Commons Sitting of 18 June 1863

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Postmaster General (Sale of Land)* [Bill 174]; Howth Harbour [Bill 175]*.
Second Reading—Public Works (Manufacturing Districts [Bill 154]; Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal * [Bill 166]; Sir Robert Hitcham's Charity* [Bill 160]; Ruthin Charities* [Bill 161]; Newcastle upon Tyne (Saint Mary Magdalen Hospital) [Bill 162]; Stipendiary Magistrates * [Bill 150].
Select Committee—on Election Petitions Bill, nominated* (List of Committee).
Report of Select Committee—Thames Embankment (South Side)* [Bill 171], and re-committed; Partnership Law Amendment * [Bill 172], and re-committed.
Committee—Charitable Uses *[Bill 164]; Militia Pay* [Bill 163], Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) [Bill 85], on re-committal.
Report—Charitable Uses *; Militia Pay *; Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) [Bill 173].
Third Reading—Marriages Registration (Ireland) [Mr. Monsell]* [Bill 118], and passed.

LONDON (CITY) TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [Lords]—(by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question, proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the object of the proposed measure was to set up a peculiar and exceptional law with respect to the regulation of traffic in those parts of the metropolis within the City. The powers which the law would confer were to be exercised by the Court of Aldermen; but if the Bill were passed, the result would be that the inhabitants of the metropolis at large would be placed at the mercy of the civic authorities, inasmuch as any one engaging a cab at Charing Cross, or any other part of the town not in the City, would find himself subject to a different set of regulations from those which prevailed outside the City boundaries the moment he got through Temple Bar. It was true that the assent of the Secretary of State would be required to the by-laws which the Bill would, enable the Court of Aldermen to frame, before they could be put in force; but he, for one, was opposed to have authority delegated to the Secretary of State and a small civic body to regulate the traffic of the whole of London. The general law on the subject now in existence was found satisfactory to nine-tenths of the metropolis; and if it did not work so well within the City, it was because the authorities there had not the moral power and influence to carry it properly into effect. The Bill ought not, he maintained, at all events, to be introduced as a private Bill, and he should move that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. MASSEYsaid, that he could not agree with the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, that the Bill ought not to be introduced as a private measure. He could conceive nothing more pertinent to the object of a private Bill than the regulation by a municipal or local authority of the traffic of the streets comprised within its jurisdiction; and he was surprised
  1040
  to hear such an objection as that come from his hon. and learned Friend, who avowed himself an advocate of local self-government. The subject was properly the subject of a private Bill, and he thought that a better private Bill had not been submitted to that House during the present Session. He very much wished that its provisions could be extended to Westminster; for, what with beggars, and prostitutes, and street music, and crawling cabs, more was endured by the inhabitants than was endured by the inhabitants of any capital in Europe; and he wished that the provisions of this Bill could be extended so as to include not only the City, but the rest of the metropolis. He hoped the House would not hesitate to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and that the Select Committee would not impair its provisions.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, the House would not fail to perceive that the speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) was characterized by the hostility he showed on every occasion to the corporation of the City of London. Considering the great inconvenience caused by the ever increasing traffic, and that shortly there would be three terminal railway stations within a radius of a quarter of a mile from the Bank, he thought the time had arrived when power should be given to the corporation to regulate the traffic. The commercial classes looked with great distrust on the measure, but he was satisfied the Court of Aldermen would exercise the power with due deference to public opinion. He hoped the Bill would pass, with such amendments as might be found desirable.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that he had always been in favour of municipal institutions. But he did not think it was wise that a municipal corporation, which only exercised authority over a portion of the metropolis, should be allowed to make laws for the whole of the metropolis. Yet that was what was proposed by the Bill. It conferred, with respect to the regulation of the weight of waggons and the size of their wheels, most arbitrary powers, which if exercised would preclude all waggons which were not of a specified description from going through Temple Bar. The Bill ought to have been a public measure, and it would then have been referred to a Select Committee of fifteen instead of a Select Committee of five. A Committee of five was the very worst selection ever made in the House. It was such a Committee that had sanctioned the frightful viaduct

  1041
  just on the other side of London Bridge, and the one which was to be erected over Ludgate Hill, which were, he contended, a disgrace to the age. He thought, how-ever, that the Bill was unnecessary, because under the present City Police Act the Chief Commissioner of the City Police had the power to make all requisite regulations for the City traffic.
  MR. COXsaid, that the power which the Chief Commissioner at present possessed of appointing routes for traffic had reference only to the occasions of public processions, rejoicings, or illuminations. He was of opinion that some measures should be taken to regulate the traffic in the crowded streets of the metropolis. For his own part he had often experienced great difficulty in getting along them. Although the Bill contained some objectionable clauses, there were others in it which he believed would be found most useful, and he should therefore support the second reading.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that while he admitted the inconvenience of legislating separately for different parts of the metropolis, he thought it would be contrary to precedent to reject the Bill on the second reading. He pointed out that the operation of this measure would not be entirely confined to the City. It might be a question whether, after the Bill came from the Select Committee, it should not be considered by a Committee of the Whole House.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that if the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, the rest of the metropolis would have no locus standi to appear before the Committee to show the injury which it might inflict upon the outlying districts.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, that he must protest against the doctrine that only metropolitan Members were interested in legislation connected with the metropolis. When money was required for improvements hon. Members heard quite a different story. He only recollected one proposition of an equally modest character, and that was when Mr. Train wanted to obtain a monopoly of all the thoroughfares in England.
  MR. AYRTON, in consequence of what had fallen from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, said he would withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYbegged to give notice that to-morrow he should move that
  1042
  the Bill be referred to a Committee of fifteen.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed.

FORTIFICATIONS—QUESTION.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, When he proposes to bring in a Bill on the subject of a Loan for Fortifications, and whether he proposes to re-commence the suspended works of the Spithead Forts?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I hope, Sir, very shortly to be able to introduce the Bill in question. It will be brought in as soon as the other business permits, and, in doing so, I shall have to explain its details.

EDUCATION—REVISED CODE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wish ed to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, What construction is placed by Her Majesty's Government on Articles 150 and 151 of the Revised Code, and in what manner those Articles will be carried out by the Committee of Council; also, whether, in the opinion of the Committee of Council, the proper time for taking exception in Parliament to a new Minute is within a month from the time the Minute is first laid upon the table; or, within a month from the publication in January, under Article 151, of any alterations or modifications which may have been made?
  MR. LOWE: The words, Sir, in these Articles were not those of the Committee of Council originally, but were part of the compromise effected by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole). It was our duty, before accepting that compromise, to consider these words, and to put a construction upon them. On the faith of that construction we accepted the compromise, and have continued to act upon it ever since. I am afraid I cannot make that construction clearer than I did the other night, but I will endeavour to repeat what I then said. I will take Article 151 first. The words are these—
  "In the event of such revision or material alteration as mentioned in the last foregoing Article, it shall not be lawful to take any action thereon until the same shall have been submitted to Parliament, and laid on the table of both Houses for one calendar month."

  1043
  That I take to mean, that when we make any revision or material alteration in any article of the Code, that revision or material alteration must be laid on the table of the House for one month before the Committee of Council are at liberty to act upon it. Article 150 is as follows:—
  "In January of each year, if the Code be revised, or any material alteration in it be necessary it shall be printed in such a form as to show separately all articles modified or cancelled, and all new articles."
  The words "in January of each year," with which that clause begins, appear to me to belong to the middle of the clause: both grammar and sense forbid us to read them in any other position. The article amounts to this—that all the changes in our Minutes which have been introduced in the course of each year shall in the next January be gathered together in one copy, and be printed in a manner showing separately the articles cancelled or modified. The meaning of the two articles appear to me to be—first, that we shall not act on any Minute till it has been laid for a month on the table of this House; and secondly, that Parliament and the country shall have an opportunity of reviewing not only what we did separately on each Minute, but, in the aggregate, when the alterations are collected, printed, and laid before Parliament. That I take to be the construction and the whole meaning of those articles. I do not find in them anything like the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply the other night—namely, an undertaking that the Committee of Council should be prohibited from making any new Minutes except in January of each year. Such a clause would be attended with great inconvenience. The operation of all these clauses would have to be deferred for another year if they could not take effect until January. I will give an instance. We had occasion to make a Minute in May last, giving assistance to certain of our Inspectors. If we had not been in a condition to make that Minute until January, we should have been left for half a year without proper machinery, and great inconvenience would have ensued. The right hon. Gentleman asks me also what is the proper time for taking exception in Parliament to a new Minute. Those Minutes so made by the Privy Council have no force or validity, except so far as they meet with the implied assent of Parliament, and therefore it is competent to any hon. Member to take exception to any
  1044
  Minute at any time, and it can never be improper for any hon. Member to do so. But if an hon. Member wished to prevent a Minute from coming into force altogether, the proper time to take exception to a Minute is within a month after the Minute has been laid on the table, and has no more reference to the period of January than to any other period in the course of the year.

FORTIFICATIONS ON BREAN DOWN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he would beg to ask the First Minister of the Crown, Whether Government has purchased land on Brean Down for the purpose of Severn defences; and, if so, when Government purposes beginning the intended fortifications on Brean Down?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that it was true that the Government had bought land on Brean Down, upon which it was intended to erect a battery. But no proposal had as yet been made to Parliament on the subject, nor was it intended to make any proposal to Parliament until the ensuing Session.

SUB-INSPECTORS OF FACTORIES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Memorial presented on the 28th of April from manufacturers and others in favour of raising the pay and allowances of the Sub-Inspectors of Factories was still under the consideration of Government; and, if not, whether he has any objection to produce it, together with a previous Memorial to the same effect, and any Correspondence relating thereto?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, there had been two memorials presented on the subject—one from the manufacturers, and the other from the Chief Inspectors. Those memorials had been answered. There was no objection to lay them on the table.

THE INDIAN BUDGET.—QUESTION.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When he intends to make his Financial Statement?
SIR CHARLES WOOD: The Indian accounts are not yet received. I suppose hon. Members would wish them to be delivered before I make my statement; and until I know when they will be ready, I cannot name the day.

THE CASE OF PAYMASTER SMALES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Report of the Court Martial on Paymaster Smales of the 6th Dragoons, together with any paper or memorandum connected with the trial?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the proceedings of this Court Martial had been already brought very prominently before the notice of the House, and a great many unauthorized extracts of the evidence had been already published. The subject had been already debated in that House, and Mr. Speaker had decided that the hon. Member for Brighton was in order in reading from papers in his own possession, but which were not generally in the possession of the House. It was perfectly true that the proceedings of the Court Martial had been published in India. Under those circumstances, the Government had no objection to lay on the table the proceedings of that Court Martial, as well as the observations made by the Commander-in-Chief in India in confirming them. He (the Marquess of Hartington) must add the expression of a hope that the House would not be disposed to consider this a precedent, or that the Government, in conceding the production of those papers, admitted the principle that it was in any way competent or expedient for the House to constitute itself into a court of criticism upon the proceedings of legally-constituted Courts Martial.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he wished to know when the Papers would be laid upon the table?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONwas understood to say immediately.

THE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in case of an Officer retiring upon half-pay from one of the new Line Regiments, the step will be given to the Regiment to which he belonged; what course it is intended
  1046
  to pursue towards Officers of the late European Cavalry for whom there were no vacancies in the new Hussar Regiments, and who, from the reduction of their Regiments, are now thrown wholly out of employ; and why the proposed extra annuities to certain Regimental Colonels of the Indian Ordnance Corps are limited to £200 a year, instead of being on the same scale as those granted to Colonels of the Line and Cavalry—namely, as high as £550; and whether it is true that a Circular has been issued to these Colonels of the Ordnance Corps calling on them to elect at once whether they accept such extra annuities?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: Officers of non-purchase Regiments who have entered from the Indian Service will not retire upon British half-pay; but may retire under the regulations of the Indian service, and on their retiring a step will be given to the Regiment to which they belonged. Officers of the late European Cavalry for whom there were no vacancies in the new Hussar Regiments, retain their position in the Indian Army, and are available for general duty. The extra annuities granted to Colonels of the Line and Cavalry of the late Native Indian Army, were offered in consideration of their having been deprived of the advantage which they enjoyed, under the old system, of continuing to serve in India in command of Regiments until entitled to Colonels' allowances, and also with a view of reducing the number of Officers in those branches, which was beyond the present requirements of the service. With the Artillery, however, it is entirely different. The Artillery Officers gained by the amalgamation. The number of Field Officers was increased, and also the number of higher ranks. Great promotion was given, and the additional cost of the changes in the Artillery altogether was £75,000 per annum. There is no wish to reduce the number of officers, and consequently all vacancies occasioned by retirements will be filled up by promotion from the junior ranks. The extra annuities offered to Colonels of the Indian Ordnance Corps were proposed to be granted, because, although those corps at large received great advantages by the re-organization, it was believed that there was a limited class of Officers whose prospects might have been injuriously affected by the retardation of their attainment to the Colonel's allowance. A Circular has

  1047
  been issued to those Officers who are in this country, informing them of the proposed offer, and stating that if they accept it, they must so time their applications as to, reach the Adjutant General's Office of the Presidency to which they belong on or before the 31st of August next.

RATE IN AID FOR DISTRESSED UNIONS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he means to take any steps with reference to a rate in aid for the distressed Unions in the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, and Derbyshire?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he understood his noble Friend to ask, whether, if the Bill authorizing a rate in aid was renewed, the Clause relative to that rate in aid would again be proposed. That Bill would not expire until September, and he was not at present in a position to say whether the House would pass that part of the Bill which provided for a rate in aid.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, it would be necessary to come to a decision before long because, if the rate was to be renewed, the Bill must be immediately re-enacted.

EXPORT OF SALT TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he Wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any reply has been received to the renewed application for the admission of British Salt into France?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government had long been in communication with the Government of France on this subject. The French Government had appointed a Commission, which had concluded its investigation, but had not yet made its Report. That Report, however, he understood, would very soon be ready.

BISHOPRICS, &c. (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Return relating to Bishoprics, &c. (Ireland), ordered on the 7th ultimo, will be laid upon the table of the House?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in reply said, the Returns had not yet been made from the different dioceses, but a letter urging dispatch had been written to the Registrars.

BURLINGTON HOUSE AND THE NATIONAL GALLERY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to devote the space at the back of Burlington House to the Royal Academy; and, if not, whether they propose to appropriate such space to any other purpose than as a drill ground for Volunteers; and, if so, to what purpose, and how soon?
  MR. COWPERreplied, that a scheme had been for a considerable time under the consideration of the Government for erecting a new National Gallery at the rear of Burlington House, and for leaving the existing National Gallery entirely in the possession of the Royal Academy. Until some final decision were come to on the part of the Government, he thought it advisable that the ground at the back of Burlington House should be appropriated for a time to the use of the Volunteers for the purposes of drill.

