be said that the study of the naked figure might be put an end to by making the cessation of that study a condition of the grant. Every one would give credit to the noble Lord for his motives in bringing forward this subject, but the complete study of art could not he carried on without the exhibition of the nude figure. If such an exhibition were perverted to the purposes of indecency, of course, not a moment should be lost in withdrawing all share in the grant of public money from the establishment where it was so applied.
MR. SPOONERconsidered the practice referred to highly objectionable, and one that did not benefit art. It was a most dangerous principle for the Government to support any institution for whose conduct it was not responsible, He would move that the grant to the Manchester school be wholly disallowed.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was sorry that this question had been raised, as he did not think the interests of public morality would be served by it. He thought the assurance given by the Government ought

373
to be received as quite satisfactory, and, as Edinburgh would only receive the money for the present year, the Scotch would afterwards have all the morality of this business on their own hands. He was glad to hear the other night so satisfactory a statement as to the drawing department. The increase of numbers in the studio and the decrease of public expenditure in relation to the numbers (the pupils contributing largely to the expense) showed that that department was appreciated by the people; and there could be no doubt that a correct knowledge of drawing was of the greatest possible advantage to mechanics.
SIR JOHN PAXTONsaid, he could bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the Department of Science and Art was carried on. Much good was effected throughout the country by what was called the "travelling museum," which had been visited by a large number of persons. That the museum at South Kensington was attractive was proved by the vast numbers that visited it last year. Nevertheless, he thought there ought to be some limit to the expense, which had risen from £40,000 to £90,000; but he could not support the Amendment to deduct £1,000 from the Vote, as that could not be carried without deranging the Estimate.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he also could bear testimony to the advantages of the Kensington Museum, which no one could visit without having his mind elevated and his taste improved. Much strong feeling had been exhibited in the city he represented (Aberdeen) against the employment of nude models in the Schools of Art, but as the Estimates contained no specific grant for that purpose, he thought the Amendment ought to be withdrawn.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid it would be a great benefit to the working classes if the Kensington Museum could be opened on Sunday afternoon. They would be kept out of gin palaces, and so far from religion being injured, it would be benefited.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he also was in favour of throwing open the museum between the hours of divine service. Indeed he thought that the House and the Government had broken faith with the donor in not opening the Sheepshanks' collection on Sundays. Hampton Court was open on Sundays, as were also Kew Gardens. He would ask the House whether any inconvenience would ensue from that? Had those institutions not kept people from the gin palaces and other such places on
374
the Lord's Day? During the hours that gin shops were open Kensington Museum ought to be open. If it were it would tend to the spread of morality and religion amongst the people.
MR. BALLsaid, he did not see the connection between the two subjects—the employment of these models and the opening of public galleries on the Lord's Day, except so far as one vice generally led to another. He could, therefore, understand that those who were the advocates of the one would soon become the supporters of the other. He regretted to hear in that House any palliation of the employment of those figures, as he thought that the grant of public money to any institution where such an exhibition prevailed, although the grant might be appropriated to other purposes, was an indirect support to a practice tending to demoralize society.
MR. LEFROYsaid, he had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Government would by no means countenance such exhibitions as those referred to by the noble Lord. He thought that assurance ought to satisfy the Committee, and he hoped that no division would be taken on the subject. As to the question of opening the public galleries on Sunday, he trusted that no further encroachments would be made on the sanctity of the Sabbath.
MR. KINNAIRDremarked that it was not a time for discussing the question of nude figures, and he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, great good had arisen from the Schools of Design. Formerly English manufacturers were void of taste. Of late that taste was vastly improved, owing to the great advantage and advancement of manufactures. In his opinion the public money had never been spent to a more beneficial or useful purpose.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he would remind the Committee that the particular question under discussion was whether the Vote should be reduced by £1,000.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he must protest against the collier of Newcastle and the weaver of Nottingham being called upon to pay for the amusement of Londoners. As the sense of the Committee appeared to be against him, however, he should not now press his Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURobserved, that he did not at all agree with the hon. Mem-

375
ber for Lambeth, that the Schools of Design had advanced art or improved taste in this country. He thought, on the contrary, that it would be better for art if it were entirely protected from Government interference. As to the question of opening museums on Sundays, he thought there were as many of the working classes opposed to such a proceeding as there were in its favour. In fact, it was a moot point at present. At the same time, it was worthy of consideration whether these collections could not be made more accessible to the working classes by opening them more frequently in the evening.
MR. COWPERsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that the South Kensington Museum was open two nights a week. He wished, however, to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the department to the new buildings which would contain the Turner and Vernon Collections, and he hoped they would also be exhibited two evenings in the week. A scientific Commission had inquired into the question whether the artificial light had produced any ill effects upon the pictures in the Sheepshanks' collection, and they reported that it had not, the products of combustion being carried out of the room so completely as to avoid all injury to the paintings.
MR. BRADYsaid, he must protest against the assertion that the working classes, or a majority of them, did not wish the public collections to be opened on a Sunday. After working from six in the morning till seven or eight at night, what time had they to visit museums or paintings except on Sundays? From his knowledge he was convinced that they were in favour of opening the museums on Sunday after two o'clock.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he sympathized with the objects of those who supported the Sunday opening, but he thought the feeling of the country, certainly the religious feeling, was against any change in that respect.
LORD HADDOsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
£169,468, Public Education in Ireland,
MR. MAGUIRE*: Sir, before I come to the immediate subject of which I have given notice, I desire to offer some observations in reference to the general question which is now legitimately placed before the Committee. The question is one of the deepest interest, to the people of Ireland,
376
of all ranks, classes, and creeds, and requires to be dealt with in a fair and impartial spirit. To understand the question rightly, it must be considered from two different points of view. If I were asked did I approve of the national system of education, as a great intellectual and educational machinery, which had done great good in Ireland, I should certainly say I did; for I must willingly and gratefully bear testimony to the fact, that the great mass of the youth of Ireland have been instructed by it in the rudiments of useful knowledge, and that hundreds of thousands of the very humblest class have received from it the benefits of a sound education. I am, therefore, a friend of the National system, viewing it as a mere educational machinery, and as affording the assistance of the State in aid of the voluntary efforts of the people. But if I be asked whether it has succeeded as a mixed system—that is, according to the principles on which it was originally founded—I must certainly say that it has not. Judged according to the principles on which it was founded, and according to the programme put forward in Lord Stanley's celebrated Totter, I must say it has not only not been successful, but it has decidedly failed. I entertain the deepest sentiments of gratitude to those who initiated the system, and I give them credit for the best and most benevolent intentions. I believe that it has hitherto done enormous good, in developing the intelligence and raising the moral tone of the great bulk of the population; and I also believe that it is capable of doing much more good; but in order to do this, it must be restored to the confidence of those whose wishes and whose feelings I am more particularly interested in representing—and this can only be done by restoring it to its original principle, stringently enforced— namely, united secular and separate religious teaching. The confidence of the Catholic bishops, clergy, and people of Ireland has been considerably shaken by events which have lately occurred, and by a policy which seems to have been systematically pursued; and the Committee must remember that no class of the Irish community are so much interested in the well-working of the system of National education as the Catholics; for there are no less than 500,000 Catholic children at present on the roll, and they, in fact, constitute seven-eighths of the entire number educated— under the National Board. Therefore, two things are clear,—that the Catholics of Ire-

377
land have the greatest interest in the well-working of the system—and that unless it possess the confidence of the Catholic bishops and clergy, it cannot succeed in realising its objects, or in justifying the hopes of the friends of educational progress. One word as to its practical failure, as a mixed system. In three provinces of Ireland, it is absolutely denominational, owing to the fact that three provinces are almost wholly Catholic; and in Ulster, whore, from a different state of things, it is necessarily mixed, it is found to work prejudicially to Catholic interests. If the system is to be maintained, it must be maintained rigidly and honestly, and the old rule, which was protective of the faith of the child, whether Catholic or Protestant, must be restored to its original stringency. By that rule, when honestly enforced, it was impossible that a Catholic child could be present at Protestant religious teaching, and the same rule prevented the Protestant or Presbyterian child from being present at Catholic teaching. Had that rule been maintained in its original stringency, the intentions of the founders of the system would have been carried out in those schools where children of different persuasions were educated under the same roof; and although a very considerable number of persons in Ireland prefer a system of entirely separate teaching—in which even the secular teaching is leavened with the religious element— there still would be, at this day, a general feeling of confidence in the National Board. But, Sir, I complain—and I only echo the complaint which is almost universally felt by the Catholics of Ireland—that the original rule has been much relaxed, to the injury of Catholic interests, by opening the door to those who are ever on the watch to assail the faith of their Catholic brethren; while with respect to Catholics themselves, the regulations—even the arbitrary regulations—of the Board, have been enforced most strictly, and in a manner calculated to inspire the patrons and managers of the Catholic schools with distrust and suspicion of the Board. While the rule is so relaxed, that Catholic children are allowed to be present, not merely at the reading of the Protestant Bible, but while the Bible is being expounded in a Protestant and therefore anti-Catholic spirit, the Catholic teachers of an exclusively Catholic school are immediately reprehended, if they allow a Catholic child to make the sign of the cross, or offer up a prayer when the clock strikes. I shall now mention a case in
378
point, which will show the Committee how rigidly the patrons and managers of Catholic schools are dealt with. In one of the suburbs of Cork, a little outside the city, there is a small mound, of rather painful celebrity, which, up to a few years since, bore the ill-omened name of Gallows Green; it having been the spot on which executions formerly took place, previous to the erection of the new prison. Some benevolent persons conceived the idea of building a school on the very site where in former days the gibbet had been erected, and of employing the schoolmaster—a far better teacher than the hangman—to instruct the youth of the neighbourhood on the same place on which the hangman had once exercised his degrading functions. The Corporation gave the site; persons of all classes, and indeed of all creeds, liberally contributed; a beautiful building was soon completed; and the schools were established under the auspices of a religious body, whose members devote their lives to the praiseworthy object of giving a good and useful education to the children of the humblest and poorest class in the community. An application was made to the Board, demanding the assistance of the State in a work so much in consonance with the spirit of an enlightened age; and if ever there were a case in which that assistance ought to be granted by the Board, it was that which I describe. But the application was refused, and on two grounds, each of which was indicative of the hostile policy adopted towards the Catholic body. One ground was this—that since the rule of 1855, which the Board framed on no intelligible reason, no further grants could be given to religious orders — not "Jesuits," let me assure the late Attorney General for Ireland, but monks and nuns—religious communities of men and women, who, without pay or reward, devote all their time, all their talents, all their energies, to the holy task of developing the intellect, and strengthening and purifying the moral nature of the children of poverty. This was one ground, which, I assert, exhibits a reactionary policy, and one inimical to Catholic interests. The second ground was frivolous and absurd in the highest degree, because, in a Catholic school, founded in a Catholic city, and conducted by a Catholic community, there happened to be a cross erected or carved over the porch or in the wall—perhaps the work of a Catholic architect—therefore the assistance of the State was denied by the administrators of this

379
national system of education. That, Sir, is a specimen of the unfairness of which Catholics justly complain. Look, then, at the other side of the picture. In a late report one of the head Inspectors, Mr. Keenan, stated that in the schools of Ulster, in Londonderry and Antrim, especially in Belfast, many thousands of Catholic children were present at Protestant or Presbyterian religious teaching—which was clearly a distinct violation of the principle on which the system was originally founded; and in alluding to that statement, I must express my regret that the respectable gentlemen who constitute the Board condescended to the art of excising that paragraph from the report, and thus endeavoured to withhold its important information from the Irish public. The very fact that so many children of different religious faith were receiving religious instruction at the same time, and from the same teacher, showed how dangerously the rule was relaxed, and afforded a just ground for the want of confidence which was rapidly extending throughout all parts of Ireland, and was felt even by those who up to that time had been the fast friends of a system. I know, as a matter of fact, that many Catholic bishops who had advocated the system at first, because a better could not be found at the time, are beginning to lose all confidence in it, principally in consequence of its unfair administration. Fortunately, the Catholic Bishops are to meet in Dublin on the 2nd of next month, when they will take this most important subject into consideration, and as a Catholic, I sincerely hope that they, who are the legitimate guardians of the faith and morals of their flock, will suggest such alterations and amendments as, if adopted by the Government, may restore so vast an educational machinery to the confidence of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Attorney General, stated on a former evening, that there were over 3,000 schools not vested in the Board. But what does that fact prove? It proves that the dissatisfaction is felt; and it proves that the Catholic patrons of these schools, three or four thousand schools, were afraid to surrender their authority and control over their schools into the hands of the Commissioners—the result of which might be this, that if the patrons or managers did anything to excite the anger of the Commissioners, the Commissioners would at once send down one of their officers, who would turn the key in the lock, and
380
close the door against them. The Commissioners are not disinclined to be arbitrary; and I rejoice that so many schools are still held in complete independence of the Commissioners. The want of confidence now existing, will continue until some radical change is made in the present administration of the system. The very constitution of the Board is unfair as respects Catholics, and considering that seven-eighths of the children are of the Catholic faith; for, while there are but five Catholic Commissioners, there are nine Protestant and Presbyterian Commissioners—which is the very reverse of a fair proportion, considering the numbers represented. When I alluded to this question last year, I insisted upon the necessity of having a paid Catholic Commissioner appointed—a man in whom the Catholic body could repose confidence—who would possess co-equal authority with Mr. M'Donald—against whom I do not desire to say anything. I repeat, there should be a resident Catholic Commissioner, who would be bound to attend at every meeting of the Board, and at the transaction of all business, and whose duty as well as whose feeling would compel him to watch over the interests and defend the rights of his Catholic brethren. But, Sir, if the original principles on which the system was founded cannot be restored, and if full satisfaction cannot be given on many important points, we must in that case come to the denominational system— a matter not to be decided upon with respect to Ireland without the greatest reflection. The denominational system, as carried out in England under the Privy Council, gives general satisfaction, because, while assisting voluntary efforts by the resources of the State, it affords the fullest independence to those whom it assists; but in applying such a system to Ireland, care should be taken to afford the most complete protection to the children of poor Catholic parents against the aggressive attempts of proselytising landlords. Hon. Gentlemen who insist upon greater freedom for Protestant and Presbyterian schools, may rest satisfied that Catholic vigilance will be on its guard against any attempt to confer new powers of mischief on those troublesome people who will not let others go to Heaven their own way. The subject is one of the gravest importance; and, Sir, I feel I would be unworthy of the position I occupy as a representative, of my standing in this House, or indeed of the age at which I have arrived, if, in a matter affect-

