Commons Sitting of 6 May 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Case of Mr. Bewicke, nominated. [See April 29].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee— R.P.
Resolutions [May 5] reported
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Chief Rents (Ireland) [Stamps]*.
Ordered—Militia Pay*.
First Reading—Administration of Trusts (Scotland)* [Bill 95].
Third Reading — Local Government Supplemental* [Bill_80], and passed.

EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the proposed Act of American Congress providing for the reduction of Tonnage Dues on Emigrant Vessels, and for the appointment of a Government Commissioner of Emigration, who shall be empowered to contract for the importation of Emigrants, and for their transmission into the inland districts of the United States; and whether it is the intention of the present' Government to adopt any measures either towards diverting into some of Her Majesty's Colonies the increased and increasing Emigration from Ireland, or towards arresting that Emigration by providing industrial employment at home, or by reducing exorbitant taxation, or by improving the Land Laws, or by abolishing religious distinctions, or by conceding to Irishmen some participation in the government of their own country, or otherwise?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, his attention had not been called to the proposed Act of Congress referred to until the previous evening, when the hon. Gentleman showed him an extract from a newspaper stating that such an Act had been proposed. There was undoubtedly a large emigration going on from Ireland, and mainly directed towards the United States; but the reason was obviously to be found in the fact that wages in America were very high, artificially high, in consequence of the war, while in Ireland they were comparatively low. Her Majesty's Government did not think it would be expedient, even were it practicable, to endeavour to resist such emigration by the providing industrial employment at the public expense. He must also say that he thought Irishmen had a fair share of the benefits accruing from reductions of taxation, and he was not aware that any alteration of the laws relating to land would tend to diminish emigration. Religious distinctions had, happily, been abolished; and he would remind his hon. friend that the people of the sister country lived under the same Constitution as the people of England.

HALIFAX AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies,
  100
  Whether it is the intention of the Government to ask the sanction of Parliament during the present Session for a guarantee of interest on a sum of money required to complete the Railway from Halifax to Quebec; and, if not, whether the intention of doing so is finally abandoned; and whether any Correspondence has taken place between the Colonial Office and the Authorities in Canada and British Columbia on the subject of the proposed telegraphic communication between Canada and the Pacific, subsequent to that which was produced last year; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay Copies of such Correspondence upon the table?
  MR. CARDWELLreplied that there was no intention of asking from the House, during the present Session, any guarantee for the Railway between Halifax and Quebec. The subject, however, had not been abandoned, and was still under the consideration of the several Colonies interested in the subject. There would be no objection to lay the additional Correspondence which had taken place on the table of the House if the hon. Member would move for it.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.

  THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, with sincere regret, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government is not likely to be in his place to-night, and that it is also doubtful whether he will be here on Monday; but the right hon. Gentleman has also informed me that he will himself answer the Question which I have put upon the paper. I would crave the indulgence of the House, while I state very shortly the reasons for my putting this Question. A Conference of the Great Powers has been sitting, at which Austria, Prussia, Denmark, and England are represented; and it is understood that this Conference is to deliberate with reference to the immediate state of things incident to the war. England has not ceased to be the ally of Denmark; and whatever may be the feelings of the representatives of the other Powers—["Order order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: It is the rule of the House that a hon. Member putting a Question must confine himself strictly to the facts necessary to explain it.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: It is without intending any disrespect to the Conference

  101
  that I have put this Question; but I think it is inconsistent with the dignity of England—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Any expressions of opinion on the part of the hon. Member are out of order.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I beg pardon, I will simply state that as England is the ally of Denmark, I do not think—["Order!"] I will put the Question of which I have given notice, and which in a great measure explains itself. I merely wish further to state that the contributions levied upon the people of Denmark—["Order!"] I cannot conceive that this is a matter of indifference to the House of Commons—["Order!]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must request that the hon. Gentleman will put his Question.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I beg your pardon, Sir; I see that certain hon. Members are combined to refuse the indulgence I asked, I will, therefore, simply put my Question, the terms of which, happily, explain my reasons for putting it. I therefore ask the right hon. Baronet, as the representative of the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt any measures likely to be more effectual than those which have hitherto been attempted, for the purpose of relieving the People and King of Denmark from the oppression to which they are daily subjected?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: The hon. Gentleman has truly stated what we all know, that a Conference is now sitting, and we hope and trust that the first result of it will be to establish an armistice. Under these circumstances, and without anticipating events, the only answer I can give the hon. Gentleman on the part of the Government is this—that Her Majesty's Government will continue, in combination with the other Powers, to take those means which appear most likely to effect the object they have in view—namely, the termination of the war, and the satisfactory settlement of the questions between Denmark and Germany.

RAILWAY AND CANAL BILLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARD HODGSONsaid, he wished to ask the Chairman of the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, Whether the Committee will meet to consider the Clauses referred to them on the 26th day of April last by the House, so
  102
  that any Clauses which the Committee may recommend may be inserted in Bills of the present Session to which they are applicable?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, in reply, that the clauses had been referred to the General Committee, with the intention that they should Report to the House whether they ought or ought not to be adopted. That inquiry would take place, but they understood that it was likely that objections would be taken to those clauses by parties interested in railways, and it would not be just, therefore, that a decision should be come to without allowing those parties to appear before the Committee.

CRIMINAL RETURNS

  QUESTION.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the number, 46, given in the 18th column of page 53 of the Criminal Returns for England and Wales for 1852, as that of persons found "Not Guilty on Trial," includes, or does not include, any persons tried upon a charge of Murder and found guilty of Manslaughter only?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the Return represented the number of persons acquitted of murder and not found guilty of manslaughter.

SEWAGE, &c, (METROPOLIS), COM MITTEE.—QUESTION.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu), If he would object to an Instruction being moved to the Committee appointed "to inquire into any plans for dealing with the Sewage of the Metropolis and other large Towns, with a view to its utilization to agricultural purposes," that they do inquire into the effects of discharging sewage into the brooks or rivers?
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUreplied, that the Committee had already to investigate a very large question, but if the right hon. Gentleman would bring forward a Motion as an Instruction to the Committee, he had no doubt they would arrive at some definite conclusion on the matter to which he referred. He also hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would allow himself to be added to the Committee.

WELSH STEAM COAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the experiments on the relative value of Welsh Steam Coal alone, and Welsh and North Country Coal mixed, detailed in the Return dated 15th February, 1864, are regarded by the Admiralty as final, or whether practical trials at sea upon this question are about to be made?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said, he had to state that those trials were not by any means considered as final. The Admiralty had ordered practical trials at sea to take place as regarded the Welsh and North Country Coal, and the Reports of the experiments were to be made to the Admiralty.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—H.M.S. "AURORA."—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFTHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Aurora frigate, under the command of Sir Leopold M'Clintock, has been sent to the North Sea in the direction of the Austrian Squadron; and, if so, why a force more adequate to cope with any possible contingency that might arise has not been dispatched at the same time?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: In answer, Sir, to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that the Aurora has been sent to the North Sea in accordance with our constant practice in this country, that, when foreign squadrons are cruising on coasts where we have considerable commercial interests, we should have a ship in the neighbourhood to watch those interests, and for that purpose I think I may state the Aurora is perfectly adequate to the service on which she is sent.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The question just put by my hon. Friend assumes that the Austrian ships have left the Downs. I wish to know whether the noble Lord is in a position to inform us whether they have left, and, if so, what was the destination of the squadron which sailed?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Yes, Sir, they have left the Downs, but I really cannot answer as to their destination.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I wish to repeat what I stated to the House on a former occasion—that Her Majesty's Government have received from the Government of Austria a distinct and positive assurance
104
that the destination of the Austrian squadron is the North Sea, and that their object is to prevent a blockade of the Elbe and the Weser, and protect German commerce in the North Sea. That is stated to be their exclusive object.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether he has asked an explanation of the Admiralty as to the circumstances under which he, representing avowedly the Prime Minister in this House, was left in ignorance yesterday, and was placed in the painful position of not knowing and being allowed to deny what had been announced in a Government paper— namely, the fact of the sailing of the Aurora?
SIR GEORGE GREY: The question asked of me by my hon. and gallant Friend below the gangway (Colonel French) was whether the Aurora had sailed to the Baltic; and, in reply, I believe I stated there was no foundation for the report that she had sailed to the Baltic.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: Does the right hon. Baronet mean to say that he used the term "Baltic" in an exceptional sense?—that is to say, that he answered in the letter instead of in the spirit of the inquiry? I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not understand the question practically to be, whether the Aurora had sailed to the North Sea?
SIR GEORGE GREY: I understand it to be as it was expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend—and I think he will agree with me that I interpreted him rightly— whether the Aurora had sailed to the Baltic.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I would ask the noble Lord to what place is the Aurora gone? Is she gone to Heligoland? I understand she is gone there; and I should like to know whether she is to remain there, or to cruise, or to go up the Elbe?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: The last news we had of her was in a telegram today from Heligoland. She is there, and probably to ascertain the proceedings of the Austrian squadron.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that as it was doubtful whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government would be in his place on Monday next, he should post-

105
pone his noble Friend's Motion with reference to the Committee of Council on Education till the following Thursday. He might also mention that on Friday next his noble Friend intended to move the adjournment of the House till Thursday, the 19th inst.

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

PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMISSION,

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I am sure that I shall not be accused of using mere words of course, if I say that the Question to which I venture to ask for a time the attention of the House, is one of the most important that can possibly come before us. It is, Sir, a very large and a very difficult Question, but it has one peculiarity which may be taken as a set off against its magnitude and its complications. It is, at least, no party Question. It lies above and altogether out of the reach of the conflicting opinions which divide the two sides of this Assembly, and nothing but the most perverse ingenuity could enable any one to show that Conservatives and Liberals are bound to think differently upon any one of the issues which are likely to be raised in our discussion to-night. The Commission, to the Report of which I am calling attention, was appointed, as many hon. Members will recollect, nearly three years ago. Its immediate occasion, though not its cause, was the controversy which had arisen in the periodical press about the state of Eton; a controversy which was at first angry, but which before it closed became on both sides more amicable. It was at one time proposed that the area over which the inquiry was to extend should be considerably wider than it actually was. The schools and collegiate bodies, which were ultimately marked out for inquiry, were Eton, Winchester, Westminster, Harrow, Rugby, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylors', Charter House, and Shrewsbury. The Commission was very fairly selected; it included one distinguished Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford; three Members of the other branch of the Legislature, Lord Clarendon, Lord Devon, and Lord Lyttleton, selected, I presume,
  106
  respectively as a man of the world, a man of business, and a scholar; Professor Thomson, now Professor of Greek at Cambridge, and Mr. Vaughan, late Professor of Modern History at Oxford; last, not least, Mr. Twisleton, whose learning and high culture are well known to all. Those who, like myself, considered that there was room for very great improvement in the present state of our higher education thought, when we read the names, that we had obtained a Commission which would be rather a fair representation of existing views than one very likely to report in accordance with our wishes, and we trusted more to the indirect effect of the information which we knew would be brought out, than to any direct effect which could be expected to arise from the recommendations of the Commissioners. I am bound to say that we have been most agreeably disappointed. I shall, as I proceed, have to show that here and there I do not agree with some of the views of the Commissioners; but with the general tone of their Report, and with the majority of their suggestions I have no fault to find. The purposes to be served by a discussion of the Report in this House, seem to be twofold: 1. That the Government may be encouraged to bring in a Bill with a view to carrying into effect such recommendations of the Commissioners as require the aid of Parliament to carry them into effect; and 2. That the attention of Parliament and the country may be called to the recommendations which are addressed to the governing I bodies and the head masters of the schools. The Report is divided into two parts. The first, which is much the shortest, gives the general results of the inquiry into what is intelligibly, but loosely, called public school education, and sums up the general recommendations of the Commissioners, those, namely, which are applicable to all schools. The second, which runs to great length, consists of nine separate and very careful accounts of the several schools, to each of which is appended a summary of the special recommendations applicable to that particular school. It is, of course, chiefly to the first part that I shall ask hon. Members to direct their attention. Before we pass to what the Commissioners describe and recommend, let me recal to the recollection of the House what were the allegations of the educational reformers. They resolved themselves into two: 1. That the edu-

  107
  cation given to average boys at the public schools was-extremely bad; and secondly, that the education given to the most successful boys was, when compared with the requirements of the age, sadly inadequate. On both these counts of the indictment the Commissioners have found, so to speak, a verdict for the prosecution, as they have also, upon a hundred other counts, some of which are of no inconsiderable, though secondary importance. Of secondary importance I say, for let it never be forgotten that all questions about the property, the external government, and about the internal administration, are only auxiliary to these two. Is the range of study wide enough, and are the subjects which are attended to efficiently taught? Here is the answer of the Commissioners to the first question—
  "The education appears to us sound and valuable in its main elements, but wanting in breadth and flexibility—defects which, in our judgment, destroy in many cases, and impair in all, its value as an education of the mind; and which are made more prominent at the present time by the extension of knowledge in various directions, and by the multiplied requirements of modern life."
  To the second question they reply—
  "We have been unable to resist the conclusion that these schools, in very different degrees, are too indulgent to idleness, or struggle ineffectually with it, and that they consequently send out a large proportion of men of idle habits and empty and uncultivated minds."
  This passage is further illustrated by what follows: —
  "If a youth, after four or five years spent at school, quits it at nineteen, unable to construe an easy bit of Latin or Greek without the help of a dictionary, or to write Latin grammatically, almost ignorant of geography and of the history of his own country, unacquainted with any modern language but his own, and hardly competent to write English correctly, to do a simple sum, or stumble through an easy proposition of Euclid, a total stranger to the laws which govern the physical world, and to its structure, with an eye and hand unpractised in drawing, and without knowing a note of music, with an uncultivated mind and no taste for reading or observation, his intellectual education must certainly be accounted a failure, though there may be no fault to find with his principles, character, or manners. We by no means intend to represent this as a type of the ordinary product of English public school education; but speaking both from the evidence we have received and from opportunities of observation open to all, we must say that it is a type much more common than it ought to be, making ample allowance for the difficulties that have to be contended with, and that the proportion of failures is therefore unduly large."
  The view here put forward is borne out by the evidence of many of the leading tutors
  108
  at Oxford, summed up in pages 24 and 25 of the Report. The Dean of Christchurch says—
  "Very few can construe with accuracy a piece from an author they profess to have read. We never try them with an unseen passage; it would be useless to do so. Tolerable Latin prose is very rare; perhaps one piece in four is free from bad blunders; a good style is scarcely ever seen. The answers we get to simple grammar questions are very inaccurate."
  Remember that these young men, of whom the Dean of Christchurch thus speaks, are, after all, not the average product of your public schools. The average product is an even inferior article—an article so inferior that the head masters of all the schools, except Rugby and Shrewsbury, positively refused to allow the Commission to examine them for themselves, lest they should see how bad it was. The correspondence with regard to this is given at length, and should be read. How, then, do the Commissioners propose that we should remedy this state of things? They begin by proposing to re-constitute the governing bodies to which are confided the selection of the head masters, and the making of those permanent regulations which form, so to speak, the code of each school. The constitution of the bodies which at present govern these nine schools is very varied—in some better, in others worse; but in no one instance does it fulfil the conditions which are very properly insisted upon by the Commissioners in the following passage:—
  "In some cases, as will more fully appear hereafter, the governing body was designed for a school very unlike that which it now has to govern. We are of opinion that in most cases, either from this cause or from the altered circumstances of the times, some modifications in the governing body have become necessary, and that, unwise as it certainly would be, in this as in other respects, to aim at mere uniformity, there are some common features which should generally belong to the governing body of a great public school. Such a body should be permanent in itself, being the guardian and trustee of the permanent interests of the school; though not unduly large, it should be protected by its numbers and by the position and character of its individual members from the domination of personal or local interests, of personal or professional influences or prejudices; and we should wish to see it include men conversant with the world, with the requirements of active life, and with the progress of literature and science."
  I do not think there are many persons in the House who will disagree with the general spirit of these remarks, although, of course, there will be a conflict of opinion about the constitution of the particular governing bodies suggested for each