THE LISBURN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Evans), he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Lisburn Election Committee; and, if so, whether it is his intention to institute criminal proceedings against John Doherty Barbour, esq., or any of the other persons who were proved before the said Committee to have been guilty of bribery at the last Election?
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, his attention had been called to the Report of the Committee in question. He had considered that Report, and he had thought it his duty to inquire as to the practice of the House in matters of that description. Having done so, he discovered that the practice was uniform—namely, in the case of a Committee finding a person guilty of bribery, that the House had always taken the initiative in the prosecution. There was no instance, as he was informed, of any other course. He believed, however, that a different course had been taken in

  1049
  reference to the finding of Royal Commissions of Inquiry, but there was no other case in which the initiative was not taken by the House itself. In the present Session an Act was passed changing the practice, and casting upon the Attorney General the duty of considering such a Report, and, if he thought fit, of instituting proceedings upon it. That Act had, however, passed since the finding of the Committee in question. He did not therefore think himself justified in departing from he established practice of the House, unless the House should think it necessary to order proceedings in the matter.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would then give notice that he should to-morrow call attention to the Report referred to, and to move a Resolution thereon.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Captain Fowke has made any Estimate of the cost of repairing the Exhibition Building and of completing the same, in conformity with his published design, and whether there is any objection to lay such Estimate upon the table or to state its amount?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in reply, that those plans referred to were voluntarily made by Captain Fowke and for his own information. The estimate of the cost made by that gentleman was not in the possession of the Government. But if the hon. Gentleman wished to move for the production of those plans and their estimated cost, they would, no doubt, be forthcoming.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know whether it is intended to bring forward the Vote for the purchase of the Exhibition Building on Thursday next.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Yes. I do not apprehend that there is any other business that will stand in the way.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that he had intimated his intention of making a short statement on the subject of the disposal of Burlington House. Perhaps the House would consider it convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would make that statement before the Vote was proposed on Thursday.
MR. COWPERsaid, he was not aware that he had ever promised such a statement. What he intended to have said was to the same effect as the answer which he had just given to an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Heygate) namely, that the disposal of Burlington House and Gardens was under the consideration of the Government; and he hoped shortly to be able to announce the decision come to by the Government on the matter.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, what he wished to ask was, whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to make any statement on the subject before the Vote is taken on Thursday?
MR. COWPERsaid, as the decision of the Government had not been come to as yet on the subject, it would be quite impossible for him to make any statement on or before Thursday.

PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS) BILL— [BILL 154.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: Sir, upon the occasion when this Bill was introduced into the House, I was precluded by the lateness of the hour from making any statement as to its objects and provisions. I was anxious, in deference to the wishes of those whom the Bill concerns, that there should be no delay in its circulation; and not being prepared for the opposition which was offered to the Bill by the hon. Member for Devenport (Mr. Ferrand), I laid it on the table without observation. For this reason I will, with the leave of the House, refer very shortly to the circumstances under which this Bill is submitted to its consideration.
  Sir, this Bill is the natural, or, at least, the not unexpected result of an inquiry that was announced several weeks since as intended by the Government with the view of ascertaining whether there was not something in the condition of the towns and populous places in the counties of Lancashire and Cheshire which might, in the improvements they require, offer resources for the employment of the unfortunate operatives who have been so long deprived of their occupation. That inquiry was prompted by the anxiety which was felt by the Government, and which any Government must have felt, at the continued dependence of so large a portion of the working population at a given spot

  1051
  upon charitable and parochial relief. Though we have many reasons to be satisfied and even grateful that adequate and ample means were found for the maintenance of this numerous body of working men when the calamity first befell their trade, from the munificent contributions that were received, I may say, from all parts of the world and from all classes in this country; yet it is impossible not to be alive to the evil consequences of so large a number of people continuing for so long a time to derive their maintenance from these sources. Moreover, with the slight prospect which seems to present itself of the revival of trade, it becomes an urgent question how these men are to be kept from a continued state of idleness and want of occupation. The House will remember that in the discussion that took place on this subject it appeared there was a very general feeling in the country at large that something should be done, with the view, if possible, of changing the condition of those people and placing them in healthier relations to the rest of the community. Various measures were mooted on that occasion, such as the dispersion of the people over the country, emigration, and their employment on independent labour near to their homes. It was in order to ascertain whether there were any facilities for such employment near their homes that the Government sought for information with a view to these people being relieved from their humiliating position of dependence on charity, and of being placed in a situation where they could obtain employment at remunerative wages. The Government was entirely opposed to the establishment of any system of public works over which they would be the superintendents thus relieving the localities in question from their legal obligations to support their own poor. Still less would they be instrumental in superseding labourers who were already engaged in a particular industry, for the purpose of providing occupation for the unemployed cotton operatives. For this reason the Government were determined to direct competent persons to proceed to those districts where it was supposed that independent labour might be provided, and to institute the inquiry that has been made. It was this reason that induced my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to issue his instructions to the civil engineer attached to the Department over which he has control, in connection with the
  1052
  local government of the towns of this country, and direct him to inspect the towns, ascertain their general condition, the character of the drainage, the extent of the water supply, the state of the streets, the provision made for parks and pleasure grounds for the recreation of the inhabitants, and the general sanitary arrangements of such localities. My right hon. Friend directed the engineer to form an opinion as to the works of utility which could be executed; to give an estimate as nearly as possible of the cost of such works; to lay suggestions on the point before the local authorities; to explain the results that might be obtained by the execution of the works both in the improvement of the towns and the employment of the distressed operatives at a fair rate of wages; to explain also what the Government intended to do, and to mention that the Government had no intention to establish works, such as guardians of the poor and overseers are obliged to establish, as matters of discipline or tests for the discovery of imposture. We hoped that by the information thus obtained a plan of employment might be devised which would provide for the execution of works of public utility and lead indirectly to a great demand for labour.
  There was no delay in the course that was pursued, for I think within a few days after the discussion that took place here, the gentleman selected as civil engineer—Mr. Rawlinson—proceeded to the districts where he was to make his inquiry, and we were able within the time in which it was calculated that a competent person could make his Report, to place his Report upon the table of the House, stating generally the result of his inquiry. I think that that gentleman was well and happily selected. He is a native of the county, familiar with the districts in question, alive to the deficiencies of those towns, and well acquainted with the particular circumstances under which they are placed at present. He was accompanied by a Commissioner—Mr. Farnall—whose services have already been the subject of notice and commendation in this House, and who is also well acquainted with the districts inspected. I think I may say, that wherever those gentlemen appeared in the course of their mission they were welcome. They were well received by the local authorities, and every aid was given to them in collecting the information which was required. Local overseers were placed at

  1053
  their disposal, and it was very generally admitted that their inquiry might be attended with useful results; that the works, if undertaken, would be of great advantage to those districts, and that they would present an opportunity whereby the distressed operatives might find independent labour. I mention this circumstance in order to claim confidence for the correctness of their reports, by showing that they were possessed of all the means of obtaining accurate information; and this I think is an important consideration when taking into account what the results of the inquiry have been. I find by the Reports which have been returned that everything that was anticipated has proved to be correct; that these towns are in a state which presents a great opportunity for the employment of unskilled labour; and that a wide field exists for the occupation of those operatives who are now deprived of their ordinary means of livelihood, in the construction of works of permanent advantage, without superseding any existing labour. The first Report of Mr. Rawlinson led me to the conclusion that this was the case, and I find that throughout to the last, Report, which I believe has this day been placed in the hands of hon. Members, he has adhered to the opinion that there is ample opportunity in works required and needed in those districts to give employment to all the able-bodied operatives now out of occupation. In the first Report he says—
  "If Government can pass a short Act (independent of the Local Government Act) to enable money to be advanced at some fraction per cent more than will secure the country from loss, work may be found for every able-bodied distressed operative now out of work, and the districts will be permanently benefited. Property will be improved, and the sanitary state of every locality operated upon will be vastly bettered. Local rates will be reduced, and the Registrar General will find the effects in an improved value to life now and in future years…. There is abundance of Work to be done, and a willingness to do it."
  The engineer, not satisfied with the Reports made to him by the local authorities, communicated daily with the operatives himself, and from them he received the most satisfactory assurances that there is nothing they desire more, or are more ready to accept, than work of this description. Mr. Rawlinson says—
  "Many of the cotton operatives are now at work for wages of 3d. per hour, spade and barrow labour, levelling land and excavating foundations. I have been over these works with the engineer to the Corporation, whose card I enclose. I have
  1054
  watched the men at work, and have spoken with them. All the men at work are volunteers from the relief schools. The only complaint made to me was that they, the men, 'were not allowed to work all day;' they would 'far rather work than sit stewing in the schools.' I examined some of the men's hands; they had been blistered, but they did not care for this—the blisters soon get well. I remarked to one gang, 'Some people say you cannot do good outdoor work.' The reply was, 'But we both can and will, if we have the chance;' and I sincerely believe this.…. Much of the money required will necessarily be expended on skilled labour and on materials. But within one month after commencing fairly to work the best of the distressed cotton operatives will have become, in a degree, 'skilled labourers,' in excavating, in trenching, and in street and road forming. There are difficulties to be overcome, but most of these difficulties rest with the local authorities. But a vast amount of useful work may be beneficially undertaken, and be executed by the best of the distressed men out of employment."
  That was the first impression produced on the mind of the engineer sent to investigate the matter. The statements which I have quoted were made at the beginning of last month, and on the last day of the month he states, in the Report delivered to hon. Members this morning—
  "My experience in town improvement works generally, and my recent inspection and inquiries in the distressed cotton district, lead me to the conclusion that one million and a half sterling may be expended in permanent improvements of a beneficial character, such as main sewerage, drainage, new reservoirs for water supply, forming and completing streets, forming suburban roads, forming parks, recreation grounds, enclosing waste lands, draining lands, cleansing and improving rivers, and other similar works."
  This assertion is not made vaguely or rashly by Mr. Rawlinson, but he has proceeded with the caution which becomes a professional man, and he states that these works may be advantageously executed. He does not pretend to say that they are works which unskilled operatives could alone perform, and he classifies the works requiring skilled hands and those on which the unskilled may be employed, and he says—
  "The class of works which will find employment for the largest number of unskilled hands will be levelling waste lands, forming parks and recreation grounds, baring rock for quarrying, forming suburban roads, draining agricultural lands, cleansing and improving rivers, forming reservoirs, and other such works."
  That is the result of the inquiry which this gentleman has made, and which I think justifies the propriety of the inquiry, and the wisdom of the expectations of those who believed that by the means of such works in the distressed counties full

  1055
  employment might be given to the operative classes now unfortunately unemployed. I must say that the Report which the engineer has made is one which I believe will bear the test of the most critical examination either on the part of those who are members of the same profession, or of those who have considered the question how far these works are likely to be conducive to the end of employing the operatives. In a previous Report he has assumed that £1,500,000 might be placed at the disposal of these different towns for the execution of the works; and in his concluding Report, when calculating the application of this money, he certainly has come to the conclusion that not more than £431,000 of the million and a half sterling would be directly paid in labour to the unskilled workmen. At the same time, after mentioning that upwards of £690,000 would be employed in the purchase of materials, and £175,000 in skilled labour, he states—
  "The expenditure of so large a sum of money as one and a half million will apparently only relieve the rates to the extent of £431,756 in the direct employment of distressed operative labour. The actual relief will, however, be to a much greater extent, as all the money paid for skilled labour, and probably fully 75 per cent of the money paid for materials, will be expended in the district, so that the local rates will be relieved to an extent much larger than the figures 28·8 per cent on unskilled labour indicate. Stone, gravel, flags, bricks, paving-stone, curb-stone, tiles, and similar materials will be provided, and the money paid will to a great extent be expended in the district."
  That, it appears to me, must be the effect; and if money is advanced for the execution of these works, not only does it give direct employment to the distressed operatives, but it would also lead to a considerable expenditure in the districts, and in that way be of advantage to those who are now peculiarly oppressed by contributions required for the support of the unemployed. In the Report presented today, Mr. Rawlinson has shown that from the vast number of places included in the districts to which I refer there have proceeded expressions of satisfaction and hope arising out of the execution of those works, which it is believed are positively needed, and are essential for the health, comfort, and general convenience of the districts, and which will be the means of also giving employment indirectly to a vast number of persons who now remain idle. I strongly recommend the last Report presented today to the perusal of the House, in order that the House may know of what advantage
  1056
  these works will be. I think the statement in this Report with respect to one of these districts is worthy of notice. It seems to me to be a fair sample of these places, where large populations have grown up, and where no form of local government exists, and a fair representation of what would be the consequence of not executing the works now proposed to be undertaken. Mr. Rawlinson, alluding to the case of Haslingden, states—
  "There is no local Act in force, nor any form of local governing body other than the parish authorities. The population of the township of Haslingden is about 10,000, and the ratable value upwards of £20,000. The population of the town proper is upwards of 5,000. There are some main drains, but no system of main sewers. House drains are an exception, not the rule; and from the defective forms and construction of sewers and drains, when used for draining water-closets they become nuisances. Many of the streets are unformed and unpaved. Cess-pits are crowded behind cottages, and as a consequence fever and other diseases of a similar character prevail. There is to be a supply of water from a company. In site, in sub-soil, and in the purity of the surrounding atmosphere, Haslingden possesses advantages which, with proper sanitary arrangements, would secure to the inhabitants a higher state of health than is now found to prevail. Haslingden is a type of many other places to be found in the County Palatine of Lancaster."
  That is, as I have said, a fair specimen of the state in which these towns are at present, and every person who hears that description can readily imagine what necessity there is for these works. Indeed, throughout these Reports there is nothing but evidence to show that there is a positive necessity for these works. There is a lamentable need of all those requirements which, according to our modern views of civilization, are essential to promote health, cleanliness, and general convenience. Whatever may be the reason—whether it is that the working classes are absorbed by the more profitable labour of the district, or that the leading men are absorbed by attention to their business—the fact is certain that the most prosperous times are not those in which improvements of a permanent character make most progress. This naturally leads one to the conclusion that the present is not an inopportune moment for urging these districts to construct works which are much needed, and which are being generally carried out elsewhere. When you connect that with the employment of the poor, and with the anticipated advantage to the health of these districts, you will see that the question deserves your consideration, whether,

  1057
  if there are any means by which such works can he promoted, and without which they would not be undertaken, they should not be adopted.
  But I am bound to state, not withstanding the confidence with which the engineer and the commissioner employed by us to visit these districts declare that the proposed works are essential and might be accomplished at this moment, that they accompany that declaration with a statement to the effect that there are obstacles in the way which must be removed in the first instance, or there can be no hope of the improvements being adopted. Those obstacles are described as partly financial and partly legal. It is easy to conceive how the financial difficulties arise at this time. When we consider how depressed trade has been for the last year, how burdened many of these districts are with debt, and how the pressure of the rates is increasing upon them, it is not wonderful that they should be anxious to escape the additional charge which would be entailed by new works that might be avoided. The universal opinion has been, that unless such works could be constructed by means of public loans, there would be little hope of their being undertaken at all. These districts, according to the best information I can obtain, cannot raise the money upon the security which they offer at much less than five per cent. I do not think it is unreasonable for them, looking to the circumstances in which they are placed, to ask the assistance of the State to enable them to raise the money requisite for the execution of the proposed improvements upon more advantageous terms. It is no slight consideration to them to raise large sums at a difference of nearly 1½ per cent; and considering the purposes for which loans have been advanced in past times, I do not think their request is one which ought to be refused, that the Loan Commissioners should be authorized to assist them in the present emergency. This concession the Government are disposed to make. We believe that these districts have established their case, and I, for one, can see no reason why theirs should be distinguished from other cases in which loans have been advanced. There have been some criticisms upon the application, and an attempt has been made to distinguish between the case of towns and other places for the purposes which have generally been in question where loans have been granted; but I really cannot
  1058
  see the distinction. I cannot understand, as it is part of our policy to place a certain sum of money at the disposal of the Public Works Commissioners, why a preference should be given to one class over another in the advances that are made. The last occasion, I remember, on which there might have been some question in this House was when Sir Robert Peel, on the repeal of the Corn Laws, introduced a Bill authorizing the Lords of the Treasury to place at the disposal of the Loan Commissioners a sum of £2,000,000, for the purpose of enabling the proprietors of land to drain their estates. That was supposed to be in compensation for some loss that was anticipated in consequence of the removal of protection. I need not remind the House that no such loss was ever sustained. Nothing but advantage has followed from the repeal of the Corn Laws; but still the Bill introduced by Sir Robert Peel was thought to be justifiable as compensation for what was anticipated at the time. Not only was a sum of £2,000,000 placed at the disposal of the Loan Commissioners, with the view of assisting the proprietors to drain their lands, but when that was exhausted, another sum equal in amount was devoted to the same purpose. I do not object to that; on the contrary, I believe that great advantage was derived by the country from such application of public money; the improvement of the land added to the wealth of the country, and not a sixpence was lost by the advances that were made. But, if you can make advances to a class in expectation of evils that have not occurred, I think it would hardly be reasonable, when great evils exist and great advantages may be expected from the application of such means, to demur to a repetition of the same course of proceeding. I do not anticipate, however, that there will be any question of that sort. The hon. Member for Devon-port appeared to be very critical upon our present proposal the other night. I do not know whether he will repeat his statements, but I do not except that the House generally will object to the advances that are now proposed to be made.
  The difficulties which are stated to exist to the undertaking of these works are both financial and legal; and I am afraid that whatever financial facilities might be afforded would be of little use unless it was determined to remove the legal difficulties which present themselves to the