381
ing the interests of millions of my countrymen, I rushed at a hasty and precipitate judgment. The subject is too grave to be trifled with; and I most earnestly trust that the result of the changes and modifications which are now inevitable, may be such as to restore confidence to those who are responsible for the education of the youth of Ireland. Having thus alluded— I trust in a fair and temperate spirit—to the general subject of National Education, I come to the specific object of my notice. Now, Sir, whatever the system upon which we are called upon to agree—whether it is to be united or denominational—one thing is certain—that there can be no real improvement in it until the condition of the teacher—upon whoso faithful discharge of his high and important office the success of every educational system depends—is rendered more satisfactory than it is. Hon. Gentlemen in this country, and in Scot land, pay their labourers 12 s. to 15 s. a week, and in London the manufacturer or the builder will frequently pay as much as £1 a week for unskilled labour; but the instructors of youth in Ireland, who are expected to afford the rising generation of that country a sound, moral, as well as intellectual training, are paid, on an average, just 10 s. a week. It is utterly impossible that such a state of things can be satisfactory to the teacher, or beneficial to the system; and I trust the Committee will bear with me while I demonstrate the truth of both these propositions. I ask the Committee to compare the position of the English teacher with that of his Irish brother. In England, the average income of the teacher under the Privy Council, is £90, from every source; and there is a house attached to each school for the teacher's residence. In Ireland, the average income of the teacher under the National Board, is £27, from every source, including the public grant, local contributions, and school fees; and not more than 5 per cent of the entire number of schools have residences attached to them for the teacher. With respect to houses for the teachers, I have here the opinion of the Commissioners, expressed in their Report to this House, so far back as the year 1835, that "each teacher should be furnished with apartments adjoining the school." I beg of hon. Gentlemen to follow me for a moment while I analyse this magnificent remuneration of £27 for an Irish schoolmaster, who is expected to be zealous and energetic in the discharge of his duties.
382
Not having a house provided for him, he must provide himself with one; and if I put down £4 a year as the rent of this house, or I shall rather call it cabin, it will be admitted that that is a moderate sum. To render that dwelling habitable for the greater part of the year, fuel is indispensable; and for that I deduct the sum of £3 a year. As the national teacher is not bound by an obligation of celibacy, I may assume that he has a wife—that, in the midst of his misery, he has sought for the enjoyment of those domestic affections which are usually a solace and consolation to the rest of mankind; and I may further assume that he is blessed with a family of three children—a very moderate allowance, as my hon. Friends from Ireland will no doubt consider it. He, his wife, and his three children, must be clothed; and it is scarcely possible that the poorest or the scantiest raiment can be procured for much less than £4 in the twelvemonths. Well, that is £11 out of the £27—leaving, for all other purposes, including food, drink, and candle-light, the sum of £16 a year. Divide this £16 into weeks, and we have about 6s. a week for the support of five persons—that is, less than 1s. 2d. a week for the support of each member of that family — or 2d. a day for the maintenance of each ! I ask hon. Gentlemen to imagine a matured man or woman, or a growing hungry child, fed at the rate of 2d. a day. This, without the slightest exaggeration, is the average condition of the national teacher who has a family to support. I ask, ought such a state of things to be suffered to continue? Look to the effect of this treatment upon the unfortunate teacher. What energy, what enthusiasm in his profession, can you expect from him? In the morning he leaves his miserable home, with its scanty table and its cheerless grate, for his school; and the recollection of the misery and want which he has left behind him, haunts him during his day's toil; and when he returns to that home in the evening, jaded and broken-spirited after his eight hours of hard drudgery, and finds nothing but discomfort and wretchedness before him—is it possible, I ask, that that man can devote himself to the necessary task of endeavouring to improve himself by study, and render himself more competent to teach, by adding to his professional knowledge? I now proceed to show in what manner this state of things has interfered with the efficiency of the National system, and thus been prejudicial to the

383
public service. The position of the teachers has frequently elicited remonstrances from the Inspectors, who have, in the strongest manner, urged it on the attention of the Commissioners. Mr. E. S. Butler, in his Report for 1848, after alluding to the low scale of salaries, thus continues: —
"With such scanty recources for the maintenance of his family, it is evident that the teacher can make no provision for old age or infirmity; and when he has become unfit for the efficient discharge of his duties, his removal from the school, without any superannuation, will deprive him of all means of support, or his continuance in it will be a burden to himself as well as an injury to the best interests of the locality. Wore the Commissioners to grant retiring allowances to old and deserving teachers, such a painful alternative would not present itself."
Mr. M'Credy, in his Report for the same year, says:—
"For to seek to secure for the public service, as merely secular teachers, men properly qualified, and therefore necessarily of large attainments, and to think at the same time to keep them at their present rate of income, I regard as aiming at things quite incompatible, and which cannot possibly long co-exist; and we must determine therefore either to ameliorate their condition, or resign ourselves to the melancholy alternative of seeing the best and ablest among them daily departing from our ranks."
The actual result of the miserable remuneration is, that the best and ablest of the teachers are daily driven away from the service of the National Board, and that their places are necessarily filled up with persons of inferior qualifications. Mr. Keenan, head Inspector, made the following important statement, in his Report for 1856;—
"Although upwards of 5,000 teachers have been trained in our service, death, emigration, and change of employment have so thinned the ranks, that at present upwards of 2,000 of the 5,192 National schools in the country are in the hands of untrained teachers.
It may be said that a better system of training will obviate or remedy this evil; but Mr. William A. Hunter in his Report of 1856, thus conclusively deals with this question:—
"I believe, however, the principal reason why we find so many candidates of inferior qualifications is to be found in the circumstances that the remuneration of the teachers is so low. The remedy for the evil of which I have been complaining, which naturally suggests itself, is that training schools should be supplied. This remedy has been tried; it has been found to be insufficient; and, paradoxical as it may appear, not only is the remedy insufficient, but the evil is, to some extent, augmented. There is no advantage whatever gained to the cause of education by giving a high
384
training to men destined to the office of teaching so long as a corresponding remuneration is not secured to them for their services in this office.
I shall only quote one passage more, and it is from the Report of Dr. Newell, a gentleman with whom I have the pleasure to be personally acquainted. He uses the emphatic words:—
In no way can the Commissioners, in my humble opinion, more effectually promote the interests of National education, than by rewarding amply the men who bear the toil and heat of the day, the humblest but most useful of all their agents, the rank and file of the service, the teachers of ordinary National schools.
Thus urged by their officers, who are personally conversant with the condition of the teachers, and whose recommendations were made with all the responsibility and authority of their official position, the Commissioners have at length resolved on doing something to meet the evil which they fully admit to exist, and to require being remedied. Dr. Newell insists, as I have shown, on the necessity of "rewarding amply" those who bear the toil and heat of the day. Have the Commissioners done this? The present Estimates do certainly provide for an increased rate of remuneration; and what do the Committee think that increased rate is? Four classes of teachers have their salaries raised £4: per annum; two other classes have been raised £2 per annum; and the two lower classes have been raised £1 per annum ! Divided by the week, it would rate thus—about 1s. 7d. increase for the first class, 9d. increase for the second, and 4½d. for the third! Now, considering the nature of the evil to be dealt with, I ask is this to be called a sufficient remuneration for so important a body of men? The Commissioners have evidently only ventured on an experiment; and from the cautious manner in which they have attempted to deal with this great evil, so detrimental to the public service, one may appreciate the official tremor with which the heads of a department approach this House when asking for an increased grant. But, Sir, if I know anything of English and Scotch gentlemen, I feel certain there is not an hon. Member in this House who would object to vote, next year, a sum sufficient to meet the just demands of those whose cause I, this day, advocate. The late Attorney General for Ireland referred, on Friday night, to the prosecution of a national teacher for treason, and stated that other teachers were implicated in the Phoenix conspiracy. These, no doubt, are circumstances to be regretted; but what

385
is more apt to generate discontent than inadequate remuneration for a man's services, and what more calculated to embitter a man's mind, and make him desire a change, than a feeling of despair, and a consciousness of ill treatment? The cases mentioned, however, are only mere exceptions to the general rule; but if you desire to retain the great body of the teachers, content with their position, faithful to their duties, and attached to the Government under which they live, you must pay them a sufficient salary for their labours—such a salary as will keep them above want and privation, and provide them at least with all the necessaries of life. Render the national teacher content with his position, and you inspire him with energy in his important duties; and not only will he become the promoter of enlightenment, but the best protector of the peace and order of the district in which he pursues his honourable avocations. Above all things, banish from his mind the idea that he is marked out for inferiority, nay, even for degradation, by proving to him that you estimate at its proper value, the office of him to whose care is entrusted the responsible task of developing the intellect and forming the mind of the youth of a country. I do not seek for anything extravagant; but I demand that justice may be done to the national teachers of Ireland, believing as I do, that the progress of education in that country would be greatly promoted by their being rendered content with their condition, which they can only be by being adequately remunerated for their services.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he most heartily concurred in the object which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had advocated at the close of his speech. As long as the pay of the teacher was inadequate it would be impossible to get the best and most respectable men to perform the important duties of that office. And it was impossible to look at the scale of fees commencing at £46 and going downwards to £14 with out at once seeing that they were grossly inadequate. The proposed increase was insufficient, and he could not believe that even £50 a year was enough for a man of intelligence and education. He thought, however, it would be necessary to institute an inquiry into the character and qualifications of those to whom increased salaries were to be paid, for it was a matter of notoriety, proved by sworn evidence in a court of justice, that seven or eight school-masters in the south of Ireland were impli-
386
cated in a treasonable conspiracy against the Crown and the peace of the kingdom. It was true that that conspiracy had been denounced as a "dangerous and absurd" conspiracy; but he did not see how those terms could possibly be applicable at one and the same time. At the same time, however, that he advocated an increased remuneration for teachers he also recommended a better system of inspection and surveillance. He did not impute unfawful sentiments or acts to the great holy, but that so many schoolmasters in the western part of the county of Cork should have been implicated in treasonable proceedings proved that the inspectors of the Board had not performed their duty. He was bound to add that there was a feeling in Ireland that the Board of Education, as at present constituted, did not satisfy the wants and wishes of the people, and did not possess the confidence of any class in Ireland. It certainly did not possess the confidence of one-third of the population of Ireland—the Protestants and Presbyterians, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consider whether the Board might not be strengthened by an infusion of new blood. For his own part he regretted that the plan of united education was regarded as impossible in Ireland. He did not entertain that opinion, for he thought the old Kildare Place Society had found out the secret of working such a system. The reading of the Bible without note or comment might have formed the basis of a united general education, on which each party might have engrafted separately their own peculiar doctrines. However, that was now a thing of the past, for it was now impossible to change the system which had been introduced by the National Board. He regretted that the High Protestant party and the Roman Catholics had thrown obstacles in the way of making the system of education more general, but he thought that even now a solution of the difficulty might be found in reading the Scriptures in school without any peculiar form of prayer, and at the same time allowing parents who objected to their children being present while the Scriptures were read to withdraw them from the school during such time.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, he did not rise to enter into the general question of education, which was, however, in a position demanding the utmost care and vigilance. He should he glad to see any alterations which would conciliate more gene-

387
rally the opinions of all classes, but what he now wished to do was to support the view taken by the hon. Member for Dungarvan with respect to the payment of teachers. Every one resident in Ireland must feel that those most essential officers were wretchedly underpaid. The success of the system almost wholly depended on this being remedied. The teachers suffered much from the difficulty of obtaining houses within a moderate distance. This inconvenience, however, might easily be remedied by Gentlemen resident in the neighbourhood. He trusted that the Secretary for Ireland would take this subject into serious consideration.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he wished to express his concurrence it what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dungarvan. For his part he was sick of hearing of conciliation and compromise, and the rival interests of Catholics and Protestants. There was only one way to conciliate Roman Catholics and Protestants, and that was, not by asking them to give up their sincere opinions, but by mixing them up in every possible way in secular affairs and keeping them separate in religious affairs. He could not see the policy of employing ill-paid agents to carry out a great object, and he trusted that after the clear case stated by the hon. Member for Dungarvan the House would take the matter into consideration.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he had listened with disappointment to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, who had accused the national teachers, amounting to 6,000, of disloyalty, because three or four heedless men among them might have been disloyal. [Mr. GEORGE denied that he accused the whole body of disloyalty.] He doubted if that test were to be applied universally whether in a time of political excitement Trinity College itself would be found pure. In 1848 the most excited and disloyal effusions in the Nation newspaper were written by students of that College, and yet it would not be fair to accuse Trinity College of disloyalty on that account. To another speech, that of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, he had listened with pleasure. The education question in Ireland had arrived at what might be called a crisis, and both extremes in that country agreed in expressing a want of confidence in it. He thought the Protestant body committed a great mistake in seceding from the national system of education in Ireland, and if abuses had since
388
crept into that system the seceders who turned their backs on it were more responsible than any one else for those abuses. Separate religious education and united secular education was a broad and clear principle, which might be adopted in Ireland, but the denominational system would never succeed in that country, for the Roman Catholic community were too poor to put down, as in England, a certain amount of money for every £1 given by the Government. There was good primary education and good college education in Ireland, but the endowments for the intermediate education had been most grossly misapplied. He did not think that the Roman Catholics would have confidence in the Board of Education without a reconstruction, and on all these grounds he believed that the whole question of Irish education must be taken up by the Government. The subject certainly was a difficult one, but it was not impossible that a solution might be found.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he believed that the clear statement of the hon. Member for Dungarvan must have weight with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. It was quite evident that things could not remain in their present state. He thought the hon. Gentleman right in demanding an increase of salary for the teachers of his own communion, but the Committee must not forget that not one shilling was allowed to the Protestant teachers of Protestant schools connected with education in Ireland. Was that right? The whole system must be recast, if it was desired to give satisfaction, for the Government could not go on excluding one large portion of the population from all the benefits of the national endowment.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, with respect to the question brought forward in so temperate and graceful a manner by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the general feeling must be that it was most desirable that so important and useful a body of men as these schoolmasters should be properly paid. There was in the present Estimates a considerable increase for the schoolmasters, and should it not be found sufficient he trusted the Government would reconsider the matter. With regard to the important subject of the system of Irish education, he had heard Irish Members say that that system had come to such a state that it was absolutely necessary that great changes in it should be made. However that might be, he desired to express his

389
ardent hope that hon. Members would approach this great subject to improve, if possible, but, at any rate, to preserve and perpetuate the system of education which had produced such beneficial effects on Ireland. He had always considered it a happy circumstance for Ireland that it possessed a system of instruction which, he thought, England might envy, and which had given to the youth of that nation the inestimable blessings of a good and substantial education. He trusted that no Irish Member would put that system in peril, though it might not be managed in the way he thought best. The denominational system applied to Ireland would constitute no adequate means of education. True, the present system had not worked, as a mixed system, in that general and universal manner intended by its projectors; but, at any rate, it had withdrawn the education of the people from that polemical state of hostility between two rival religions which would be re-established if the present National system should be destroyed. For this reason he was attached to the present system, which every year had been doing its work in educating the people and in purifying the moral atmosphere in Ireland. He believed that at the present moment there was a better feeling between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and that this system of education had a great deal to do with that matter. He was sure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland would attend to this subject with the view of removing any well-founded objections, but with an earnest determination to secure to Ireland the continuance of that system of education which had been the best present England ever gave to Ireland, and the source of the greatest blessings to the latter country.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, in regard to the question so ably brought forward by the hon. Member for Dungarvan—the increase of the salaries of the teachers—it would be most agreeable to him, and, no doubt, it would have been so to his predecessor in office also, if the increase in those salaries could have been larger; but let the Committee consider the difficulty in which those who prepared this Estimate were placed. If any one in office wished to increase the salaries of persons falling within his department, there was another department to be consulted, namely, the Treasury, which, probably, taking a general view of the affairs of the country, would entertain a different opinion on the
390
subject. He did not now wish to argue against the desirability of increasing the small stipends at present enjoyed by the teachers, and if, upon consideration, he should arrive at the conclusion that an in crease should be made in them, he should be most happy to endeavour to persuade the Treasury to take the same view. It should be remembered, however, that the whole remuneration of the teachers was not voted in the Estimates; the allowance was merely in augmentation of the salary fixed by the managers of the schools. An hon. Member had stated that a considerable number of the teachers in these schools had been involved in treasonable practices; but the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone—an able and constant supporter of the National system in Ireland— had given a satisfactory answer to that statement. There were between 5,000 and 6,000 National school teachers in Ireland. Only six were charged with connection with the Phoenix conspiracy. Two were discharged by the magistrates on the ground that there was no proof against them; one was summoned as a witness; one was not in the pay of the Board; in the case of another his school was not tinder the Board, and one was convicted. He was quite sure, therefore, that no charge of disloyalty against the general body of the teachers could reasonably arise. With respect to the general question of education in Ireland, he must say that it was a question of the deepest interest, and to any suggestions calculated, in the opinion of those who made them, to render the National system more efficient as an instrument of utility, and to endear it to the Irish people, it would be his duty and pleasure to listen with attention and deference, come from what quarter they might. It was not his desire—quite the contrary— to weaken the impression that Her Majesty's Government were desirous of adhering to the utmost in their power to those beneficent principles on which this National system was founded and had flourished. There was hope that if those who dealt with this most important question with regard to the highest interests of Ireland dealt with it in that candid, temperate, and dispassionate spirit which had characterized the late discussions, the question might yet be satisfactorily settled.
It being ten minutes to four o'clock, the Chairman quitted the chair, and
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Order for Committee (Supply) read.
Motion made and Question proposed "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