  109
  school. Nor will there be much difference of view about the necessity for revising statutes on the principles adopted by the Commissioners in these words. "The statutes of founders are to be upheld and enforced whenever they conduce to the general objects of the foundation; but they are to be modified whenever they require a closer adaptation to the wants of modern society." Subject to the general superintendence of the governing bodies, the Commissioners propose, and rightly propose, that the head master should be well nigh absolute. The greatest diversity prevails in this respect at present. At Eton, for example, a head master, who, like Mr. Goodford, had an experience of many years as a teacher, could hardly move band or foot without the permission of his distinguished, but latterly very obstructive, superior, Provost Hawtrey; while at Harrow, Mr. Butler, fresh from college, was virtually independent of any control in the discharge of the duties of his office. The Commissioners think that the head masters should be assisted by a school council, with a consultative, but not legislative voice, and with the power of addressing the governing bodies when a majority desires to do so. How well an institution of this kind works, and has long worked at Rugby, is sufficiently known. How bitterly the great majority of the assistant masters of Eton regret the absence of any such institution is a fact not less familiar. Not many will now wish that the selection of the head master in any school should be limited by arbitrary restrictions; but with regard to the recommendation which immediately follows that, namely, that the classical languages and literature should continue to hold the principal place in the course of study, some controversy may arise in this House, and out of it Having regard, I will not say to what is abstractedly best, but to what is best in present circumstances, I, for my part, entirely and cordially agree with this proposition; but, in the method of carrying out the eighth recommendation, I should in some respects differ from the Commissioners. It seems to me that the only reasonable object to be set before us in teaching the classics is to make a young man of good abilities and application, when he has finished his classical course, able not only to read with facility everything that is not extraordinarily and exceptionally difficult in the two languages, like the choruses of the Choephoroe or the Trachiniae, but that
  110
  he should have read whatever is most admirable in classical literature, and that he should have a fair scholarly acquaintance with the whole of Greek and Roman history. That is not a large demand to make, even if you very materially curtail the amount of time now given to classics. It is not a large demand to make even if a boy only begins Latin at twelve, when you: think that far the greater part of his time between that age and the period at which; he leaves the University, say ten years, or the best hours of a seventh part of an ordinary human life, is given up to the classical languages, and to the knowledge to which they are the key. But is anything like this obtained at present by a course of classical study, which, carried on to the end of the University period, begins often at eight or nine years old? Is it gained, I ask, not by idle or stupid men, but by the very best of your students? Take the three classes of the classical tripos at Cambridge, and take the four honour classes at Oxford, and seek amongst their members for the kind of knowledge of which I speak—you will find the Cambridge men fail egregiously in knowledge of the matter of the authors which they have read, although more able to translate passages presenting some considerable difficulty, at sight. You will find the Oxford men, although admirably well acquainted with the language and matter of a certain number of books, and these very important ones, yet failing in the power of being able to read unfamiliar classical authors with sufficient case, and very indifferently acquainted cither with Greek or Roman history during the periods not covered by their books—very imperfectly acquainted, for example, with the age of Alexander the Great, or of the Antonines. Now, the cause of this is perfectly obvious—it is the exaggerated importance which is attributed to Latin and Greek composition, I am glad to see that there is an immense weight of evidence against verse composition in the appendix to the Report, but there is a clinging to prose composition in those languages, and even in some cases a clinging to Latin composition when the utility of Greek composition has been frankly given up as incapable of defence, I allude more especially to the evidence of the Master of Trinity, Cambridge. In this matter of composition the Commissioners make concessions, but they do not make sufficient concessions. I confess that I am on this one point thoroughly revolu-

  111
  tionary. I feel that every hour which I myself ever took from reading good Latin and Greek, and gave to writing bad Latin and Greek, was an hour lost, and I defy any one to prove that such hours are ever employed to advantage, except by perhaps three or four boys out of a hundred, who happen to have the peculiar knack of writing what is called brilliant composition; and when you have attained to this pinnacle, when you can write Greek verses like Mr. Riddell in the Anthologia Oxoniensis, or Latin verses like Professor Conington or Professor Goldwin Smith, in the same volume, have you done anything better than gain an accomplishment entitled to rank amongst intellectual acquirements, pretty much as fencing does amongst physical acquirements? No amount of sophistry can prove that there is any one important gift of the human intellect which is at all more brought out by Latin and Greek composition than by composition in other languages. In discussing the question, there is an everlasting application of the argument post hoc ergo propter hoc. We are told, for example, that such and such a person wrote good Latin verses before he made good speeches or wrote good leading articles, and then it is quietly assumed that he had the power to do the one only because he had done the other. I will not raise the question whether it is in the nature of things possible for a modern to write really well in Greek or Latin at all, although I fully believe that the least successful contemporary imitators of Cicero would have smiled at our Ciceronian Latin, and the weakest poet who ever failed at Athens would have found little to admire even in the "Greek Verses of Shrewsbury School." The Vice Chancellor of the University of Calcutta told the young Bengalees the other day—
  "Depend upon it, no man ever wrote well by striving too hard to write well. English can only be well written by following the golden rule which Englishmen follow, or ought to follow, and that rule is never to try deliberately to write it well."
  Why should what is true of English not be true of Latin and Greek? The practice of orally translating and re-translating is exempt from many of the disadvantages of composition, and a chain of authorities in its favour may be cited from the days of the younger Pliny to those of the younger Pitt. It is strange that it seems to be so little kept up in any of our schools—only, I think, at St. Paul's. An immense amount
  112
  of time appears to be lost at more than one of these schools in repetition. Much of this will, I hope, he done away with if the quantity of verses is diminished, or more certainly still, if they are gradually abolished. What is gained by making a boy say, for example, the Alcestis of Euripides from beginning to end? To learn so much, and to have it ready at a moment's notice, is a task which costs even boys with excellent memories many hours of application, and when a boy has an indifferent memory, it must be a terrible infliction. It is stated in the evidence before us that, I think at Winchester, boys have been known to repeat as much as 7,000 lines at a time. Surely it would be far better if the authorities of each school were to compile a small volume which consisted entirely of really choice passages, to be committed to memory. Such a selection, if really well learned, would be a valuable possession for after life, but who cares to retain in his head whole books of the AEneid or entire Greek plays. The other studies on which the Commissioners insist are Arithmetic and Mathematics, one modern language (either French or German), one branch at least of Natural Science, and either drawing or music, to which are to be added a certain amount of religious teaching, History, Geography, and English composition. To those who feel inclined to doubt the expediency of giving instruction during at least part of the school course, in drawing or music, I would, without dwelling on the more obvious arguments in favour of these studies, recommend the perusal of some of the evidence given by that eminent scholar, Dr. Kennedy, of Shrewsbury, with regard to the bearing which they have upon classical scholarship. Nothing is more curious, indeed, than the little effect which our present classical training has in disposing the minds of those who go through it to the study of ancient art. Turn the six best Cambridge men and the six best Oxford men of their year loose in the Vatican, and you will find them hardly, if at all, more capable of understanding and appreciating what they see than any tolerably educated person. It may be doubted, I think, whether French should not be made obligatory in the case of all boys. Whether or not its utility, as a means of education, is as great as that of some of its rivals is, of course, an open question. For my own part, I am inclined to think that it is at present rather too much the

  113
  fashion in this country to depreciate the literature of France; and I am quite sure that the precision of French thought, that sort of honesty as between author and reader, which is so characteristic of French books, and which makes you certain as you read them that at least the writer knows what he means—nay, the very limitations upon the power of expressing ideas which mark the language—are useful correctives to certain tendencies at present very rife in our own literature. But whatever may or may not be its importance as instrument of education, its enormous importance as a subject of instruction makes it unnecessary to discuss its educative utility. It seems to me that the Commissioners have exercised a very wise discretion in postponing the claims of Italian to those of German. True it is that in favour of the first may be urged its affinity to Latin and to French, rendering it, as they do, singularly easy to teach in conjunction with these two languages, Then it is undoubtedly, in the Mediterranean and the East, extremely useful; nor must it be forgotten that the growing political importance of Italy, and the great awakening which is taking place there, will make it increasingly desirable to be acquainted with the language which is spoken by a great and powerful people, I must also admit that I know no means so appropriate as the study of the great writers of the Italian middle age for giving a lofty, ennobling, refined, and, as I may say, specifically Christian culture. The atmosphere, so to speak, which we breathe in the writings of Goethe is the same as that in which we all live. It is essentially modern. When we turn, however, to the Divina Commedia, we breathe another atmosphere. The world of Dante was a world almost as different from ours as the world of Sophocles. It is perhaps a hasty generalization from Milton, but one cannot help thinking that the early and deep study of the Italian literature is calculated to bring out in a very singular degree some of the finest characteristics of the English mind. The arguments, however, in favour of German are irresistible. It is at least as useful as Italian, not only from the number of people who speak it, but from the number of languages to which it is the key. The two reasons, however, which seem to me conclusive in its favour are the following. In the first place, the difficulty of really mastering it is so great and so serious that
  114
  the most bigoted adherent of the present system cannot afford, if, that is to say, he has himself acquired it, to treat it as an inadequate substitute for part of that Greek and Latin training, the difficulty of which is, to the minds of such people, its peculiar charm; and secondly, because the literature of Germany is to such an extent a reservoir of knowledge and of ideas that, with the exception of the exact sciences, there is no one subject of human research upon which anyone can thoroughly inform himself without being driven to German sources. Take the very subject of classics. I do not ask, are there not many Gorman books which are indispensable? but are there any books of much importance in use in our schools or Universities which are not either wholly German or taken to a great extent from Gorman sources? So it is with history, so with philosophy. Open any book on the theological controversies now raging in this country, and, strange to say, neither on the orthodox nor heterodox side is there almost a single authority cited which is not either German or wearing the uniform of one or the other widely divided schools of German opinion. A suggestion is made by Professor Huller respecting the assistance which might be derived in teaching both Latin and French from comparative philology, and he mentions a grammar, that of M. Egger, the well-known Professor in Paris, which is founded upon this principle. I am glad to see that the Commissioners think that the suggestion may be turned to practical use. I am somewhat surprised not to have observed that any questions had been put, or any suggestions made, with respect to paying more regard in the teaching of Greek, to the assistance to be derived from the living language. This subject has been brought very much before those who in Scotland take an interest in such matters, by Professor Blackie, well known as the translator of Æschylus. I do not myself venture to pronounce any opinion upon it, but I cannot help thinking that it is a matter which calls for very grave consideration. I cannot help thinking that something too much is made of the practical difficulties which are to be encountered in teaching foreign languages to schoolboys. The evidence on this subject, to he found in the blue-books, is very conflicting, but perhaps the best suggestion is that made in the excellent letter from Mr. Barry of Cheltenham, who says—

  115
  I cannot but be of opinion that if a school can include one Frenchman and one German on its staff, for the purpose of correcting pronunciation and looking over the higher kinds of composition, and can then entrust the greater part of the French and German teaching to Englishmen who have had a University education, and who, having lived abroad, are thoroughly versed in the foreign language which they undertake to teach, the work will be far more effectively done than by any other arrangement.
  Small matters of this kind invariably come right of themselves, when there is an honest desire that they should come right, and people are not too impatient. Once let the authorities at our great schools become as anxious to make boys good French and German scholars, as they now are to make them good Greek and Latin scholars, and they will soon laugh at the very idea of there being any difficulty in the matter. Even now M. Vecqueray at Rugby tells the Commissioners that he finds the boys perfectly manageable. There is no wiser page in the whole of the Report than that in which the Commissioners—not one of whom, be it observed, is himself a scientific man—every one of whom, be it also observed, has been brought up under influences totally alien to those of science properly so called— sum up the overwhelming arguments in favour of introducing the study of natural science, into the regular course of our schools. They speak as follows:—
  "Natural science, with such slight exceptions as we have noticed above, is practically excluded from the education of the higher classes in England. This exclusion is, in our view, a plain defect and a great practical evil. It narrows unduly and injuriously the mental training of the young, and the knowledge, interests, and pursuits of men in maturer life. Natural science quickens and cultivates directly the faculty of observation, which in very many persons lies dormant through life, the power of accurate and rapid generalization, and the mental habit of method and arrangement; it accustoms young persons to trace the sequence of cause and effect; it familiarises them with a kind of reasoning which interests them, and which they can promptly comprehend; and it is perhaps the best corrective for that indolence which is the vice of half-awakened minds, and which shrinks from any exertion that is not, like an effort of memory, merely mechanical. With sincere respect for the opinions of the eminent schoolmasters who differ from us in this matter, we are convinced that the introduction of the elements of natural science into the regular course of study is desirable, and we see no sufficient reason to doubt that it is practicable."
  Hon. Members will not, I think, consider that the Commissioners have done anything superfluous in insisting upon Geography being taught in regular lessons; although Mr. Blakesley, whose geographi-
  116
  cal attainments are well known, maintains, in some evidence which amusingly illustrates the effect of early prejudice, that it is vain to attempt what is continually successfully done even amongst us outer barbarians on the other side of the border. I am inclined to think that the recommendations, with respect to the mode of teaching history, might with advantage have been more specific, but the question is one which involves too much detail, and I will not enter upon it. It is difficult to understand why the Commissioners have not insisted upon all boys who go through a public school obtaining some knowledge, at least, of the outlines of English literature. This might easily be done without teaching it in class—if a course of lectures were delivered to guide the reading of the boys on the sixth form, or a paper upon the subject were set in the matriculation examination at the University. This is not by any means the only way in which-the House can aid the University—indeed, no satisfactory reform will be effected in the higher education till the University learns that it is its business to aid the public schools by enforcing a reasonably high standard of attainment upon those who seek to enter it, and the public school enforces a proportionably high standard upon the humbler schools which feed it. The Commissioners have not thought it their duty to suggest any action of this kind on the part of the University, although it is in accordance with the spirit of all that they say, and is, as is clear from the evidence, urgently desired by all those resident members of the University who are interested in the studies of the place. But they recommend an examination before entering the public school, and this leads me to the only question which has been discussed by the Commissioners, upon which their Report is not unanimous. The twenty-third recommendation runs as follows: —
  "Every boy should be required, before admission to the school, to pass an entrance examination, and to show himself well grounded for his age in classics and arithmetic, and in the elements of either French or German."
  Mr. Vaughan objects to that provision in this recommendation, which requires proficiency corresponding with age in French or German, as the one indispensable qualification to be required in addition to proficiency in classics and arithmetic. He thinks that a boy should be allowed to take up for his entrance examination the