  1059
  accomplishment of the works. These legal difficulties consist in a deficiency of power in particular places either to borrow the money or to carry out the works. When public works are to be executed in a particular district, the ordinary course is to appeal to Parliament for a Private Act giving the requisite powers, both for raising the money and executing the works. It is quite clear, looking to the great variety of the districts in question, to the period of the Session, and to the expense and delay incident to the passing of Private Bills, that it would be utterly impossible for all these different places to procure Private Acts for the purpose of raising money and executing works within their limits. One might have expected, that, in lien of Private Acts, it would have been possible for these districts to adopt the Local Government Act, passed in 1858, which is a most valuable measure—which, being permissive, may be adopted by any place, and which, when adopted, confers all the powers and rights obtainable by a Private Act. But, in the first place, there is a most extraordinary prejudice against that Act existing in these districts. It has been found, moreover—such are the formalities connected with its adoption and application—almost impossible to give it any effect under a shorter period than three months. In the present instance the legal difficulties arise from the peculiar forms of local government which exist in the distressed districts. There are corporations which have no power to borrow. Some places, not incorporated, have adopted the Local Government Act, but have exhausted their means of borrowing. Other places, which have adopted the Act, have no other authority than that conferred by the parochial system. The proposition is, to allow all these places to have advances of money for the purpose of executing works; but, under the present state of the law, some have no power to borrow, and, still more, have no power to carry out works if they had the means. Hence the necessity for fresh legislation. It was not easy by any special Act to attain all the objects in view. This Bill meets, I believe, the requirements of the case as nearly as possible. It provides for any difficulty in adopting the Local Government Act in respect of time. With respect to the places that have Local Acts, they have power to adopt clauses of the Local Government Act for the purpose of borrowing and executing their works,
  1060
  and which give them all the authority which they would have if they had adopted the Act itself; and with respect to those places that have only parochial authority, and where it is found that they have under an Act or by the common law power of executing works out of the rates, power is conferred by this Act for borrowing money and mortgaging the rates. We therefore confer at once a facility upon all those places of borrowing the money that may be advanced, upon the terms which the Commissioners may choose to advance it, and of giving the security that is required. Sir, there has been an observation made, that although this Bill provides for the case of municipal corporations and particular places, yet that there are many outlying districts suffering from distress in Lancashire which would receive no advantage from its operation. That, however, is not the case, because there is no place where parochial authorities do not exist, and where, by means of the vestry, an authority could not be constituted through whose instrumentality money might be borrowed. There are places, nevertheless, in which these authorities do not choose to take upon themselves the responsibility of borrowing money to execute these works, but power is given to those places, by agreement with the authorities of corporate towns having power to borrow money under the Bill, to obtain a loan and apply the money in their particular parish, the rates of the parish being mortgaged for its repayment. They will, under these circumstances, have the advantage of providing employment for those who stand in need of it, without incurring any further responsibility than the repayment of the loan, with the interest due upon it. There are, I am assured, several places which are likely to profit by this agreement, so that the apprehension that the Bill will not include all those whom it is desirable it should in the distressed disticts within the scope of the benefits which it is intended to confer will thus be removed.
  There has been another argument urged against the Bill which is, I think, hardly fair. I have seen the complaint made in a public journal that it affords the proprietors in the districts in question no opportunity of taking advantage of the loans advanced to the towns. It is, however, a very different thing to make inquiry as to the policy of lending public money to towns for sanitary purposes and general public objects, and to institute an investigation

  1061
  into the condition of the private property of particular individuals. For my part, I do not think it would have been very seemly if Commissioners had been sent to see what was the position of particular properties in those counties, and if Reports had been laid before this House specifying by name those properties, and perhaps holding the owners up as having neglected to improve them in some instances. I am not aware that any claim has been put forward by the proprietors themselves to have the same advantages which it is proposed by this Act to extend to corporate towns. Nothing, I may add, could be, in my opinion, more advantageous to them or to the country at large than that they should make those improvements. I have not heard the statement which I was authorized to make in this House on a former occasion, in reference to the extent to which improvements in land might be carried on in Lancashire, and the extent to which unemployed labour might be beneficially occupied, in the slightest degree questioned. That statement I believe to be perfectly true in all respects; nor have I heard of any difficulty on the part, of the proprietors, either with respect to obtaining money or carrying out those improvements. I observe that in the last report of Mr. Rawlinson he says—
  "In the distressed cotton districts there are many thousands of acres of agricultural land which may be beneficially drained. Such land is to be seen bordering every line of railway in the county. This is a landlord's question mixed up with tenure, tenancy, leases, and other difficulties. As, however, the land must pay its quota of increased poor rates, it may be advisable to have labour in return for payment of wages, rather than to give relief for comparative idleness."
  This, however, is a matter which owners of property in the county must decide for themselves. The Bill is not intended as a panacea for all the evils that have arisen out of the distress which prevails in the manufacturing districts. It certainly does not strike at the great root of the evil which has befallen that county. It is intended only as a precautionary measure. It is intended in some degree to mitigate both the distress of Lancashire and to relieve the suffering and humiliation of the people, who are now living as paupers, and who are dependent upon charity. It is a measure which, in my opinion, may be turned to good account. Of course, it will depend very much on the local authorities how far it will operate beneficially.
  1062
  We propose it as a measure of amelioration, which must be taken in conjunction with other means of improvement, such as emigration or the revival of trade. It ought not to be condemned simply because it, does not accomplish all the good which any one may desire. I have, at all events, reason to be satisfied with the manner in which it has been received in the districts to which it particularly relates. I cannot help stating to the House, to show it is not simply a measure which the Government have brought forward without due consideration, that only this day I have seen that what is called the Central Committee of Relief at Manchester have considered this Bill, and have also considered what were the necessities and requirements of the county, and they have given to the measure their most unqualified approbation. Now, that Committee is composed of all the, persons of the highest position in the county of Lancashire, and of persons most extensively engaged in business. Indeed, I do not know of an association that more fully represents the opinions and interests of the county than the Central Relief Committee at Manchester; and I do say it is encouraging and highly satisfactory to find that that Committee should consider that this Bill does very much to embody the views they have entertained for some time past; that they consider there is ample opportunity afforded in the condition of these municipal corporate towns, and of the districts there, for the employment of the operatives; and they believe that the only thing that is necessary in order to lead to this result is precisely that alteration of the law and the course generally which the Government propose should be adopted. They believe that ample funds will be found for the employment of the operatives who are now idle if the alterations are made in the Local Government Act which are proposed in this Bill, and if advances are made by the State at the low rate of interest and upon the terms of repayment here proposed. When the House, considers the apprehensions entertained last year, when we consider how distant and slight are the chances of an improvement of trade, when we think of the prospect afforded of paupers becoming independent labourers, and of how much anxiety will be relieved in the coming winter by so many being able to find employment, and thus support themselves and their families, there can be but little reason for rejecting a measure

  1063
  which seems, on high authority, to provide for the accomplishment of that object. The last Return shows that upwards of 300,000 people are now living upon charity. Of that number one-half appears to be receiving relief from Committees, and one-half from the guardians of unions. If that is the number, with the present state of trade at this season, who are receiving relief, what, I ask hon. Members to consider, will be the prospect when the present season has passed away, and the winter returns, if no means are adopted to meet the emergency? If, then, we could look forward to the prospect of some 70,000 or 80,000 men being employed, representing families to the extent of four times that number of individuals, it would, I cannot help thinking, be a source of great satisfaction, not alone to those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs, but to the country at large. The object of this measure is to diminish, as far as we can, the misery and distress which now prevail in Lancashire, and in the hope and belief that it will effect that object I now beg leave to move its second reading.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not acted with much fairness towards himself personally in the remarks which he had just made. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that when the Bill was laid on the table, he (Mr. Ferrand) had declared it to be his intention to oppose it; but he had done nothing of the kind. On the contrary, he had no idea of opposing it, and had simply objected to so important a measure being introduced at half past two in the morning, without any statement having at the time been made with respect to its provisions. When he, upon that occasion, asked the right hon. Gentleman what was to be the amount of interest charged on the money lent, his answer was, "You will find it stated in the Bill." The right hon. Gentleman had not, therefore, when bringing in the Bill, answered him courteously in reply to a very natural question, nor had he that evening given a correct account of what had taken place. The fact was, that he not only approved the Bill so far as it went, but regretted that it did not go far enough; nor would he have taken any part in the debate on the second reading had it not been for a meeting which was held at Manchester on Monday last, at which the most alarming statements were made. If those statements were correct,
  1064
  the right hon. Gentleman was not dealing fairly with the House in not bringing them forward; and further, if they were correct, they bore out what had fallen from him when he addressed the House on the 27th of April in bringing forward the subject of the distress prevailing among the factory operatives. He then stated that the operatives were weary of idleness, that they saw no hope of employment for a long time, that they were not only degraded into paupers, but had no clothes and were literally starving, and that they entreated the House to vote a sum of money which would enable them to emigrate to the Colonies, where they could earn an honest livelihood by their own industry. He also warned the right hon. Gentleman, that if they remained in this state of destitution until next winter, they would be ruined both physically and morally. No one could tell what serious results might not occur, and he entreated the right hon. Gentleman to take their request into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman replied to his statements in the most cavalier manner, and told him that his remarks were obsolete, and that he spoke as if he was, as he no doubt thought he was, addressing the House fifteen years ago. The remarks which the right hon. Gentleman had himself made that night were obsolete as far as free trade was concerned, because he was asking the House to protect the cotton interest and provide means to keep the native industry of Lancashire within its borders. If the right hon. Gentleman could find employment for all that were now living idly, and who had been heretofore employed in the cotton trade, he would not object in the slightest degree to this Bill or to its provisions; and, as he had said before, he only objected to them because they did not go far enough. The right hon. Gentleman, on the former occasion, declared that emigration was unnecessary and would be injurious, promised that work should be found—not for 40,000, but for 70,000, indeed for the half million of destitute factory operatives—and pledged himself to send into the manufacturing districts an eminent engineer, who should in three weeks make a Report to the House upon the subject. By that promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Government became responsible either to find work for these people in Lancashire, or to remove them to a place where they could find it for themselves. As far as sending an engineer

  1065
  into the factory districts went, it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman had redeemed his pledge, because on the 29th of April Mr. Rawlinson received instructions from the Secretary of State for the Home Department to visit the cotton-manufacturing districts to inquire what works of utility, profit, or ornament could be executed there with especial reference to providing employment for the distressed operatives at a fair rate of wages. On the 4th of May Mr. Rawlinson reported to the President of the Poor Law Board, stating, that if a short Act were passed, enabling money to be advanced at a fraction above the rate of interest which could secure the country against loss, could work be found for every able-bodied operative On the 16th of May Mr. Rawlinson for warded another Report, which the right hon. Gentleman had taken care not to read. In that Report he said, that "the able-bodied men now out of work must either be maintained out of the poor rates or by work in the towns. The present system will ruin the men if persevered in another year." Upon the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire, there had been laid upon the table a copy of a Report addressed by Mr. Baker, a factory inspector, to the Home Secretary. Probably but few hon. Members were aware that Mr. Baker had been sent into the manufacturing districts to inquire into the state of the population; but a short time before he had received private information that Mr. Baker had been instructed to go into the Lancashire districts and draw up a Report, repudiating as far as he could, the idea of emigration; and he thought that a few extracts from the Report would show that his information was correct. Mr. Baker's letter, which was in anticipation of the regular annual Report, which, as a factory inspector, it was his duty to submit, was dated "Leamington, April 22, 1863," and the House ought not to forget, that although it was five days afterwards when he (Mr. Ferrand) brought before the House the condition of the factory operatives, not a word was said about that letter. In it Mr. Baker stated that he had just returned from visiting districts in which 8,000,000 spindles were usually at work, and that in all those districts, including Bolton, Bury, Colne, Padiham, Radcliffe, Leigh, Hyde, Stock-port, Wigan, and many other places, the people hoped that they would be able to carry on until the termination of the
  1066
  American war, or until a supply of suitable cotton from other countries was brought into the English market. In Bolton, Colne, and Padiham, and more or less all round about, new mills were being erected and new spindles added to old ones, and all these were intended to commence working as soon as a supply of the raw material reached this country, Mr. Baker stated that when trade revived there would be a demand for more hands than could be obtained, which would make them unreasonable in their demands and render them the masters, "for already they are thinking of the time when things will be different." The letter concluded—
  "In 1860 the weekly consumption of cotton by the spinners was 48,300 bales; at present it is about 23,590 bales; but as we appear to export about 8,000 bales a week, it cannot be estimated that more than 535,900 of the 802,350 bales in stock and coming will ever reach the consumers' hands, which, at the usual rate of 9½ oz. consumption of cotton per spindle per week, and for full time, would employ all the cotton spinning hands in the United Kingdom about twelve weeks, or half time to about November next. You will see, Sir, that these calculations are made independently of the quantity of cotton supposed to be stored in America. If that could be obtained, the mills would be running full time immediately on its arrival; and, under any probability of such an event, to emigrate the hands would be a fatal step for these districts."
  Mr. Farnall's Report had been only placed on the table that morning. It was hardly fair to the House to call on it to approach the consideration of the state of Lancashire, where nearly half a million of human beings were in a condition bordering on starvation, when such a scant interval was afforded to hon. Members for becoming acquainted with the documents essential to a right understanding of such a momentous question. The right hon, Gentleman on a former occasion had pledged himself that work should be found for the operatives in Lancashire almost immediately, but there was one passage in Mr. Farnall's Report with which the right hon. Gentleman had taken care not to acquaint the House. Mr. Farnall said, "Mr. Rawlinson has read this letter, and he permits me to inform you that he concurs in the statements it contains." Mr. Farnall went on to say—
  "The inference, therefore, is that an outlay of £1,500,000 on the works adverted to would employ about 27,400 men for one year who are now out of work in the cotton districts; and further, that this employment would remove about 82,200 persons from the poor rates and from the charitable funds, the annual cost of whose maintenance, in