MILITARY DEFENCES OF THE COLONIES.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Military defences of the Colonies, and to the source from which those defences are supplied. In doing so his object was rather to elicit the opinion of the Government and what their intentions were, than to offer any lengthened observations of his own on the subject. The Return which he had moved for some time ago of the amount of forces in each of our Colonies, and of the amount of taxation which was borne by each for their support, had been laid upon the table of the House, but had not yet been circulated amongst hon. Members; he must, therefore, trust to other sources of information which were within his reach, and especially to a return which had been ordered on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes). The question he wished to raise was one of some importance—it was how far this country should not only supply the colonists with troops, but defray the cost of those troops within their territories. Of course, if the House were prepared to continue the present system, they could do so; but he believed that many hon. Members were not acquainted with the nature of the case, and he wished them to consider whether it was the duty of this island not only to furnish out of its limited population the greater part of the Colonies with troops for their defence, but to provide, by heavy taxation, for the greater part of the cost which these troops occasioned. It seemed to him that the very reverse was the right principle, as well for the interest of the Colonies as for those of this country itself; for the principal result of the plan now adopted was not only that it was needlessly expensive, but that not one single colony of the British Empire was in a state of adequate defence and security in the event of war breaking out. England had of late years granted all her Colonies self-government, without calling upon them to satisfy the corollary— namely, by undertaking their own defence. England had given all her Colonies self-government freely and fully; nor in his opinion did she regret having done so. She
392
had also abrogated those commercial laws by which she had once sought to promote the separate interests of her own people, and she now treated Imperial and colonial interests as one and the same. He would submit a few facts to the House. By the returns which had been moved for by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen it appeared that the sum annually expended upon the military defence of the Colonies was not less than £3,500,000 sterling, whilst the amount paid by the Colonies for their local defence was only £337,000 per annum; in other words, the proportion of the expenditure borne by the colonists for the defence of their own territory was but one-tenth of the whole. Deducting, however, the cost of such merely military stations as Gibraltar, Malta, the Ionian Islands, the Bermudas, Ceylon, and other similar dependencies, they still demanded an expenditure of two millions and a half, whilst the sum contributed by such Colonies proper was only £220,000. The proportion, therefore, was the same; the Colonies proper paying, in round numbers, only one-tenth of the cost of their own defence—a very inadequate contribution to local defence indeed, for such colonies as Australia and Canada. But this was not all. There was another feature in the case. Of the inadequate force maintained for their defence only one-fourth was composed of local militia and police; the rest consisted entirely of Her Majesty's forces. Then, what was the total expenditure for defences per head of the population? The population of the United Kingdom was 30,000,000, and the total annual taxation for the purposes of defence was about £30,000,000, or £1 per head of the population. But he would take one of the Colonies, and one which told least for his argument. He would take Canada, which bore more taxation for the purpose than any of the other Colonies. Canada paid about £40,000 a year in military expenditure. Supposing the population of the colony was 2,000,000, a resident in this country paid fifty times as much as any resident in the colony. Moreover, wholly disproportioned as was the burden on the Colonies of their own defence, or their share in the defence of the empire, there was a still greater inequality between the distribution of the expenditure amongst the Colonies themselves; so absurdly unequal was it indeed that, he might almost say as a general rule, those who ought to pay the least paid most, and those who ought to

393
pay the most paid least. Now, in his opinion, those which ought to pay least for their own defence were the purely military stations; yet, strange to say, these were the colonies which paid most, whilst Canada and the Cape of Good Hope had a considerable number of Queen's troops for which they paid nothing at all; and it was only by a recent arrangement that Australia had been called upon to contribute any portion of the cost of her defences. With regard to the last-mentioned colony he wished to observe that to his mind the despatch of Earl Grey, written in 1849, to Sir Charles Fitzroy, then Governor of New South Wales, laid down exactly the principle which ought to govern us in this matter. The country was indebted, however, to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) for having done his utmost, when Minister, to carry out that principle. The principle however had been but impectfectly carried out and as it were at haphazard. Thus the Australian colonies were not taxed equally amongst themselves, and Victoria, for no other reason that he could divine except that she was richer, was made to pay 50 per cent more than any other of those colonies. Now, this was a state of things which ought to be looked into as soon as possible. But he should not mind even this disproportion, or the absurd anomaly of the whole arrangements, if he were satisfied that they had the redeeming merit of giving security and proper defence for the Colonies. But what after all was the number of troops which the system provided for the defence of the Colonies. The number of troops at home at the present moment was about 110,000, including the militia. In India we had 85,000 of Her Majesty's troops in addition to the Native army; but in all our Colonies put together, our military stations and Colonies proper scattered as they were all over the globe, how many troops were there? Forty-two thousand; or, deducting those which were in Gibraltar, Malta, and the other purely military stations, the whole number of troops to garrison the vast colonies of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and all our Colonies proper, was 22,000 only. What were the consequences? In the first place the Colonies themselves were very insecure. In case of a general war any maritime nation that had anything like a power on, not to say command of, the seas—that was out of the question — would be able to embarrass us greatly in
394
the defence of the Colonies, and perhaps it might be absolutely impossible not to lose some of them. Probably, too, a general war would oblige us to withdraw our troops and leave the Colonies entirely to their own defence. What then would be the result? How would they muster, at a moment's notice, any forces at all? Had not our whole system tended to crush everything like a military spirit in the colonists, to render them utterly incapable of defending themselves, to produce a sort of corrupt feeling in their minds of dependence upon the mother country, and to sacrifice all national spirit for the sake of mere pecuniary advantage? He wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary especially to this subject. In former times the noble Lord took considerable part, not only as Colonial Minister, but as an independent Member of the House, in debates upon the question, and with true patriotic English spirit, said, over and over again, that we could not withdraw troops from our Colonies, and that if we did not defend the Colonies other nations would be perfectly willing to take them from us. In his opinion the converse of that proposition would hold good, for if we continued to defend the Colonies as we now defended them we should most assuredly hand them over to foreign powers. He contended, in the first place, that the present expenditure was excessive, for surely that outlay must be excessive which led to no satisfactory result. With our troops scattered about the Colonies to no purpose, when a general war broke out we were embarrassed for want of them at homo; and were obliged to resort to hiring German and Swiss legions. On occasion of the last war we all but got into a quarrel with the United States of America on the subject. We attempted an intrigue to enlist American mercenaries, whilst sending our own soldiers vice versâ to America. Another reason against the present mode of scattering the troops through the Colonies was that, after all, the Queen's troops were not the best adapted for the defence of the Colonies. The local militia were best acquainted with the nature of the country they had to defend, and were in all respects, as proved abundantly by the whole history of the American wars, the best adapted for that purpose, while we lost great numbers of our best soldiers year after year by sending them to climates where they died in hundreds. Then, so long as this system

395
of expenditure was continued, the system of colonial defence was of the most wasteful kind; for the more the troops that were sent the richer the colonists became; the bribe of commissariat contracts was a constant premium on local disturbance, while no proper control could be exercised over them or over the expense of the military buildings. Let him take the case of that German Legion which, when disbanded at the close of the Russian war, was treated so much better than our own soldiers. They were sent over to South Africa as soldiers on half-pay at an expense of a quarter of a million of money, on the understanding that they were never to be placed on full pay unless there was a necessity for their employment. The Governor, however, found out that necessity as soon as they were landed, and they had been kept on full pay from that day to this, though the expense had never been audited in this country, nor had the Vote ever been taken in this House, hut, probably, covered up in some balances had passed in silence without a check. What was the case with the Kaffir wars? Those wars had cost the country millions upon millions, and yet the Imperial Parliament had never seen a single item of their accounts, which in fact, had never left the colonial closets to this day. The despatch of Lord Grey, to which he had before alluded, was written at the time of the rebellion in New Zealand, and the object was to induce the Governor of New South Wales (Sir Charles Fitzroy) to send a regiment to New Zealand. In that despatch, which was dated in March, 1848, Lord Grey stated to that Governor how important it was that the colony should take upon itself its fair share of protection. He was of opinion, he said, that a colony which had made so much progress in wealth and population as that of New South Wales ought to bear its share of the expenditure for such purposes, and that the smallest contribution it could offer was to provide what additional means were necessary for its local defences. He suggested that the Governor should invite the gentlemen of the colony to form artillery corps, and he added that, as the colony was now in possession of representative institutions, and while all restrictions on their trade were removed, if they did not provide accommodation for the troops the troops would he removed. He (Mr. Adderley) believed that in the first instance the colonists were inclined to resist these propositions, but this significant postscript at the
396
end of the despatch brought them to their senses, and the colonists now provided, as he had stated, 50 percent. of their own expenses. The waste incurred by the present system might be shown in another way. No one would argue that the mother country ought to provide for the internal police of the country. The only ground on which the presence of the soldiers in the Colonies could be justified was the protection they afforded them against foreign aggression; but he had already shown that as a defence against foreign aggression they were useless, and in point of fact they were only employed for the purposes of internal police. He was far from saying that the colonists ought to bear equally with residents in England their share of the military and naval expenditure, because for one reason they were not represented in this House. The body which controlled the policy of war ought of course to bear its chief cost. But the Colonies were often the cause of war, some by their very position were provocations of jealousies. At all events, there was no reason why they should not hear some share both of naval and military expenditure, and furnish men for the purpose of their own defence. His idea was that they should bear a share, he would not say how much, but one-tenth towards the military expenses within their own territories (they paid nothing towards the naval expenses) was clearly very far short of what they ought to contribute. Whatever England paid for colonial defence it should be a contribution towards the support of colonial troops, and not the contribution of a part of her own army which she wanted at home. He had never heard more than two objections to the course he now proposed. The one was, that the colonists would soon assert their entire independence if we ceased to send them troops for their defence. He thought that position would not bear argument, for what could be the value of that dependence upon us which was only to be maintained by nursing in the minds of our colonists a corrupt and enervating system of dependence? He believed that in point of fact there was no foundation for any such fear, for the spirit of loyalty never more pervaded the Colonies than since they had been somewhat more thrown on their own resources. This was a healthy loyalty—not an interested servility. Was there no proof of that during the Crimean war, when the Canadians offered to raise two regiments at their own expense? To this day he had never heard

397
any good excuse why the War Minister had rejected the offer. They had further proofs of the patriotism of the Colonies in their readiness to assist both in purse and person towards the expenditure of the empire during the late Russian war. Contributions to the Patriotic Fund were obtained from Canada, Australia, and South Africa, showing the pride they felt in sharing in the defence of the empire. For his own part, he would rather see them independent of the mother country at once than retain their present corrupting dependence. If the time should ever come—and it might happen in their own lifetime—when a Member of the present Royal Family ruled over the country with the title and authority of the King of Canada, he was convinced that a much more healthy relation would exist between England and Canada than under the present system, which crippled the means of defence, broke down the martial spirit of the people, and burdened this country with unnecessary expenditure, wholly valueless even for its pretended object. The other objection he had heard raised was, that Canada was not able to defend itself. Now, he would meet that objection with only this one fact—that the intelligence, the wealth, and the population of Canada, were greater now than the intelligence, the wealth, and the population of the United States, at the time when they established their independence, not with the help, but against the resistance of this country. The militia of Canada had long ago proved its efficiency, and that Canada need not depend upon recruits from England for her own security. Imperial and financial, and military interests all demand that the local resources of the Colonies for their own defence should be unlocked. He would only appeal to the Government whether they had considered the present state of things, and if so, whether they thought it satisfactory, and if they did not, whether they were taking any steps with regard to it? If they were, he should be happy to leave the matter in their hands; but he wished also to give notice, if they were not, he should call the immediate attention of the House to a matter of this urgent importance not a day later than the commencement of next Session, and move for a Select Committee on the subject.
LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, he entirely concurred in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. The question of our colonial defences was one of the greatest importance, and there was no subject
398
which more deserved the serious consideration of the House. He could state that the Australian colonies, with which he was best acquainted, viewed with the utmost alarm the presence of a large French fleet in the South Pacific Ocean. The French already had ten ships on the coast, and. as he understood, were about to send five more, while we had only five altogether, so that they would outnumber us by three to one. Then with regard to military force, there were only four regiments in the colonies—one in New South Wales, one in Van Diemen's Land, one in New Zealand, and one in Victoria. Of these regiments, the two on the mainland were employed in discharging the duties of internal police. While the Russian war was going on the regiment was removed from Melbourne to escort the gold from the diggings. He believed that if the matter were properly put to them the colonists would cheerfully come forward as a local militia for the purposes of their own defence. He thought this country ought to find them arms and ammunition, and they would find the men. He thought, also, if we were to send over blockships for the defence of the coasts that the colonists would man them, which he need not say would greatly increase the force for colonial defence. The position of the colonies in case of war ought to be seriously considered. In case of a war with Europe they would be sure to be attacked, and the colonists argue, that as they are no parties to the disturbance of the peace of Europe, it is hard that they should be attacked. The question arose, therefore, whether we were not hound either to afford them sufficient protection, or to give them their independence, so as to free them from any fear of attack from the enemies of England. He did not say that the time had come for the independence of the Colonies, nor did he believe that the colonists themselves wished it. There was a spirit of loyalty and patriotism in those colonies which had increased tenfold since they had received free government. He believed on a rough guess, that the colonies contributed £180,000 to the Patriotic Fund, and he knew that the colony of Tasmania had contributed at the rate of 10s. per head from the whole population. He instanced that to show the patriotic feeling towards this country that was still entertained. At any rate it was the duty of the mother country to place the defences of her Colonies in such a condition that they should be under no fear of any

399
hostile attacks, or to leave them entirely free to adopt their own measures.
MR. MARSHsaid, the seaboard of the Australian colonies was so vast that it was almost impossible that the troops could he provided to defend it. Such troops would he of very little use against external attack, and nothing was so unlikely as internal trouble among a population so prosperous and wealthy, unless the Government were very badly administered indeed. At present nothing could exceed their loyalty, and he thought that the advantages which the Colonies derived from their connection with Great Britain were even greater than those derived from it by the latter, seeing that they had nothing to pay either for armaments or diplomacy. With regard to the naval forces on the Australian coast, the British Navy would be as necessary there for the protection of British commerce as if Australia were independent. Almost every ship in the ports of that colony belonged to British subjects, and was insured at Lloyd's or in some other part of the United Kingdom, so that the colony would not be the losers if those ships were captured. The naval force on that coast was, therefore, an imperial question, but he maintained that to the land defences a very different principle applied.

THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. He had given notice of that Motion fully a month back, and it was only at the instance of the Secretary of State for War that he had so long postponed bringing it forward.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOUR(who had given notice that he would call the attention of the House to the undefended state of the coast between Weymouth and Southampton) said, he rose to order. He was unaware that the last subject had been disposed of, and as his notice was placed immediately afterwards on the paper he believed that he had precedence of the hon. and gallant General.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Motion before the House was that he should now leave the chair, and the hon. and gallant Officer, having risen to submit another Resolution, was rightly in possession of the House.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he should not trouble the House with many observa-
  400
  tions in support of his Motion, as he understood the Government intended to assent to the appointment of this Commission. It was hardly possible to mention at the present moment a subject of greater importance than the state of the national defences. Some persons thought the expenditure on this head was far too great, while others believed our means of defence were still far from sufficient. Great were the differences of opinion which existed, and he thought some attempt ought to be made to inquire into the real facts of the case. For his own part, he was sorry to say that he did not think this most important matter had been gone into by the present or by former Governments as it deserved to have been. The present Government, it was true, were hardly yet seated at their bureaux, and with regard to the late Ministry he quite concurred with the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in thinking that the bright spot in their administration had been their efforts to maintain the maritime forces of the country. He trusted that those exertions would be continued, and he believed this would be the case, for he had every confidence in the judgment and ability of the noble Duke now at the head of the Admiralty. Vast interests were concerned in this inquiry. The value of the commerce which every year went into or passed from our ports was, he believed, about £350,000,000; and if any disagreement arose between this and any foreign country, such as to endanger these vast interests, what terrible ruin must result to all classes of the population of England. To dwell on this momentous consideration would be superfluous. And as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) appeared disposed to assent to the Motion, it would, in fact, only be necessary now to submit it to the House:—
  Amendment proposed,—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words' in the opinion of this House, taking into consideration the relations existing between some of the great Military Powers of the Continent, it is advisable that a Commission be appointed consisting of Civilians and Military and Naval Officers, to inquire into and collect information concerning the present condition of our National Defences; to ascertain what improvements may be made therein in order to ensure the utmost efficiency combined with economy, and to report thereon to Her Majesty's Government instead thereof."
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he then rose, pursuant to notice, to call the atten-

  401
  tion of the House to the undefended state of the coast between Weymouth and Southampton. While a large expenditure had been incurred by the Government for the construction of 30 line-of-battle ships, that portion of shores to which his Motion related—or rather that which lay between Weymouth and the Needles, which lay opposite to Cherbourg, and which in case of attack would be found the most accessible to an invading force, had been left without any adequate means of protection. It had not, however, been left thus undefended in former times, for he found on reference to a map, which bore the date of 1765, that no less than five or six batteries were then erected along that part of the coast. As an illustration of the danger which might arise from leaving things in their present state, he might mention that while Pool, the borough which he had the honour to represent, was sixty miles from Cherbourg, it was at a distance of thirty miles from Weymouth, and that in case of a hostile attack the fleet which might be situated at the latter place could hardly be brought up in sufficient time to be of much service in keeping off the invading force. He should, therefore, urge the Government to turn their attention to the subject, and to allay, if possible, any feeling of panic which might have arisen in the public mind by placing themselves in a position to proclaim to the country that they were prepared for every emergency. He might add, that it seemed to him desirable that inasmuch as it was difficult to establish rifle corps in maritime towns gunboats should be employed along the coast—a large number might, for instance, be drafted from Portsmouth to the point in question—in working the rifled cannon placed on board, which as well as batteries erected at different points on the shore, volunteers from these towns, who would not be found disposed to join rifle corps, might with advantage be employed. Nor would the gunboats themselves be worse in their condition from being kept in the water than hauled upon slips as at present. He should, above all things, recommend his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War not to rest satisfied with imperfect information on so important a question as the state of our defences. Hon. Members were no doubt aware that some time ago the Government of Belgium stated that the defences of Antwerp were in a perfectly efficient condition, and that they had gone to great expense to attain that object. It had, however, turned out,
  402
  when the matter had been sifted before a Committee, which had been moved for by a member of the Belgian Chamber, that all the good will which the Government had exhibited had not availed to secure the end which they had in view, and which they imagined they had accomplished. It was, therefore, he maintained, the duty of his right hon. Friend to take nothing on trust, but to examine into the subject for himself, and to see that no part of the country was left without adequate means of defence.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I have got, Sir, a somewhat multifarious number of questions to which to reply. I shall commence by answering those which have been put to me by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Adderley), in the greater portion of whose observations I must say I entirely concur. My attention was some time ago called to the subject of the payments by different colonies towards their own defence, and I confess it is scarcely possible to conceive anything more capricious or, I may say, unreasonable than the varying proportions in which those payments are made. The Government of the mother country sends troops to the Colonies for the purposes either of defence or of internal police. So far as the first object is concerned, they have some sort of claim to ask her to bear a share of their military expenditure, inasmuch as she arrogates to herself the settlement of all questions of peace and war, and their interests may suffer as the result of the policy which she chooses to pursue. That is a doctrine which, however, may be pushed too far, because if the prospects of a colony are injured by war she enjoys all the advantages of being placed under the protection of a powerful State in time of peace. These observations apply not only to colonies which have great wealth, but to those garrisons which belong to us in the Mediterranean and whose strength makes their possession coveted' by other nations. Now, with respect to the question of the maintenance of troops in our Colonies for the purposes of police, I must say I think such a course is one which is indefensible. We at home pay our military and police expenditure: the one out of the proceeds of Imperial taxation, the other out of local rates. That is a distinction which ought, in my opinion, to be as far as possible maintained in our Colonies. The question, however, is beset with difficulties, but, before I proceed to state the views of the Government with respect to it, I shall

  403
  quote, for the information of the House, from a document which I hold in my hand, the proportion in which the mother country and the Colonies pay for the defence of the latter. In the case of the North American colonies, £441,539 are paid by Great Britain, and only £21,811 by these colonies; the greater portion of that sum being paid by Canada. For Australia the Home Government pays £228,000, the colonies themselves £156,000, to the payment of which amount Victoria is the principal contributor. We have, however, entered into arrangements with them which I think ought to be extended to other colonies, and in accordance with which the colonists pay a certain allowance out of their local funds, and confer several advantages on the troops in the way of procuring provisons for four companies; their agreement being to maintain entirely at their own charge any troops which they may require above that number. The result is that we do not receive from those colonists such pressing solicitations for an increase of military strength as we do from other quarters, while the relations which exist between them and us are placed upon a much sounder footing. For our colonies in the Mediterranean we pay £95S,000, while there is a sum of £30,560 expended by them; but then it must be remembered that, being great military garrisons, it is of the utmost importance for our interests that their defence should be adequately provided for. On the West Indies we lay out £432,000, while the colonists themselves pay not more than £6,000. In our colonies in the East, Mauritius, and Hong Kong, our expenditure for defensive purposes is £280,000, while they expended £91,000. The Cape of Good Hope cost us £635,000, while a sum of £29,000 is all that the colonists contribute. The last mentioned is, I must say, one of the strongest instances of that disproportion to which I have referred. My right hon. Friend, in alluding to the Cape of Good Hope, spoke of the German Legion which was sent out there, and of which he says he has for a long time heard nothing. I am sorry to have to state that I cannot say as much, for the War Department has of late had repeated solicitations addressed to it in connection with that body. I hold in my hand a statement which I have received from the Treasury, and which involves a claim for a large sum of money, inasmuch as Sir G. Grey has kept the troops of the German
  404
  Legion in pay from the time of their arrival in the Cape of Good Hope until the present day. A considerable portion of those troops, it is true, volunteered to go to India, but a large number of them was left behind, and the expense of the maintenance of such a body is very great. Without, however, going further into this point, I shall state to the right hon. Gentleman the course we have taken. It is quite true that if there were only one party to the bargain, we by an Imperial Act could easily overrule the intentions and feelings of the colonists by laying down some law which would settle once for all the proportions upon which this expenditure for military purposes should be based. But this must be made matter of negotiation and mutual understanding between the mother country and the several colonies. They have the great advantage of distance and the great advantage of passive resistance, and therefore I do not feel very sanguine of an early and effective inroad upon the system which now exists. But it ought, nevertheless, not to be neglected, and at the present moment there is a Committee sitting upon the subject, consisting of Mr. G. A. Hamilton (Treasury), Mr. Godly, who is well known to my hon. Friend, and Mr. T. F. Elliot (Colonial Office). The instructions which have been given to those gentlemen are, to ascertain the gross expenses of military defences for the five years 1853-7 inclusive; the proportions borne by colonial Governments; in what colonies they are necessary for Imperial or colonial purposes or both; to lay down the principle upon which the expenses ought to be apportioned; and to state the best mode of carrying that object into effect. As I have before said, the Government are most anxious to pursue this course. The Duke of Newcastle enters warmly into the matter; but, I repeat, that owing to the distance and the great power of resistance, I am not sanguine as to an early or uniform settle-inent, although I am sure every exertion will be made to place the matter upon a more satisfactory footing than at present. With respect to the questions raised by my hon. and galiant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) and by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour), let me say, with regard to the last, that the subject of the defence in case of attack of the coast of England has not escaped the notice of the Government. My predecessor appointed committees of officers to make a minute examination of the whole coast, and those

  405
  Engineer officers prepared plans with great accuracy and great skill. We thought it most important that those officers should be made thoroughly familiar with the topographical and physical nature of the coast of Great Britain, but I am afraid it is impossible to attempt to fortify as against an enemy every portion of the whole coast. You might by attempting it fritter away an enormous sum of money. To place batteries and guns, with no men to serve the guns, would place the country in a worse position than if you did nothing at all. I only hope that the House and every individual Member will recollect that it is impossible the whole of the sea board can be put in a state of fortification, and that the attention of the Government must, in the first instance at any rate, be turned to the defence of those great ports and arsenals in which we have all our materials of war, in which we have the means of reproducing materials of war, and which, I am sorry to say, are not in that forward state of defence at the present moment which I could wish. The gallant Officer proposes a Resolution: —
  "That, in the opinion of this House, taking into consideration the relations existing between some of the great Military Powers of the Continent, it is advisable that a Commission be appointed, consisting of Civilians and Military and Naval Officers, to inquire into and collect information concerning the present condition of our National Defences; to ascertain what improvements may be made therein in order to insure the utmost efficiency combined with economy; and to report thereon to Her Majesty's Government."
  I can offer the gallant Officer the substance of his Motion, but not the Motion itself. If you pass this Resolution, in the first place there is an end of Supply, and then, again, I rather object to the words which point to the relations existing between some of the great military Powers of the Continent. From the first moment when I came into office I turned my attention to the subject, which is one of considerable anxiety to the Government, and I mentioned, during the discussion on the Estimates, that it appeared that the system by which we were proceeding with certain works was a very doubtful policy, as for any effectual purpose of defence they ought to be finished as rapidly as possible. Either the gallant Officer or the hon. Member said he thought the War Department had not paid attention to the subject, and had not confidence in the scientific advice which they had at their command. Now, I find that these plans of defence of the arsenals and
  406
  dockyards show an amount of care, minuteness, and skill which does great credit to the Engineer officers, and it is not that the Government have the slightest distrust in the skill and ability of those officers that they have come to the conclusion to appoint a mixed Commission of civilians and naval and military officers—not too large a number, but a few whose names will carry weight with the public—to whom to submit the plans which we have for these fortifications, asking them to reconsider them, and give us advice as to which should be first proceeded with, and to suggest any alterations or extensions which they may think necessary, but not, of course, to start a fresh theory, and render useless the expenditure of public money already incurred. I believe that is necessary, and it is necessary for this reason— that if this House is to be called upon to vote very large sums, or if the Government think fit to apply very large sums voted by the House, it is essential that public confidence should be obtained, and that the country should be perfectly satisfied that the works on which the expenditure is to be made have been perfectly well considered, and will be adequate as far as possible for the purpose intended. It is therefore the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission such as is described by the gallant Officer. I trust that in a few days, when the names come out, they will be deemed guarantees to the public that the Government is honestly pledged to getting the best advice in their power as to the plans upon which great works are to be carried on at a more rapid pace than has hitherto been the case, so that when completed the country may feel confidence that our arsenals, which contain the means of reproduction of great maritime and military defences, are in such a state that we need be under no alarm of a successful attack by any enemy under any circumstances whatever.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War for the manner in which he had treated the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Adderley). He was not aware when he read the notice what was the particular purport of the Motion, on account of the manner in which it was worded, and he confessed that he listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with a great deal of anxiety as to whether he understood it rightly, and whether the right hon. Gen-

  407
  tleman would be misunderstood on the other side of the water. The right hon. Gentleman, as far as he could gather from his observations, appeared to question the expediency of having troops in British North America. He hoped he might be permitted to make a few remarks upon that subject, because the whole of his life had been spent there. It was said that the colonists ought to defend themselves. Be it so. It was not the first time they had done it, and they were able to do it again. But at the same time there was a reciprocal duty as well as a mutual interest—on the one part, loyal and obedient attachment to this country, and on the other protection. It was said that the militia of the colony ought to be organized. He was proud to say that it had been organized, and in the war of 1812 with the United States, with very trifling assistance from this country, for her troops were wanted elsewhere, the militia of Canada turned out, and the whole force of the United States was not sufficient to make any impression upon them. Again, when Lord Seaton by that very extraordinary manner in which he governed Canada produced rebellion—not in Nova Scotia, for in Nova Scotia there never was rebellion, but in other parts—it was the native troops, under the command of Sir A. M' Nab and Sir F. Bond Head, who drove out the Yankee sympathizers and the French rebels. The same thing could be done again, but the very knowledge that England would protect the country in time of need was a protection of itself. If it were announced that the troops would be withdrawn, and the colonies of British North America must protect themselves, it would lead to trouble with their neighbours; while the very knowledge that a great country like England, with a large army and a powerful fleet, was willing to take them under its wing, was a protection against the most powerful neighbour they had to fear, if fear were not a word inapplicable to the case. If the troops were withdrawn, what did they want with the colonies? Let them give the colonies under those circumstances their independence. They did not ask or want it, and would receive it with regret; but the colonists were men of English extraction, and would say, "If you are come to the condition of Rome, and you must gather your legions from the extremities of your empire, give us our independence and leave us, and we will say God speed and protect you as
  408
  in the olden time." But when hon. Members talked of the militia and governing the colonies, England did not govern, but misgoverned them. England did not manage their affairs, but mismanaged them. What had occurred with regard to the militia within the last three or four years? Why, that a boy of 15 or 16 years of age, at Eton or one of the public schools, was made a colonel of the militia of Nova Scotia. Was the appointment of a boy, who was learning his Latin and Greek grammar in this country, over the heads of old men in the colony, because it would give the boy rank hereafter, likely to encourage the militia to turn out? In his opinion, it was turning the whole thing into ridicule. These were the blessings they enjoyed and the encouragement they received. What had the colonies to do with an European war? Their ships were plundered on the high seas, their sailors were impressed in their towns, and the enemy's ships were in all their coves and creeks, watching for their homeward-bound ships. The quarrel was not one of theirs. When this country undertook to govern the colonies, and when it made laws suitable for itself, well and good; but Parliament ought, at least, to ask the colonies whether the same laws were suited to their condition. When they gave to America the coasting trade of this country, what right had they to include in their gift the coasting trade of any of the Colonies— what right had they to permit the Americans to extend under the term "coasting trade," the trade from Boston, round South America, to California? Yet that was one of their acts, and it was one that had almost ruined the shipping of the North American colonies. Look at the extent and feeling of those colonies. They contained 4,000,000 intelligent, loyal and patriotic men. They made an offer of two regiments for the Crimea, and one of their regiments was now in this country. The sympathies of the colonies were still further evinced in the legislative grants and subscriptions for the Patriotic Fund and the Indian Mutiny Fund, of the distribution of which latter fund he was one of the managers. He did not recollect all the figures, but from the Australian colonies alone £70,000 were received in subscriptions and grants. These were circumstances on which to found the consideration that if Great Britain were to withdraw her legions the colonies ought to have fair notice. He was glad that the