  117
  elements of some branch of natural science instead of a modern language. Mr Vaughan's dissent, if somewhat lengthy, is well reasoned and important; but after reading the evidence of Professor Owen, Dr. Carpenter, Sir Charles Lyell, Mr, Faraday, and others, I feel very strongly that all the reasons which he gives for postponing a modern language to the claims of natural science, tell much more strongly in favour of delaying the commencement of the study of the classics, Dr. Carpenter's evidence more especially is well worthy the study of hon. Members, and so is a pamphlet by Dr. Hodgson, to which he frequently alludes. I do not think that boys who enter a public school at twelve years old ought to be required to bring with them any knowledge of classics at all. I think that reading, writing, and the simple rules of arithmetic, a fair knowledge of French or German, and a reasonable amount of geography, English, and general knowledge would be quite sufficient. It can be proved to demonstration that a boy who does not begin the Latin Grammar till twelve years old will, if well taught previously in other subjects better suited to his age, soon overtake another who has begun it at nine or ten years old. I think that great encouragement should be given to the study of natural science at an early period of life, and that a boy should have an opportunity of showing acquaintance with it, and receive marks for it in his entrance ex-animation. Speaking of natural science, Mr. Vaughan aptly observes—
  "Nor need its imposing name seem to disqualify it for a subject of examination in the middle and even lower forms of a public school, 'Greek,' which was once the synonym of 'abstruse' and 'unintelligible,' is now a subject in which boys of the lowest forms of public schools are daily examined. Natural science, however, like a classical language, has not only its elements, but its grammar, its accidence, so to speak, and even its alphabet, in each of which judicious and considerate examiners will be able to test the soundness of the knowledge of the least proficient,"
  Of course, when a boy entered the school in any other than the lowest form, it would be necessary for him to come prepared to a certain extent in classics. At Shrewsbury I observe that hoys sometimes enter even in the lower sixth. All difficulties on this score would be prevented by the working of the Commissioners' twenty-fifth general recommendation, which is in the following words: —
  "No boy should be suffered to remain in the school who fails to make reasonable progress in it.
  118
  For this purpose certain stages of progress should be fixed by reference to the forms into which the school is divided. A maximum age should be fixed for attaining each stage, and any boy who exceeds this maximum without reaching the corresponding stage of promotion should be removed from the school. A relaxation of this rule to a certain extent might be allowed in cases where it clearly appeared that the boy's failure to obtain promotion was due to his deficiency in one particular subject, while his marks in other subjects would have counterbalanced that deficiency had the system of promotion permitted it."
  To a certain extent the Commissioners adopt what is called the bifurcation principle. Arrangements should be made, they say, for allowing boys after arriving at a certain place in the school, to drop some portion of their classical work, in order to dovote more time to mathematics, modern languages, or natural science; or, on the other hand, to discontinue wholly, or in part, natural science, modern languages,: or mathematics, in order to give more time, to classics or some other study. Into this ' subject I shall not enter. It is clear from the evidence supplied in the very interesting communications from Cheltenham, Marlborough, and the Wellington College, that the difficulties which are in the way could be easily overcome; but with regard to the greatest of your public schools, above all, with regard to Eton, it is really not an important question. Make these schools in every respect what they should be, and improve your Universities proportionably, and the demand to enter such a school as Eton will become so great, that you will be able to dictate what conditions you please. You will be able, for instance, to say, that you do not care to receive any one who does not come to be prepared for the University, and you will be able to decline modifying what you have deliberately determined to be the best system of training for the mind, in deference to the requirements of this or that competitive examination. Make Eton what it ought to be, and it will be a school not only for England, but, within twenty years, for the upper classes of the whole of Europe, Three recommendations relate to the charges to be made to parents, and the stipends and emoluments of masters—both very important subjects, but subjects upon which we shall hear so much from the parties most interested, that I pass them by. With regard to the results of the present system of discipline, the evidence of Mr. Hedley, the Master of Balliol, and Mr. Rawlinson of Exeter, is very satisfactory, and the latter says expressly that the

  119
  change dates from the time when Arnold's pupils began to come up to Oxford. The Commissioners endorse the leading principle of that eminent man's school administration in the following words:—
  "The principle of governing boys mainly through their own sense of what is right and honourable is undoubtedly the only true principle; but it requires much watchfulness, and a firm, temperate, and judicious administration to keep up the tone and standard of opinion, which are very liable to fluctuate, and the decline of which speedily turns a good school into a bad one."
  The thirtieth recommendation runs as follows:—
  "The system of fagging should be likewise watched; fags should be relieved from all services which may be more properly performed by servants, and care should be taken that neither the time which a little boy has for preparing his lessons, nor the time which he has for play, should be encroached upon unduly."
  The buildings again of the great schools naturally come in for their share of attention, and are pronounced to be by no means all that could be desired, even at the wealthier schools. It has frequently been asked by persons who visited the Educational Exhibition, which took place in London some years ago, or the Educational Department of the great Exhibition, why so few of the numerous ingenious inventions which have been adopted in the best schools for the lower classes should not also be applied to the schools in which the highest classes are brought up. Nor has any satisfactory answer ever been given. But the evil to which I am alluding is much more serious, as any one may see who will look at the evidence, and there can be no doubt that, if it were not for the great amount of exercise which is everywhere encouraged, that the effects upon health would be much worse than they appear to be. With regard to games, it is perhaps more than doubtful whether the re-action which set in some time ago in favour of physical training has not gone a little too far, and has not, in some respects, taken a wrong direction. Cricket, for example, as an amusement is one thing, but cricket as a science, which requires to be studied for five hours per day, as we see to be the case from some of the evidence in these volumes, is a very different thing. It may be doubted whether any of the games popular at schools give, if too extensively practised, anything like the best training of which boys are susceptible, and I am sorry that no one appears to have suggested to the Commissioners to take upon this point the evidence
  120
  of Mr. M'Laren, who has established at Oxford a great gymnasium, which is well known, I have no doubt, to most Members of the House who keep up their connection with the University, and who has, I know, made a special study of this subject. Another defect which is brought out by the evidence, is the absence of any system of training for masters who are to teach the boys of the higher classes. All those who have attended to elementary education know that the art of teaching must itself be taught, and I do not think that our Universities can be considered to do their duty until they devise some means of giving instruction in this important art to the many young men who now devote themselves to a profession which is every day becoming more highly paid, and more highly considered. Such are the principal points which are brought out in the Commissioners' general Report; but before I pass to notice some of the more important suggestions which they make with regard to the several schools which have come under their review, I may be allowed to quote the passage in which they sum up their general impressions of the system—
  "It is not easy to estimate the degree in which the English people are indebted to these schools for the qualities on which they pique themselves most—for their capacity to govern others and control themselves, their aptitude for combining freedom with order, their public spirit, their vigour and manliness of character, their strong but not slavish respect for public opinion, their love for healthy sports and exercise. These schools have been the chief nurseries of our statesmen; in them, and in schools modelled after them, men of all the various classes that make up English society, destined for every profession and career, have been brought up on a footing of social equality, and have contracted the most enduring friendships, and some of the ruling habits of their lives; and they have had, perhaps, the largest share in moulding the character of an English gentleman. The system, like other systems, has its blots and imperfections; there have been times when it was at once too lax and too severe—severe in its punishments, but lax in superintendence and prevention; it has permitted, if not encouraged, some roughness, tyranny, and licence, but these defects have not seriously marred its wholesome operation, and it appears to have gradually purged itself from them in a remarkable degree. Its growth, no doubt, is largely due to those very qualities in our national character which it has itself contributed to form; but justice bids us add that it is due likewise to the wise munificence which founded the institutions under whose shelter it has been enabled to take root, and to the good sense, temper, and ability of the men by whom, during successive generations, they have been governed."
  This is true, but there is another and a sadder side to the picture. Go back fifty years, and read Sydney Smith's articles

  121
  in the early numbers of the Edinburgh. What are the most important recommendations of this Report but an echo of his words to which so few listened. But his doctrines were not new doctrines. You will find them in Locke's treatise on Education, You will find them farther back still in Milton's noble paper. Nay, some of them you will find even in the writings of Ascham. If our fathers had only listened to those great men, what a waste of power would have been saved, and how much further advanced in all true civilization this England of ours would have been. Of all the schools which came under their review, Rugby seems best to have pleased the Commissioners. This distinction it owes partly to the wholesome interference of the Legislature, partly to the conscientious manner in which the Trustees discharge their duty, but above all to the great impulse which was given to it by Dr. Arnold. Nor must it be forgotten that since his death two out of its three head masters have been men of superior merit, and that they have been ably seconded by the assistant masters. The following is the language of the Report:—
  "A system of mental training which comprehends almost every subject by which the minds of boys can be enlarged and invigorated a traditional spirit amongst the boys of respect and honour for intellectual work; a system of discipline which, while maintaining the noble and wholesome tradition of public schools, that the able and more industrious should command and govern the rest, still holds in reserve amaturer discretion to moderate excess, quiet uncertainty, and also to support the legitimate exercise of power; a system of physical training which, while it distinguishes the strong, strengthens the studious and spares the weak; a religious cultivation, which, though active, is not overstrained, but leaves something for solemn occasions to bring out. Such are some of the general conditions which have presented themselves to notice during our investigation. They go far also, we think, to explain that public confidence which the school has for many years possessed, and never since the days of Arnold in larger measure than at tin: present moment."
  The most important of the sixty-seven special recommendations of the Commissioners relating to this school appear to be those which suggest that the Local Trustees should be re-inforced by four gentlemen elected on account of generally acknowledged eminence in literature and science; that the number of the school should be limited to 500; that the incomes of the classical assistant masters should vary from £500 to £1,400; that the local privileges of the neighbourhood of Rugby
  122
  with reference to the school should be gradually abolished, in a way so as not by possibility to affect vested interests; that new scholarships and exhibitions should be founded and regulated according to the most approved principles; and that there should not be less than three classical masters to each 100 boys. In strong and melancholy contrast to Rugby, we have the once famous Westminster. It is not only that the state of scholarship there is, as is proved by the evidence of Dr. Scott, the head master, wretchedly, and indeed ludicrously low, but that, at least in college, the worst evils of the worst old times of our schools are in full vigour. Hon. Members will do well to turn to the evidence of Mr. Meyrick and his son, and to compare it with the counter evidence of Dr. Scott and several other witnesses. They will, I am sure, be unable to resist the conclusion that, although there may have been some exaggerations in the statements of the accusers, the evidence for the defence so completely breaks down, that it would be to push courtesy and respect of persons to the extreme if I were to refrain from saying, that the revelations about Westminster School which these volumes contain, reflect the greatest disgrace upon all those who have had any share in its management for some time back. There is one thing which I do not understand, and that is why the late Dean, whose position towards the College is defined, I believe, by the statutes to be that of mens in corpore, had not an opportunity of coming before the Commissioners, and explaining how it was that the condition of things, which we have now disclosed to us, was permitted to go on under his eye, and virtually with his sanction. I am sure the eminent ecclesiastic in question, the present Archbishop of Dublin, will thank me for thus giving him a reason for stepping forward to take his share of the responsibility for the state of Westminster, instead of allowing it to rest entirely upon the shoulders of his subordinates. I am happy, Sir, to think that the present Dean has given hostages to society in the publication of the Life of Arnold. He dared not allow these infamies to go on if he would, and he is the last man in the world to do so; but I must remind the public that cathedral bodies move slowly, and I think no man who has read this evidence will be foolish enough to send his

  123
  son to Westminster, until the Dean and Chapter can point, not only to promises of reform, but to a reform which shall amount to a revolution, already accomplished. So grossly, however, has the place been mismanaged that, I trust, the new governing body, which the Commissioners propose, may be called into existence as soon as possible. Most people who look at the question of the future of Westminster School unbiassed by sentiment, will, I presume, agree with Dr. Scott in thinking that, if it is to continue on its present site, it ought to be a day-school, and not a boarding-school. From Westminster, we pass naturally to the other London schools, which must be dismissed very shortly. The Commissioners are decidedly of opinion that the great and wealthy foundation of the Charter House would thrive much better as a boarding-school if removed into the country. There are not in this case any objections of the kind which have to be combated by those who desire that Westminster should remain a boarding-school, and be removed from its present site. Sutton's Hospital, which is connected with the Charter House school, and is a mere charitable institution, would, of course, remain where it is. The evidence relating to St. Paul's is peculiarly interesting, and fully bears out the Commissioners in their proposal to transfer it from its present most inconvenient position to one more suitable for boys—say, perhaps, the neighbourhood of the Regent's Park. It is now doing very little, whereas it is quite clear that it might be the first day-school not only in London, but in England. Its surplus revenue amounts to a very large sum, its accumulated capital is very great, and in little more than twenty years it will become very much richer. Surely it should be made what Dean Colet evidently intended it to be—an institution yielding to none in giving a really high class of education. There is, or is said to be, a question of law relating to the property of this school, about which a judicial decision should be immediately taken. What that decision will be, one can hardly doubt, as it is scarcely credible that Dean Colet, who was extremely anxious for the promotion of learning, should have wished the Mercers' Company to have been beneficially interested in the surplus revenues of his property, and only obliged to maintain the school as a charge upon them. Merchant Taylors' is in a somewhat
  124
  different position. At St. Paul's School the Mercers' Company do not admit themselves to be trustees in the legal sense of the term of Dean Colet's estates for the benefit of the school, but they do admit that they are bound to maintain the school. The Merchant Taylors' Company, on the other hand, hold themselves free from all legal obligation whatever, and say that they might abolish their school altogether if they pleased. It is more than doubtful whether they could do so, as considerable endowments have been given to them and accepted for the benefit of the school; nay, even the present site of the school was wholly or partially purchased with money given for the purpose of establishing a school by an individual member of the company. The Commissioners do not attempt to decide how far the claims of the Merchant Taylors' Company can be upheld, but they do not in this case suggest any change in the governing body. More than seventy pages of the Report are devoted to Eton, and it would be necessary for me to dwell upon them at much length if I were speaking to almost any other audience. There are, however, so many Etonians in the House of Commons that it would not become me to do more than to indicate a few points, with, regard to which it would be extremely interesting to hear the views of many Gentlemen whom I now address. First, then, it will be desirable to know whether the Commissioners are likely to be supported in the recommendation about the governing body of Eton, or whether it would not be more in accordance with the general opinion that the Provost and Fellows should altogether cease to have any part in the government of the school. The manner in. which the property entrusted to their care has been managed is such that it is evident that, in determining what their future position is to he, the Legislature must be guided simply by the consideration of what is likely to be best for the school. Then, again, I presume that a good deal of difference of opinion is likely to arise with regard to the twenty-first special recommendation about Eton, that, namely, the number of boys should never exceed 800: 650 in the upper, and 150 in the lower school. Further, the scheme suggested for the remuneration of the head master and the other masters, to be found in pages 124 and 125—which excites, I am told, dire indignation at Eton —will probably give rise to discussion;

  125
  and there are many other points which may also be debated. I suppose all will admit, after reading the evidence, that the time table should be revised, the school books improved—scholarships, exhibitions, and so forth, opened to competitive examination; that greater temptations to work should be held out to oppidans; the system upon which the college property is now managed should be revolutionized; and that the position of the mathematical masters should be improved. In the Session of 1861, I had several communications from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University, as well as from the Warden of Winchester. They were both desirous that that great foundation—the oldest of all our public schools, and the model upon which Eton was constructed — should be exempted from the Commission which I proposed. Their reason was, that Win-Chester had been to a certain extent examined into by the Oxford Commissioners in consequence of its connection with New College. This was not eventually done, I do not think that the hon. Baronet has, however, any reason to regret the course which has been taken. This institution, of which he was so distinguished a pupil, and which has contributed to this House not a few of its most distinguished Members, has quite held its own amongst the schools into which the Commission has examined. Here, as elsewhere, they have found a bad system, but that bad system has of late been worked with much ability and devotion. The position of Winchester and of Harrow is totally different, Winchester is very rich, possessing an income from endowments of at least £16,000 a year; while Harrow derives from endowments not much more than £1,000 a year. Nevertheless, Harrow, chiefly perhaps from its nearness to London, has acquired a far more important place than Winchester amongst our educational institutions. There is, however, loss for legislation to do at Harrow than almost anywhere else; on the other hand, the masters there, who are at this moment a very distinguished body of men, are more likely than almost any other person in their position to be speedily influenced by the recommendations of these Commissioners, and by the force of public opinion, to elicit which is one of the main objects of my making this Motion to-night. The last school into which the Commissioners were instructed to examine was the Free Grammar School of King Edward VI. at Shrewsbury, This founda-
  126
  tion lies on the boundary line, I think, we may say, between the public schools usually so called and the other endowed schools of the country, and some controversy has arisen in recent years as to whether its future should be that of a first-rate school, or whether it should be adapted rather to the wants of the middle class, as of course the majority of the endowed schools ought forthwith to be. The Commissioners have decided that it should remain a first-rate school, and I think they have decided wisely. A school which 300 years ago brought together the two most celebrated of English friends, Fulke Greville and Philip Sydney, which in our own day has educated so many distinguished scholars, and contributes, as the Commissioners justly observe, so disproportionately large a share to the teaching power of the two Universities, should on no account be allowed to fall into the second rank. The Commissioners say that the people of Shrewsbury should turn their attention rather to creating a good proprietary school in the town, than to making the present school fulfil the purpose of an institution for giving what is loosely called middle-class education. The demand, however, for that kind of education throughout the country is becoming so loud that I think we must determine ere long to break up and remodel our utterly inefficient network of endowed schools. In the year 1861, when I first proposed a Commission to inquire into the higher school education to the then Home Secretary, I contemplated a Commission which should inquire at once into the public schools and the grammar schools. Sir George Lewis wisely, however, thought that that was too large a scheme. I trust, however, that the Government will not lose sight of the truth that thirty good schools for the middle classes dotted over the face of England would be an enormous boon to them, and would do five times more to advance education than all the second and third rate grammar schools put together. We have not on this side of the Channel committed the folly which Burke so well exposed in the case of our neighbours, when they swept away the splendid foundations of medieval munificence; but we certainly in many cases by gross neglect do our best to make them as useless as possible. And now, Sir, I have but one word more. Throughout I have wished to address myself to those who think that the Commissioners have gone too far, rather than to those who think