  1067
  comparative idleness, is at present not less than about £320,500."
  There was a plain statement as to the amount of work which could he provided and the relief it would afford. Hon. Members were no doubt aware that a meeting of the Central Relief Committee was held at Manchester on the previous Monday. At that meeting Sir J. Kay Shuttleworth, who throughout had taken an active and praiseworthy part in the onerous duties of the Relief Committee, declared that "it had not been anticipated by the public generally that next winter would present as great difficulties as the last." After the speech made by the President of the Poor Law Board, on the 27th of April, it was not likely that such anticipations would be entertained. But Sir J. Kay Shuttleworth continued—
  "Those passages of the Reports of this Committee which anticipated that the resources of the working classes would be exhausted, that the means derived formerly from private charity would no longer be available, and that we should have nearly the same number of cotton operatives dependent on the relief funds or some other assistance than the ordinary sources of labour—those views were not generally entertained in society or in the House of Commons."
  Mr. E. Ashworth, a gentleman largely engaged in the cotton trade, and a member of the Relief Committee, named the exact amount which Government meant to devote to the relief of Lancashire distress. The House of Commons at that time had never even heard the sum which the right hon. Gentleman intended to propose should be voted. When the Bill was laid upon the table, he in vain endeavoured to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman the amount which would be asked for under its provisions; but he refused to give that information, and the House therefore learned for the first time through the report of a meeting at Manchester the extent of the proposition to which its assent was invited. Mr. Ashworth said—
  "The million and a half was likely to be only a small portion which would be required to tide over the difficulties of Lancashire next winter, provided there was no extra supply of cotton, from the American difficulty being ended, of which there was no prospect at present."
  Within the last quarter of an hour the right hon. Gentleman had given the House to understand that there was a prospect of the termination of the American difficulty. Mr. Ashworth, who was engaged in the cotton trade, declared that there was none. He now came to Mr. Commissioner Farnall, a public officer who had been reporting
  1068
  every week an improved state of things, thereby deceiving the house and the whole country. Mr. Farnall now reported as the result of his inquiry, that—
  "The number employed by the million and a half of skilled and unskilled labourers would be 30,000 at the very outside. The probability was that in the winter we should have 400,000 people to provide for. If we could get 30,000 to work in the summer and autumn, the utmost extent to which we could suppose each of these men would lighten the burdens of the relief committees or guardians would be two other persons with himself."
  He spoke of getting 30,000 to work in the summer. Why, the summer had nearly gone, and the Bill had not yet been read a second time! Mr. Farnall proceeded—
  "Assuming that 90,000 or 100,000 would thus be provided for, we had still 300,000 mouths to feed and bodies to clothe, which was 250,000 above the average pauperism in the cotton districts. If this did not convince people of the difficulties we had to meet next winter, he did not know what would."
  The next speaker was Mr. H. Mason, a gentleman largely engaged in the cotton trade; and he said, he was sorry to be obliged to anticipate that next winter would be the time of the greatest trial in these districts. The Town Clerk of Manchester embodied his views in a resolution—
  "That, looking to the certainty of a greatly increased pressure on the rates which will arise during the ensuing winter, it is in the opinion of this meeting desirable that Parliament before separating should provide additional facilities to boards of guardians or overseers for borrowing at a low rate of interest, and upon satisfactory terms as to repayment, such sums of money as may be required."
  Now, let the House hear what was said by Mr. Farnall. He stated, that "such a movement as the present was likely to create a vast amount of difficulty in the House of Commons." The House ought to know the truth and the whole truth, and ought not to be kept in darkness as to the intentions of the manufacturers and the Government. When he brought forward his Motion on the 27th of April, he was aware of all these facts, and the right hon. Gentleman must have known them too, or else he was deceived by his subordinates. From that dilemma there was no escape. Mr. Farnall went on to say—
  "Parliament was at present engaged in passing into the hands of the Loan Commissioners a sum of a million and a half of money, and it must be well known that the House was not altogether composed of the friends of Lancashire, and Mr. Villiers's Bill was not likely to be carried without

  1069
  considerable opposition. Now they were asked to go to Parliament with an extra measure, asking the Loan Commissioners for, probably, another million and a half. [The Town Clerk: Very likely,] This would make £3,000,000. His impression was that this would be taking a dangerous course, and that it would be better to let the Government have an opportunity of passing one measure through the House before they brought forward a fresh suggestion for loans at a low rate of interest."
  He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what was the amount of money which Parliament would be asked to vote before the end of the Session. He should like also to ask whether these 300,000 people were to be kept in idleness in Lancashire during another winter. Mr. Rawlinson had warned the House of the consequences; he had told them that to keep them in idleness another winter would be their ruin. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, in a speech made in that House twenty years ago, said the working population of England would endure anything but a sense of pauperism. That night he had told the House repeatedly that the working population of a large part of England were paupers. The operatives felt that they were paupers, and they were watching the action of that House in calmness, in quietude, in peace, and in hope that they might be removed from the category of paupers, either by work being found for them in Lancashire, or else by the means of emigration being afforded to a considerable number of them. His impression was, that if the factory operatives were kept in a state of idleness in Lancashire, that £10,000,000 would be insufficient to meet the demands upon the House of Commons. According to the right hon Gentleman's own statistics, it would require £4,000,000 to keep these persons during the next twelve mouths; and he did not believe there was any likelihood of the trade of Lancashire being in a prosperous state for the next three years, if it ever entirely recovered itself. While Lancashire was in this pitiable condition, while the agricultural interests in Scotland and Ireland were not only depressed but nearly ruined, while there was fearful distress in the Midland Counties of England and in large cities like London, Glasgow, Paisley, and others, the noble Lord at the head of the Government came down to the House on Monday last and asked it to vote half a million of money to buy those old, rotten buildings at Kensington. The noble Lord might
  1070
  depend upon it that famishing factory operatives would make some such remarks as this—"If the noble Viscount can fool money away in London he might at least spare half a million to enable some of us to emigrate." The operatives would feel that they had been deceived and betrayed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, and it was sadly to be feared they might show a spirit which would be anything but calm and peaceable. He was justified in that remark, for the workmen had been repeatedly told that if they would only be peaceable and well-conducted employment should be found for them. In what kind of work did the Bill before the House propose that the operatives should be employed? Among others, any pond, pool, open ditch, any river, stream, or brook might be widened, deepened, or cleansed; any sewer or drain might be made or improved; any common lands used or intended to be used as places of public recreation might be drained, laid out, planted, or otherwise improved. Now, who were the people to be employed in these works?—a body of factory operatives, who, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself, had been in a state bordering on starvation for the last twelve months, who were to be fed and clothed at the public expense, whose own clothes were little better than rags—and had been little better for many months—and who previous to that fearful destitution were accustomed to work in a temperature varying from 80 to 120 degrees. Such men were utterly unfit for the occupations contemplated by the Bill. He made that statement advisedly, for he had employed large numbers of factory operatives on many occasions. In summer time, in warm, fine, open weather, and at dry work, such as digging and trenching, they could earn a fair day's wages, and retain their health. He found that whenever they set factory operatives to dig drains they were attacked by the most violent rheumatism; yet it was now proposed to make them do work in rivers and works where they would be wet up to the waist, which would kill them by thousands in a very few months. That was a kind of employment which scarcely the strongest men, accustomed through life to out-of-door labour, could undergo for any length of time. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take measures, in conjunction with the Boards of Guardians and various local

  1071
  bodies, to employ these men where they would have dry work. As they had a second million and a half, he would not say "looming in the distance," but near at hand—for no doubt the House would be asked to vote another million and a half before the end of the Session—he would ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it would not be fair and reasonable that a considerable number of the men, women, and children who were to be kept in idleness, in wretchedness, and only half fed, for another winter in Lancashire—whether it would not be a mercy to these people themselves, and a security to the country, that they should be removed to the Colonies. He had, on two or three occasions, asked the right ion. Gentleman whether he had a Return of the unmarried women out of work, and the right hon. Gentleman said he had no power of enforcing it; but as he had Returns of the other classes of the unemployed, men, women, and children, what impediment could there be to his obtaining similar information respecting the single women? It appeared that there was a very large number of totally unemployed single women in Lancashire. They had been gathered from many parts of England; some of them had no relations or friends in Lancashire, and were in a state of the greatest destitution. He had been told by the manufacturers of Lancashire that it was the positive duty of the Government to remove a considerable number of these unmarried women to the Colonies. On the 27th of April, when he moved his Resolution, and appealed to the House to vote a sum of money for the emigration of the unemployed factory operatives, the right hon. Gentleman treated that proposal as an extreme one; yet it would seem that at that very time the Government had been making inquiry in the different Colonies as to the number of these operatives which each Colony should receive. That showed that the Government had some apprehension of the distress which was likely to occur in the ensuing winter. He would therefore entreat the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to propose a Vote for the emigration of these poor factory operatives, by which they would only be doing an act of justice towards peaceable and well-conducted men and women, as they were now performing an act of justice towards the manufacturers in moving the second reading of the Bill. He gave his hearty support to the measure; and although
  1072
  Amendments, no doubt, might be made in its details, he did not intend to interfere with them, but would leave them to be proposed by hon. Gentlemen connected with the district and those who were well qualified for such a task.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should not have risen if he had not thought it his duty to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board for the trouble and labour he had taken in reference to the matter. He did not think that the Bill was calculated to do the vast amount of good expected, and though it might not do the amount of good which the hon. Member (Mr. Ferrand) wished for, still it was a step in the right direction, the proposal being to give employment for wages instead of relieving the people in the unions. A leading article in The Times of that morning was calculated, he believed, to mislead the House and the public. The writer stated that at the present time there were only 167,000 persons in the cotton districts receiving relief, and that on the 7th day of December last the number was 270,000. Arguing upon these figures, the article went on to question the accuracy of an estimate that had been put forth, to the effect that there would not improbably be 400,000 persons requiring relief next winter. Now, the writer in The Times had fallen into an error in his statistics. Instead of there now being only 167,000 persons receiving relief, there were 289,975 receiving relief in the week ending on the 50th of May last; while the real number on the 7th of December last was 458,696, instead of 270,000. The error of the writer had evidently arisen from his taking only the numbers receiving relief from the boards of guardians, and not taking into account the numbers receiving relief from the various local committees in Lancashire and Cheshire. The Report made up by the Central Relief Committee on the 30th ultimo showed that there was still great distress in the cotton districts. During the month of May last the total sum expended by the guardians and the local committees in the relief of the poor was £101,730; whereas the total sum expended on the relief of the poor for the same period of 1861 was only £38,000, or little more than one third of the present amount. In the Union of Ashton-under-Lyne there were 57,183 operatives, of whom 30,870 were unemployed in the last week of May, while

  1073
  only 9,239 were working full time. At Glossop there were 7,068 operatives, of whom 5,900 were out of work. At Preston the number of operatives was 32,251, of whom 15,680 were unemployed At: Rochdale the number was 20,527, of whom 11,121 were out of work. These figures showed, that although since the 7th of December last there had been an improvement from week to week, things still remained in a very bad state. He certainly had been not a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand), who was an advocate for emigration, objecting to the people being employed in the kind of work which had been adverted to. Why, if the operatives emigrated, they must be prepared for all kinds of work, and for a hot or a cold climate. It had been shown that there was work to be done in those districts, and that the operatives were willing to do it; and further, that the only requirement was money to accomplish those works. The right hon. Gentleman had asked for power to lend money upon the security of the rates. That was not the first time in this country that property had been improved by the lending of public money upon the security of rates. As a Lancashire man, he for one would have been unwilling to support the Bill if it had asked for a grant of public money, as from the first he felt anxious that Lancashire should support itself through the distress; and if the Government would lend to the public bodies the money they required, it would be the means of enabling the distressed districts to get over their difficulties. He was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport in reference to the building of new mills in Lancashire during a period of distress. The hon. Gentleman had no right to cast aspersions upon the manufacturers. He (Mr. Hibbert) would have thought, that if any persons were injured by the erection of new mills, it would be those who built them. In doing so they employed many persons who would not otherwise be employed, and therefore he was surprised to hear at the present time these aspersions cast upon the manufacturers. The building of these new mills showed faith in the future of the cotton trade. If they could get over their present difficulties, and wait until better times arrived, they would all have cause to rejoice. The Bill of the Government would confer a benefit upon Lancashire and Cheshire, and it would confer a lasting benefit upon
  1074
  those towns which would be improved by means of its provisions. There could be no work in which the operatives might be employed which would be more useful than that of improving and beautifying their own towns. He should therefore support the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he desired to express the great satisfaction which he felt at the course adopted by the Government. He should be happy to support the general principle of the Bill, which was to render assistance to the manufacturing districts in this season of distress; but he must express a hope that that system of legislation would be considered strictly exceptional, because, having had some experience in dealing with distress, he was quite sure that it would be most unwise to raise undue expectations in the minds of the operatives, which might eventually lead to disappointment. He had always thought that in legislating for Lancashire they were building a fictitious superstructure on an abstract principle, and had thus given rise to great misapprehensions. Great difficulty had arisen from their acting on an exaggerated principle in one direction, and he now warned them against acting on an exaggerated principle in another; because if they excited among the operatives an expectation, that inasmuch as their employment had been destroyed through events beyond their control, therefore Parliament would undertake to maintain them in a state even of comfort until the cotton trade revived, he was sure that they would place themselves in a false position, from which they would find it very difficult to retreat. He must say that he had heard with regret that large sums had been recently expended in building more mills, because, unless he was totally misinformed, the manufacturing power which existed in the country was already superabundant, and, indeed, exceeded the means of supply as respected the raw material. He thought they would do well to inculcate caution on those speculators who seemed to anticipate a speedy return to prosperity; for certainly no information which they possessed would, in the least, justify the expenditure which had been made on new mills. The course which the Government were adopting was a proper one, and he should cordially support the principle of the Bill before the House.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he rose to make a single observation. He thought that the House would be embarking in a very

  1075
  questionable course of proceeding if they sanctioned the employment of public money to be borrowed by corporate or other public bodies, for the purpose of undertaking work for private people. So long as the outlay of money was confined to the execution of works of a public nature within the area of those places in which the money was borrowed, he had no objection to the course proposed. Such a course, indeed, was well calculated to meet the emergency. But it would be very dangerous to permit boards of health and various other bodies of that description to borrow money, and then to act as agents to execute works for private persons. If such a proceeding did not lead to jobs, it would lead to a suspicion of jobbery, which was nearly as bad a thing as the actual perpetration of jobs. That the unemployed operatives should be led to look forward to this artificial work being found for them was in itself a bad thing; but the experience he had had of the employment of public money in the execution of private works was quite sufficient to warn him against such a course as that he had alluded to, which he considered would be highly dangerous. While, therefore, he willingly supported the main principle of the measure, he should take the opportunity in Committee of making some objection to its details; and in the mean time he hoped the Government would consider the expediency of embarking in a description of labour agency which might be carried on without limit, and do a great deal of mischief.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he had always thought that the people of Lancashire advocated the principle that money was only to be supplied to the unemployed operatives in return for labour, but that did not seem exactly to be the principle of the Bill before the House. It was very undesirable that the Government should go into the money market and underbid the regular money-lenders. He had recently had occasion to borrow £30,000 for public purposes, and had no difficulty in getting it at 4 per cent. There was no reason why Lancashire should not borrow at the same rate. By far the wiser plan was, that in advancing this money to the manufacturing districts, it should be advanced by way of loan at 5 per cent, and that Government should reserve to itself the power of reducing the interest to 4 per cent, or even a lower rate, if the money were punctually repaid at the time specified when borrowed. That
  1076
  was the principle adopted by the Loan Commissioners, and it would be a great inducement to the borrowing districts to pay up if they knew they would have to pay 5 per cent if they were not punctual. Some few persons might be induced to emigrate from the distressed districts, but he saw no reason why they should not be encouraged to emigrate to other counties, where a demand might exist for their labour. The manufacturers, the owners of cottage property, and shopkeepers, however, were all averse to the operatives leaving the district. He was informed that a gentleman had addressed a communication to the relief committee in one of the most distressed districts in Lancashire—namely, Wigan—in which he offered to take fifty or sixty of the Wigan operatives and employ them in agriculture, at the rate of five shillings or six shillings a week wages. The relief committee of Wigan, however, had returned for answer that it was not desirable to promote the migration of any large number of operatives, because all the old hands would be immediately wanted when the mills re-opened, and from present appearances (that being last November) that would shortly occur, and the hands were already several thousands short. That might be very discreet policy, but those who acted in that way ought not to go about the country begging, but ought to keep their own poor. He did not think that the wages given to persons employed under this Bill ought to be larger than the average amount given to spade labourers in adjoining agricultural counties. If they gave the operatives of Lancashire the rate of wages usually given in manufacturing districts, what chance had they of inducing them to turn their hands to agriculture? It was stated that 300,000 were in receipt of relief, but that probably 100,000 would be struck off the relief list if the present measure were carried. There would, therefore, be still 200,000 on the poor rate, and it was most desirable, under those circumstances, to reduce the wages given in manufacturing districts to the rate of wages given for spade labour. There was no doubt that a great many of the operatives were wholly unfitted for spade labour, but many could find employment in the agricultural districts. He had heard that many gentlemen offered to take some of these people last winter; and one noble Lord in his county took fifteen of them, but in the course of a few months only one remained. Again, a large landowner