  409
  right hon. Gentleman had given so proper an answer to the question put to him, and that his answer would go out to the colonies. If this country were to withdraw her troops, let there be an understanding how and when they were to be withdrawn. He had had the satisfaction of bringing before the late Secretary of the Colonies a plan by which it would not be necessary to keep a single soldier in Canada. If that chain of railways which ran from Halifax to New Brunswick were completed by the construction of a small portion to Quebec, in twelve days, and at any season of the year, the Government of this country could send as many troops as they liked to Canada, and they need not keep a single soldier in that country. He was glad the discussion had taken this turn, and he was gratified that the Secretary for War had answered the question which had been put to him in so conciliatory and statesmanlike a manner.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction that the Secretary of State for War assented to some extent to his hon. and gallant Friend's proposal for a Commission. For if that House were called on to vote a large sum of money they would do it all the more readily if its expenditure were recommended by a Commission that commanded public confidence. He wished therefore to suggest that the official element should be introduced in this Commission as sparingly as possible, if even it were not excluded altogether, since one of its most important functions would be to review the proceedings that had already taken place under official authority. It would also be desirable to secure an early report, and a limit ought, he thought, to be put to the period at which the first report should be made. He did not see why the first report—not the final report, but embodying the main recommendations of the Commission—should not be made within three months. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was out of the question to attempt to fortify our coasts so as to prevent an enemy from landing. The only fortifications required were those that were necessary for the protection of our ships and arsenals. To build batteries along the coast for the enemy to land under was absurd. There was no doubt an enemy possessed greater facilities for landing and for the transport and embarkation of troops than he ever had before, and there were many points along the coast on which an enemy would have no
  410
  great difficulty in landing. He agreed with General Shaw Kennedy that we should not be safe until we had such an internal force upon our own soil as would defeat and destroy any enemy that might gain a landing. If that were so, the Commission about to be appointed ought to recommend what amount of internal land force we ought always to maintain—how many troops of the line, how many militia, and how many volunteers we required, so as to be always in a state of perfect security. For a nation containing 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 male adults to be in a perpetual panic of an invasion of 100,000 or 200,000 men was a scandal and a burlesque. We ought always to be in such a condition that any army that was likely to obtain a landing would be certain to be defeated and destroyed. The Commission might make a valuable report, which would facilitate the proceedings of the Government in that House, and carry more weight than any statements on mere departmental authority that might be made in Committee of Supply.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he hoped that the return alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), which was rather a complicated one, would be laid on the table on Friday. The noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office would, he was confident, give his best consideration to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but there was another side to the question, as they had heard from the distinguished colonist whom they were all glad to see in the House, and who was a brilliant representative of the truly British spirit of the colonial subjects of this country. He thought that his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert) had struck a fair balance between imperial views and the colonial side of the question, which had been so candidly and temperately stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Haliburton). It must be remembered that the Home Government had to deal with a great number of communities scattered all over the world, differing in age, in means, resources, in the liability to attack, and the necessity for defence, and it was, therefore, impossible to adopt one uniform system in dealing with them all. In many of these cases, too, the Home Government had not to deal with colonies subject to their absolute authority, bhut had to negotiate with Governments possessing representative institutions and capable of acting in a great degree independently of

  411
  the Home Government. The only mode in which the Imperial Government could in some cases act was by refusing to send British troops to particular colonies, or by saying they would withdraw the troops now there unless the colony paid for their maintenance. He did not deny, however, that there were occasions on which that power of withdrawal should be put in force by the British Minister for the Colonies; but it was no trivial responsibility to undertake. He could not therefore promise that that power would be used in any general way. At the same time, great weight would be given to the views which had been put forward, and the Government would endeavour to alter the heavy balance which existed on the side of the mother country in respect of the outlay incurred upon the Colonies.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he was glad to hear the Government intended to appoint a Commission of the kind indicated by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War; but some doubt appeared to exist in the House as to the extent of the powers to be conferred upon it. He hoped that the Commission contemplated would have for it3 object an inquiry not merely into the stone and mortar question, but into the whole subject of the national defences—to determine the number of men, both of the regular army and the militia, which it was essential we should have in this country as a permanent force, available at all times; what was the number of ships and sailors it was necessary to maintain as a permanent available naval force; and what fortifications were indispensably requisite for the defence of the kingdom. Such was the scope of the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) and he thought it desirable that it should be so extended that we should no longer be liable, as we were now, to a constantly recurring state of panic, which was fast becoming chronic, and which was unworthy a great nation. We ought, on the contrary, to be in a position which would render us independent alike of the friendship or the enmity of all or any of the potentates of Europe. We ought to know, as Englishmen, that whatever steps were necessary to obtain the security of this country had been adopted; and he thought that the appointment of a Commission to inquire into these matters would be the best means to attain that object. If that Commission should report that a certain number of men, a certain number of ships, and certain mi-
  412
  litary organizations, were required for this purpose, he hoped that the House, when it came to consider the Estimates, would not seek to reduce them, but merely be watchful that the money which they voted was well applied to the purposes of the country. That object he conceived would he better attained by the Commission proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend than that contemplated by the Government.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he also approved of the appointment of the Commission, but he thought it was impossible that such a Commission could determine the exact number of troops, militia, ships, or artillery necessary for the defence of this country, inasmuch as the defensive force ought always to be proportioned to the force of other countries from time to time, and have regard to the varying state of European politics. Nor could he agree in the notion that there was a "chronic state of panic" in England; at the same time there was no doubt a feeling that because of the great military power existing on the Continent it was necessary that this country should be placed in such a state that if any state of circumstances of an ad-verso nature should arise, rendering remonstrances on the part of England necessary, she should be able to make those remonstrances with due weight and without any apprehension as to their result. He hoped the Commission contemplated by the Government would be so constituted as to carry weight in the country as well among military men as civilians, and that they would not incur expenditure of a kind calculated rather to retard the work of national defence than to carry it out on a satisfactory footing.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to remind the House that the word fortification did not occur in his Motion. Of course he quite felt the total absurdity of any attempt to fortify the whole of the English coast; but he thought the Commission should take a comprehensive view of all that was necessary to our national defences.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Whatever may be the views of the House as to the constitution of the Commission announced by my right hon. Friend, its appointment is a question of very great importance. I do not think there will be any advantage in adding to its inquiries, so as to make them of a larger character than those which have been indicated by my right hon. Friend. In the first place, it would so extend the

  413
  range of the inquiries as to postpone the report for a period longer than is desirable, and at the same time would embarrass the proceedings of the Commission. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir De Lacy Evans) will be satisfied with the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend, and will not press his Motion to a division, seeing that his object is accomplished by the course proposed by the Government. I am anxious to state, that in my opinion the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman)—that the Commission should be instructed to enter upon a larger range of inquiry, and to consider what should be the amount of the naval and military force necessary for the defence of this country—is an inquiry of a totally different nature from that to which the Commission of my right hon. Friend is intended to apply; and, moreover, that it is not a proper subject for inquiry by Commission. The inquiries of the Commission will be directed to the permanent works which are essential and necessary for the defence of the different dockyards and other places of a like nature. These once ascertained, the works when constructed will form part of the permanent defences of the country, and as such will not vary; but the inquiry suggested as to the proper amount of naval and military force to be kept up, is a matter which must depend upon the Government of the day, and for which they are responsible. This must necessarily vary from year to year, according to the varying circumstances of this and other countries. This inquiry differs essentially from that as to the permanent works. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not embarrass our proceedings by pressing his views upon the subject. The inquiry has necessarily occupied the attention of the Government, but the result arrived at in one year may differ considerably from that which may be come to in another.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, lie could not agree that the Commission proposed by the Government would in the least meet the views of the gallant Officer (Sir De Lacy Evans). The inquiry into the best mode of fortifying the dockyards was, from its very nature, but a small portion of the great question which the gallant Officer wished to have investigated, and involved merely an engineering investigation as to the best mode of defending particular places. The corps of engineers was maintained expressly for the purpose of designing and carrying out
  414
  a system of inland fortification, and he could not conceive what necessity existed for the appointment of a special Commission with regard to a subject which the engineers, who were maintained at such great expense, were peculiarly competent to deal with. What the gallant General desired was the appointment of a Commission to consider the whole system of defence proposed for this country, not with regard to the maintenance of the naval and military services for purposes of aggressive war, for the strength of these must depend on the circumstances under which the war was to be carried on. The point which the country was interested in knowing, and which the gallant General desired to elicit by this investigation, was the extent at which the ordinary defences of the country in time of peace were to be fixed—and, likewise, that some assurance might be given that the military and naval preparations were such as would protect them against any sudden invasion from abroad. In short, it was desired to know what ought to be the minimum force maintained in time of peace, and what should be the nature of that minimum force. Unfortunately the strength and efficiency of the army had heretofore been considered as separate and distinct from that of the navy; whereas they were in fact so closely connected that the question of' the minimum of the one necessarily affected the other. They should therefore be treated as one in regard to the primary object for which they were maintained. The object on which the people of this country desired first to be satisfied, when they turned their minds to the subject of the defences, was as to the sufficiency of the fleet to protect them from invasion. Those who were peculiarly competent to inform them, such as the gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier), asserted that the navy was entirely insufficient to defend this country against aggression from a neighbouring State. The object of this Commission with regard to the navy would he to ascertain the minimum that could with safety be maintained both in ships and in men. Some persons entertained the idea that an abundant supply of seamen was always to be obtained in time of need from the great commercial marine, and that they might therefore have in the navy great numbers of boys and comparatively few able seamen; but if they looked a little farther it would perhaps be found that it would be exceedingly difficult in case of war to withdraw from the mercan-

  415
  tile marine any very large supply of sailors without so entirely disarranging that service, and creating such a grievance to the commercial interests that an outcry would be raised which would render it almost impracticable to man the navy at the expense of the commercial marine. The gallant Admiral therefore had raised the question how far it was expedient that the sailors who were maintained in time of peace should be all able-bodied seamen—thus affording a basis which could at any time be increased by boys and less efficient sailors; and he confessed that he had never heard that question satisfactorily answered. It was always avoided by the Admiralty, and never dealt with in a satisfactory manner. It was, however, a question peculiarly fitted for the consideration of such a Commission as that proposed. In the same way there were many questions connected with the Army that called for inquiry, and these should also be intrusted to the consideration of this Commission. Thus it was most desirable to inquire whether, independent of the Navy, the Army was capable of being placed on a footing which would repel invasion. Where, he would ask, was the utility of maintaining a force of 80,000 men if they were liable to have 200,000 brought against them, unless they had sufficient means of reinforcing their army to an extent that would render it equal to the force by which it might be attacked? Experience showed that whatever might be the strength of an army in time of peace, unless the means existed of replenishing its ranks in time of war, it very soon came to an end, and the result was the same whether it were victorious or vanquished. The career of the great Napoleon showed that after all his brilliant victories he was compelled to succumb to the forces opposed to him, from the fact that they were constantly being reinforced, whilst his own army at last failed to receive accessions in any sufficient number. The question of maintaining in this country a military reserve, such as would render the standing army, whatever its amount, really effective for the purposes of national defence, was one of the first importance. It was a question which succeeding Governments had never dealt with, and never attempted to deal with. There were many other subjects which required investigation to place the country in a satisfactory state not for aggressive, but for defensive warfare, and the adoption of some plan by which, though it might be impossible to fix a num-
  416
  ber at which the army and navy should under all circumstances be kept, these services might yet be placed on such a footing as would give confidence to the people; and, what was still more important, would satisfy them that the enormous sums which they were called on year by year to vote were really applied to some practical and useful purposes. Because it was a melancholy thing to be told, after the expenditure of so many millions for successive years, that the army and navy were almost useless without an additional and very large expenditure, and that whenever the least doubt or danger existed, the whole work had nearly to be recommenced. It was his belief that if a proper system had been observed, the services would have been organized on a better, more effectual and more economical footing, and that results of a far more satisfactory character would have been arrived at. Looking however, at the circumstances in which we were placed, he thought the investigations of the Commissioners should take a wider range than was proposed by the Government.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, that in explanation he wished to say that he had not proposed that the force should not vary from year to year, but that there should be a minimum established below which the force in this country should never be reduced.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the management of Greenwich Hospital. He was sorry to learn that the Government intended to oppose his Motion. He was at a loss to know why it should be opposed; for if there were abuses in the institution they should be corrected; and if there were none, the Government would then have a great triumph over him for having brought forward a Motion which was entirely useless. He believed that there were great faults in the management of Greenwich Hospital; and if ever there was a time when they should look into the matter and see that the seamen in that establishment got the same justice as the officers, now was that time. All the officers received their salary and their half-pay as well, and it was extremely hard that the seamen were not treated in the same way. The Governor had a pension of £300 a year

  417
  for the loss of his leg; and the other officers had pensions for their wounds, and it was quite just that they should. But if a poor seaman lost an arm or a leg and went into Greenwich Hospital his pension was taken away from him, and he only received the maintenance given to a man who had served a certain number of years. Now surely this was not fair play. The House would be astonished when he read' a calculation which he had made in respect of Greenwich Hospital, which showed that the salaries of officers came to £25,598 10 s. a year, whilst the sum spent in the maintenance of all the pensioners was only £33,163. The first thing he asked was that the common sailor in Greenwich Hospital should retain his pension for his wounds. It was not fair that a man who had received no wounds should receive the same advantages as one who had lost in the service of his country one or, perhaps, two of his limbs. At present a pensioner got a shilling a week only to amuse himself with. It was quite true that he was clothed, fed, and lodged; but a sailor could not be comfortable unless he had some money in his pocket. The noble Lord at the head of the Government himself might have the range of Buckingham Palace, and be well fed, clothed, and lodged; but if he had not a penny in his pocket to bless himself with he would be a miserable man. He would give some details as to the officers. The governor, including his half-pay and his pension, received no less than £2,759 0s. 1d.; the lieutenant governor, £1,345 6s. 4d.; the senior captain, £740 15 s. 7d.; and so on in the same proportion. These were handsome allowances, but he did not say there was a penny more than those officers deserved, for they were all old officers; but the argument was as good for the men as for the officers. A married seaman's only means of maintaining his wife was to go upon the out-fund or to take his provisions away with him, and share them, together with his shilling a week, with his wife and family. If a man had half a dozen children, how could he maintain them respectably? The wife of a sailor who was in Greenwich Hospital was, he should say, one of the most degraded women in the world. They could get but little work, and they had not sufficient to maintain themselves in decency. If they were allowed to do the washing of Greenwich Hospital, washhouses being erected for the purpose, that would afford a comfortable living to a great many, and the plan would be
  418
  cheaper than that in operation at present —sending the things to Croydon to be washed. A pensioner passed his house the other day, and he spoke to him, and asked where he had been. The man said he had been to see his friends. He further asked whether he had received any money when he started, and the man said, "Sir, I saved up my shilling a week, and what little I could make up besides, and went down into the west country," and, he added, that he was obliged to beg his way back, though when he got back he should be allowed the value of his provisions for the time he was away. Now, why should not the value of the provisions have been advanced to him when he went away? Another great complaint was that the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor had not the smallest power in the world, but were continually thwarted and their recommendations overruled by three civil Commissioners who had £700 or £800 a year each, and some of them did not even live at Greenwich. It was precisely the same in the time of Sir James Gordon, Sir Charles Adam, and Sir R. Stopford. It might be necessary to have a financier to manage the monetary concerns of the hospital; but if it were, let him be a member of that House, and responsible to it for the manner in which he discharged his duties. The existence of these Commissioners was entirely unnecessary. The day before yesterday two men came to him, one of them a pensioner who had been in the service about twenty years, his pension being £27. When the Queen's proclamation came out calling on him to serve he went to Portsmouth, and was sent on board the Asia. He had been a petty officer, and he understood from the proclamation that when he went back he was to receive the same pay and rating as he had had before. The man said, "I am, however, now only rated as an A.B." He was, however, a devilish clover fellow and justly added, "Suppose you, Sir, were a reserve admiral, how would you like to go back again as captain?" Nor was this all, for previous to going back he had been employed fitting out merchant vessels and received weekly wages, but when he joined his ship he was two months without receiving any money, because the ship was not in course of pay, nor had he been able to make any allotment. This was not of so much importance in this case, because there was his pension of £27 to support them; but the contrary was the case in the instance of a