  127
  that they have not gone far enough; and yet I know that there will be many who will feel this, and who will say that the Report would be less favourable if it had been drawn up by less friendly hands; for let it not be forgotten, the Lion has been for once painted by himself. To all those, however, I would say, that all times in England belong more or less to the men of half measures, and of compromises; but this time, perhaps, even more than most other times. Perhaps, however, in educational matters, and not in them alone, we are approaching the end of an epoch. A more logical and consequent generation will, I trust, carry reform farther when we have crumbled into dust. Sir, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the state of the higher School Education in England is not satisfactory, and calls for the early attention of Her Majesty's Government,"—(Mr. Grant Duff,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I rise to offer a few remarks upon the Motion made by my hon. Friend, and upon the precise position of the important question relating to public schools, as left by the Commissioners. My hon. Friend has explained his views in a speech of a very comprehensive character and great length. Will be permit me to say that I heard one portion of it with regret? I think the condemnation passed by my hon. Friend upon the School of Westminster might have been spared. I do not mean to say that my hon. Friend is not discharging his duty as a Member of Parliament in pronouncing, at a proper time, any judgment at which he might arrive after adequate examination of public documents; but what I feel is, that, as a very short time has elapsed since the voluminous records of the labours of the Commission have been submitted to the world, it is almost impossible, if hon. Members can be sufficiently prepared, to try the very serious accusations which he has made against all those connected with the management of Westminster School; and I think that accusations of that grave character bad better be reserved until the assembly to which they are addressed is in a condition to deal
  128
  with them. I have no doubt that the evils have been of a serious character, because they are so described in the Report of the Commission; but the Commissioners mention that measures have been taken by persons in authority for applying remedies to those evils at Winchester, and they express a hope that those remedies will be adequate to their purpose. So much I think it right to say, in justice as much to the feelings of those among us who may be interested in Westminster as to those out of doors who will attach great weight to what falls from an hon. Gentleman who has paid so much attention to the subject as has my hon. Friend. Having taken a great liberty in criticizing a portion of the speech of my hon. Friend, let me congratulate him, as the person to whom the appointment of this Commission was, I believe, principally due, upon having devoted his mind, his time, and his attention to a subject of very great interest and importance, and upon having submitted to the Government advice which I think has been highly beneficial both to the country at large and to the institutions which were the subjects of this inquiry. I congratulate him upon the stage at which his labours have arrived, and I trust that he will live to see, and that before long, results much more important than any which have yet been obtained. It may be thought that a discussion of this kind, so soon after the publication of this Report, is in one sense premature. At the same time, I cannot regret that my hon. Friend has called attention to the subject. The prospect offered by blue-books, so formidable in their dimensions, is of a nature rather to repel than to attract those who are not acquainted with the exceedingly interesting, varied, and weighty matter which they contain, and a debate may direct attention to them earlier than they would otherwise obtain it. I will not follow my hon. Friend into what I may call his particular observations, either upon particular schools or upon particular studies or recommendations of the Commissioners. There are only two of his remarks upon which I will say a word. He stated that he felt himself to be a person of nothing less than revolutionary character in recommending the total abolition of the practice of Greek and Latin composition. I think he did submit that recommendation to the House like a man who knew that he was about to expose himself to a storm of reproach; in fact, that he was partly alarmed even at the sound and echo of

  129
  his own voice when such words proceeded from his lips. I do not think that his revolutionary doctrine is likely to have any injurious effect. There is too much conservative feeling in all of us who have been connected with these schools, whatever may be our politics or associations, to permit of our having any reason to apprehend that this House will give a very dangerous impulse to innovation. But I must record my dissent from that revolutionary doctrine of my hon. Friend, I entirely agree with him that the practice has been pushed to great excess, especially in forcing it upon those who are not qualified to profit by it; but for those who are qualified to profit by it I trust that it will always remain in vigour, and will continue to form, as it has hitherto formed, a great ornament, and a very remarkable characteristic of English education. I will also simply record my protest against the recommendation not only of my hon. Friend, but of the Commissioners also, as to modern languages. I entirely dissent from the doctrine of my hon. Friend with regard to the relative places of the Italian and German languages in the education of a gentleman. If you speak to me of an author or a student, the matter is totally different. In many countries there are no educated men but authors and students. But it is the proud distinction of England to have a very large body of highly educated gentlemen deeply imbued with the spirit of ancient and modern literature, although they are neither authors nor students, but value cultivation and literature for their own sakes, and for their humanizing and elevating influences on the mind. For that purpose, which I trust will always be made the first and paramount purpose of education in this country, I venture to think that the place my hon. Friend has given relatively to the two languages ought to be reversed. I apologize to the House for going into the discussion of detail, and shall simply make a few observations on the general position of the system. When Her Majesty's Government determined on the appointment of this Commission, my right hon. Friend the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis applied himself to the subject with all that delicate consideration for the feelings of others, and all that prudence and judgment for which he was distinguished, and ascertained that the mode of conducting the investigation— undoubtedly called for by the public in-
  130
  terest—which would be most agreeable to the authorities of these schools was, by Commission, issued under the authority of the Crown. This would not possess any coercive powers or exercise anything even approaching to a moral force. To the composition of that Commission my right hon. Friend applied himself, and I am sure Gentlemen acquainted with the names which it included will agree with me in thinking that my right hon. Friend exercised a very sound judgment in selecting the individuals whom he was so fortunate as to bring together for that purpose. He did not confine his selections to any class or party, but sought, as my hon. Friend has said, to deal with the question as it ought to be dealt with—out of the mere circle of party politics. He applied to more than one Gentleman politically opposed to himself; and the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), and other Gentlemen sharing his political opinions, accepted the invitation, and devoted themselves in good earnest to the duty. I think it imperative not to allow the very first mention of this question in the House of Commons to pass without calling on this House to recognize what the Government feels to have been the laborious exertions of the Commission, which held between 120 and 130 meetings, most of them being attended by; nearly all the Commissioners. And I must say, although there have been many occasions on which intelligent and enlightened public service has been rendered by Gentlemen appointed Commissioners under the nomination of the Crown, that I do not think any more signal instance could be quoted of the devotion of public men to an inquiry involving innumerable difficulties than that of the Commissioners whose Report now lies on the table. On the part of the Government, we feel ourselves deeply indebted for the invaluable assistance which they have given to the investigation of this question. It may not rank very high in the scale of mere political interest, but it does rank high in the opinion of many Members of both Houses of Parliament, who class our public schools among the great institutions of the country. The man, therefore, who endeavours here or elsewhere to destroy the essential character of those great public schools will find that he has undertaken a task scarcely less dangerous than that of their total subversion. It is a very remarkable fact, and one full of

  131
  significance, that hardly less than a third of the whole available time of Parliament in the year 1854 was given to the consideration of the details of the Bill for the reform of the University of Oxford. I do not believe that to any other measure which passed this House since the Reform Bill and the Poor Law, Parliament has been willing to devote so much of its attention. The circumstance, therefore, is full of meaning, affording, as it does, a true measure of the importance attached by us all to the consideration of whatever is connected with the welfare of our great seats of education. My hon. Friend has made a Motion following upon his speech which was founded on the Report of the Commission, but I think my hon. Friend will see that the Motion and the Report are not in entire correspondence. The Motion, no doubt, expresses the view of my hon. Friend himself, but I think it would be altogether premature to ask the assent of this House to any Resolution involving a condemnation of the public schools. I do not understand such to be the sense of the Report of the Commissioners. They knew perfectly well that, in one sense, it was their duty to find fault, to examine patiently and with almost infinite detail whatever they thought might be susceptible of amendment, and to recommend improvements. Measuring praise or blame by the mere number of words or pages in their Report, it may therefore be construed into a condemnation. But that would be a very great mistake. In the main, the Commissioners have affirmed the principle on which the system of our great public schools is founded, and have also borne testimony to the fact that these schools have discharged the functions for which they were established. They have also, in the main, awarded due praise to those at the head of our public schools for the devotion and ability with which they have applied themselves to the discharge of their duty. I fully admit, and I confidently join my hon. Friend in the assertion, that the Commissioners have pointed out very serious existing evils and defects, and they have also, I hope, furnished us with the means of arriving, after due time and on full consideration, at sound and safe conclusions as to the mode of applying a remedy. My hon. Friend seems to be of opinion—an opinion which, perhaps, is shared by the public—that the principal source of existing mischiefs or defects is to be found in the misconduct, or, at all
  132
  events, in the failure to perform their duty, on the part of teachers in our public schools. I do not believe anything could be more unjust than such a conclusion. With the exception, perhaps, of the tutors of the University—and I do not know whether they ought to he excepted—I do not know any class of men who perform their duties with greater zeal, assiduity, devotion, and laborious self-sacrifice than the teachers in our public schools. But the complaint is made, and with great truth, that the boys do not learn enough at our public schools. To parody what was written by Goldsmith—
  "Boys learn but little here below,
  And learn that little ill."
  With the immense foundations which we possess, five times the amount of learning ought to be diffused in every branch. My hon. Friend left the matter as if nobody were to blame but the teachers and managers of the schools. He said, "the Universities find fault with the public schools because the young men come ill-prepared to the Universities." And that is quite true; but the public schools, in turn, have their complaints, and the whole affair revolves in a vicious circle. The parents complain that their children leave the Universities with their education incomplete; the Universities complain of inadequate preparation by the public schools; the public schools say the boys come ill-prepared from the private schools, and the private schools lay all the blame on the parents. And so it goes round and round. The point to be considered, however, is not how to shift the responsibility from one shoulder to the other, but how existing evils can be remedied. The Commissioners, it is fair to say, have not shrunk from this or any portion of the case; they have not hesitated to drive the matter home— to speak of the responsibilities of parents, and to lay blame where they think it necessary upon the inadequate manner in which parental authority is exercised among the wealthiest classes, both for the inculcation of knowledge and the maintenance of discipline. At page 40 of the Report, the Commissioners say—
  "We hare spoken plainly of the responsibilities of schools; we think it right to speak not less plainly of those of parents. Several of the masters whom we have examined have dwelt in strong terms on the ill-prepared and ignorant state in which boys are very frequently sent to school; we are assured that there is no improvement perceptible in this respect, but the reverse, and the Returns which have been furnished to us regarding

  133
  the books read, and work done in the lower forms, and the ages of the boys in them, prove that these complaints are by no means without foundation. It is clear that there are many boys whose education can hardly be said to have begun till they enter, at the age of twelve or thirteen, or even later, a school containing several hundreds, where there can be comparatively little of that individual teaching which a very backward boy requires. In some degree this must, we fear, be ascribed to the deficiencies of preparatory schools, which too often fail to impart that thorough and accurate grounding which it should be their aim to bestow; but we do not hesitate to say that the fault rests chiefly with the parents."
  There is the verdict and sentence of the Commissioners. And, therefore, if we criticize these public schools, let it not be supposed that we are aiming at imposing upon the eminent, able, and excellent men — for such they are — by whom these schools are managed, an undue portion of blame or responsibility. When we say that the fault lies with the parents, what does this mean? It means that we are living in an age in a great degree pampered in luxury, in which self-indulgence pervades more and more largely the habits of an ever-increasing class of society, the rapid extension of which we may see indicated by the continual addition, not only of large streets, but of whole quarters, in themselves great towns, to this metropolis; and a necessary consequence of that self-indulgence is a growing indisposition to the severe discipline which study and education invariably require. Now, there is the secret, it lies in that laxity, which is essentially connected with the signal prosperity and wealth of the country. And in one sense, in our attempts to improve the public schools, we are fighting against the age. The wealthier we become, the more difficult does it grow to apply to our children, or to realize to ourselves, the necessity of a severe self-discipline. I say this not to extenuate the mischief, but to show that the mischief is profound. The most remarkable example of this fact will be found in the relative condition of England and Scotland. In Scotland, almost the whole of the wealthiest class of young men and boys are sent to England to be educated, and, consequently, the Universities and schools have to deal with classes which are hardly represented in our Universities. The consequence is that the Universities of Scotland are conducted upon principles which would be absolutely powerless if applied to England. The students in our Universities are encouraged in their studies by a spirit of incessant
  134
  competition and the hope of splendid rewards. In Scotland, however, there is no such encouragement. Go into St. Andrew's and Aberdeen where lads are working to a degree far exceeding that among ourselves. There is activity without competition, and one may almost say without reward. They carry on their work with a great degree of efficiency upon principles which in England would be found to be totally unequal to cope with the difficulties arising from greater wealth and increased luxury. That, Sir, I believe to be the great evil with which we have to contend; but do not let us suppose that the measure of the deficiencies of our schools or of our Universities is altogether to be found in the measure of their scholastic defects. I grant that attainments are most unsatisfactory in England; but we should, however, remember that there is no period attached to the history of the Universities or the public schools of England — I am speaking now with reference to the last four or five generations—when their instruction, in the opinion of the time, has answered so well, or when they have so effectually performed the work for which they were ordained, namely, the work of rearing the English gentleman, and the fitting him for the discharge of those varied duties which in this country have always been inseparable from his position in life. In deciding, therefore, upon the results which have been obtained from our Universities and public schools, do not let us forget, what is more important than their teaching power, their training power, a power which has been addressed to the end which the nation has recognized as desirable, and that end has been attained in a measure which the nation recognizes as sufficient. Whatever faults, therefore, we may be disposed to find with these institutions, and with whatever warmth we may be inclined to urge those objections, let us remember that the country owes to them a debt of gratitude for the work which they have performed. The mode only in which this work is to be done, requires much consideration. I feel confident, however, for my own part, that there will be no violent or precipitate legislation upon the subject, I think rather that Parliament will approach it in a spirit of mistrust. As regards the question of education, however, we cannot devote any consideration to the question without per-

  135
  ceiving that a very great deal has yet to be done. There are now not less than eight or nine branches which ought to be included in the course of training at a public school, and of these very few can be dispensed with. First of all there is religious instruction, then comes classical study, a vindication of which the Commissioners have embodied in their Report —an argument drawn up in so philosophical and historical a spirit that it will confirm the country in the opinion with which they regard the classics as being the best foundation for subsequent study. Then come mathematics, natural science, English composition, history, geography, and the alternative of drawing or music, which the Commissioners have proposed. It is no easy matter to combine all these subjects in a country where it is necessary to add a corporal or physical education through the medium of national games and exercises. In days like these when the boat race between the Universities excites greater public interest than many more important events, those who endeavour unduly to restrict this branch of education will find that they have attempted a task which is perfectly hopeless. There is only one consideration which ought not to be forgotten, because it is of the greatest importance. It will be a fearful mistake if, in our desire to enlarge the career of education, we should for one moment forget that the main end of that education is the development of mind and matter, and if we should fall into the error of overloading the mind, rendering further growth and improvement absolutely impossible under the weight imposed upon it. I will not now trouble the House any further with the general subject; but state simply what I understand to be its practical bearing. When the House had to deal with the Universities there were four departments of inquiry, and I think they were all embraced in the Report of the original Commission. One was the Government, the constitution, and management of the governing bodies, and the remainder were the property, the discipline, and the studies. The two first were felt by Parliament to come within their province, but the two last they believed would be dealt with better if left to the management of those who were more qualified to regulate them. When Parliament does proceed to legislate upon this Report—because I will not conceive it possible that Parliament should defer the consideration of so valuable an
  136
  inquiry longer than is absolutely necessary —it will, no doubt, again turn its attention to the constitution of the governing bodies and the management of their property. I need not, however, say that it has been impossible for Her Majesty's Government at this period of the year, and with the business now before them, to give the necessary time and consideration to these important volumes. Upon one point the Commissioners have not been able to give us any distinct authority or guidance, and that is with reference to the expediency of appointing a Parliamentary Commission in the case of public schools, as was done in the case of the Universities, for the purpose of superintending, guiding, and promoting those regulations, the adoption of which Parliament may deem to be advisable. That is a point upon which I do not presume to give an opinion, but it will necessarily have to be determined by Parliament. It will be impossible, however, to legislate upon the points I have adverted to during this Session. The experience we have had on former occasions I think makes that perfectly clear. We must, therefore, consider that, as far as any practical discussion is concerned, this question is postponed until another year. There is one minor point which the Government have under consideration, whether they should submit to Parliament a measure of the same character as has been, I think, introduced upon other occasions where similar considerations have been involved. The reform of the governing body is, perhaps, the most important subject that will come under the review of Parliament in connection with this inquiry of the Commissioners. These governing bodies are in some cases constituted in such a manner that their constitution is inextricably bound up with the life interest of their members. It has always been a sacred principle in our legislation upon this subject to pay the highest degree of respect to these life interests, and Parliament will probably not deviate from its usual practice in this case. It may, however, be right to go so far as to bring in a Bill by which all persons taking office in those governing bodies for the future shall be subject to the legislation of Parliament. That would prevent us from being tied up by absolute rights of a nature such as this House always recognizes in the holders of offices for life. With respect to all else, it will stand over, subject, however, to the duty of the Go-