  1077
  in Cheshire had tried to employ many of these men, but he had failed; and one gentleman at Preston, when applied to, said he was so disgusted with their conduct in returning home, that he would not be answerable for the sending of any more into the agricultural districts. What was the reason of all that? Why, the fact was the men could obtain in Lancashire as much or more for doing nothing as for a day's work in Shropshire. He had himself employed some of these men, and one of them remained four months, but the others returned to Lancashire. He (Sir Baldwin Leighton) blamed the manufacturers for this state of things. Now, every means should be taken to find labour for the people under the provisions of the Bill, but they ought not to be paid too high a rate of wages. The price of labour, like that of everything else, must depend on demand and supply, and would naturally be lower when there were 100,000 or 200,000 persons out of employment. He trusted, therefore, that wages would not be kept up above the average amount on these works, so that the poor people might be induced to look about them, to migrate, and do what they could to help them selves.
  MR. COBDEN: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has raised a question which has a much wider bearing than appears on the surface. He has alluded to the high rate of wages paid in the manufacturing districts. That is no doubt one of the difficulties which meet us in this case. It affects the question of emigration—it affects the question of relief—it affects the question of migration from one part of the country to another. The population, about which we are speaking have been probably receiving, in ordinary times, a larger amount of wages, taking the earnings of the whole family into account, than any body of labouring people in England, or probably in Europe. The industry in which they have been employed is one that gives convenient, healthy, and constant occupation to the different members of a family. Therefore, the earnings of a whole household are greater in the cotton manufacturing districts than in any other part of the kingdom with which I am acquainted. Since this unfortunate trouble has come upon us, I have taken some pains to ascertain what are the ordinary earnings of a family when the people are fully employed. It is not an extra ordinary case to find a family earning from
  1078
  two to three guineas a week. It may be an extraordinary case, but it is a possible one, to find a family earning upwards of £4 a week; and I am satisfied that the average earnings of an ordinary family engaged in the cotton manufacture exceed 30 s. a week. I asked a friend of mine, engaged in the manufacture of cotton at Bolton, to give me from his books some-particulars of the wages he is paying, and I have received from him the following statement:—
  "In 1840 our average wages was 10 s. 3d. a week for men, women, and children, working seventy-two hours. They are now 12 s. 4d., working sixty hours Taking the difference of time and the difference of money into account, it is a rise of nearly 50 percent."
  When you have to deal with a population earning such wages, and consequently living in a state of comfort compared with the population of the agricultural districts, there arises the difficulty to which the hon. Gentleman refers. You cannot bring them down suddenly to the rate of wages with which agricultural labourers are content. It would not be compatible with their health and strength to do so. It would be hardly consistent with the peace of the district to bring the population of the cotton manufacturing districts down to the rate of wages to which I refer, or to the amount to which the hon. Gentleman proposes to reduce them. I do not mean to say that he does this from any want of charity or good feeling. No one can doubt that, as a permanent rule, his view is correct, that the price of wages should be left to find its level, and rise and fall, like other things, according to circumstances. But you have this difficulty here, that you have to deal with a population which has been accustomed to a higher rate of living than the population of agricultural districts. I am not going to say a word against emigration in the interests of the capitalists. My doctrine with regard to labour is, that wherever it finds its highest reward that is its true destination. The capitalist will take care of himself. I say to the labourer, if yon cannot get as much for your labour in one place as in another, take it where it is of the highest value. But when you talk of the cotton manufacturers emigrating, you must consider whether a population bearing the character and description which I have given will improve their condition by emigration. If you were dealing with an agricultural labourer—with, for example,

  1079
  a Dorsetshire labourer, who in his normal state earns from 9s. to 10 s. a week, and has been brought up with the knowledge of farming operations, you could not confer a greater blessing upon that man than to transfer him to the wilds of America. With his labour in great demand, he instantly doubles his wages. The man's position is in every respect improved by being transferred to the regions of America or Australia. But if you were to transfer the weaver or cotton spinner to Australia or to Canada, where there are no cotton mills or factories, or demand for the man's labour, the result would be different. As a rule, no man benefits himself by changing his business after he arrives at years of maturity; but he may benefit himself by transferring his labour to, a field of operations where there will be more demand for the skill which he has acquired. If you should remove these families, who have been earning at the rate of 30 s. a week at the least, and in some instances £3 or £4 a week, to agricultural regions, inasmuch as they can neither plough, nor reap, nor mow, nor thresh, and are not fit even, as you say, to dig, and know none of these occupations, the consequence would be that they would sink in those countries to which you would send them, until they became about the most helpless people in the world. But besides the objection to the emigration of this particular class, as a rule all wholesale systems of emigration have proved not only abortive and disastrous, but sometimes most cruel. We had in 1847 a wholesale system of emigration. What was the consequence? The destitute people were hurried away from Ireland to Canada and America, and they were adapted to the occupation for which they were destined. What happened in consequence of their having been thus sent forth in a body, with the most charitable intentions I do not doubt? Several thousands died on the passage. Upwards of 10,000 died of those who landed in Canada and America; a cry of horror came over the Atlantic, and a law was passed both in Canada and America to prevent emigrants from coming to those countries in that state of helplessnes. If you propose now to send those cotton spinners to Canada or to America, have you made provision for them when they land? It really is the cheapest kind of philanthropy for these gentlemen, who date their letters from Wessex, to call out, "Send the people away to America." But how, I
  1080
  ask, do you propose to provide for those people when they reach America? There cannot be a cheaper mode of being benevolent on a large scale than is resorted to by these gentlemen who write letters to newspapers or make speeches in this House advocating wholesale emigration, and who throw the responsibility on other people, in case the writer's or speaker's most genial and amiable plans should not be carried into effect. Have the working people been consulted? I will just ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, who speaks as if he represented the entire body of operatives (though he has not shown us his credentials), this one thing—has he ever found any great body of the working population expressing themselves desirous of emigration? My experience is that almost everybody wants everybody else to emigrate. A public meeting might be got up at Rochdale in favour of emigration; but the idea with each would be that somebody else should emigrate, that the ranks of labour might be thinned, and thus it would be better for the remainder. When men emigrate of their own accord, they make arrangements for their arrival. When they land, they have preparations made to initiate themselves in the ways of the country, and they know persons to provide places for their reception; but, be assured, when you have this wholesale system of emigration got up by public bodies, and more especially in an emergency, it usually turns out disastrously and very often most miserably for the emigrants. Besides, who is to pay the expense of emigration on this multitudinous scale? It is not enough to send people away and disembark them on the coast of America. You must send them out with capital to secure food and shelter for them. Even if you send them where land is cheap, you must supply them with everything for a year; you must give them tools and seeds; otherwise you send them there to perish from destitution. That will cost a sum of money that you have not calculated, and for which no person makes provision. The writer in the papers or the poet that sits down in Dorsetshire to write a receipt for the cure of Lancashire distress, do not send any calculation or trouble themselves with arithmetic, but throw wholesale blame on the people of Lancashire because they do not follow their prescriptions. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not speaking of emigration in the interests of the capitalists, and do not mean to say it is

  1081
  a bad thing of itself for people to emigrate. On the contrary, if they can better themselves, I would advise them to emigrate. But emigration is an expedient not worth a moment's consideration unless you come down with your calculations, and say how much it is to cost when you have landed the people on the other side of the Atlantic. And now one word with respect to the question more immediately before us My right hon. Friend has brought in a measure which has met with almost universal approbation, and I do not intend to offer any criticisms upon it at its present stage. But I do not think my right hon. Friend's plan, any more than the emigration plan, will cure our distress. I have been always under the impression that there is no specific for the evil under which we are suffering. It is something which does not admit of a simple and complete remedy. But I hope my right hon. Friend's measure, coupled with emigration, together with additional powers of borrowing given to the Poor Law Guardians, and supplemented by the individual efforts that may be made by the landowners and capitalists in Lancashire, will do all for the mitigation of the evil that can be done. But my right hon. Friend proposes to meet the case by enabling the districts to borrow money in order to supply the people with labour. I think that a most important thing. It is as important to devise means of employment as to provide the money. To keep these people for another twelve months in idleness would be demoralizing to them, and I would almost prefer seeing thousands of them take a voyage over the Atlantic, with the certainty of their coming back when the cotton trade revives, than see them languishing thus in idleness. The project therefore is a wise one; but it is only a permissive measure, and can be carried out only by the co-operation of the local authorities. My right hon. Friend having done his part, I hope every parish and district will feel it its duty to do its share, and to apply the powers which my right hon. Friend proposes to place in its hands. It has been attempted to be shown that we are not likely to have such a bad winter in the coming one. But, I am assured there are causes which justify the expectation that next winter will be worse than the last, supposing we do not receive cotton. The reason is, the people's means are almost exhausted. Last year the operatives had some savings, the result of their economy. They are gone. In the
  1082
  next place, there was a large and munificent public subscription. We cannot expect that to be repented. Then there is another resource which has failed. There is no doubt that at the commencement of the distress the working people got considerable credit from the shopkeepers, who expected that trade would revive soon, as it had often done before. I am afraid that aid cannot be repeated. So that you have the savings of the people gone, the credit with the shopkeepers stopped, the public subscriptions at an end. Next winter, therefore, those districts will have to face this great difficulty, and to rely solely on their own resources. It is a wise step, then, to offer those facilities for the employment of the people on reproductive labour, for we must not shut our eyes to this fact, that though there may be a diminution in the number of the unemployed, the distress, I am afraid, will have spread into a portion of the community which hitherto have been able to keep their ground—I mean the humbler classes of shopkeepers, and those who thus far have been able to bear up. Therefore, you must enable something to be done for these classes by advancing money on the rates and allowing a long period for repayment. Before I sit down, I would ask my right hon. Friend to give a week before going into Committee, so that the public may understand the purport of the measure, and, in the end, I trust it will be made satisfactory to all parties.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to explain. The hon. Gentleman had asked him whether he had any authority from the operatives to recommend any specific in that House. His reply was, that at a meeting which was held in Manchester there were twenty-seven delegates from the operatives of Lancashire and Cheshire, who informed him that the population generally looked upon emigration as the chief remedy for the evils under which they were suffering, and he had presented many Petitions to that effect on their part to the House.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I will not occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments while I make some remarks upon objections which were taken to details which may more fitly be considered at a future time by the House. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) is the only person who really objected to the Bill. But the hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehends the object

  1083
  of it. I should not wonder at the opposition of the hon. Gentleman, if I could agree with him that it is the duty of the Government to find employment for the distressed operatives. Her Majesty's Government, however, have always declined the responsibility of providing employment for the people, at the same time that they have said they were willing to assist the local authorities in giving employment out of their own resources, and in maintaining the people by means of temporary occupation, not as paupers, but as independent labourers. The principle of this Bill, as has been well observed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr Cobden) is not to provide employment for all, but by advancing money upon favourable terms to enable the local authorities, each within their own districts, to afford employment, if they think fit to avail themselves of the facilities of obtaining loans for a long period at a low rate of interest. I earnestly hope, if Parliament should grant those facilities, advantage will be taken of them by the local authorities, so that employment may be given to the unemployed; and, if that is done, I think the wages paid for the work done ought to be on the same scale as that by which similar work would be remunerated in that part of the country. I believe a great portion of that work may be taskwork, and thus a greater stimulus to exertion may be given. An attempt has been made to raise a prejudice against the kind of work. It was said that some of the work was not suited to those who were to be employed upon it, such as the deepening of rivers and emptying of drains, as if those were the only works contemplated. The Local Government Act provides means for borrowing money for certain works, but it had been suggested in Lancashire that it would be desirable to extend the description of works to which the loans might be applicable, and this is done in this Bill. It was not intended, however, that persons should be employed upon works for which they were unfit. The greater the variety of works, the greater the probability of giving employment to all. One word now with respect to Mr. Baker's report. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) said that Mr. Baker had been sent down with private instruction from Government to make out a case against emigration. Now, that suspicion is totally unfounded. Early in the Session—I believe before the
  1084
  hon. Member for Devonport took his seat—the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) asked me whether I had received any information from the Factory Inspectors with regard to the adaptation of the machinery of the cotton mills to the various kinds of cotton which took the place of the American product. I applied to Mr. Baker, the Inspector of the district, and he informed me he had very little information on the subject, but the purport of that information I stated to the noble Lord. I had not the slightest communication with Mr. Baker after that, until I received the Report which has been referred to. On receiving that Report I showed it to the noble Lord who asked the question, telling him that if he made a Motion for the production of it, it should be laid on the table. With regard to emigration, I very much agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Rochdale. The Government would do extremely wrong to endeavour to make a case against emigration, or to place obstacles in the way of persons willing to emigrate; but for a large and useful system of emigration these conditions are essential:—You must have not only persons willing to emigrate, but fit by age and capacity for the purpose, and you must also have colonies which are willing to receive them, and where there is employment for them. Unless these conditions are fulfilled, it would be useless and cruel to encourage emigration. With regard to Australia, it has been said that large sums are coming over to this country to be applied to the purpose of emigration. In that case the Government, and, I presume, the local authorities in various parts of the country, will not oppose the slightest obstacle in the way of the agents of the Australian colonies in their endeavours to induce persons whom they think would be useful in them to go out; but I believe that any attempt on the part of the Government to foster general emigration by funds voted by Parliament would be injurious to the emigrants themselves, and meet with a very unfavourable response in the Colonies. They might desire to obtain labourers of a particular class; but if they thought that we were sending out persons merely because they could not get employment in this country, it was not likely that such emigrants would be received with much favour. With regard to the present Bill, though it is not proposed as a complete remedy (for, indeed, it is impossible