  419
  man living in his own village who had a pension of £6, and who earned 10 s. or 12 s. a week as a bricklayer's labourer. He went to Portsmouth in obedience to the proclamation, but he could get no pay until the ship was in course of pay, nor could he make any allotment for his wife and family, who were starving at that moment. These were little things which did not come under the notice of the Admiralty; but all the pensioners who had re-entered the service were in the same position; they could get no pay until the ship was in the course of pay, and of course could make no allotment. He contended that these matters deserved inquiry, and he would therefore conclude by moving for the Address.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. and gallant Member that there were already an original Motion and an Amendment before the House; therefore, till one or the other of them was disposed of his Motion could not be put.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIER: Am I at liberty now, Sir?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; the Motion now before the House is that I leave the Chair.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £169,468, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge for Public Education in Ireland, under the charge of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to the 31st day Of March, 1860."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to several items in this Vote, which, it was understood last year, should not again appear in the Estimates for Irish Education. There were several of those items to which he objected, amongst which were the following:—Salaries of teachers of navigation, and purchase of nautical instruments; salaries of teachers of drawing and music; salaries of work mistresses in the ordinary National Schools, AMP; c. There was a long list under the head of model farms, class 11, which some of the Irish newspapers themselves had stated was as gross a piece of jobbery as ever was perpetrated, amounting in the whole to £4,274. There were also ninety agricultural schools maintained at a most extrava-
  420
  gant cost. He submitted that the landlords of Ireland ought to maintain their own agricultural schools, as was done in Scotland and in England by the landlords of those countries. There were sixty-four schools belonging to workhouses in Ireland, to which he made no objection. The whole of the items to which he had referred as most objectionable amounted to £22,689, which sum he would move should be deducted from the Vote, unless he received an assurance from the Government that they would never again appear in this Vote. He thought the best application of this money would be to promote the extensi on of education amongst the people.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £146,779, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge for Public Education in Ireland, under the charge of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to the 31st day of March, 1860."
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he thought the House ought to look at both sides of the question, and he must express his surprise that the hon. Gentleman should have passed over the Vote for English Education, amounting to £826,000 for the education of 800,000 children, in silence, and yet should grudge this comparatively small sum of £246,000 for the education of 500,000 children in Ireland. If justice were done, the English and Scotch taxpayers would have to put their hands in their pockets to the tune of £300,000 more. There could be no more legitimate expense than that incurred in teaching the people agriculture —the pursuit by which the majority of them had to gain their livelihood. As for singing, if he had his will it should be obligatory on every school to teach the children this most civilizing accomplishment. He could scarcely think the hon. Member serious in his opposition to instruction in sewing.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth would be satisfied with his assurance that no new expenditure with reference to the Model Agricultural Schools was now contemplated. The hon. Gentleman might not be aware how that system of agricultural teaching originated. It was considered desirable by the Devon Commission, and by all persons who had paid attention to the condition of Ireland, that industrial education should be combined with merely literary education, in order that the children, whether male or female, might receive a training which

  421
  would enable them to obtain a livelihood. The question arose, however, how the teachers for the agricultural schools in which these children were to be educated should themselves be trained? The most economical course was evidently to give them an efficient training, and on this ground the Model Agricultural School near Dublin and that under the control of the Commissioners had been established. His hon. Friend also objected to the expense incurred for the instruction in needlework afforded in the female industrial schools. It appeared from returns presented by the Board of Trade that an extraordinary increase had taken place of late years in articles of needlework manufactured in Ireland which were imported into this country. These imports were principally owing to the employment provided by capitalists in Scotland for Irish women, thus affording to the young women of the sister kingdom the invaluable advantage of gaining a subsistence by their industry. He thought the Government would have neglected their duty if they had not provided for their industrial education in both these establishments. If his hon. Friend would refer to the report of the Commissioners of Education, he would find that very high authorities among Irishmen, and also Mr. Chambers, an eminent Scotchman, who had visited the school of Glasnevin, had expressed a strong opinion as to the importance of maintaining that establishment, even if it were not profitable, as a mere farm. He (Mr. Cardwell) did not mean to say that these items would not appear in future Estimates, but the charge for the higher branch of the agricultural schools had been discontinued as a matter of new expenditure.
  MR. HADFIELDcontended that it was against the principle which had been repeatedly acknowledged in the House to grant any particular class of Her Majesty's subjects sums of money in order to their being educated in any particular industrial branch. They did not, for example, vote away money to teach the people to spin wool in Yorkshire or to make knives in Sheffield. Ireland was never more prosperous or contented than at the present moment. And he rejoiced at the fact; but he certainly thought it most absurd that the people of the United Kingdom should be called upon to pay for teaching the childern of Ireland music and needlework. He should certainly divide with the hon. Member for Lambeth against this Vote.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he thought it was a mistake to give stewards and gardeners such a training as was afforded in these schools, but he would recommend the hon. Member for Lambeth not to divide the Committee.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, as the hon. Member for Lambeth had allowed the Votes for industrial teaching in England to pass without the slightest comment, he could hardly be serious in his threat to divide the Committee on this Vote.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was glad to hear from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that these items were in course of diminution. He could not understand on what principle any English, Irish, or Scotch Member could support this Vote; but as he feared that he should not succeed in his opposition to it he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, some observations were made that morning as to the payment of the national schoolmasters in Ireland. He thought it was highly expedient to increase their salaries, and also perhaps to reduce their number. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) bad spoken on the subject of education in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman advised the people of Ireland to preserve the national system, but there were 2,200,000 or 2,300,000 Protestants in Ireland, and nineteen-twentieths of them were of opinion that the Scriptures ought not to be excluded by a peremptory rule from their schools. The province of Ulster afforded a test of the feelings of Irish Protestants on this subject. They were unanimously of opinion that some concession should be made to satisfy the scruples and convictions of their church and people. The Church of Rome, the Church of England, and the Presbyterian Synod complained of that system. The right hon. Member for Taunton asked the Irish Members why they did not approve it, but would the English Members agree to the establishment of that system in England? They certainly would not. There were at present what were called revivals in Ulster, and he had read an account of 30,000 people worshipping there the other day in the open air. Those people would tell you that they clung to the Scriptures, that they pinned their faith upon the Scriptures, and upon nothing else. You might say that that was Puritanical, but that was not the question. The question was, did they bold that opinion? They did. On what principle, then, did the House propose to tax them for the

  423
  support of a system to which they objected? That system would never prevail among a Protestant population, and it was therefore incumbent upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was a man of ability and, he believed, of sense, to ascertain what were the opinions of all classes of the people, and to make the system conformable to their opinions, and it would thereby become more national than ever. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord Fermoy) had misunderstood what was said about the national schoolmasters. It was never intended to attack the whole body of schoolmasters. The great bulk of them were most respectable men, and in charity he was willing to believe it was their miserable pay which induced four or five of them to implicate themselves in treason. On returning from the late trials for conspiracy in Ireland he mentioned to Lord Eglinton what he had discovered in reference to the conduct and moral principles of certain of the national schoolmasters. Lord Eglinton said, the moment the trials were over he would cause a strict inquiry to be made by the National Board into the conduct of these rebellious schoolmasters, and endeavour to secure for the country teachers who would not deprave the morals of their scholars. It had been said that the Protestants were an extreme and intolerant party; but the Protestants had never yet been convinced that it was an intolerant opinion to be in favour of the reading of the New Testament in schools, and against the exclusion of any good book. At the same time they did not wish to force their system of instruction upon any one, but to leave the school doors open, that all who entered might do so with a full knowledge that they would [hear the truth. The success of the schools in Connaught and Munster, where there was little mixed education given had been vaunted. But surely in Ulster, where the system of mixed education actually existed, encouragement ought not to be withheld from those who sought to carry its principles into practical operation. A gentleman who formed one of a deputation to the late Government in Dublin said that if the national system was allowed to exist as at present the education of the better class would be extinguished in Ireland; and on being asked for an explanation of his opinion, he said that it had had the effect of destroying all the intermediate schools, which formerly educated a better class of the people than the peasants merely. Un-
  424
  der the existing system education was not provided for those classes who were immediately above the poor, and he expected soon that a grant would be moved for out of the public purse to provide for their education. The hon. Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Maguire) complained that the Roman Catholics were very much restricted under the National system, and he cited as an example an instance where the Commissioners refused to make a grant because the emblem of the cross appeared on the ground to be built on. He (Mr. Whiteside) thought that was a very narrow objection. But he went further, and said there was an extreme difficulty in applying this system in its stringency to all cases of religious manifestation. His complaint was that this country (Great Britain) was in the habit of legislating without consideration for the quiet, peaceable, retired, and, if he might say it without offence, the loyal people of Ireland. It was precisely because they were quiet that their opinions were disregarded; if they had been troublesome, their grievances would have been redressed. There had not been a single Orange procession in Ulster this year, but great discontent was felt on this subject of education. The right hon. Member for Taunton said they ought to be satisfied with a theory of his, with which, however, they were not satisfied. Let him mention three examples of the difficulty of working the system in its present form. Some time ago a number of ladies connected with the Established Church and with the Dissenting bodies united together in founding a ragged school in Belfast, where certain miserable and outcast children were fed, clothed, and taught something of the existence of a God, of which they had never heard before. The National Board was applied to for assistance, which was granted after examination of the rules of the school; but after a time representations were made to the Board that something had been taught savouring of religion —he knew not whether it) was the Lord's Prayer or a hymn. Straightway an offensive inquiry was instituted on the spot to discover not merely whether the Btrict orders of the Board in regard to religious instruction had not been exceeded by these benevolent ladies, but into their own opinions and conduct as to religious teaching. In another case an inspector found a religious book in a school conducted by some nuns, and it appearing that a Protestant child had been taught an

  425
  Ave Maria from it, the Board wrote an admonition to the teachers condemning what they had done. What did this prove but that those ladies, being bound together by a higher obligation than any that the Board could enforce, could not fail to be brought into collision with its administrators, and did that despite the rules which the rules of the Board were formed to prevent? It would be far better to give to the members of different religious persuasions such aid as they were fairly entitled to secure, and enforce under inspection a good secular education, and then leave the patrons to give religious instruction in accordance with their own conscientious belief to those scholars who chose to attend their schools. The third instance that he would quote was one in which an inspector visited a school in Tyrone and found the school closed during school hours to enable the Redemptorist Fathers to hold a meeting within its walls. As the Board would allow no religious teaching within the school, their rules were brought into direct conflict with the opinions of, no doubt, the great bulk of the pupils. The schools could not be opened in the morning with a recognition of the existence of the Almighty; a priest would violate the system if he gave the children his blessing; and the scholars would, in their turn, be censurable if they crossed themselves in the school. What was that but attempting to govern the people of a free country by the drum-head principles of the Prussian system? He believed the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) had once a favourable impression of the National system, but on examining its working he came over to our opinion, and that is to maintain the secular system in all its utility, leaving the patron to give the religious instruction which he notifies. Sir F. Head also, who in a pamphlet stated that he had been charmed by the spectacle of a model school in which several hundred children were taught, after further reflection said the sight of such a school inspired a sentiment of awe, because those hundreds of children commenced and concluded their day without any acknowldegment in the school of the existence of a Divine Being. He also became of our opinion. No answer had ever been given to the case of the Wesleyan Methodists. In their schools, by the system of teaching established by John Wesley, religious instruction was made obligatory; the trustees of Methodist schools could not deviate from their trusts, and their system
  426
  was in direct conflict with that of the Nation-al Board. The Earl of Eglinton had at one time entertained an opinion that the Board ought not to be meddled with; but, after investigating the practical working of the system, and consulting the dignitaries of the Church upon it, he came to the conclusion that it was absolutely impossible to maintain it as it at present existed, and that such modifications ought to be introduced into it as, without affecting the conscientious scruples of any man, and rendering the system more national, would enable this House which voted away the money, to include within the operations of the Society those who now conscientiously differed from it. When they reflected upon what was the nature of the population of Ireland, and that there were fifty Members from that country who would probably vote for a modification, he thought that whatever their opinions or prejudices this House was bound to reconsider the stringent rules of the National Board of Education. He (Mr. Whiteside) spoke not to the Roman Catholics, but he spoke on behalf of the Church, which would not change with the changing politics of the day, and of the University for which he was a Member; but he could not help expressing his admiration of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), because he thought it was tolerant, courteous to those who differed from the right hon. Gentleman, and yet expressive of his own views. He would, however, warn the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that he would never be able to change the opinion of the Church on this question. The Church of England rested on the Scriptures, and it would always insist that the Scriptures should be taught. The Protestants in Ireland were part of the nation as well as the Roman Catholics, and neither party could now well exist without the other. The country, however, was wide enough for both, and the best advice he could give them was to respect each other, and endeavour to settle this dispute in an amicable spirit, and put an end to almost the only question that now provoked a difference of opinion in Ireland.
  MR. M'CANNsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that although Roman Catholic children attended many of the Protestant schools in Ireland, they never heard of any of them being perverted or converted to the Protestant faith, But why did the Roman Catholic children go to the Protestant schools? Was it not a