  137
  vernment, in concurrence, I hope, with all the Members of this House, to give their very careful consideration to this roost important and profoundly interesting question. With regard to the discussion of tonight, although it may have no positive results, yet I think it will have the effect of enhancing the degree of interest which may be felt by the House and the country on a matter of so much importance.
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, there is one observation which I wish to add to what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, first, I suppose that the hon. Gentleman who makes this Motion sees the propriety of not carrying it any further at present, inasmuch as this matter must be taken in hand, and properly so, by the Government, and also because the voluminous nature of the Report has precluded us from yet forming a judgment upon it. I have myself read the Report with great interest, but I own that I have not gone through all the evidence appended to it, and I should desire to refrain from expressing a premature opinion on this subject. The course, however, which the Government propose to adopt is, I think, the one most in harmony with the feeling of those who take a deep interest in this question—namely, that the matter should be left in the hands of the Government, in order that they may originate, say next Session, a proposition founded on this Report, when it is to be hoped that alike those concerned in these schools and Parliament itself, will be prepared to deal with the subject in the temper and spirit which befit it. The observation I wish to add to those addressed to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. I, like my right hon. Friend, am connected with one of those great public schools. I mean Eton. I happen to know from the highest authorities there—indeed, I have their permission to say so—that since this Report has been in their hands they have taken all the recommendations of the Commissioners seriatim into their consideration, with the view of introducing as many of the improvements therein suggested as they believe will be advantageous to the institution. If, therefore, the Government are to take this matter in hand during the recess, they would do well, as I have no doubt they will do, to put themselves in communication with the authorities of these schools as to the course they are inclined to pursue; and then we can have the matter placed before us in the fullest
  138
  manner next Session, so as to enable Parliament to treat it satisfactorily. This is a most interesting question, and one of the most important that can be brought before the House; and for that, as well as for other reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division, but will let the subject stand over until we are better prepared to give an opinion upon it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he felt, although that debate was probably drawing to its conclusion, that he should be wanting in his duty if he did not say a few words on the part of the Commissioners, especially after the very handsome acknowledgment which their services had received from his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others. It was a very great gratification to his Colleagues and himself to find their labours treated with such kindness. When they undertook their task, they knew it was one of considerable labour and difficulty, and also one that would necessarily be somewhat of an invidious character. The Commissioners felt that many of them being connected with the schools which were to be the subject of their inquiry, and being bound up by personal ties of friendship with many of those who were charged with the conduct of those schools, it was a painful and invidious task to put those persons through the sort of ordeal and examination which had to be undergone. But they had endeavoured, he might safely say, to conduct their investigations throughout in a fair, a candid, and at the same time a friendly spirit. The Commissioners had thought that, on the whole, the interests of the schools with which they were themselves connected demanded that they should not attempt to hush up any matter, but that they should probe it to the bottom; that they should not out of a mistaken friendliness pass over things that called for inquiry; and although they had not evinced anything like a hostile spirit in the prosecution of their labours, yet a perusal of the evidence they had taken would, he thought, show that the investigation had been a searching one. He was bound to say, on behalf of those persons from whom they had obtained evidence, that the thanks of the Commissioners were due to them for the fair, candid, and noble spirit in which they had responded to their inquiries. The Commissioners had no power of compelling them to give evidence; yet everywhere

  139
  the greatest readiness was shown to afford them information; every question was discussed with them in the most open, frank, and friendly manner; and this although many of the gentlemen thus appealed to were placed in a position of considerable embarrassment by the inquiry. He must also say, on their behalf, that the Commissioners did not find among the masters and managers of the schools any obstinate spirit of resistance to improvement. On the contrary, in every school there was an admission—and more than an admission— of the importance of progress, and of attempts to meet the demands of the day. He said more than an admission, because in most of the schools a great deal had been done of late years. He could quote numerous instances in proof of that assertion, but, as he could not mention all those schools in that discussion, he did not like to single out any one and give it a preference over the rest. He believed, however, that in every school to which the inquiry extended much had been done to introduce new subjects of study, to improve the methods of teaching, and generally to promote the welfare of the boys there. But the schools found themselves in a position in which they needed help and encouragement in order to do what they were capable of doing. The fact was, they had been attempting, under the restrictions imposed upon them by their founders in years gone by, to accommodate a new system to a machinery originally designed for the working of an old one; and they, therefore, wanted the assistance of the Legislature to enable them to get free from those restrictions and to adopt the improvements which they were anxious to carry out. He earnestly hoped that in any legislation which the House might see fit to pass, care would be taken to observe the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer— namely, that that legislation should be confined to the removal of the restrictions under which the schools laboured, the improvement of the constitution of the governing bodies, and the dealing with endowments; and that Parliament should not attempt to deal directly with the subjects of study or the management of the schools. If Parliament attempted to do that, he felt certain that it would do immense mischief, and utterly fail in its object. These public schools were national institutions, and had an important bearing on the formation of the national character; and not only so, but they were
  140
  themselves the product of the national mind of Englishmen. They had grown up by degrees, and were not originally in their present form. The English mind did not want the lycées and gymnasia which existed in other countries, but schools for the moral, physical, and intellectual training of boys between the important years of twelve and eighteen, and which should make of those boys young men—men in every sense of the word. And if institutions of that kind had sprung up from the nucleus of the old grammar schools, it was not to be wondered at that they should now find themselves subject to restrictions which impeded their action. Let them then be set free, and enabled to accommodate the new studies lately forced upon them to the old learning for the promotion of which they were founded. Let them be placed in the hands of men with the requisite knowledge and fitness for the task, but let Parliament forbear from attempting to do that for which it was incompetent. That was his view of this question; and the course which the Government proposed to take was exactly in conformity with that which he individually, and, he believed, the Commissioners generally, thought to be best. He should not be behaving fairly towards a particular school which had been mentioned in that debate if he did not make another remark. It was much to be regretted that the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) should have used the language he did with respect to Westminster School, because hon. Members had not had time to read all the evidence, and did not know what the point was to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. His observations would only create an unfair prejudice against the institution in the House and with the public out of doors. It was a matter of great difficulty to determine the relations of boys in a school, to decide what was really fair and legitimate discipline among them, where fagging became tyranny, and discipline was turned into bullying; for much depended upon the individual characters of different boys, and the different turn which might be given to representations of the same matter. The way in which that question had arisen at Westminster was as follows;— The Commission inquired into the system of fagging there, as at other schools, taking the evidence of young men who had recently left school, and upon the whole they heard nearly the same report as to fagging and discipline which was given at many

  141
  of the other public schools. Later on a gentleman came to the Commission, and asked to he allowed to lay before them some statements of undue hardship and cruel treatment suffered by the younger boys under the fagging system at Westminster, That gentleman and his son I were examined; the masters and some of the other boys were also examined; and the Commissioners came to the conclusion that although, to a certain extent, the charges made were modified and disproved by some of the subsequent evidence, yet there remained sufficient grounds for concluding that the system of discipline and fagging among the boys was in an unsatisfactory state, and that the junior boys had to undergo undue hardships. With regard to the gentleman and his son by whom those facts were elicited, it was an act of great moral courage on their part to make a statement which would render them unpopular and would be sure to subject them to sifting criticism. That statement opened the eyes of the Commission to much that they would not otherwise have noticed; and the result was that at other schools they examined the junior boys and asked searching questions on the subject of fagging. The boys answered those questions very nicely, and not at all in the same spirit of complaint in which the charges were brought forward at Westminster. But, at some other schools, facts came to light which, if they had been represented in that spirit, might have grown into formidable charges of bullying. The Commission found that to a great extent the evil admitted of a cure; but to apply that cure in the case of Westminster really required the help of that House. Its source and root was to be found in the insufficient accommodation provided for the boys and the insufficient provision of servants, the consequence of which was that the boys were not so much under the eyes of the masters as they should be, and the younger boys were required to do many things which elsewhere were performed, and which ought to be performed, by hired service. The difficulty in employing a sufficient number of servants and in providing suitable buildings arose from the want of funds, for the revenues of the school were not, like those of Eton or of Winchester, independent revenues, with which the governing body could deal as they pleased; they were capitular revenues in the hands of the Dean and Chapter, and it was a question how far those revenues were applicable to the support of
  142
  the school. They had, indeed, been virtually taken out of the hands of the Dean and Chapter, or were about to be so taken, by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and it then became a question for Parliament how far those revenues could be devoted for improvements which were absolutely necessary at Westminster, if the school was to remain where it stood. The Commissioners could not abstain from pursuing the inquiry which he had mentioned, but he felt much pain in pursuing it, because what had been said was likely to be taken up and made a great deal of by persons who did not look carefully and thoroughly into the matter, and who would suppose that a case had been made out against the school, which might thus suffer injury. Now, he was convinced that the present Head Master at Westminster and his assistants were working hard to improve the school; and if the measures pointed out by the Commissioners for the improvement of study and of discipline were adopted, and the necessary funds were supplied, he believed that a great start would be made at Westminster, which would then resume the place formerly held by it among the public schools of this kingdom. Westminster had its disadvantages in being a London school, and in its connection with the capitular property. It deserved, therefore, to be dealt with tenderly, and he regretted that the hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Grant Duff) should have used such strong language in its condemnation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government intended to introduce a Bill having reference to the constitution of the governing bodies and the question of endowments, and he asked whether the members of the late Commission were of opinion that another Commission should be appointed. Speaking for himself alone, he thought it would be utterly impossible to deal with this question satisfactorily unless a Commission were appointed to consult with the governing bodies, revise the statutes, and do away with unnecessary restrictions. Thus at Eton, among the old statutes was a provision that the Head Master should not ask any fee for the instruction of the 700 or 800 oppidans. For many years, however, it had been the practice of the Head Master to take fees, the old excuse being that he never demanded them, but took them when they were offered. More recently the last two Head Masters felt that it was absurd and improper to take any oath of this kind, and they had, therefore, been admitted to

  143
  the Head Mastership without taking it. That, however, was a violation of the statutes. It was clear that the oppidans ought to pay fees like the rest; and that the statute ought to be repealed. Many such cases would be found in the statutes of different schools, and with those it would be necessary to deal. Having done this, and having effected by legislation some other improvements, which could not otherwise be carried out, he hoped Parliament would leave the management of the schools and the direction of the course of instruction to be dealt with by the governing bodies. He believed that the Commissioners had been the means of suggesting points to the masters of those schools and to the public which would prove very useful. They had recommended that each year there should be a publication of what was done in each school, and he believed that publication would lead to a general advance in the schools, at the same time that their independent character would not be destroyed. In conclusion, he had again to express his hope that the legislation which that House might adopt would effect the necessary improvements without destroying the great principle upon which our public schools had been conducted.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POOR RATES (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he rose to move—
"That it was not just to charge on the poor rate in Ireland the expenses connected with the registry of voters and of births and deaths; and that it be an instruction to the Committee appointed on the subject of taxation in Ireland to consider how such expenses may be more equiatbly charged."
He did not intend to give any opinion as to the quarter from which the money to pay those expenses ought to be procured. He would leave that to the Committee; bat he might observe that in Ireland the poor rate was unequally assessed, and that he could not understand upon that principle, land, and land alone, should in Ireland be assessed for poor rates. Land ought to pay its share, but the entire burden ought not to be cast upon it. When he saw the many large manufacturing establishments in the country which, to a certain extent, might be said to create pauperism, and which owed their prosperity to the labour and intelligence of the working classes, he thought it hard that when they could no longer get
144
anything out of their workpeople they should be allowed to throw the burden of maintaining them upon the land. He had no wish to relieve landowners from their share of the expense of maintaining the poor, but, under the present system, many persons had to pay poor rates for property of which they were only the nominal owners. It was impossible not to consider, in connection with that question, the emigration that had been going on in Ireland. He could not agree that that emigration had been caused by the peculiar nature of the tenure of land in Ireland. There were several causes at the root of it, but the most important of them was, perhaps, the liberal wages which the emigrants expected to receive in another country. Bad advisers led the ignorant peasantry to believe that if they went to America they would find that wealth, and honour, and luxury they could not procure at home. They had been induced by those advisers to go to America, and when they got there they were placed in the front ranks of the army, only to perish on the field of battle. He believed that England in her harvest times would feel the want of Irish labourers, but he denied that population was a necessary element of wealth to a country. In 1846 the population of Ireland was eight and a half millions. Even then Ireland could not be considered as nearly in so prosperous a state as either Scotland or England. In England there were two and a quarter acres for each person, in Ireland two and a half, and in Scotland seven and a quarter; and the valuation per head, according to the last census, was £5 10 s. in England, £2 10 s. in Ireland, and £4 10 s. in Scotland. The Returns from the registries were valuable as matters of scientific research and as statistics, but as such they were of imperial rather than of local benefit, and the expense of obtaining them should form an item in the annual Estimates. He regretted to see the bone and sinew of a country leaving it. England would suffer more from the emigration from Ireland, than Ireland would. In former times England had done everything to discourage the trade of Ireland, and it was not unlikely that the day was approaching when that policy would re-act against herself. It might be said that he was seeking to disturb a new Act. His reply was, that the Act was passed under a misapprehension. When the House passed the Act, it was told by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland

145
(Sir Robert Peel), that while the poor rate in England was 4s. in the pound, in Ireland it was only 2s., and that consequently there would be no hardship in adding five-sixteenths of a penny to the Irish rate. The fact was, however, that the poundage upon land in England was 1s. 0¼ d; in Scotland, 1s. 1¼ d; and in Ireland, 1s. 0½ d. If capital were assessed to its full value, the poundage in England would be 5½ d.; in Scotland, 6¾ d.; and in Ireland, 7½d Moreover, the right hon. Baronet omitted to inform the House what a heavy expenditure — amounting in the aggregate to £20,000—would be thrown upon the Irish Boards of Guardians for providing the machinery of registration. It might also be said that the law was the same in all the three kingdoms; but the fact was not so, for in England and Scotland, where the poor rate was or might be levied on means and substance, the assessment rested upon a broader basis than in Ireland. He hoped that if the right hon. Baronet could not accede on the part of the Government to that part of the Motion which asserted that it was not just to place those charges upon the poor rate, he would at all events agree that it should be an instruction to the Committee on Irish taxation to inquire into the matter involved in the second part. Small as the sum annually asked for to pay for the registration of voters was, it gave rise on each occasion that it was brought forward to more ill-feeling than any other money question which came before Boards of Guardians.
MR. HENNESSYbegged to second the Motion.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not just to charge the Poor Rate in Ireland with the expenses connected with the Registry of Voters and Births and Deaths; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee appointed on the subject of Taxation in Ireland, to consider how said expenses may be more equitably charged." —(Sir Hervey Bruce,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR ROBERT PEELremarked, that the hon. Baronet, in referring to emigration and other kindred subjects, had travelled beyond the limits of his notice. There was nothing exceptional, as regarded Ireland, in charging the poor rate with
146
the expenses connected with the registration of voters. In England the expense was borne by the local taxation; in counties by what was called the public stock of the county; and in boroughs by the poor rate. Neither was there anything exceptional in the manner in which the registration of births and deaths was charged on the poor rate in Ireland. A feeling seemed to have grown up of late that there was something unfair in putting this expense on the poor rate. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast, however, appeared to have informed the Belfast Board of Guardians that there was something exceptional in these expenses being placed on the poor rate, and they had sent circulars to the greater number of Unions throughout Ireland, calling attention to the subject. He had received a letter on the subject from the Kilkenny Board of Guardians, and it was evident that they derived the information which induced them to make representations to the Government, from Belfast. They took an entirely wrong view of the matter. In concert with him, the Poor Law Commissioners in Dublin had written a letter pointing out that these expenses were paid in Ireland as in England, partly by local and partly by general taxation, and the hon. Baronet, therefore, was under an erroneous impression in supposing that there was anything exceptional in the manner in which those expenses were charged in Ireland. As to the rate for the relief of the poor, it was heavier in England than in Scotland, and heavier in Scotland than in Ireland. As to referring the subject to the Committee—they had already before them the prospect of a long and arduous inquiry, and it would be hardly fair, without their consent, to extend the range of their duties. He would consult with the Chairman, and if the Committee were willing to undertake that new duty, the Government would have no objection.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that subject was regarded with great interest in Ireland. A strong impression was growing up there among the people that they were grievously overtaxed, and that the Government was perpetually bringing in new Bills which in some way or other increased their taxation. At the same time, when any proposition was made to treat the poor more liberally in Ireland, the Government pointed at once to the present amount of the poor rates as an argument against any such reform. He was by no means satisfied with the arguments of the right hon.