  1085
  to propose a complete remedy), I think that it is calculated, in the best and most unobjectionable way, to mitigate the existing distress, and I trust that it will receive the assent of Parliament, and be acted on by the local authorities.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he should be sorry to offer the slightest obstacle to the passing of the Bill, but he hoped that when the subject of Irish distress came under discussion, no English Member would be found to plead the principles of political economy as a bar to affording relief to his (Mr. Scully's) starving country people. But whenever funds were voted to encourage emigration, Ireland would be a good country to begin with. The Irish peasantry were fit to emigrate, and had already left the country to the extent of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 persons. When the distress loan was lent to Ireland, it was specially stipulated that no part of it should be expended on reproductive objects, and some very plausible reasons were given. One was that it would be idle to expect a fair day's work from men who were starving, and he wished to warn English gentle men not to expect that full value would be given in the shape of manual labour for the proposed loan of £1,500,000 they were going to advance; for it would be absurd to expect a good day's work from cotton operatives who were wholly unused to such employment. He presumed, however, that the value of the expenditure would be that it would apply a stimulus to local exertion He thought there was something in the objection pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to the character of the 9th and 10th clauses, which referred to the employment of the operatives, under the local boards, in the improvement of private estates. Under these provisions there was great danger of jobbery. ("No!") His Friend below him said there were no jobbers in Lancashire; but he was of opinion that there were more jobbers in England than in Ireland, only English jobbers did not openly call each other so, as was the habit with his countrymen. Judging from the amount of the payments to the poor rates in the distressed districts, he did not think that the distress in Lancashire at all approached to an equality with the Irish destitution in the famine years, when the people died of starvation in the ditches, or even at the present moment. The excuse made by those who would not relieve Ireland was that the distress in that country
  1086
  was chronic, and the people were used to it. Unfortunately that was true. Even if the coming harvest should be a good one, there would be greater distress in Ireland next winter than had been experienced in the famine years. During the famine years some classes were thriving; but latterly no class had been thriving except the holders of Government places and officers. He had no wish to interfere for the purpose of stopping the small relief proposed by the Bill to his fellow-countrymen—for he hoped he might call them his fellow-countrymen—in Lancashire and Cheshire. There had been a beautiful and promising spring in Ireland. That, however, was nothing new. Every spring was beautiful and promising there; but when the time came for getting in the harvest, favourable weather was a miracle. They never could get in their harvests in Ireland. If a Motion were made in that House to help Irishmen to emigrate, there would be a great deal of political economy nonsense spoken in opposition to the proposal. He remarked that those who attended statistical societies, and wrote on political economy in their garrets or other purlieus, knew nothing of what was practically going on in the world, and be regarded their arithmetic in the same light as he did much of the political arithmetic of the day—as so much rubbish.
  MR. BAZLEYobserved, that if the reports of returning prosperity in the cotton districts went forth to the world unexplained, they would be calculated to give rise to very mistaken notions as to the actual state of affairs in Lancashire. The greater employment of labourers was to be accounted for by the absorption of labour from other pursuits and by the migration of labourers from one place to another. The increased employment of which they were told did not represent increased employment of the operatives at that labour to which they had been accustomed, and which was their ordinary pursuit. There was no better criterion of the extent of employment in cotton manufacture than the consumption of the raw material. That did not amount to anything like 25,000 bags per week, while there was an ability to consume 50,000 bags per week. Then, with respect to what had been said by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on the subject of new mills, it must be remembered that a mill could not | be built and fitted with machinery so as to make it ready for work in less time than

  1087
  two years, or from that to three years. The mills then opening must have been planned and commenced two or three years ago; and therefore they were rather to be attributed to the state of things that had existed three years ago than to be looked upon as indicative of a desire to make further investments in the same manner. He could have wished that a great and courageous effort had been made in the Indian and Colonial Departments to meet the existing want, by obtaining a larger supply of the raw material; but he gave his cordial support to the proposition of his right hon. Friend, though, tested by economical principles, it was somewhat irregular; and he was exceedingly gratified to find that it gave general satisfaction to the House.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, he rose in consequence of a remark which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale. His hon. Friend had anticipated great distress during the ensuing winter from three causes:—First, that the savings of the labourers were diminished; secondly, that the shopkeepers were no longer able to give credit; thirdly, that the subscription lists were closed. With respect to the latter of the above three causes, he was sorry that the idea should get abroad that the subscription lists were closed. He thought that on every ground it was necessary that the subscription lists should be kept open, and he doubted not that public benevolence would not fee checked.
  Bill read 2o.
  MR. COBDENsaid, it would be satisfactory to the country if his right hon. Friend named a day for proceeding with the Bill in Committee.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he proposed to fix the Committee for that day week.
  Bill committed for Thursday next.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

DISTRICT MODEL SCHOOLS IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to call attention to the large expenditure on the District Model Schools in Ireland.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member whether he intended to discuss the Vote for the schools. The rule of the House was that on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply no hon. Member should discuss any Vote which was about to be introduced in Supply.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, it would be necessary for him to discuss the Vote; and therefore, in compliance with the rule of the House, he should reserve his observations till they were in Committee.
  Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £236,016, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for Public Education in Ireland, under the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, in moving the Vote for Public Education in Ireland it is usual to make a few observations; but the subject has been so much discussed during last year and the year previous, that I presume it will not be desirable for me to detain the Committee with any lengthened remarks, and I shall therefore follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council, confining myself simply to the increase or decrease in the Vote of the present year compared with the past. No one will be disposed to contend that the system of national education in Ireland has failed in answering the end for which it was instituted, or will deny that since the Earl of Derby first introduced it in 1831, up to the present time, immense advantages have flowed from it, particularly to the poorer classes. We educate annually about 800,000 children, and this fact alone will make it sufficiently manifest that the public benefits from the system cannot be easily over-estimated. For the year ending March 31, 1863–4, the total sum asked for is £306,016, showing an increase of £15,112, over the total Vote taken for the year ending 1862–3, which amounted to £290,904. The increase is consequent upon the natural increment which takes place in the salaries of those who are engaged in teaching in the 6,000 schools in Ireland, and also upon the increase

1089
in the number of schools. Thus, in 1860 there were 5,632 schools, whereas in 1861 there were 5,830, and in 1862 6,010, showing an increase of 180 in favour of 1862–3 as compared with the previous year; and the average daily attendance in 1862–3 shows an increase of 320—that is to say, in 1861 there were 284,726, while in 1862 we had an average daily attendance in the schools of 285,055. In the Votes which are submitted to the Committee, the national education is included under thirteen items, in seven of which there is an increase, and in four a decrease, as compared with 1862–3. Let me explain the particular items upon which the increase takes place. In the metropolitan model schools there is a small increase, to the amount of £306; in the district model schools an increase of £970; and in the minor model schools one of £900, as compared with 1862–3; so that the total increase in the cost of these model schools amounts to about £2,000. The total sum asked for this year under these three heads is £27,647. Two or three years ago, my right hon. Friend who preceded me in this office stated that an engagement was entered into that the number of these schools should be limited to twenty-six; and that number has now very nearly been reached, for at present there are seventeen district and seven minor model schools in active operation, while two have not yet been completed—that at Cork, for which we took a Vote the other night, and another. When these schools are opened, we shall have reached the limit to which, according to the arrangement I have mentioned, the Government are at liberty to go. The model schools are part of the original system, of national education in Ireland. When the Earl of Derby introduced this system, he laid it down that the teachers should be educated at these model schools; and it is important to remember this, because I think that the hon. Member who has given notice of a Motion on this subject is not alive to the advantages which accrue from schools of this nature. In 1831, the Earl of Derby, then Mr. Stanley, wrote to the Duke of Leinster, stating the intentions of the Government with regard to teachers, and he stipulated that they should have received previous instruction in a model school, to be sanctioned by the Board. I am aware that these schools have recently met with some opposition from the Roman Catholic prelates;
1090
but they are closely wrapped up with our system of national education in Ireland. We train those whom we expect to maintain the standard of education in the 6,000 schools scattered over the country; and it is remarkable, that in 1840 the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland were then entirely in favour of a system of education based upon the instruction of pupil teachers and monitors in model schools. The Roman Catholic prelates at that period passed a resolution—
"That it would be very desirable to have a model school in each of the four provinces when the funds of the National Board might be found sufficient for that purpose, as such an establishment would inspire the inhabitants of the province with greater confidence in the system of national education."
Therefore, nine years after Mr. Stanley had declared that he adhered to the system of model schools the Roman Catholic prelates also assented to the system. From 1848, when the system may be said to have begun, these model schools have, in the opinion of those best able to judge, worked immense benefit to the country; and, notwithstanding the opposition of the Roman Catholic prelates, the attendance at them has not diminished, because, whereas in 1850 the number of pupils—Roman Catholics, Established Church, and Presbyterian—was 1,410, in 1855 it amounted to 2,949, in 1860 to 5,024, and in 1863 to 9,253; and I believe that in the quarter ending March last, more than 10,000 young persons were receiving in the model schools of Ireland a superior education. I cannot help thinking that that state of the case is extremely satisfactory. As regards the salaries of teachers, there is an increase of £13,610; but a considerable portion of this is owing to an error which was made last year, resulting in an absolute deficit of £4,500. The remaining increase is due to the establishment of additional schools during the year, but chiefly to the increment of the salaries of the principal and assistant teachers in the ordinary national schools.
For navigation schools the Vote is exactly the same as last year. The navigation schools have certainly not succeeded as much as we could have wished. They were established three or four years ago, in consequence of the extraordinary success attending a navigation school in the county of Antrim. That school was under the superintendence of a man who afterwards became a teacher in the Belfast National

1091
School, and in it somewhere about forty of the most distinguished captains in the merchant service received their education. Among them was, perhaps, the most distinguished captain in the merchant service—Captain Macdonald, who commanded the Marco Polo. It was owing to the remarkable success of the Antrim School that the attention of the Government was called to the subject; and now we have navigation schools in Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Carrickfergus, Waterford, and other places. In the Vote for the Albert Agricultural Establishment at Glasnevin, and the agricultural training schools throughout Ireland there is a diminution of about £1,500. It was with extreme reluctance that I entered into an engagement last year to reduce that Vote; but I have fulfilled the promise which I then gave in deference to a strong expression of opinion on the part of several influential Members of this House connected with Ireland. We have diminished the number of pupils in the Albert Institution from seventy-five to sixty; and if it be the wish of the Committee that a still further reduction should take place, it will be incumbent on us to adopt its recommendation. I would point out, however, that since the establishment of these agricultural model schools, and particularly since the establishment of the Albert Institution, we have expended upwards of £20,000; and I cannot help thinking that it would be a great calamity if that large sum of money, in addition to the annual Votes, were to be thrown away now, before we have derived from these schools the full advantages which, if maintained on an efficient footing, they would unquestionably produce, Having reduced the number of agricultural pupils, we have abolished the office of assistant agricultural steward, done away with three lectureships, and finally disposed of several items which appeared in the Vote last year. We have also let one of the agricultural model farms, thereby saving about £300, so that altogether there are now nine agricultural farms let to other parties. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheer that remark, as though they approved the diminution of agricultural schools; but I, for one, entirely deprecate a policy which is lessening the opportunities for a vast number of young persons obtaining a scientific knowledge of the art of agriculture. There are now about 500 pupils in these agricultural schools, which are established in different parts of Ireland. For example, there is one on the estate of my right hon. Friend
1092
the Member for Limerick, and I believe it has worked very efficiently.
MR. MONSELL: Quite the contrary.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I thought it worked admirably; at any rate, my right hon. Friend gave us the land very cheap.
MR. MONSELL: The school has been given up, with my consent.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I am sorry to hear it; but I can only repeat what my noble Friend at the head of the Government said last year, that though we gave way to what appeared to be the sense of the Committee, we view this reduction of the Vote for agricultural schools, I will not say with apprehension, but with considerable regret.
In the book department there is an increase of £1,000, consequent on the necessity for improving the books in use in the, national schools. It is necessary that these, books should be revised for the purpose of adapting them to the wants and requirements of the present time, and also for the purpose of introducing into them fuller particulars regarding Ireland itself. The Board of National Education recently appointed a Committee of Dine of their own number to revise the books, and the Committee may nest assured that the work will be done with proper care and circumspection as regards the different religious creeds in Ireland, with a view to put the book department in a more efficient condition than heretofore In the central establishment there will be a small increase, in consequence of some salaries in the clerks departments having undergone a natural increase. On the whole, then, there is a change in eleven items this year as compared with last. In seven items there is a total increase of £17,162, and in four there is a total decrease of £2,005. There is, consequently, a net increase on the whole Vote of £15,112. The hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly) has given notice of a Motion relative to the model schools. I shall be glad to bear his remarks, but I hope the Committee will agree with the Government and the National Board that no system of national education in Ireland can work satisfactorily without model schools. At this moment there are 1,300 children educated in the Belfast model school alone, of whom 613 are Presbyterians, and 330 are Roman Catholics. In Belfast the system works most harmoniously. We never hear of the children quarrelling, though in Belfast, as the Committee knows, religious feeling is as strong as in any other part of

1093
Ireland. There is no such thing as an accusation of proselytism; in fact, not only in Belfast, but in Londonderry, Dublin, and other places, the model schools are the admiration of every one who takes the trouble to visit them. Reference has been made to the expensiveness of these schools, The total cost does not exceed £28,000 per annum. It is a fact that the children receive an education infinitely superior to that obtained in the national schools in England, and yet the cost per head is not more, exclusive of the normal department, than 34 s. a year. The number of children are increasing year by year. The hon. Member near him wished to diminish the Vote for national schools. [Mr. O'REILLY: My Motion does not mean that.] I am glad to hear it. I saw at Galway and at Limerick the effect of the opposition to these institutions. I would, however, remind those hon. Members who oppose the model schools because they are distasteful to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, that if Roman Catholics object to the system of model schools, they are not excrescences of recent growth, but were part and parcel of the original system, and that Protestants might equally object to the grants to common schools in Ireland, which I should be sorry to see in any way diminished. In those common schools about 60,000 young girls are receiving an education—secular, religious, and industrial. I trust the Committee will maintain the grants to both classes of schools. I am not aware that I have anything more to add at present, but I shall be ready, of course, to give any further explanations that may be required. I will only remark, that the principal reduction is in the agricultural department, which has been made not by my desire, but in obedience to a pledge given last year to the House which I have felt bound to carry out.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, there were three descriptions of schools in Ireland—the ordinary schools, the government and management of which were vested in local bodies; the training schools in Dublin, which were essentially for teachers; and the district model schools. But he wished particularly to call the attention of the Committee to the district model schools of Ireland. He did not intend to discuss the whole system of national education, which had, no doubt, been founded with the best intentions, and which had been productive of much good, but had also done some harm. Neither did he object to the training
1094
schools in Dublin, as he admitted the teachers should be well trained. But, when he turned to the district model schools and the minor model schools, he took a different view. It was true that some pupil teachers were trained in these schools; but out of 5,000 pupil teachers only about 136 were supposed to be educating for teachers in after life. He objected to these schools, because they were a distinct addition to and a violation of the original principle on which the national system was based; because they gave education at the public expense to the children of those who could afford to pay for it; because they were extravagantly costly; because they were unnecessary; because they introduced an unfair competition with other schools; and—this particularly—because they tended towards one great centralized system of State education. The Chief Secretary had said that those schools were an essential portion of the scheme of national education, and had been contemplated from the beginning; but that was not the case, as one fact would distinctly prove. The national system was inaugurated in 1831, and it was not until 1849 that these schools were established. The right hon. Gentleman, to prove that these schools had been contemplated front the commencement of the system, had referred to the letter of Lord Stanley, in which it was laid down that it was desirable that teachers should be educated in a model school, sanctioned by the Board; but that would not apply to schools established in the country. The cardinal principle of the system was, that it was to be in aid of voluntary efforts, and not to establish a system of State education. The letter of Lord Stanley laid it down that no application for aid should be granted unless it was joined in by the clergy of both religions. But in Enniscorthy and other places, model schools had been established in defiance of protests from the Protestant rector and the Roman Catholic priest. The letter of Lord Stanley also stated that the Commissioners would invariably require that local funds should be raised upon which the grant of public money would be dependent. But, in the instances to which he had referred, not one farthing had been raised from the localities in aid of the model schools. By the Report of the Commissioners in 1844, it appeared that the control over teachers in these schools was vested primarily in the local patrons; but in the cases alluded to there were no