  427
  notorious fact, that in ninety-nine eases out of 100 they were coerced in doing so? He was stating what he knew to be the truth. He knew from experience, that when work was scarce, labourers were refused employment and turned away, De-cause their children did not go to the Protestant schools. The Secretary for Ireland had proved to him that he knew how to take a correct measure of certain gentlemen who came from Ireland and spoke mildly and quietly in this House, but who had got up this game of opposition with a view of moving the Government to accede to the wishes of the Church party. If the Roman Catholics held the same proportion of property in Ireland as the Protestants, he should be ready to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Sheffield. He agreed almost entirely with what had fallen from the hon. Secretary for Ireland. No matter what defects might be imputed to the National system of education, it had conferred greater benefits on Ireland and done more to raise the character of the people than anything effected by legislation within his memory.
  MR. A. MILLSagreed that it was of the utmost importance, that the schools in the south of Ireland especially should be raised to a higher standard, and that the only mode of raising them was by increasing the salaries of the masters. The real test, in his opinion, of a good system of National education was, that it should evoke the largest possible amount of local and personal effort; but tried by that test, he confessed he thought that the Irish system of education had in some measure failed. He trusted that the Government would use their best endeavours to make the system succeed in those points where it had failed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes.
  (2.) £665, Office of Commissioners of Education, Ireland.
  (3.) £3,650, University of London.
  (4.) £7,650, Grants to Scottish Universities.
  (5.) £1,297, Queen's University, Ireland.
  (6.) £2,800, Queen's Colleges, Ireland.
  MR. HENNESSYcalled attention to the fact that this Vote was required on account of the practical failure of the system of mixed academical education in Ireland. A note in the Estimate stated that the Vote was necessary to meet certain
  428
  incidental expenses formerly defrayed from fees which had been reduced. The total sum derived from such fees, however, before the reduction, was only £759 for the three colleges. When the matriculation fee was reduced from £3 to 10s., the aggregate reduction amounted to about £700. The House was now asked to vote £800 to make up for the loss of £700. If the number of students had been as large as the promoters of the colleges anticipated, no necessity whatever would have arisen for this Vote. He would not oppose the Vote this year for reasons he had formerly adverted to.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the whole of the items which formed this Vote were given in a complete state in the Estimates, and he had no hesitation in saying that the colleges had not met with the success which was originally expected by the founders.
  Vote agreed to, as was also
  (7.) £500, Royal Irish Academy.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors and the Incidental Expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1860."
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that as a Protestant Dissenter he always felt ashamed when he saw this Vote upon the Estimates. He would appeal to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for his support, for it was his belief that if the House could be induced to refuse the Vote the path would be cleared, to some extent, for getting rid of Maynooth. There was no reason on earth why this large denomination of Christians should not pay their own theological professors. Among the disbursements was a sum of £250 a year to Dr. Cook, for filling the office of professor of sacred rhetoric— an office, he believed, which had never been heard of in any other country. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote to the sum of £450 being the amount of the retiring allowances.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSinquired if it was not an understood thing at the establishment of the Belfast College that the institution was to merge into it.
  MR. CARDWELLexplained that the fusion had taken place, but that such of the then existing professors as were en-titled to a retiring allowance were provided for out of the Vote.
  MR. HADFIELDcomplained that the Irish Presbyterians were the only Nonconformist body in the United Kingdom who received a single farthing from the Exchequer. He objected to such gentle-men as Drs. Montgomery, Scott, and Cooke, enjoying professorships when they had chapels for the administration of the duties of which they were likewise paid. It was now quite time that the Presbyterians should be put on the same healthy footing as other Nonconformists. They were most grudging in the support of their clergy, and he believed no greater service could be done to the denomination than by the withdrawal of this grant. Let them in future pay their own ministers and their own professors.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, hon. Gentlemen must remember that the retiring allowances comprised in this Vote were made to professors who were got rid of when the Parliamentary grant for the Belfast Academical Institution ceased. The Irish Presbyterians were not Nonconformists, they formed, in fact, a National Church, holding the same opinions with the Church of Scotland. With regard to the conduct of the rev. Gentlemen mentioned by the last speaker, it was ridiculous that a salary of £150 per annum was to prohibit them from turning their talents to the best account, so long as their doing so did not interfere with their professional duties. A salary of £150 to Dr. Cooke for teaching the young men of his own creed—the equal of Chalmers in oratory—was not apiece of extravagance of which the Committee could complain. He must remind the hon. Gentleman who spoke of these Presbyterians in Ireland in the way he did that they contributed largely to the taxation of the country, and that it was a very impolitic course for any hon. Member to take, when £30,000 was voted for the College of Maynooth, by turning round on some of the most useful men in Ireland who were engaged in teaching a large body of people the principles of their religion.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, that the Presbyterians were at present in connection with the Free Church of Scotland.
  MR. ARNOTTsaid, he could bear testimony to the deserving character and services of the Presbyterian clergy of Ulster, whose incomes were by no means too large.
  MR. BLACKsaid, the principle of this Vote was radically bad; for this money was given not to a university, but to the
  430
  theological hall of a small body of Dissenters; and if such Votes of public money as these were given, it would be occasion of great extravagance, because other demands of a similar nature would be made on the public purse. He, therefore, objected to it altogether.
  Motion made, and Question put,—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £450, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors and the Incidental Expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1860."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 38; Noes 145: Majority 107.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—BRITISH MUSEUM.
  (9.) £47,425, British Museum Establishment.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that as the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the senior Trustee of the British Museum, happened, unfortunately for him (Mr. Walpole), to be in office, it devolved upon him as the junior Trustee to move the Estimate for the present year. But the duty was considerably lightened on this occasion by the circumstance that there was nothing in the Vote this year requiring explanation or apology. The Committee would observe that the Vote was less by £1,875 than it was last year, or £77,475 against £79,275 of the previous year. The Vote was arranged under the different heads of the salaries of the establishment, the house expenses, purchases and acquisitions, books, and bookbinding, catalogues, and miscellaneous charges. If hon. Members looked through these different details they would find that there was an increase under the first head of £1,475 in consequence of the increase of attendants which the new arrangements had rendered necessary. Under the head of house expenses there was a diminution of £220, in consequence of some improvements in the warming and ventilation. Under the third head, of purchases and acquisitions, they would find there was a slight increase of £300, chiefly owing to the improvements in the mineralogical department which was under the direction of a very able Professor. Under the head of books and bookbinding there was a large diminution, to the extent of £2,500 which, was owing to large Votes having been taken in former years to bring up the arrears of bookbinding which had fallen back in former years. There was also a diminution

  431
  of £900 in the Vote for the catalogues, while the miscellaneous charges remained the same; so that the Committee would observe the difference between last year's Vote and the present was a saving in the present year of £1,875. The only material point to which he thought it necessary to direct the attention of the Committee was a circumstance which must be highly gratifying to them—he meant the increase in the number of gentlemen who attended the Museum for the purpose of study. Not only was there an increase in the number of students, but an increase in the number of books they used for study; and, what to his mind was the most gratifying of all, there was a large increase in the number of boots put into the closets for the purpose of future study by those students who came there day after day to pursue their investigations into a particular subject, and who were allowed the use of these closets —a new regulation which he had no hesitation in saying had proved of the greatest advantage. The number of books returned to the shelves of the general library during the year was 177,290; to the Royal library, 12,425; to the Grenville library, 787; and to those closets where the books were left for students, 122,192; and adding to these the number of volumes, amounting to 564,000, in the reading-room, which the students could command without requiring any order for their use, it showed that the books used in the course of the year amounted to 876,000, or 3,000 per diem, while the numbers used in the preceding year were 576,000, or about 2,000 per diem. This showed that the increased accommodation afforded to students had been largely used by them. There were two vacancies in the list of Trustees that had been filled up. One of those vacancies, which was in the appointment of the Crown, and had long remained vacant, had at last been filled up by the appointment of the learned and able Dr. Cureton. The other vacancy was in the appointment of the official trustees; and it was a satisfaction to his mind to be able to state that they had selected the learned and excellent historian, Mr. Grote. This appointment was, he thought, of itself sufficient guarantee that the managers of this institution were determined to do all they could to maintain its high position as worthy of the British nation. He would formally conclude by moving the Vote.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the pre-
  432
  sent state of the collection in the British Museum. It had been his intention, if he had obtained the Committee for which it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that he had moved during the late Session of Parliament, to enter upon the inquiry as to whether some portion of the collection could not have been advantageously separated from the Museum, and then the question would have arisen as to the locality to which such portions should be removed. He had shown on that occasion that the Museum was in a state of hopeless confusion; that valuable collections were wholly hidden from the public, and that great portions of other collections were in danger of being destroyed by damp and neglect. Parliament, however, was dissolved, and on its reassembling he had not the energy, and he was not sure that he would be supported by the ardour of a sufficient number of Members to press for this Committee. In the course of next Session he should probably bring forward the matter again; but he trusted that the observations he was now about to make would render it unnecessary. His noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had opposed the Motion on the ground that the British Museum was in such a discreditable state that every delay should be avoided; that the late Government was in a position to act, and that it was to action and not to protracted investigation they should look to remedy the evil. No one better than the noble Lord could know the deficiencies of the British Museum. He believed that if the Government were prepared before the next meeting of Parliament with some course of action, they would be spared the anxiety of a protracted investigation, and get rid of the injurious evils which now affected the British Museum. He trusted that the Government would consider the subject during the recess, a course which they could take with the more advantage as they numbered in the Cabinet no less than four of the most influential Trustees. He would wish them, first of all, to consider whether the natural history department could not be removed from the British Museum. Public opinion was strongly in favour of its removal; and then the question for the Government was the locality to which it should be removed. There were two or three localities to which attention had been drawn. First of all there was Kensington; but he warned the Government that if they proposed to remove it to that locality they would meet with strenu-

  433
  ous opposition. He believed that an opposition as successful as that which had been raised to the proposed transference of the National Gallery would be raised to any attempt to remove the British Museum to Kensington. The Regent's Park, which had been likewise spoken of, was certainly a more central position, and had the further advantage that the stuffed and osteological specimens might be studied in close proximity to the living specimens, but there were likewise difficulties to be encountered in that quarter, for he understood that pledges had been given which rendered building in that locality, without the consent of the inhabitants, a matter difficult of accomplishment. He believed that with certain arrangements which could be made the present site offered advantages which were not to be met with elsewhere; and certainly there would be the primary gain of a saving in the expense of a new library; the risk and delay attendant on a transference would be avoided; and they would also thus have drawn together a noble collection both natural and scientific. He did not mean that the collections were to be continued under the present roof, or as they stood; he should like to see a separation made between the works of nature and of art. He should desire to have a north and south front to the building for these different purposes, and he thought it would further be most advantageous that the enormous establishment should be placed under separate departments. It was quite bewildering for any man to attempt to govern the Museum in its entirety at present, and to exercise a general view; how much more bewildering therefore must it be for any single mind to attempt to exercise a general management over the whole. He hoped that in the new arrangement, whenever it might be completed, there would not be overlooked the necessity which existed for a scientific arrangement of the archaeological department. He could not do better on this point than to recall the attention of the Committee to what had taken place. Mr. Smirke, the architect to the Trustees, had prepared, by their order, a plan for the future arrangement of the British Museum. The Trustees, on this subject, had neither conferred with nor consulted a single one of the heads of the departments; and those gentlemen, if they were fit for the positions which they occupied, ought certainly to have had a voice in the matter. Professor Owen had not been consulted; and
  434
  when, at great trouble, he drew up a plan it was determined by the Trustees that it should not be submitted to the House. Mr. Hawkins, the head of the department of antiquities, himself drew up a plan for the future arrangement of the archaeological department, which was a virtual though unconscious protest against the plan of Mr. Smirke. Year after year the House was asked for sums varying from £75,000 to £80,000 for this national institution, and for the most part these were voted without objection or complaint. But they had a right to expect that this money should be spent properly, and they would take care to demand that the British Museum, when it was completed, should be a credit and not a disgrace to the British nation. Another subject which he felt obliged to bring prominently forward was the necessity of making that building not merely a place for recreation, but of instruction by means of lectures. That proposition, when made on a former occasion, had been most favourably received by the House and the press out of doors. He was far from desirous of assuming a position of hostility to the present management, but he was perfectly determined to persevere in his efforts till those who did not belong to the upper classes of society, but who nevertheless contributed their quota towards the maintenance of the establishment, should have the means of deriving equal advantages from it with those who were more favourably off as to social position and early education. Those for whom he was interested were equally anxious to know the meaning and value of objects comprised in the collection, but unless by the medium of lectures they had no means of becoming acquainted with these details. He trusted that at the commencement of the next Session, whoever might be Her Majesty's Ministers, they would be prepared with a statement to the effect that a measure had in the meantime been prepared which would deal with the matters to which he had called attention. He must likewise refer to the position of the assistants in the British Museum, who were unquestionably the worst paid and the worst used of any of the public officials in any department. They required an education of a special and high order. Take, for instance, the archaeological department. The gentlemen assistants there had received a good classical education; many of them had a knowledge of different modern languages, and some even were acquainted

  435
  with Eastern languages, both ancient and modern, yet the utmost to which these gentlemen could aspire, so long as they remained attached to the British Museum, was a salary of £300, with the exception of one fortunate individual, who might eventually be placed at the head of the department. Two years ago an alteration had been made in the condition of these gentlemen, who were divided into two classes; and he confessed he should be glad to be acquainted with the principle on which that division was made, and whether it had been generally applied. Previously the assistants had entered at £150 per year, and the maximum to which they could arrive after a great many years' service was £245. By the new arrangement they entered at somewhat over £200, and their salaries increased yearly until they reached £300. He believed there was a great diversity of opinion among the Trustees as to giving the assistants at the British Museum a more liberal provision in the way of salaries, although, considering that it was necessary to have the best men they could get, the present scale of salaries ought to be increased. There was but one other point to which he would allude, and that was with regard to the vacation. He found that in the whole year the assistants at the British Museum only had twenty-four days' vacation, while the assistants in all the other public departments had more than eight weeks' vacation in the year, and bearing in mind that the former were required to be on duty every ordinary day from ten a.m. to four p.m., he thought this very inconsiderate treatment. It was not by overworking people that they got the most efficient service; and although the officials of the Museum might endure such labour, yet it was placing upon them burdens which no other officers would bear. It was because those gentlemen were not connected with Parliamentary or political struggles that they found no person of influence to advocate their claims, and it was in the hope that he should better their condition that he now ventured to press the subject upon the Committee.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he knew the gentlemen constituting the working body of the British Museum, than whom a more intelligent, honourable, or worthy class of men did not exist. He trusted the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would use his influence in that House and as a trustee of the Museum in removing the great scandal on the lite-
  436
  rary character of the country that at present existed in respect to the remuneration they received. He believed if the case of these gentlemen was brought clearly before the public, the feeling of the House and the country would be that these gentlemen should not be allowed to remain in the state of honourable penury in which they now stand—but would be regarded as deserving servants of the State. He (Mr. Milnes) availed himself of that opportunity to suggest that a certain number of small reading rooms should be attached to the library, for the use of men of high literary distinction who were engaged on particular works, and to whom the circumstance of studying in company with a large body of persons was extremely inconvenient. One of the most distinguished literary men of our time, who from physical circumstances was unable to avail himself of the treasures of the library, had actually received from foreign countries the very works which he was unable to take home from the British Museum. He also suggested that some arrangement might be made by which provincial libraries might be benefited by the distribution among them of some of the large collection of duplicate volumes in the library of the Museum.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had called the attention of the Committee to the position of the assistants of the Museum, who, he thought, were an ill-used class of men. He had the honour of knowing the whole of them, and he thought it was an honour to any gentleman to be acquainted with men of such high attainments and so fully competent to conduct the different departments in the Museum, and who were able and willing on all occasions to give every information to visitors to that establishment. And yet with the small salaries allowed them they were unable, highly accomplished though they were, to live like gentlemen, or to educate their families in a manner befitting their station. One of them he knew, had been compelled to relinquish what to him must have been a sort of Crimean medal, namely, his title of honour in connection with a learned body of which he was a member, from sheer inability longer to pay the annual expenses incident to membership. He (Mr. Turner) considered it a disgrace to the country which refused a salary of £300 a year to such men, but gave it to persons employed, for instance, in the inspection and manipulation of boots and coats for the army.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYwished to call the attention of the Committee to the small sum which was granted to Irish institutions of a similar character, when such lavish Votes were granted in England. He hoped that when a few trifling items were proposed for Irish purposes they would not meet with a renewal of objection to the amount. He agreed with the hon. Member for Galway that the British Museum was not made sufficiently available for the purposes of instruction. On a future occasion he should renew the notice he had formerly given on that point, and also for opening the Museum after the hours of Divine service on Sundays.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that the officers of the Museum complained not only of the lowness of their salaries, but of the way in which they were treated, being marked, for example, when they arrived in the morning, and having the number of hours they attended recorded against them. He could not understand why the Trustees had allowed the grievances of the assistants to remain so long unredressed. He was quite sure that no private gentleman would have treated his servants as the Board had treated the assistants of the Museum. He also wished to remark with reference to what had been said as to removing a part of the Museum to Kensington, that he thought the inhabitants of the east end of London had some claim to be considered, and that Victoria Park was as suitable a spot as Kensington for a part of the collection. He believed Mr. Smirke was the architect who had carried out the alterations of the Museum. £550,000 had been ex-ponded on the front, which he certainly did not admire, and only £200,000 on the Museum. He hoped any further alterations would be submitted to a competition of architects.
  MR. TITEsaid, he differed from the view taken by the last speaker. The proportionate outlay was, as he believed, greatly less and the cost of the portico and peristyle under £100,000. The original architect was Sir Robert Smirke, his brother, Mr. Smirke, being the present architect, both of them being then of the greatest eminence. He did not object to the amount of the Votes that had been granted in respect of the monuments brought from the excavations at Halicarnassus, which had been referred to in the course of the discussion, but he wished to know whether some arrangement could not be made by which those extremely curious monuments could
  438
  be publicly exhibited; at present they were in a miserable state under the portico.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked whether the Museum could not be kept open longer on Saturday afternoons than at present; it might be contended that this would throw increased labour upon the servants of the institution, but he thought the working classes better deserved consideration than they, and that the general disposition evinced by all classes to observe the Saturday half-holiday rendered such an arrangement desirable.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he rose to reply to the various suggestions and questions that had been made. The hon. Member for Galway, in pointing out the inconvenience of removing some portion of the collection, and retaining others where they now were, suggested that the whole question should be taken up and considered by the Government. He (Mr. Walpole) was of the same opinion, for he believed that no Committee of that House could effectually grapple with the subject. Various Committees had already sat upon the whole matter, and all the information required had been obtained. It now only remained for the Government to take the matter in hand, and determine not only with regard to the British Museum, but with regard to other existing museums, how they could best be made available for the public generally. He thought it was hardly necessary, after the observations made by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) to reply to the observations that had been made upon the supposed confusion existing in the arrangements of the Museum. He might mention, however, that within the last ten days one of the most scientific gentlemen in Europe had seen and expressed his entire satisfaction, not only with the collections themselves, but with their arrangements. As to the suggestion that courses of lectures should be established, and lecturers of acknowledged ability be appointed to impart instruction upon the various portions of the collection, he thought that a difficult question to decide. Individually he thought such collections could not be made the most of without instruction; but in what rooms could the lectures be given? Who was to give the lectures? How was he to be paid? And after all, was the Museum the proper building for such a purpose? The Museum was a collection, not a school for instruction—a place to which people might resort to get