147
Baronet. The truth was, that those various extraneous charges on the poor rate in Ireland constituted a fraud on the poor. He believed it was perfectly competent for the Committee upstairs to inquire into that question without any instructions, and, under the circumstances, he would advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

RETIREMENT IN THE ROYAL MARINES.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that at a moment when it was understood that a large increase of pay was about to be granted to some officers in the Royal Navy, the House would probably not be indisposed to do an act of justice to the officers of the Royal Marines. He would not suggest the vote of a large sum of money to that distinguished corps, but would only ask the payment of a sum of money to which he considered the officers of that corps to be entitled. In 1854 a Royal Commission recommended that £60,000 a year should be applied to encourage retirement in the Line, and £48,000 in the Engineers and Artillery. In the same year the Admiralty obtained an Order in Council for the application of £35,000 to a similar purpose in connection with the Royal Marines, who were not included in that arrangement, they being not under the War Office, but under the Admiralty. That force then consisted of 12,000 men, but was subsequently raised to 15,000 and 18,000—the latter being its present strength. A corresponding increase had, of course, taken place in the number of officers. A difficulty had arisen as to the means of apportioning the £35,000, and to the present day the full amount had never been expended in any year. In fact, the £29,000 previously applied to the same object had not been exceeded. Thus there had been a saving of £5,000 or £6,000 each year, which should have been devoted to promoting retirement in the Marines. The Marine officers thought that, as their corps had been increased, the amount of money devoted to the encouragement of promotion should be increased in a like proportion. The number of retired general officers was only ten, and that bore no proportion to the number of retired officers of the same grade in other regiments. It had been suggested that the Admiralty should slightly increase
  148
  the number of retired general officers in that corps. That course of action would help to restore the even flow of promotion, which was now wanting. It had been said that the senior officers of the Marine corps were exceedingly efficient, and that to promote them to be generals would be to dispense with the services of four officers of distinguished merit. Distinguished though those officers might be, however, he had no doubt that others of equal merit would be found in the lower grades of the corps. But, whatever course the Government might deem it desirable to adopt in the matter, it would, he thought, be unwise to give the Marines reason to think that they were ill-treated while the Engineers and the Artillery enjoyed the full benefit of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and that the country was, as it were, withholding from them a sum of only about £5,000 a year, which would encourage that flow of promotion which was so beneficial to the service. His noble Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty might possibly say that he could find no officers who would retire; but, with a little of that dexterous management which he possessed in so remarkable a degree, he might discover some persons in the Marines who would avail themselves of the advantages of £4,000 a year surplus. At all events, instead of making such an excuse to the House of Commons, he had better tell it to the very distinguished corps of which he was speaking. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House would view with satisfaction the distribution of the full sum awarded by the Order in Council of 1854 for the retired Officers in the Royal Marines, as it would tend to expedite the necessary promotion in that valuable Corps,"— (Sir John Hay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the number of retired general officers in the Marines was only ten. The number was actually thirty-nine. He trusted the House would not accede to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could not admit that there had been any

  149
  misapprehension as to the terms of the Order of Council of 1854. That Order had been issued because at that time promotion in the Marines was excessively stagnant, and it became necessary that facilities should be given for the purpose of procuring a proper flow of promotion. The Government were authorised by the Order, to allow a certain number of officers to retire on certain conditions, and they had carried out the order; but his lion, and gallant Friend contended that a sum of £35,000 having been granted, it ought to have been expended irrespective of the conditions. Now, he could quite understand that it might be expedient, in the event of promotion in the corps of Marines becoming stagnant, that the Government should come forward and propose some plan by which a proper flow of promotion should be established; but it was not true that any such stagnation at present existed Last year no doubt there was stagnation; and in all seniority corps, when promotion went by seniority, they might rely upon it periods of stagnation must necessarily take place, But was that the case with the Marines? In the year 1862 no less than thirteen captains were promoted. His hon. and gallant Friend, moreover, seemed to suppose that the Government could force the officers of Marines to retire, and it was perfectly true that, under the Order in Council, officers commanding divisions of the Royal Marines were entitled and could be compelled to retire on attaining the age of sixty, unless the Admiralty were satisfied that the discipline of the division was such that they might with advantage continue in command. As things stood, however, the colonels-commandant were active men, and the Admiralty could not compel them to retire. Of the £35,000, the sum allowed per annum for retirements, £30,400 was the sum expended; but it was quite possible that another year the full sum of £35,000 might be laid out. What his hon. and gallant Friend wanted, as far as he could understand, was, that an additional number of Generals should be created in the Marines; and he, for one, should be glad, having the greatest regard for the corps, as one of the important branches of the navy, to do anything which could advance its interests. He was not, at the same time, prepared to say that the Government could recommend any new Order in Council, and he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion. The colonels-commandant, he might add, were in the
  150
  position that, when they came to hold their high rank, they were not liable to be called upon to serve abroad, whereas officers holding high rank in the army did not enjoy a similar privilege, but were often obliged to go on foreign service and to unhealthy stations.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the practice still prevails of transporting Convicts and Vagrants from the Channel Islands to Southampton and other southern seaports. For a long series of years a custom had prevailed of deporting the criminal population of the Channel Islands to the southern ports of England, the peace and security of the inhabitants of which were thereby endangered. A memorial forwarded to the Government from the Mayor and corporation of Southampton stated that, within the last ten years, upwards of 1,000 persons convicted of housebreaking, robbery, and other felonies had been banished from Jersey and Guernsey and landed on the shore of Southampton and permitted to go at large, and that vagrants had also been landed there in like manner, by which proceeding the amount for the casual poor was increased. In a book written by one of the witnesses examined before the Royal Commission of 1847 on the criminal law of Jersey and Guernsey, it was stated that burglary was punished by deportation to England for a term of years, and the offenders were shipped off one or two at a time, lest the landing of many convicts at once among the peaceable inhabitants of the neighbouring ports should give rise to complaint. Convicts, who had been sentenced to three, five, and seven years' imprisonment, were sent to any part of England which they might choose, while persons charged with minor offences were often induced to quit the Islands before trial, their travelling expenses being paid, and they ordinarily went to Southampton, Practically, that brought the evil of transportation home to our very doors, Within the last two or three years there had been more than thirty cases of persons who had left the Channel Islands either in conse-

  151
  quence of their poverty, or from being suspected of crimes, and become chargeable on the poor rates of Southampton. He trusted the Government would take some step to put down such a monstrous state of things?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that not long ago he received a memorial, which had been addressed by the corporation of Southampton to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, in reference to the practice which they said extensively existed of sending persons convicted of crime from Jersey and Guernsey to this country. There was, however, only one case mentioned in the memorial—namely, that of David Brooke, who was said to have been banished from Guernsey ten years ago for threatening violence to those who had refused to relieve him, and for assaulting the officer who took him into custody. He transmitted the memorial to Guernsey and Jersey, with a request for information as to the practice which prevailed. He had not yet received an answer from Jersey, but he had from Guernsey, and so far as that island was concerned, it afforded a most complete answer. The Governor referred the matter to the bailiff, and he found that the register of criminal proceedings in the island did not contain the name of David Brooke, except as far back as the 26th of December, 1839, when a person of that name, who no doubt was the same individual, was brought before the court. It also appeared that in 1840 the corporation of Southampton sent a memorial nearly similar to the present one to Lord Normanby, the then Secretary of State, and that the ten years spoken of in the last memorial preceded 1840, and went back to the reign of William IV. He was also informed that no native of Guernsey had been transported from the island since 1840. He, therefore, thought that the hon. and learned Member had been wholly misinformed. If, however, he desired further information on the subject, the most satisfactory way of obtaining it would be to move for the production of the memorial and the correspondence which had taken place.

MEDICAL OFFICERS IN UNIONS (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
MR. MACEVOYsaid, he rose to move the following Resolution:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should now adopt the recom-
152
mendation of the Select Committee of 1858, which recommended Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration the claims of Ireland to a grant of the half-cost of Medical Officers in Unions, with the view of providing for the same in future, as is now the practice in England and Scotland."
The hon. Gentleman proceeded to detail the various ways in which the burden on the land had been relieved in England, and the poor rate made lighter, as recommended by the late Sir Robert Peel in 1846, and contended that it might be inferred from the speech of the right hon. Baronet on that occasion, that the same measure of relief as regarded the cost of the Union medical officers which had been extended to England and Scotland, would have been extended to Ireland also had the state of the law in Ireland admitted of it at the time. The abolition of the Corn Laws, which had been a great boon to England and Scotland, had proved injurious to Ireland, and as the interests of the latter had been sacrificed to the good of the rest of the United Kingdom, that gave additional weight to the claim for that modicum of relief which he now asked for the Irish ratepayers. The payment of the Irish constabulary out of the Consolidated Fund ought not to be thought sufficient reason for refusing to accede to this request. Another argument was, that Ireland did not contribute towards the expense of the county and borough police of England. The fact was, however, that one-fourth of the whole pay and clothing of the police force of England was now paid out of the Consolidated Fund. It should also be remembered that, although the cost of the Irish constabulary was paid out of the Consolidated Fund, yet that the constabulary now discharged the duties of revenue police, whereby a saving of £15,000 a year occurred. It was evidently the intention of the late Sir Robert Peel to place Ireland in an equally good position as England and Scotland, and he trusted that the Government would consent to carry out the recommendation of the Committee of 1858.
MR. HENNESSYbegged to second the Motion.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "In the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should now adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1858, which 'recommended Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration the claims of Ireland to a grant of the half-cost of Medical Officers in Unions

153
with the view of providing for the same in future as is now the practice in England and Scotland," —(Mr. MacEvoy,)
—instead thereof.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that in the year 1860 the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Dawson) brought that subject under the notice of the House, on which occasion his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) gave what appeared to him to be a satisfactory answer to the demand then made. The late Sir Robert Peel, in consequence of the financial changes introduced in the Budget of 1846, relieved the local rates of Ireland from the payment of £350,000 on account of the constabulary, the whole cost of which he placed on the Consolidated Fund; but he made no corresponding alleviation in England and Scotland. In Ireland there were now 717 dispensary districts and 764 medical officers, and the whole cost of keeping up this machinery was £75,000. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. MacEvoy) asked that Ireland should be relieved of half that sum; but the relief afforded to Ireland by the payment of the constabulary was ten times greater than the relief now sought. No doubt when the late Sir Robert Peel removed the burdens of taxation, which were then be much complained of, he considered that he was doing what he thought sufficient. No positive promise was made in 1846 that one-half of the cost of the medical unions should be borne by the Consolidated Fund. The matter was one which lay with the Treasury rather than the Irish Government, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to relieve the local taxation of Ireland to the extent of £37,000 a year by paying half the cost of the dispensary officers, he, for one, should rejoice. He had no authority in the matter, and the Treasury might have good reasons for maintaining the present state of things. After that assurance on his part—which, however, he would admit did not amount to much, except that he sympathized with the hon. Gentleman— he trusted that he would withdraw the Motion.
MR. MONSELLsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not spoken with his usual confidence, and did not appear to think he had a very good case. For himself he did not entertain the least doubt, from the speech of the late Sir Robert Peel, that if medical relief had been conducted in Ireland on
154
the same principles as at present, the relief for which his hon. Friend prayed would then have been granted. On what grounds did Lord Devon's Commission recommend that the constabulary should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund? Because all the appointments were vested in the Lord Lieutenant. In England, however, the patronage rested with the local authorities. The Report further stated that the Irish constabulary was a disciplined and armed force, stationed in regular barracks. In other words, the ground on which that Commission recommended that the whole expense of the Irish constabulary should be borne by the Consolidated Fund was that that force was almost a part of the regular army. The Government had no more right to call upon the ratepayers to pay for it than they had to call upon them to pay for a regiment that might happen to be quartered with them. The analogy between the English and Irish police forces, therefore, entirely failed, and there remained no colourable pretence for rejecting the Motion of his hon. Friend.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the Irish police were rather a gendarmerie than a police force. But he contended that the cost of the Irish police force was really borne by the people of Ireland. Ireland ought not to be taxed for an object which was not equally the subject of a tax in England and Scotland.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, that the reason given by Sir Robert Peel for not dealing with the charge for medical relief in Ireland as it was dealt with in England and Scotland was that the law with respect to medical relief in that country was different from the law in Great Britain, and showed that if the law had been the same he would have dealt in a similar manner with the charge. The whole cost of the Irish constabulary was placed on the Consolidated Fund, in order to induce the Irish Members not to oppose the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The law of Ireland with respect to medical relief was now the same as that of Great Britain, and the charge ought, therefore, to be provided for in the same manner in all the three kingdoms. As to the police of Ireland, it was now essentially a military force. He thought it would be unworthy of the English Government to resist such a Motion as the present. It was a simple matter of justice that ought to be conceded.
MR. PEELsaid, that the charge for medical relief in England and Scotland