1095
local patrons, and the whole controlling functions were absorbed in the Commissioners. The Reports of the Commissioners of 1825 and 1827, upon which were based the recommendations of 1831, showed that the principle laid down then was that public grants for education should be distributed through a Board in aid of local contributions for the foundation and support of schools; but now there were many schools founded against the wishes of local authorities, and dependent entirely upon the Commissioners' grants.
Then, again, those schools gave education to those who could afford to pay for it. The principle of giving education to those who could afford to pay for it, had been over and over again repudiated in England, and ought to be repudiated with regard to Ireland. To give the Committee an idea of the class of children attending these schools, he would mention a few facts. At Londonderry Model School in 1862, the children of the Mayor were receiving a gratuitous education. Another model school was attended by the sons of a barrister. At Galway, he found that out of an average attendance of 200 scholars 57 were the children of persons who could afford to pay. Among the parents were two architects in good practice, one builder, two solicitors, two millowners, two apothecaries, one shipowner, one Independent minister, one commander of a revenue cutter, one Custom House officer, one Excise officer, three clerks in public offices, two merchants' clerks with good salaries, and twenty-seven manufacturers and tradesmen. Was that the class for which public grants of money should be made? The cost of the Galway school was £5 14 s. per head. The Enniscorthy school was a very remarkable one. The average attendance of pupils last year was thirty-one. The cost of the school was £268 a year, or£8 13 s. per head. Among these thirty-one pupils he found children of the following:—A wine merchant, a rich miller, a gentleman, a chief clerk in an old mercantile house, a clerk of a gas company at £100 a year, a respectable haberdasher, a watchmaker, a gentle-man possessed of large house property, a considerable farmer, a rich shopkeeper, a respectable grocer, and a number of others. Was this, he again asked, the class for which the State should provide education? He would not characterize such a system by words of his own; but he might quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, when he said, "I
1096
deny that such people are, for one moment entitled to call on Parliament for a Vote of money in aid of the education of their children." Those words applied to Ireland as well as to England, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who used them, having commenced equality of taxation in Ireland, would see the necessity of giving equality in other things. What was the cost of the education provided by the public for the children of those who could afford to pay fur it themselves? He could not follow with accuracy the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman. He said the cost of educating each child was 35 s. per annum; but that did not include the payment of teachers. By a law of our nature the cost of such institutions must grow. The cost of model schools had considerably exceeded the estimate. The annual cost of maintenance for each was very slightly under £1,000 instead of £400. In England the annual cost of each child on the Privy Council grant, including all expenses of tuition and inspection, was 16 s. In the schools of the Christian Brothers in Dublin, where there were 1,371 children, with an average daily attendance of 1,000, and of which the Commissioners of Endowed Schools in Ireland gave the most favourable account, the annual cost was little more than 6s. per head, and the education was at least equal, if not superior, to that received at the model schools. In Belfast model school the average attendance was 1,100, and the cost per head £3 7s.; in Galway, £3 per head for salaries alone; in Enniscorthy, as he had already said, the cost per head was £8 13 s., and of the thirty-one pupils, eleven were infants and two paid monitors. Of the 10,000 pupils on the roll of these schools, the average attendance being 5,000, there were 2,000 learning the first book of lessons, beginning with the letters and never going beyond words of one syllable; of the remainder, 3,000 were learning the second book, consisting of words of one syllable. There were 2,000 more in the sequel to the third book, and who had got so far as easy words of three syllable.
But great stress was laid on the fact that these schools educated teachers. Now, it appeared that only 136 teachers were in process of training, and the schools were hardly necessary for such a purpose. One fact was worth a hundred assertions. A few years ago he wanted

1097
a trained teacher for school upon his estate in the west of Ireland. It was a poor district, and the school fees amounted to nothing. As remuneration he offered a house and a small piece of land, not estimated in money value at more than £10 a year. He advertised for a teacher, and he had twenty applicants—conclusively proving that there was a superabundance of teachers in Ireland. If the schools were not wanted for training teachers, were they wanted for the supply of a superior class of education? A few facts would dispose of that argument. In Enniscorthy, where there was a model school with thirty one pupils, including the eleven infants, there were two Christian Brothers schools with 700 pupils, a classical and commercial school for Roman Catholic boys with 80 pupils, and several schools for Roman Catholic girls with 800 pupils. The members of the Church of England, though small in number, were not without schools. There was an endowed Erasmus Smith school, an excellent classical and commercial school, for the clergymen of the Church of England did not approve of the model schools, and an excellent middle-class Protestant seminary for girls. In Galway, where there was the much-vaunted model school with 600 pupils, but only 314 attendants, including a large proportion of infants, the Roman Catholics had a Jesuit college with 50 pupils, an intermediate school of the brothers of St. Patrick, with 125 pupils, a large monks' school attended by 1,100 boys, and for girls a Sisters of Mercy school, a school of Presentation nuns, and other schools, attended altogether by 1,800 pupils. The Protestants had an endowed Erasmus Smith school, and private schools with 4,000 pupils. A model school for 300 infants was therefore not needed in Galway. In Kilkenny, where the model school had 175 children, the Roman Catholics had a boarding and day college connected with the Catholic University and the University of London. A Christian Brothers' school with 1,200 pupils, four ordinary national schools, a Sisters of Mercy school with 800 girls, and a Presentation nuns school with 1,000 girls attending it. The Protestants had a classical college and a large classical and middle class day school. The model schools were not created to supply any real want, but to fulfil the crotchet of the Commissioners and to absorb the education of the country.
1098
Another objection has been very ably stated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), who said a large number of private schools of a superior description intended for the middle classes, suffered considerably from competition with schools receiving the Government grant. What was true with regard to England was equally true with regard to Ireland, and proofs were not wanting that schools supported by voluntary contributions in Ireland suffered from unfair competition with schools which were supported out of the public funds. Fortunately, a spirit of resistance had been roused, and the free schools had not been crushed, but that was an accident upon which they ought not to count. It was no recommendation that the Government schools had alienated from them the confidence of the great mass of the population of Ireland; and he maintained, that if they were to be supported out of the public funds, they ought to be so organized as to respect the religious feelings, or, if they liked to call them, the religious prejudices of the Roman Catholics.
He opposed these schools on the ground that they gave only a secular education, but more strongly for the reasons which he had stated, that it was a step towards contralization, and placing in the hands of the Government the whole system of education. The principle had been repudiated in England, and had never answered in any country where it had been tried. Eminent statesmen, including Sir James Graham, had pointed out the impossibility of such a system being successful. Then Lord Stanley, the founder of the national system in Ireland, of which that to which he was referring was an excrescence, speaking in the debate on English education in 1839, said that he rose to grapple with the Ministerial proposition, and to oppose any measure which would give direct control over the moral and religious education of the people of this country to any Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks had fully endorsed that sentiment with respect to England, and he now appealed to him for support in the view which he was advocating with regard to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said he was an advocate of national education, but that it did not therefore follow he should be an advocate of State education, and that, believing the system which was sought to be established by the Government was alien to the habits and contrary to the

1099
genius of the English people, he should oppose, to the utmost of his power, the rash attempt at centralization. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took a similar view; and, with those authorities on his side, he had no hesitation in appealing to the House to repudiate a system to which he, for one, should deem it to be his duty strenuously to object. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, he might add, had confirmed by an instance which he gave, the justice of the course which he took; for in the case in which he alleged a school of navigation had succeeded in Ireland, he had admitted that the Government had been led to establish it because of the great success of the free schools in the county of Antrim. The Roman Catholics of Ireland were, he might further observe, opposed to those model schools, upon the ground that they were State schools, as much as any other members of the community; but they were opposed to them also because they were founded on the absence of religious teaching. In the case of the ordinary National schools, the children when they returned home learnt their prayers at their mothers' knees; and besides, there was always exercised over those schools the control of the local patrons. But in the schools which were solely the property of the Government, and in which many of the pupils resided, and were thus removed from home influence, the objection to the want of religious teaching applied with double force. To recapitulate his objections to these schools, they were foreign to the original system; they gave an education to those who could afford to pay for it; they were extravagantly costly; they were unnecessary; they competed unfairly with other schools; they were fatal to free education; and, above all, they were a step towards the system of centralized State schools which had been repudiated in England. As it would be impracticable to move the rejection of the whole Vote, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £268, the cost of the Enniscorthy schools, which were attended by thirty-one pupils, in order to afford the Committee an opportunity of expressing an opinion that steps ought to be taken for the gradual abolition of these schools. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving that the Vote should be reduced by £268.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, the hon. Member had made a speech which might be just, but it was not generous. He (Mr. Bagwell) was of opinion that the model schools were
1100
originally established with a sincere wish to benefit the people of Ireland. He could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman was actuated not so much by an objection to the cost of these schools as by a desire to establish a denominational system of education in Ireland. In the south and west, where the bulk of the property belonged to Protestants, while the majority of the population were Roman Catholics, such a system, which depended upon voluntary subscriptions aided by proportionate Government grants, could never be successful. If the model schools were abolished, the National system would go with them. And if that system was destroyed, he did not believe that from Clonmel to Cork there would be any education at all. He said that because before the introduction of the National system there was no education. Thirty years ago there were nothing but hedge schools, which were carried on in shanties by the side of the roads, and each child carried with it a piece of turf to warm it during the day, as its contribution to the support of the school. In the towns the Roman Catholics of Ireland could and did educate their children admirably, but in the country they could not. Even the excellent schools which they had in the towns they owed to the model schools, but for which they would never have had them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that these model schools had annihilated the private ones. That was true enough, but the abolition of the model schools would not bring back the private schools. In Clonmel there used to be half a dozen good schools, but they had all vanished, and their place had been supplied by the model school. If that was done away with, the people would look in vain for the resuscitation of the private schools which it had supplanted. The abolition of the model schools would involve the destruction of the National system of education, and the check of that gradual improvement which had for many years been going on in Ireland.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) had answered himself. He denied that the National system depended upon the model schools, or that those who were in favour of a denominational system had any desire to arrest the progress of education in Ireland. They saw that that system flourished in England, and they were convinced that it would be equally successful in their own country. No one desired to go back

1101
to hedge schools. No one was anxious to destroy the National system, or to interfere with the existence of a Board in Dublin of Inspectors who should afford a guarantee to the State that the money which was voted for education was properly expended. Let his hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel banish from his mind the idea that Irish Catholics were such foes to progress, and such lovers of retrogression, as to wish to go back to the days of hedge schools. He would ask, did not the fact that, even in these days of penal laws, men were found willing to educate, and children anxious to be taught, speak volumes for the Irish thirst for learning? The hon. Member opposite admitted, that if the model schools were abolished, Catholic children would still find the means of education in towns. Surely it was not in wild rural districts that he would place these model schools. The fact that there was some-thing wrong in the National system was shown by the Returns relatively of children in the National schools and in those of the Christian Brothers. He was credibly informed that in Cork the Christian Brothers had actually seven-eighths of the children in the schools whose names were on the roll; while the proportion of the National schools was only one-half. These model schools had destroyed the free schools, the commercial, and the classical schools; they gave education to the very class which was able to pay for it, to the detriment of the humbler classes, whose means of instruction they lessened. He opposed the system further, on the ground that it was not right to place in the hands of the Government a monopoly of education. An effort had been recently made to get up one of those model schools in Cork. A memorial was hawked about, and persons by false representations and cunning distortions of fact were bamboozled into giving their signatures; but many who had done so afterwards repudiated the memorial, and sought to have their names erased. His hon. Friend (Mr. O'Reilly) had proved his case beyond all doubt, and the hon. Member for Clonmel, instead of shaking it, had strengthened it considerably. Some respect was surely due to the solemn expression of opinion by the Catholic heirarchy. For his own part he thought it an outrage upon Ireland to have a mongrel and godless system foisted upon the country under the name of a mixed system; and he believed the day would yet come when English Members would insist on the extension to
1102
Ireland of the denominational system. Practically, the mixed system had failed in three provinces, and in the fourth its success was by no means unqualified. In maintaining its existence the Government were really perpetuating a delusion.
MR. POLLARD-URQUHARTsaid, he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Longford, as he believed the model schools to be a mischievous excresence on the National system.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he considered that a system which was condemned by the Protestant clergy on the one hand, and by the Roman Catholic clergy on the other, could not be perfect, and was not suited to Ireland. It had been introduced as a compromise, and he was not disposed to Underrate the good conferred on Ireland by it, but it, had lost the great safeguard against tampering with the religions faith of the children, which was its great recommendation. When they saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary attending a meeting in London, and publicly stating his opinion, that the Irish Church was a missionary Church for the conversion of Roman Catholics, the Government could not be surprised at a want of confidence in the National system of education and in those who administered it.
MR. O'HAGANsaid, that as a Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, be should not shrink from stating the opinions which he had deliberately formed, and had always openly asserted, although he entertained the highest respect for those Gentlemen in the House and the many out of it, who did not concur in his views. He felt, that in acting as a Commissioner and in sustaining the national system, he had acted for the real good of Ireland. Thirty years ago that system was introduced in Ireland by the letter of the Earl of Derby, then Mr. Stanley, which would be one of the highest titles of that nobleman to a foremost place in the history of his country. The letter was written under these circumstances:—The people of Ireland were at the time in a lamentable condition in reference to their educational institutions. When the Catholic Emancipation Act passed, and the great principle of civil and religious liberty was established, there had been a slight change for the better; but although the Catholic schoolmaster was no longer forbidden to teach his co-religionists, and the Catholic parent was no longer forbidden to teach his own sons, a spirit of ascendancy still

1103
prevailed, and every experiment had failed because the perversion of the pupil's faith wag made the condition of the pupil's progress. The letter of Mr. Stanley promised a system from which every suspicion of proselytism should be excluded, and which should give secular instruction to all, with-out interfering with the religious principles of any one. A Board was established, comprising among its members many of the most eminent men of Ireland; and, although altered more or less in its constitution, the Board had continued through the changes and chances of thirty years, encountering very various and violent opposition, and never pretending to give a perfect system, yet on the whole believing that it was working substantial benefit to the whole people of Ireland. What had occurred demonstrated that the system was accepted by the Irish people as one of the greatest blessings ever conferred upon them. In 1833 there were 789 schools and 107,000 pupils. In 1843 there were 2,912 schools and 355,000 pupils. In 1853 there were 5,023 schools and 550,000 pupils; and in the year ending with 1862 there were 6,010 schools and 811,973 children attending them. It was too strong a thing for any hon. Member to say, in the face of those figures, that the system had been rejected by the Irish people. It was not true either that the Roman Catholics repudiated the system. The number of schools put in connection with the Board since the 1st of January 1861, down to the present time, was 520, of which 287 were Roman Catholic, 106 Established Church, 32 Methodist, 91 Presbyterian, and 4 other denominations. The application for building grants, induced by the concession of the late Chief Secretary from the 1st of January 1861, had been 136. These were the facts in reference to the acceptance of the system by the people of Ireland. Some thirty years had passed, and the national system of education had dotted the country with school-houses from the centre to the sea, and had pervaded every hamlet and every hovel of the land with its far-reaching influence; and during that time not one single instance of proselytism had been established, or even brought forward, with reference to any one of those schools. Was he wrong, then, in asserting that these schools had been a blessing and a benefit to Ireland?
It was, however, argued, that because model schools were alleged to be an excrescence, the whole system ought to be rejected, He would not controvert the
1104
general principle that a system of education, supported and controlled by the people, was to be preferred to a system under the trammels of the State. But that principle must be considered in reference to the particular circumstances of the case. What was the condition of Ireland when the model schools were introduced? In the first place, it was not denied that some model schools, to train the teachers and serve as examples of good instruction, were necessary. No great system of education, either on the Continent or elsewhere, was considered complete without model schools. Any one who knew the state of Ireland thirty years ago would admit, that if they were to be established at all, it could only be by the aid of the State. The Earl of Derby accordingly proposed that a model school should be established in Ireland. In 1834 the Education Commissioners proposed to the Irish1 Government that there should be a division of Ireland into districts, each of which should have a a model school. In 1835 the Marquess of Nor-manby came to Ireland, and in reply to his inquiry as to what the Commissioners recommended, they published a Report proposing that there should be thirty-two model schools of preparatory training for the model school in Dublin. In 1837 the system of pupil teachers and of boarders in the institution was suggested by the Commissioners. Previously, in 1831, Dr. Doyle had suggested the training of pupil teachers and the establishment of model schools, and the accuracy of his opinion had been confirmed by subsequent events. In 1840, high authorities in the Roman Catholic Church had recommended the establishment of a model school in each of the four provinces, in connection with its existing system. In 1858, when as yet there had been no formal objections by any body of prelates, all the schools now existing or in progress had either been built or arranged for, so that the Government were committed; and, at the same time, there had been on the part of the Government an undertaking that no further schools should be built without the express assent of Parliament. The question, therefore for reasonable men to consider was, whether, without consideration or preparation, those schools which had been growing up for thirty years, and on which large sums of money had been spent, should be all at once abandoned. It might be matter for consideration how far those model schools could be maintained, and what modifications