  439
  information upon which they might make their own observations. But if the Museum were turned into a great college or academy for instruction, he thought it would be a perversion of the purpose for which it was originally intended. Then, with regard to the remuneration of the assistants, he would be glad to see them paid higher salaries. He did not mean to say that any of the gentlemen were paid in accordance with their attainments. But who was paid according to his attainments? Was Professor Owen—the person who was paid more than any one else in the establishment—paid according to his attainments and acquirements? Why, he would not be sufficiently paid, if he received a salary equal to that of the first Minister of the Crown. He did not wish to check the desire of hon. Gentlemen, of the Government, nor even of the Trustees, if they entertained such a desire, to pay higher salaries than were now given; but two years ago the whole question had been fully gone into by officers appointed by the Treasury to see if those persons were properly paid: their salaries in some instances were raised, in all they were considered. Let it be considered again de novo, but he only wished to tell hon. Gentlemen that after such an inquiry they should not come down to the House and complain that the Votes in the Civil Estimates were being increased from year to year, and that no check existed upon the Trustees, who were remunerating their assistants, not according to the requirements of the establishment, but according to their own notions of philanthropy and benevolence, however disqualified the recipient might be. With reference to the suggestion that separate rooms should be built in which gentlemen deserving peculiar consideration might pursue their studies unmolested, which they could not do in the public reading-room, he considered that many objections might arise if such an arrangement were put in operation, not the least amongst which would be jealousy caused by the admission of one to the exclusion of another. But he thought that the arrangements already provided in the public reading-room — the separate desks, the separate lockers in which the reader might keep his pens, paper, and books which he had not finished reading, cum multis aliis —were of such a nature as to preclude the necessity for the adoption of such a suggestion as that to which he was replying. As to the exceptional case mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontefract
  440
  such a case might be made by the Trustees the subject of exceptional treatment; and he was quite sure that the Trustees would feel the greatest willingness to take it into their consideration and make every necessary provision required. Then, with regard to the observations made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) upon the monuments from the excavations of Halicarnassus, he admitted that they were undoubtedly in the most disreputable state as far as the accommodation provided for them was concerned. They were under a glass covering, hardly open to the public; and there was really no means of studying them as many persons might desire to do. But in alluding to this subject the hon. Member was in fact opening the whole question of the extension of the building. That was a very large question, and he (Mr. Walpole) was very much in favour of the extension, therefore he hoped it would not be thought that he was going to oppose it. But at the same time he must be understood as giving his own individual opinion only in thus expressing himself, and not the opinion of the Trustees, although, for aught he knew, they might entertain similar views. He believed that they would never make the Museum a fitting receptacle even for the objects which we had got until it was extended to the street running to the north of it. Nay, more; he would not say but that, in the course of time, it would not be necessary to add to it on each side, so that it should occupy the whole space within the four adjoining streets. As to extending the hours of admission on Saturday, he might remark that until lately the Museum had not been open to the public at all on Saturdays. He believed that the hon. Member (Sir John Shelley) was under a mistake if he thought that Saturday was the day on which the working classes took most advantage of the Museum by visiting it, for he was informed that it was on Monday that they went there in the greatest numbers; and if they extended the hours for being open on Saturday they would involve themselves in the question of whether the Museum should not be open in the evening; and it was a question whether such a course by rendering necessary the introduction of fires and lights, might lead to more loss than advantage. He had not long been one of the Trustees of the British Museum, but in the governors of no institution had he ever witnessed a greater desire to give the greatest possible accom-

  441
  modation to the public, and to the working classes as well as others. The Trustees could have no desire except to make the institution worthy of the country, and he believed that, by the attention which they paid to it, that object would be accomplished.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that speaking as an individual he felt bound to state that he looked upon the scheme for extending the Museum which had been sketched by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) with alarm, as one involving an enormous and most unnecessary expense. The provision of additional accommodation called for the early consideration of the House; but whether it could be accomplished without the separation of the collections was to him more than doubtful. The Trustees, he believed, were quite prepared to enter into the fullest consideration of this question and to declare their opinion upon it, and it would be the duly of the Government, when circumstances would permit, to take steps to bring it to a state of ripeness for decision. At the present moment he felt more than ordinarily the necessity for caution and circumspection, on account of the accumulation of heavy demands on the public purse, though he did not state this so much as a reason for doing nothing as a plea for indulgence. He was sorry to hear the question of insufficient salaries and vacations raised in the House of Commons—for in the first place there appeared little presumptive reason for raising it, and if it were raised it should be in a different manner and place. The most deliberate and careful consideration had been given to the question of salaries by the Trustees and the Treasury jointly some two years ago. In fixing the salaries of offices of this kind, it was but fair to the public that the other incidents of the offices should also be taken into view. It must not be forgotten that the offices which these gentlemen held were peculiarly agreeable in themselves, and the agreeable incidents of offices of this kind for literary men must necessarily form an important item in considering the salaries attached to them. Still, if these gentlemen were dissatisfied —and it was evident from what had been said that they were—with the amount of salary which they received, and the length of vacation which they were allowed to abstract from their ordinary duties, their proper course was to memorialize the Trustees and ask for an alteration. They had al-
  442
  ready raised one point before the Trustees —that of retrospective increase of salaries —and the Trustees having decided against them it was competent for them to have applied to the Treasury, and ultimately to the House of Commons. So in all other cases they ought to go before the Trustees first, and if they did not get justice from them they might then go to the Executive Government, and it was only by way of appeal from the Trustees and the Executive Government that they could legitimately appear before the House.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman laboured under a misapprehension, when he said that he (Mr. Gregory) represented the grievances of the officers of the British Museum. From taste and inclination, however, he was frequently at the Museum, and well acquainted with the affairs of the place. He hoped that the gentlemen in question would profit by the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that their address would meet with more success than former ones had done.
  Vote agreed to, as was also,
  (10.) £12,270, New Buildings and Fit-tings, British Museum.
  On the next Vote, £15,985 for the National Gallery being put,
  MR. DANBY SEYMOUR MR. DANBY SEYMOUR moved that the Chairman report progress.
  Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House," put and negatived.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would not ask the House to take a Vote which might create discussion at that time of night, twelve o'clock.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

THE POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. G. CLIVEsaid, he would move the second reading of this Bill. He proposed to take any discussion which might be thought desirable in Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should oppose the second clause.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that Major-General Cartwright, who was an Inspector-General of Police, was entitled to a salary of £700 a year, but in consequence of his having served in the army, and being in receipt of half-pay, a deduction of £200 a year was made from that amount. He

  443
  wished to know whether it was intended to remedy this grievance.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that a clause in the present Bill would enable officers of the police force to receive their full-pay in that capacity, as well as half-pay and pensions for military services.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday.

VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS BILL.

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that in consequence of indictments having in many cases been preferred against persons before grand juries simply for purposes of oppression or extortion, this measure provided that in cases of perjury, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, obtaining money or other property by false pretences, keeping gambling-houses or disorderly houses, or indecent assaults, the prosecutors before preferring Bills should be required to take proceedings before magistrates, and so give the parties accused some notice of the accusations. At present indictments might be preferred before grand juries, and if they were found upon ex parte statements the plaintiffs were entitled to bench warrants, and the first notice the intended victims—the persons accused—received of the proceedings was from the execution of those warrants.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the arguments used in favour of this Bill would equally apply to the whole grand jury system, and the right generally of preferring an indictment before a grand jury. Although he was anxious to guard against abuses in the cases referred to, he objected to constituting a justice of the peace, without any appeal or restraint, the sole judge as to whether an indictment should or should not be preferred. The measure was one which proposed a fundamental change in the constitutional rights of a British subject, and which appeared to him to be totally subversive of his liberty in those matters. He should certainly oppose the passing of the measure, unless it was materially altered in Committee.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, the Bill was undoubtedly of a startling character in regard to some of its provisions, and would require careful consideration. He concurred in the principle of preventing vexatious indictments; nevertheless, he thought that it required some alteration in order to pro-
  444
  tect the rights of a British subject to obtain justice for a grievous wrong done him.
  MR. ESMONDEsaid, that as the Bill referred to Ireland, he should like to hoar the opinion of the Solicitor General for Ireland upon it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, this was a modified attempt to get rid of the grand jury system. Attempts had been made to get rid of the system altogether. He believed the system had been abused in the metropolis with a view of extorting money, but he must beg leave to reserve his opinion upon the question whether the Bill dealt rightly with the grievance. He would ask whether the object of the Bill could not be attained by restraining persons from presenting Bills instead of restraining the grand jury from finding Bills? But he thought the objections to the Bill could be better discussed in Committee.
  MR. SEARJEANT DEASYsaid, he believed the operation of the Bill in Ireland would amount almost to nothing, because the offence against which it was aimed was almost unknown there.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday.

LOCOMOTIVE BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1,
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was with some reluctance that he rose to oppose the Bill. Having examined the matter he thought the House ought to consider well before they agreed to the Bill. There was no doubt it was very desirable that locomotives should be permitted to travel along turnpike roads and be subject to tolls like carriages drawn by horses, but the evidence did not satisfy him that the House would be justified in its present state of information in passing the Bill. The experiment had been hitherto tried upon only a very narrow scale, and he was informed that the engineer of the Board of Trade entertained considerable doubt whether there was sufficient experience to justify the granting of the permission sought for by the Bill. He therefore suggested that, for the present, the Bill ought to be withdrawn.
MR. RIDLEYsaid, the evidence given before the Committee showed that the experiment had been tried to a large extent in Manchester and Liverpool in the most crowded hours of the day, and that no damage had ensued. It should be re-

445
membered also that as the law at present stood there was nothing to prevent a locomotive proceeding from London to Edinburgh on the high road without paying a penny for turnpike.
MR. GARNETTsaid, he thought that if the consideration of the Bill was postponed for a few days, until the evidence taken before the Select Committee could be printed, the House would then be in a position to deal with the measure. The Bill had been brought in to meet a necessity that had arisen out of a particular case in Manchester, where an experiment had been made in conveying coals from a neighbouring colliery into that city, but so high a rate of toll had been charged on the locomotive engine employed for that purpose as to be almost prohibitory of the traffic.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that as a member of the Select Committee, he was convinced of the practicability as well as of the expediency of a measure like the one before the House. Still he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it should be postponed till the evidence was before the House.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsuggested that the Bill should be postponed till Thursday, when the evidence taken by the Select Committee might be in the hands of Members.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.

MILITIA ESTIMATES.—COMMITTEE.
MR. SIDNEY HERBET MR. SIDNEY HERBET moved that the following Members constitute a Select Committee to prepare estimates of the charge of the disembodied militia of Great Britain and Ireland for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1860: —Mr. Secretary SIDNEY HERBERT, General PEEL, the JUDGE ADVOCATE, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Mr. ELLICE, Sir JOHN RAMSDEN, Mr. GEORGE CLIVE, Colonel KINGSCOTE, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Colonel SMYTH, Colonel PINNEY, Colonel NORTH, and all Colonels of militia: five to be the quorum.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he had to complain that Irish Members were excluded from this as well as from most other Committees. There was not a single Irishman in the Cabinet, and it seemed therefore to be forgotten that there was an Irish Member in the House. A Committee was also about to be appointed to inquire into the state of the Thames; but, as usual, it was to comprise no Irishman, pro-
446
bably because it was supposed that Irish Members had not as sensitive olfactories as their English brethren. He gave notice that he should bring this subject forward early next Session and divide the House upon it.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTremarked, that the assertion of the exclusion of Irishmen was rather unjust. The head of the Cabinet was an Irishman; and there were several Irishmen on this Committee,— among them he might mention Mr. Sidney Herbert.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he had never heard the fact just stated; he was glad to salute the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) and the Secretary at War as brother Irishmen.
Select Committee appointed: —
"To prepare Estimates of the Charge of the Disembodied Militia of Great Britain and Ireland, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1860."—Mr. Secretary SIDNEY HERBERT, General PEEL, The JUDGE ADVOCATE, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Mr. ELLICE, Sir JOHN RAMSDEN, Mr. CLIVE, Colonel KINGSCOTE, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Colonel SMYTH, Colonel PINNEY, Colonel NORTH, and all Colonels of Militia:—Five to be the quorum.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Roman Catholic charities, said that for some years past an annual Bill had been passed to withdraw Roman Catholic charities from the general law by which all charities were subjected to—the jurisdiction of the Charitable Commissioners. The reason of that exemption had been that in many cases the Roman Catholic charities contained trusts which the law denominated as uses of a superstitious character, and, therefore, void by the existing law; and it was thought that if those trusts were brought, without some cautionary legislation, under the jurisdiction of the Charitable Commissioners, they would be invalidated, and that thereby inconvenience would ensue contrary to the intention of the original founder. Promises had been made at different times that this exception should be put an end to, and that provisions should be proposed to the House which would have the effect of remedying the inconvenience in question, at the same time that the Roman Catholic charities should be brought under the operation of the existing law. Up to the present time, however, that object had

  447
  not been effected; and what he (Sir G. Lewis) now proposed was, that the necessity for that annual exemption should he superseded, and that an enactment should be established which should have the effect of converting those Roman Catholic charities which were contrary to the existing law to purposes consonant with the existing law, while they still retained their Roman Catholic character; that was to say, that the Court of Chancery or the Charity Commissioners should, in cases where the trust either covered the whole estate, or where it was mixed up with a lawful trust, have power to apply that portion of the endowment, in the case of its being a mixed trust, or the whole in case of its being an unmixed trust, to a charitable purpose that was lawful according to the existing law, at the same time maintaining its exclusively Roman Catholic character. That was the principal object of the clauses which he now sought to introduce. He also proposed that there should be a clause by which validity should be given to uninterrupted usage where it had existed for twenty years.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was glad that the Government had resolved upon the introduction of this Bill. All he now asked was, that they would give sufficient time for considering the measure, and that the country might see that it did not involve any principle the recognition of which might be the cause of regret hereafter.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he trusted that Irish Members, from not opposing the introduction of the Bill, would not be considered to have assented to its principle. Any doubt he might feel arose from the approbation expressed by the hon. Member.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Roman Catholic Charities, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEOROE LEWIS, and Mr. CLIVE.
  Bill presented and read 1°.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.