155
was not placed upon the Consolidated Fund to give relief to local taxpayers, but partly to compensate the agricultural interest for the difficulties to which it was believed that they would be subjected by the free importation of corn, and partly to give the Government a share in the appointment and superintendence of the medical officers, in order that a defective system might be improved. Neither of those reasons existed in Ireland at the present moment. There was no question of compensation, and the dispensary officers performed their duties in a most satisfactory manner. As regarded the relief to the ratepayer, Ireland received much greater compensation by the transference of the entire constabulary cost to the Consolidated Fund. He thought that if the claim now put forward had been a good one it would have been considered in the year 1852, when the charge for these officers was first placed upon the poor rates.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that before the House divided he should like to answer the only two Ministers who had spoken upon the subject by quoting the words of a distinguished man, to whom they ought to pay a little respect. The late Sir Robert Peel said—
"I believe it will be an immense advantage to place the police force of Ireland directly under the control of the Executive, to prevent the possibility of all interference by local bodies, to make the police as perfect a system as possible, excluding all power of local nomination or local interference, taking the whole conduct, in fact, under the Executive Government, and, in order to make the system as perfect as possible, paying the police out of the public treasury."
Sir Robert Peel had in view an important object of Imperial policy, and to carry it out he was willing that the country should bear the expense. But that question had nothing whatever to do with the Motion brought forward by his hon. and gallant Friend. It was one of a class which had become rather frequent of late, in which the Irish Members asked for the same justice that was extended to England, and he trusted it would be pressed to a division.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, that when Sir Robert Peel refrained originally from extending the income tax to Ireland, additional taxation was imposed on stamps and spirits. Those charges had been maintained, although the income tax, since added, produced a revenue of £700,000.
SIR GEORGE GREYbegged to remind the House that the whole subject of Irish taxation had been referred to a Select
156
Committee. It would, therefore, be unfair to deal separately with items of taxation in the manner proposed by the present Motion.
LORD JOHN BROWNEbegged to remind the Government that in the English Estimates a sum of nearly £300,000 was included for the support of County Courts in England, whereas the whole expense of such costs in Ireland was paid out of fees.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 58: Majority 15.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—DUCHIES OF SCHLESWIG AND HOLSTEIN.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he rose to put Questions connected with the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The subject was one in which a deep interest necessarily was felt by the people of this country, and a strong desire was expressed to obtain explanations leading to a right understanding of the merits of the conflict, and the course which England ought to pursue. It had been alleged that the States of Holstein formally thanked the King of Denmark when the change was made in the order of succession to that Duchy. The fact was that the States of Holstein never did express any opinion of the kind, for the question had never been submitted to them. Holstein was a constitutional country, and the change ought never to have been made without obtaining the assent of the representatives of the Staaten. The Staatscalender, the Royal organ in Denmark, gave information on this subject; and in it were laid down the functions of the States of Holstein and Schleswig. It said—
"With regard to those affairs which fall under the official direction of our Ministry in the Duchy of Schleswig, no changes in legislation, with the exception of laws merely provisional, shall be made, without the assent previously obtained of the Provincial Estates of the Duchy, and in the arrangements respecting them the vote of the Provincial Assembly shall be expressly stated. With regard to the affairs of Holstein, which fall under the official direction of our Ministry in the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, no changes in the legislation shall take place unless sanctioned by a previous vote of the Provincial Estates of the Duchy. And in the arrangements respecting them the vote of the Provincial Assembly shall be expressly stated."
When the new Constitution was submitted to the States, they were expressly pre-

157
cluded from discussing the first six paragraphs; and when the States of Holstein proceeded to consider the rest of the Constitution, they decided by forty to five that they should protest that those paragraphs had no validity, because they had not been submitted to them. That the States had a right to be consulted was evident both from the extract he had read and also from the promise of the King of Denmark, that all parts of his dominions should enjoy equal rights and privileges. Holstein and Sehleswig were constitutional States. Their laws could not be changed without the assent of the representatives of the people, and because this change was effected without their assent the present horrid war was raging. Schleswig and Holstein, in ancient years, were united in one common Diet, which in 1460 elected the head of the house of Holstein-Oldenburg, Duke. The Sovereignty was elective till 1616, when the common Diet at Schleswig decided that primogeniture in the male line of succession should be the law of the Duchies, which law was in favour of the Duke of Augustenburg. By the ancient law he should now be their ruler. The King of Denmark promised in 1849–50 that the Duchies should be placed on the same constitutional footing with Denmark in all respects; therefore, in good faith to the subjects of the Duchies, the law altering the succession ought to have been submitted to the States of Holstein and Schleswig. A law which took away a man's birthright without his consent was an act of injustice. Excepting the old Duke Christian none of the Augustenburgs were asked to consent. He received,£340,000 for estates that were worth £600,000, and he at the same time agreed not to interfere with any regulation of the succession which the King of Denmark might by legal means carry into effect, Vattel said that treaties were void that violated the rights of third parties. The alteration in the succession was declared to be law by the arbitrary will of the King of Denmark. The question was discussed in the Diet of Frankfort in 1846, when the rights of the Augustenburgs were acknowledged. It was said that the movement in the Duchies was not spontaneous but prompted by agents from Germany. An hon. Gentleman, whom they all respected, though they did not often agree with his opinions—the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner)—said he believed that but for those agents from
158
Germany, the great bulk of the population in the Duchies would have willingly recognized the King of Denmark. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member make that assertion. There was certainly a despatch from Sir Andrew Buchanan to Earl Russell, in which it was stated he had been informed that there was good reason to believe "that not less than 2,000 agents of the National Verein had been sent into the Duchy to agitate and excite the people. A system of terror also prevailed, which few persons were able to resist." [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cried "Hear," which showed that they believed the statement. Now what he wanted to know was, on whose authority that had been stated. He believed it to be entirely untrue—absolutely, utterly, and totally untrue. Would any British agent declare that he believed 2,000 agents were sent from Germany in order to excite the people in the Duchies against the King of Denmark? He demanded the authority on which that statement was made. Lord Russell, in writing to Lord Cowley, used similar language. He said—
"It was not till numerous democratic agents of the German National Verein swarmed into the Holstein villages that the rural population showed any indisposition to the Government of the King of Denmark. Even now the inhabitants of the villages show little inclination voluntarily to swell the democratic flood of German invasion."
The noble Lord sitting in Downing Street could not have known that, and he wanted to know the name of the agent who told him so. Mr. Grosvenor was sent for the express purpose of ascertaining the opinions of the inhabitants of Schleswig and Holstein, and what did that gentleman say? Mr. Grosvenor said that, although the agitation might be suppressed by the superior forces of the Great Powers, and Schleswig and Holstein might continue under the rule of Denmark, yet no satisfactory solution of the question could be obtained by those means, and the agitation would never cease until the people of Schleswig and Holstein were freed from the yoke of Denmark; and yet the people of this country were told that there was no spontaneous movement in the Duchies, notwithstanding the evidence furnished by our diplomatic agents, who were responsible for their statements. The evidence of Mr. Consul Ward and Vice Consul Rainals was in the same direction. It was also true that Her Majesty's Government had been incessantly urging the Govern-

159
ment of Denmark to perform their promises to the Duchies, and yet what was now the state of affairs? Instead of compelling Denmark to fulfil those promises, it was doubtful whether we were not about to go to war in favour of Denmark, because she had not performed them. That appeared to him to be a curious non sequitur. If courage and endurance were alone to be the test, if our sympathies were to be enlisted on the side of the Power that showed the greatest endurance and most wonderful self-devotion, he should certainly say that we ought to support the Danes. But that was not the principle upon which we should be governed at that moment; he should be in favour of going to war in favour of Denmark. But this country ought only to go to war for a cause that was just. If we were to take part with the oppressed, we should have to take part with the German population of the Duchies, who had been abominably oppressed. He did not object to the Eider-Dane party, but he did object to the mode in which they sought to obtain their ends. He also sympathized with the brave Danish army and the self-devotion they had displayed, but he thought that great responsibility rested upon the Danish Government, who consigned those gallant soldiers to death, in a cause in which she was the original transgressor, and in order to conciliate the mob of Copenhagen. It was not even for the advantage of Denmark that the provinces, which had suffered so much from her oppressive rule, should remain under her Government. There were instances of countries which, after losing portions of their territory, had nevertheless increased in population—as in the case of Saxony, Belgium, and Holland. He would impress upon the House that the only proper course to adopt would be to refer the settlement of the question to the inhabitants of the Duchies themselves, who should be invited to express their opinions upon it in a proper and constitutional manner. He should conclude by asking the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state to the House—
"Whether he has reason to believe that the States of Holstein formally thanked the King of Denmark for what he had done in altering the succession; and, if so, on what authority he entertains that belief?
Whether the intimation, in Despatches 709 and 784, that the movement in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein in favour of separation from Denmark was not spontaneous, rests on the authority of any agents of the British Government; and if he will lay upon the table any Documents or Despatches on these subjects?
160
And, to move an Address for Copy of the Answers received from the Governments to whom invitations were addressed to attend the Conference now sitting in London?"
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished to obtain from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs some further information, his desire for which was prompted by a feeling less Teutonic than that which animated the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney). That hon. Baronet referred to the spontaneity of the movement in Schleswig and Holstein; but the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary in replying ought to take into consideration not only what he heard from British agents, but what was proved from the undoubted circumstances of the case. Immediately contiguous to the Duchies was a German population of 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 all anxious for annexation. He would not do the Danish Government in Schleswig the injustice of comparing it with the English rule in Ireland when the penal code was in force; but since that code had been abolished, and nothing but the remembrance of it remained to excite disaffection, what would have been our position if Ireland had been placed between France and England? Although the power of England bore a much larger proportion to that of France than Denmark bore to Germany, would any one, under the circumstances supposed, have maintained that a movement in Ireland against English rule was spontaneous? The hon. Baronet declined to trust unnamed British agents, but would be believe such persons as Count von Bismark and M. Rechberg? The British Minister, writing on the 5th of December, said that M. von Bismark told him that—
"Money was also collecting throughout Germany for the Prince of Augustenburg; and, while offices had been opened in Hamburg and in several other States, to raise men for his Highness's service, arms, uniforms, and accoutrements were preparing for their use. Free corps might, therefore, soon enter Holstein and proclaim his Highness as Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. M. de Bismark did not doubt that the King of Denmark might be able to maintain his authority against any opposition which might thus be offered to it; but if his Majesty were obliged to employ force, many of the Schleswig-Holstein sympathizers who would fall in any conflict which might take place between them and his Majesty's troops might be lawless adventurers, but others might be enthusiastic young men, whose death would increase the excitement now prevailing in Germany to a degree which it would be impossible for the Governments to resist."
Thus M. von Bismark was of opinion that, but for those German sympathizers, some of

161
whom were lawless and some enthusiastic, the King of Denmark might have maintained his authority even in Holstein Yet, in the face of that statement, the hon. Baronet wondered upon what authority the English Government had conceived the notion that the movement had been stimulated from without. So, again, as to Schleswig, Lord Bloomfield, on the 18th of February, wrote as follows:
"Count Rechberg assured me also, that as far as he could judge of public opinion from the various reports that had reached the Imperial Government, there appeared to exist great indifference in the Duchy of Schleswig generally, as to the Prince in whose hands the governing power should be placed. In fact, said His Excellency, if it were not for the activity displayed by the agents of some of the small German Powers, little would be heard on the subject of the Duke of Augustenburg; but the instant an agitating agent, following in the rear of the advancing army, contrived to get two or three insignificant people together to join in the cry for the Prince of Augustenburg, it was immediately telegraphed to all parts of Germany that the Prince had been proclaimed.
"His Excellency added that these reports were totally untrue as representing an expression of the feelings of the mass of the population, who did not care for, and had certainly not evinced any partiality for, the Duke of Augustenburg."
In the face of those statements the House was told that the movement was spontaneous. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) did not regard the present as being the occasion for going into the charges of broken faith which had been made against Denmark, and would, therefore, merely express his belief that those charges were unfounded. There was only one topic more to which he desired to advert. If the sympathy expressed by Germany for the people of Schleswig Holstein were real, it deserved their respect; but if, on the contrary, that sympathy were merely adopted as a pretence for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, it must be viewed on all sides with mistrust and aversion. Now, the true motives of a people were sometimes, perhaps, to be discovered rather in I popular songs than in state-papers. And it was therefore worth while to observe; that the favourite German song on this subject began with the words, "Schleswig; Holstein, sea-girt land!" What had its being sea-girt to do with the matter? An oppressed nationality did not deserve aid more if it were maritime than if it were inland. But it might be a much more profitable business to help it if its territory contained a port which was coveted by the sympathizers. Considering, too, what
162
Austria had done in Hungary, in Venetia, and in Galicia, considering the part which Prussia had taken last year with reference to the Poles, and considering the opinion expressed last December by Hew Von Bismark, that there would never be any peace between Germany and Denmark so long as Denmark permitted, the continuance of democratic institutions, he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) could feel no sympathy, and he believed the House would feel none, with any pretended desire of those who were now attacking Denmark for the promotion of liberty.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he did not believe, if he might judge from the tenour of the House, that hon. Members were desirous of a long speech upon the subject, especially as a more solemn discussion was now going on upon that very important affair. He would, therefore, confine himself to the questions asked by his hon. and gallant Friend. He must, however, observe, that the doctrine laid down by the hon. Baronet, that the fact of a kingdom being as populous after its dismemberment as it was before was an excuse for its dismemberment, was most extraordinary, and one which he did not believe would be generally accepted. His hon. Friend had not accurately quoted the words he had made use of on the occasion of a former debate upon this subject. He had no doubt that his hon. Friend would remember that he was pointing out how dangerous it was for the House in discussing questions involving, as they did, the most comprehensive principles of International Law, to come to a hasty decision upon those questions, and that those matters had been discussed by some of the most celebrated legists of Europe. He also mentioned the powers of the States of Schleswig and Holstein. Those States were constitutional Parliaments, which, according to some, having the power of giving an opinion, and exercising an influence, upon any change in the succession, while others maintained that the only questions which they could claim to discuss were connected with matters of mere local interest. His hon. Friend had assumed that evening, what he regarded as very doubtful, the power of the States to discuss a change in the succession. He would remind his hon. Friend that the question was surrounded by too many difficulties to allow of its being decided by a mere ipse dixit. He (Mr. Layard) had said that others had asserted that the States had not only discussed the

163
question, but had virtually returned thanks to the late King of Denmark for the settlement of the succession. That statement was made upon the authority of a report of the Holstein States on the modification of the Constitution which was adopted by the Assembly, dated December, 1853, and printed in the Holsteinische Stönde Zeitung. It contains the following words:—
"The welfare of the people, the preservation or the loss of the greatest earthly benefits, not only for us, but also for the coming generations, depends upon a proper arrangement of the mutual relations between the different territories which now are united under the sceptre of His Majesty the King, and which also shall remain united as long as it pleases Providence, in accordance with an order of succession which has been fixed by our present Sovereign, with the assent of the great European Powers."
That Report had not been communicated officially to Her Majesty's Government, and he could not, therefore, lay it upon the table of the House, but he believed it to be authentic. His hon. Friend next proceeded to say that he was inaccurate in stating that the Diet did not object to the change in the succession. What he did say was, that up to the time of the death of the late King the question of the succession had not been made an element in the discussions which were then being carried on by that body in reference to the two Duchies; but that, on the contrary, when Earl Russell made his proposal of December, 1862, that proposal was accepted by all the German Powers and the Diet as one that was perfectly satisfactory. If Denmark had accepted that proposal, that difficult and important question would have been settled. That statement he now repeated. His hon. Friend had next asked upon what ground the statement was made that the expression of feeling in the two Duchies in favour of the Duke of Augustenburg was not a spontaneous one. The very despatch by Sir Andrew Buchanan, quoted by the hon. Baronet as an authority for his statement, that the expression of feeling was spontaneous, proved that it was brought about by the agents of the National Verein. The Report also of Mr. Consul Rainals, which had been quoted by his hon. Friend, would not bear him out in the opinion which he had founded upon it, as the following extract would show:—
"First, I would state that I never once heard His Majesty the King of Denmark spoken of but with respect and affection, while I did hear expressions to the effect that if he possessed the power he had the will to make his subjects happy and content. I met with but very few persons
164
who admitted that they desired separation from the kingdom of Denmark or union with Prussia or Germany, and these few were confined to strong partisans of the nobility (ritterschaft) and large landed proprietors; but so well are they aware that the population of the country do not share their sentiments, that they only communicated them when warm in argument and by mistake. The nobility and landed gentry formerly held Court and diplomatic appointments from Denmark, from which they are now excluded, and entertain, perhaps, hopes of being similarly employed if union with Germany could be effected. But these two classes have, nevertheless, by their intelligence, wealth, and connections abroad, a very considerable direct and indirect influence on the German population of the Duchy, which they use with the ostensible purpose of securing justice to the people and an union of the two Duchies. The wish for a legislative and administrative union with Holstein was generally expressed among the intelligent persons of the populations in the towns, but only to a small extent among those inhabiting the country districts, and neither party desired separation from Denmark, and much less union with Germany, or that Schleswig should become a member of the Germanic Confederation. I did not fail to observe that the opinions of many persons were influenced by a particular party hostile to the present organization of the Danish monarchy, and in this I was confirmed by partisans of the union with Holstein, who admitted the influence alluded to, but confessed they had become the followers of the party only as a means of obtaining release from the vexatious system of the ultra-Danish party. They further admitted that their leaders, the nobility (ritterschaft), and large landed proprietors, are not looked upon as their true friends, as they support the privileges of certain classes, and are adverse to the introduction of liberal institutions."
He would not deny that the Duchies had certain grievances against the Danish Government, nor had Her Majesty's Government ever maintained that Denmark had fulfilled all her promises. His hon. Friend, however, went on to say that because Denmark had not done so it was our duty not to take her part; but he could not acknowledge the justice of that argument. After Denmark offered, though late, to fulfil her promises, the casus belli was removed; and therefore for Austria and Prussia to have then gone to war with her was a great injustice. Mr. Grosvenor, a young man of intelligence, was not sent to report upon the feelings of the people of the Duchies; and if the hon. and gallant Member would look at the papers he would find that Sir Andrew Buchanan warned them against taking Mr. Grosvenor's opinion on that point. Mr. Grosvenor was sent to Holstein for a specific purpose. It had been stated that the Commissioners of the Diet, instead of doing that which they pledged themselves to do on com-