1105
were necessary, and his right hon. Friend had not concealed his willingness to entertain any reasonable suggestions. But he said that from 1831 down to 1858, when the schools were contracted for, there was no report made by anybody in Ireland which ought to have checked the Government in its determination to complete them. The hon. and gallant Member who proposed the Amendment, said, there had been a departure from the original understanding that these schools should have local support. But the Commissioners had found it impossible to obtain any amount of local support worth speaking of, and was it to be said that they should have waited before establishing these schools to get that support which would never have been given? He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these model schools were not intended for the better classes; but if the better classes in various districts of Ireland, which were denuded of proper machinery for middle education, chose to send their children to these schools, the Government could not prevent them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had not taken an exactly fair mode of calculating the expenses of these schools. They had been established with peculiar views, and necessarily with a peculiar constitution. They had not only to educate pupils, but to educate teachers, and they were therefore obliged to expend large sums of money, and to take expenses upon themselves which were not necessary in ordinary schools. It had been asserted by his hon. and gallant Friend that the teaching power of Ireland was quite sufficient for its necessities; but that was a lamentable mistake. At that moment, out of the 7,000 teachers in connection with the National schools who ought to be trained, there were only 3,300 who really were trained; and instead of there being an excess of teaching power, there was, in fact, a deficiency. It had also been objected that there was no religious training in the schools, but the fact was that the time obliged to be given in the model schools to religious training was longer than in the ordinary schools, while the clergy of all denominations were invited to come and give religious instruction to the children belonging to their respective persuasions. One word with respect to the system of education which hon. Members thought ought to be substituted—for, after all, that was the great question. The question of model schools was absolutely
1106
nothing in comparison. The great question was, whether or not the system of education which had been established for thirty years in Ireland was to be maintained, or a totally different system substituted. On the one side there were about 800,000 children educated in the ordinary schools, and 10,000 children, whether of the rich or poor, in the model schools. The question was, whether the principle of Mr. Stanley's letter was to be maintained, or whether a denominational system was to be imported into Ireland. Anything more injurious to the people of Ireland, or to the Church of which be was a member, than such a change he could not conceive. The Christian Brothers' schools, admirable as they were, and stamped as they had been by the approval of the Endowed School Commissioners, could not possibly supply the great and gigantic want of education in Ireland. The alternative, then, was a denominational or separate system. But the essential principle of the denominational system was that the contributions of the State must depend on the contributions of the people; and did any one who knew the condition of Ireland, impoverished as it was, believe that such a system could be worked there? It might be said, "Introduce the separate system." He was sorry his right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside), the Corypheus of the Church Education Society, was not in his place to take part in the discussion. That society proposed that there should be a money grant from the State. But before the Catholic people of Ireland could come to terms with the Church Education Society, although that society professed to have the same object, two questions should be asked. First, was that society prepared to concede to the Catholics a proportion of the State funds corresponding with their numbers—would they give 70 or 80 per cent to the Roman Catholics of Ireland? No; their view was that the rich man who contributed a certain amount of money should be aided by the State, but that those who were poor and could not contribute should not receive that aid. And the next question was this, "Was the Church Education Society willing that every Roman Catholic child should be excluded from every Protestant school, and vice versâ?" The answer to that would be, that such a thing would be an interference with Christian liberty. What then would be the result? It would be this:—

1107
The Protestants of Ireland, who had the wealth of the country in their hands, would receive largely from the State; and in every parish in Ireland there would be planted a proselytising school superior in the means of education, with ample attractions for the poor, and every Catholic child who entered it would receive ail exclusively Protestant education. He believed such a change would operate most injuriously to the peace of the country, and that its effect would be to evoke the spirit of proselytism which had been so long the curse of the country, and which, under the disguise of religion, had been the means of spreading throughout the land ill-feeling, malice, and all uncharitableness. Considering the matter, then, in the double light of an Irishman anxious for the peace, the union, and the prosperity of the country, and of a Roman Catholic, anxious to maintain in its integrity the faith which he professed, he believed that the preservation of the system as it existed, with such changes as upon full consideration ought to be made, was, both for religion and for the country, at this moment the best. They were still in a transition state in Ireland, and in the very infancy of her social progress. For twenty-five short years only they had been free from the withering blight of sectarian ascendancy and religious disability. He devoutly hoped that there was a good and fair future still in store for Ireland. That it might be realized, it appeared to him essential that there should be cultivation, sound intelligence, social harmony, and mutual trust among all the people of Ireland; and, in his humble judgment, those results would be best secured, maintained, and perpetuated by the operation of the national system of education.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he would not follow the right hon. and learned Member into all the topics he had alluded to, but would address himself only to the particular and distinct question before the Committee. He was surprised to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman maintain that the model schools were an essential and necessary portion of the system of education in Ireland, when it was the fact that not a single model school was instituted until eighteen years after the education system had been in full work in Ireland. Regarding the model schools as training colleges, he observed that they had been entirely unsuccessful, for out of 5,000 students only about 167 were trained as teachers. He was unable to discover,
1108
in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, anything exceptional in the state of Ireland to justify them in maintaining, at their present enormous cost, these model schools, which gate an education of a character too high to be suitable for the position in life of the children of the labouring classes, and fit only for the better classes, who were able themselves to provide the means of instruction for their own children. If meant to be training colleges, these model schools were far too numerous. In England the training schools were conducted on the denominational system, and there was no good reason why the same should not be the case With respect to the model schools in Ireland. There might be a sufficient number for each of the three religious denominations, in Ireland, and they might be maintained at a far less expense than that incurred in the maintenance of those institutions, which had failed to give satisfaction in Ireland, and were open to those objections, financial and otherwise, which had been so clearly stated in the speech of his hon. Friend. He could assure hon. Members that the subject was regarded in Ireland as one of great importance, and he submitted that it was well worthy the consideration of the Government and the House of Commons.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that in the eloquent speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had gone considerably beyond the question which the Committee had to deal with. Nor had he noticed the fact that the majority of the children were educated not in the vested but in the non-vested schools, which were not under the control of the Education Board. For himself, he must say, that while admitting the National system had been productive of much good, it was one to Which he had been unable to give a cordial support. It had not been conducted in accordance with the rules on which it had been established. Throughout its existence there had been a systematic deviation from those rules. Archbishop Whately, one of the most learned and sincere advocates of the system, found it had been so tampered with in practice that he felt obliged to withdraw from his position as Commissioner. The public mind in England had been deluded with respect to the working of the system by the magnificent school in Dublin, which was shown to strangers as a model of those which were to be found through-out

1109
the country. Strangers were told that it was a model of what so many of the bishops and clergy and the landed gentry had set their faces against. But the school in Dublin must not he regarded as in the slightest degree a model of the National schools of Ireland. Some time ago the Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford requested that a model school should be established in his diocese; but on examination of the rules he would not sanction it, for he said, that while in the National schools there was in reality no mixed education, and the clergy had a control over them, that was not at all allowed in the model schools, and there the Commissioners of Education were the sole patrons. He (Lord C. Hamilton) highly approved these model schools, in which a sound education was given, and all denominations were admitted. On former occasions he had called attention to the necessity of enlarging the grant, so as to give greater scope and development to the system; but, while he bore this testimony to the excellence of the model schools, he protested against the supposition that they were a fair type of the working of the National system.
MR. BLAKEsaid, that in the case alluded to by the noble Lord, the Bishop of Waterford thought that he would have as much control over the model school as he had over the other National schools within the diocese; but on finding that that was not the case, and that he would have no power over the appointment of teachers or the selection of books, he rescinded his petition. So far as the Roman Catholics of Waterford were concerned, the model school there was a complete failure, and such would continue to be the case throughout the country. Considering the distressed circumstances of Ireland, a State subsidy for education in the country would always be a great boon, but to be effective the system must be denominational.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that between the model schools and the general schools of the country, there was a total divergence of principle, and his desire was that the former should be placed in harmony with those schools which he admitted had conferred enormous benefits on Ireland. Out of 5,500 schools existing two years ago, 4,000 were non-vested, and 1,500 vested, the 4,000 being almost entirely in accord with the Report of the English Education Commissioners—namely, schools in which there was separate religious instruction, with a conscience clause, the patron of
1110
the school having the sole direction of the religious instruction, but not being allowed to enforce it upon those who disapproved it. That was the system which ought to prevail in Ireland, but it did not prevail in the model schools. No one could defend the principle of these schools in England or Scotland. The National school in Limerick was established at a cost of £5,513, and the annual outlay amounted to £1,143. There was an average attendance of 167 scholars, besides 82 infants. Among the parents of the children were architects, rich shopkeepers, doctors, and other persons perfectly able to pay for the education of their offspring as any hon. Member of that House. One of the first names he observed on the list was that of a gentleman who, to his certain knowledge, possessed an income of £1,000 a year. Now, the other schools in Limerick, chiefly Roman Catholic, contained 4,500 children, and their cost was only £630. So, with respect to the convent schools in Ireland, it was universally admitted that their secular instruction was perfect, and when the Earl of Derby was Chief Secretary he put them on an equality with the other schools; but from that day to this the grant to them had not been increased, whereas the pay of the rest had been raised 400 per cent. He did not think that was equal justice, and he hoped the Attorney General, at the next meeting of the National Board, would endeavour to transfer to the convent schools some of that enormous wealth which was at present lavished so uselessly on the education of the children of rich people.
MR. LEFROYdescribed, in language borrowed from a public journal, the extent to which crime and outrage prevailed in Ireland, and expressed his belief that the only remedy for the existing state of things was to be found in sound religious instruction. On that ground he had always protested, and would always continue to protest, against the National system of education. If be had any prospect of success, he should not hesitate to submit a Motion on the subject; but, as it was, he did not think he could do better than abstain from voting on the question now before the Committee. The Church Education Society thought they had a right to some part of the grant for public education, as they sought to afford instruction to all who desired it at their hands, but upon whom they did not force it. The society did not desire to monopolize the

1111
education of Ireland, but they did think they had a claim to a share of a grant that was professedly made for public education in Ireland.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Item of £19,180, for District Model Schools, be reduced by the sum of £268."—(Mr. O'Reilly.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 122: Majority 84.
Original Question again proposed.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to know whether the reduction in the agricultural establishment was to be progressive and continuous?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the reduction that year upon these establishments was about £1,500. As a sum of about £20,000 had, at various times, been expended in erecting buildings for these establishments, he was indisposed to lose all the benefits of the outlay; but if the Committee should desire the reduction to be continuous, he should not resist that decision.
MR. HENNESSYmoved that the Chairman report progress.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that after the division that had just taken place, the Committee would be allowed to come to a decision on the Vote.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he would remind the noble Lord that the last division was only upon a sum of £20,000 out of a total of £300,000.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he trusted, at all events, that that Vote would be disposed of, as the whole evening had been devoted to its discussion.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hennessy.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 115: Majority 79.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government not to go on with the Vote after half past twelve o'clock, especially as the House would sit again that day at twelve o'clock.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he hoped the Vote would be agreed to. He was quite ready to give any explanation that was required.
MR. COXsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would give way.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could not agree to report progress at that hour. They had been discussing the subject for six hours, and might now decide upon it.
MR. HENNESSYmoved that the Chairman leave the chair.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Hennessy.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 110: Majority 79.
Original Question again proposed.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, it was nothing short of tyranny for the Government to force the Committee to go on at that hour with the Vote, which contained many important items that had not been touched upon. He begged, therefore, to move that the Chairman now report Progress.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he should support the Motion. It was contrary to established practice to proceed with Supply after midnight when objection was taken to it.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for Norfolk would be perfectly sound if the Government were then proposing a new Vote. All, however, that they asked was that the Committee should come to a decision upon a Vote which had been under discussion for the last six or seven hours.
MR. DOULTONsaid, he hoped that the Committee would come to a decision that night. Irish Members seemed anxious to keep the question open, in order that they might go home and refresh themselves, and then commence the discussion de novo.
MR. MORE O'FERRALLsaid, the question involved a large expenditure of public money, and could not be settled satisfactorily that night.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Lambeth's (Mr. Doulton's) constituents would regard the matter as a trifling one. It was a question of only £305,000, and it was almost the universal opinion of the Irish Members that the Vote was a waste of public money. He could tell the noble Lord that he would hear a great deal more about the Vote before it passed. The hour (one o'clock) was too late for continuing the discussion.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had been there continuously since half past seven o'clock, and was therefore more likely to be fatigued than the hon. Member for the

1113
King's County (Mr. Hennessy), who had not come in till twelve. He also had to be present at the morning sitting, and therefore he had a greater right to complain than the hon. Gentleman, if there was really any ground for complaint. If, however, the Committee insisted on a postponement, the Government would not press the Vote that night.
MR. SCULLYsaid, the hon. Member for Lambeth had charged the Irish Members with wishing to go home to refresh themselves; but from the manner in which that hon. Gentleman had spoken it did not appear that he himself needed to be refreshed.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Colonel Greville,)—put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE (ST. MARY MAGDALEN) HOSPITAL BILL.

  [BILL 162.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation of the circumstances of the charity. He took exception to the clauses in the Bill which provided for the endowment of a chapel with £500 per annum, the assignment of an ecclesiastical district, the sale of the advowson for the benefit of the charity, and the collection of pew rents.
  MR. LOWEexplained that the Bill was a compromise of a local controversy, and all parties were anxious that it should pass.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

LAND DRAINAGE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 85.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. H. S. THOMPSONmoved that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee, to consider and report upon the merits of the Petitions presented to the House against the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

  ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.
  Select Committee on the Election Petitions Bill nominated:—Mr. AYRTON, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. MASSEY, Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Lord HENLEY, Mr. MONSELL, Mr. HERBERT, Mr. SERJEANT KINGLAKE, Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, Sir WILLIAM MILES, Mr. KNIGHTLEY. Mr. ADDERLEY, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. HUNT, and Mr. SERJEANT PIGOTT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  POSTMASTER GENERAL (SALE OF LAND) BILL.
  Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to Sell and otherwise dispose of Land, presented, and read 1o. [Bill 174]

  HOWTH HARBOUR BILL.
  Bill for the further improvement of the Harbour of Howth, presented, and read 1o; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.