165
mencing Federal execution — namely, to administer the Duchy in the name of the Duke of Holstein, had exceeded their powers, and proceeded to establish the authority of the Duke of Augustenburg. That statement was denied in Germany, and Mr. Grosvenor went to ascertain whether the arms of the King of Denmark had been pulled down, whether the authorities appointed by the King had been removed, and whether the Duke of Angustenburg had been virtually installed as ruler of the Duchy? These facts Mr. Grosvenor proved, but nothing more, and therefore, as far as the feelings of the population were concerned, he was no authority whatever. From all the information he (Mr. Layard) received it was a matter of public notoriety, that there was in Schleswig certainly no general desire on the part of the people to elect the Duke of Augustenburg as their Prince, or to separate themselves from Denmark. That was his impression, and he believed it was the impression of all who had taken the trouble to inquire into the matter. In; conclusion, he would only add that the object of Her Majesty's Government was to restore peace; that he trusted that object would be attained, and felt sure the House would not create any fresh difficulties in the way of its attainment.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that before the House passed from that Question he desired to enter a protest with respect to those Danish debates. The hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) had spoken more than once on that subject, and they frequently had these Danish debates interpolated, as it were, in their discussions, when strong statements were made by the hon. Baronet and other hon. Members, advocates of the; same cause. Now the enormous majority of that House sympathized with Denmark in that matter. But the Members of that; majority had shown themselves anxious not to mar any chances that might exist of the restoration of that peace which they all desired by obtruding themselves with unnecessary vehemence in the debates that had taken place. He feared, however, that that reticence and forbearance on their part had been misunderstood out of doors. The hon. Baronet and the other partizans of Germany in that House, who might be counted upon one's fingers, had, he believed, with great ingenuity and skill, by showing themselves repeatedly, and on every possible occasion and in every possi-
166
ble guise, contrived to give the public out of doors the impression—the false and delusive impression—that there was a German party in the House of Commons. It was not his intention to enter into the arguments of the hon. Baronet or into what the hon. Baronet called his facts—it was not his intention, either, to enter into those feelings which led hon. Gentlemen to sympathize with faithless and treacherous de-spoilers, which feelings happily were rare among Englishmen. But he would only say this, that he trusted that no one out of doors would entertain the impression that because they did not contradict the statements—the wild and chimerical statements made with regard both to historical and present facts, the House, therefore, admitted them. Discussions upon that subject could not be fairly taken until the negotiations had been concluded, and until that House was placed by the failure—if failure it should unfortunately prove—of the Executive to bring that matter to a satisfactory termination, in a position to express its opinion on these unhappy transactions without thereby exposing to additional dangers those with whose miseries and unjust sufferings it most heartily sympathized.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he rejoiced exceedingly that the noble Lord had elicited the true feeling of the House. As he had been personally alluded to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), he trusted the hon. Baronet was now satisfied that when he spoke his opinion plainly he had some grounds for it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) had referred to foreign agitators who had disturbed the internal peace of Holstein and Schleswig. Not so very long ago Canada was invaded by sympathizers from the United States, just as the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein had been; but the conduct of the Government of the United States on that occasion ought to be remembered for ever with gratitude by this country. They lent no countenance to that system of sympathizing or filibustering. On the contrary, in spite of the feeling of a portion of their own people, they acted loyally towards us and enabled us in every way to repress that unjustifiable aggression upon Canada. The reprehensible conduct of Germany towards Denmark in the present instance was in striking contrast to the honourable conduct of the United States in

167
that instance. He rejoiced to see at this moment a feeling which was truly natural exhibited towards Denmark, for it was no question of Schleswig or Holstein now. The whole of Jutland was now occupied, and the invaders were levying contributions on its inhabitants, and taking hostages in default of their payment. The question had come to this, that were it not for the sea, on which England had once some power, the State of Denmark would, he firmly believed, be swept from the category of nations—a fate from which he trusted England would see that gallant people saved.
SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to explain that he had not expressed any approval of the conduct of Austria and Prussia, who had betrayed the Schleswig-Holsteiners in 1851–2, but had spoken of the German inhabitants of the Duchies.

INDIA—COVENANTED SERVANTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he rose to bring under the consideration of the House the position of the Civil Servants of the Crown in India who shall have entered into covenants to serve in that country. Under the nomination system there were two classes of examinations—one of a literary character, and another as to special qualifications; and those who passed those examinations had an absolute right to appointments in India. Under the former system a successful candidate entered into what was called a deed of covenant with the Secretary of State for India as to the nature of his services. The special matters to be done and left undone were set forth in that deed; but added to the deed was a penalty attached to dereliction of duty. He complained that young men thus becoming entitled to nomination, did not receive pay until they joined the presidency, to appointments to which they were nominated. He thought they should receive special pay from the time they signed the deed, and that an allowance should be made to carry them out to their destination. Such a rule was in force in the army, and ought not to be ignored in the Civil Service.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the practice complained of was only that which formerly existed with regard to writers who were nominated for India under the East India Company, the rule being that Indian service should be paid for in India, and not
  168
  elsewhere. In 1858 those appointments were thrown open to competition, and the successful candidates were placed on the same footing as the servants nominated under the old system, with the difference that a sum of £100 was allowed to them to defray their expenses between the first and second examination, and towards the payment of the expenses of their journey, and as, even on the hon. Baronet's own showing, so far from there being any want of candidates, there were at least two for every vacancy, he could not see any ground for altering the existing regulations.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he could confirm the statement of the right hon. Baronet as to the expenses of the old system. His anxious parents sent him to Haileybury College, where he spent the required time and passed the necessary examination, and yet he never received a single rupee from the Indian Government until he arrived in India. He could not, therefore, see what claim those poverty-stricken members of the Universities of Dublin, who were not compelled to enter the service, and who were not half so good as the Haileybury men, had on the Government for payment before their arrival in India.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE ON SUNDAYS).—LEAVE.
MR. SOMESmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to impose restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquors between eleven o'clock on Saturday night and six o'clock on Monday morning. The hon. Gentleman said that some explanation might be necessary with regard to this Bill, as it was different from that of last year. Last year his Bill proposed the total closing of public-houses on the Lord's Day. He gathered from the debate which occurred on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, that the House thought some time was necessary to enable the public to get their dinner and supper beer on Sundays, and the absence of any such provision seemed to constitute the main objection to the Bill. But by the present measure he proposed to give an hour for getting the

169
dinner beer, and he also proposed to allow an hour between eight and nine, for getting the supper beer. The House would, no doubt, consider that, provision having previously been made for travellers and lodgers, and two hours being allowed for everybody else, it could not be for the benefit of the working man and his family that he should have six hours extra for drinking in public-houses. Let them remember that the working classes prayed for this Bill. The number of persons in favour of the total closing of public-houses on the Lord's Day was 903,987, or about one in twenty of the whole population of England and Wales. The great bulk of those who signed the petitions he was referring to were of the working classes, who, most of any, were directly interested in the passing of the Bill. A working man said to a London clergyman, "People say we working men show that we are weak when we ask the Legislature to close public-houses on Sundays, because then we have our wages in our pockets, and nothing to do;" but do not the aristocrats pray every day, "Lead us not into temptation," and should not the working men also be preserved from temptation when they beg it as a favour at our hands? The convictions from Saturday and Sunday nights exceeded those of every other day in the week. Sunday was the high day of England's drunkenness, caused by spending the wages that should go to the wife and family. If they wished the working-men to get their dinner beer and supper beer, the Bill gave them two hours for that purpose. Such a measure as this had been said to be an interference with the liberty of the subject. Look, however, at the case of Scotland. Would any one say that Scotland was behindhand in the love of liberty? And yet that country had found that a severer measure than that which I propose was not incompatible with such a sentiment. She preferred to preserve the liberty of thousands by closing public-houses on Sunday—those thousands who, in the absence of such restriction, would find themselves on Monday morning in the hands of the police. In New York for years the public-houses had been closed on Sundays, and such had likewise been the case in Sydney and in other of our colonies. These facts went to show that this measure is not the offspring of a society, or of a people unmindful of the blessings of liberty. Seeing the impatience of the House, he would not trespass further upon
170
their attention, but would simply more for leave to introduce a Bill for restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquors between the hours of eleven of the clock on Saturday night and six of the clock on Monday morning. He would not trouble the House with further details and statistics on the question, which would be unusual at this stage of the Bill; but he trusted that after the petitions, signed by thousands, which had been presented in favour of the larger measure, the House would not deny to them the present modicum.
MR. PEASEbegged to second the Motion. The subject of the proposed Bill only required to be better understood to be better appreciated. It had been proved to demonstration that the chief difficulty all our religious and philanthropic institutions had to contend with arose from the drinking customs of this country. Such wag the deliberate opinion of the judge upon the bench, the clergyman in the pulpit, the Sabbath School teacher, and others acquainted with the habits of the lower classes. The proposed Bill had on the face of it something so reasonable that he wag satisfied the House would allow it to be introduced, and he was persuaded that on further examination it would be found that the objections relative to an alleged interference with the private rights were not so cogent as some hon. Gentlemen supposed. He had the honour of representing a large constituency, and all classes had joined in requesting him to support the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for restrictions on the sale of Intoxicating Liquors between the hours of eleven of the clock on Saturday night and six of the clock on Monday morning."—(Mr. Somes.)
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would not detain the House for many minutes, for there were two considerations which compelled him to be brief—one the lateness of the hour, and the other the fact that the introduction of a Bill was supposed to be a mere matter of courtesy. He had no fanatical hatred to the proposed measure; his only desire was to protect his countrymen in the fair enjoyment of their rights and liberties. As for the question of courtesy, he begged the House to recollect that though the present was said to be a different Bill from that which was decided last year, it was, in reality, the same. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "No, no," but before he had done he would prove "Yes,

171
yes." The ground of that Bill was twofold. There was a body of people in this country who were Sabbatarians; there was also a body of Teetotallers. Those two muddy streams of sentiment had united. Running side by side for a long time, they had at last united their waters, and now they formed one foaming, muddy river, which it was difficult to stem, and very disagreeable to see. [An hon. MEMBER: And to smell.] Aye, and to smell. Those two sets of people had joined their forces on the present occasion. Why did he oppose them? First and foremost, because that was a law for the poor and not for the rich. A rich, well-to-do man could have his own beer or wine in his own house, he could draw his beer or uncork his wine when he chose, but that was not the case with a poor man. Parliament began with fiscal regulations. It had put a tax upon malt, and he had always voted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject, but he had always felt that he was preventing the poor man having his own beer in his own house and driving him to the public-house. He wished the House to understand that every man who went into a public-house was not a tippler. The poor man who was compelled to go to the public-house was like the gentleman who sent down his butler for his glass of wine when he wanted it. If the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Somes) and his friends were really in earnest—if they were anything more than canting hypocrites—they would propose a law for the rich as well as the poor. Not only would they shut up every public-house—not only would they shut up the Star and Garter at Richmond, and the Trafalgar at Greenwich, but they would also shut up every club in London. Would they dare to introduce a Bill for that purpose? If not, how could they presume to say that they were the friends of morality and justice? He spat upon their paltry pretence. He had no hesitation in saying that those who were endeavouring to bring in that Bill under the guise of being the protectors of morality, were merely carrying out their own individual views respecting the enjoyments of others. "We are virtuous," they exclaimed, "and, therefore, you shall have no more cakes and ale." The introduction of that Bill would create dissension throughout England. [Cries of "No, no!"] "Yes, yes;" it would create the necessity on the part of hon. Members who thought, as he did, of sifting the sentiments of the people of England,
172
as they did last year. The seconder of the Motion had talked of representing a large constituency. He represented a still larger constituency, and he opposed this Bill. Last Session he presented a petition signed by 20,000 people, and when he went down among his constituents during the year what occurred? Several gentlemen came to him and said, "Oh, this is a people's measure, and you must support it." His reply was, "Prove that to me and I will vote for the Bill." They had a meeting in the open air, and it was carried against them by a majority of thousands. So much for the present being a popular measure. He represented a set of hardworking men who were confined to a smoky town all the week, and, as he said to those gentlemen, if he lived in Sheffield he should be very glad to get out on a Sunday to breathe a mouthful of fresh air. A working man who had expended his week in hard labour was naturally glad to get out of Sheffield for a few hours on Sunday, but if the hon. Gentleman's Bill passed he would find the door of every public-house shut against him. That man was riot necessarily a tippler. What right had they to say to that man that he should only have his luncheon at one o'clock, and not at three, if he liked it best then? Public-houses in the country were only open now from twelve to three, and from five to eleven. What harm was there in that? A working man in London went out on Sunday for a few hours' recreation, and then those sour Gentlemen turned round on him and said, "You ought to be at church." That was their creed— that if they kept a man out of the public-house they sent him to church. If a man were religiously inclined he went to church before he took his walk into the country; and was it not a way of worshipping the great Creator to walk among His works and admire their beauty? The Bill would not put an end to drinking; it would force men to break the law. There would be just as much drunkenness as ever, and a great increase of hypocrisy. The hon. Gentleman had quoted the example of Scotland. Scotland was an ascetic country, with a peculiar flavour for what was called Sabbath observance, and it was the most drunken country on the face of the earth. A friend of his who had been in Scotland on a visit had brought back a very good story. He was stopping in the neighbourhood of a very beautiful waterfall, and when. Sunday came round, there

173
being an interval between kirk and dinner, he said, "I'll go and see your waterfall." "Gude mon," said his host, "it's the Sabbath." "What, then," replied his friend, "can't I see God's works on God's day?" "Oh, no," replied the host; "You maun stay here; you can't break the Sabbath." And in deference to his host the gentleman staid indoors and they sat down to spend the day in tippling. That was a well-to-do house, where they could drink their own beer and whisky without having to send out of the house for it. Did the hon. Gentleman believe that lie would make men worship God more completely by compelling them to abstain from walking abroad? What he wanted was to turn this nation into a sour, ascetic, hypocritical people. The Bill was the same in substance as that which was introduced last year, and the hon. Gentleman was honest enough to say that the modifications which he had introduced were against his will. That was exactly the principle of the promoters of the Bill—they thought a thing was wrong, but still they did it. The Bill last year was rejected with ignominy, and to prevent the dissension and dissatisfaction which were occasioned then he would ask the House to mark its sense of it by refusing leave to introduce it.
MR. CLAYsaid, he thought that the House ought to allow the Bill to be brought in, if it were only out of respect for the immense number of petitions which had been presented in its favour, more especially as various important modifications had been introduced into it in deference to the opinions expressed in the House last year.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that although he had the greatest respect for the hon. Members the Mover and Seconder of that Motion, and lamented equally with them the inclination to drink existing in this country, yet he hoped that the House would not sanction the commencement of an agitation such as had taken place before, in consequence of the course they were about to adopt. Eight years ago there was a sort of émeute among the three millions of the population in this metropolis, which led Parliament to change a recently-passed law with more haste than was altogether seemly. A compromise was then agreed to, which had satisfied the public and; licensed victuallers. He hoped the Government and the House generally would pause before embarking on a project like the present, which was calculated to bring
174
about a repetition of those scenes. What was proposed was that the poor man should only be allowed two hours out of the twenty-four on Sundays to get his beer. A working man might not be able to get out till late in the afternoon, and it was not right that he should be deprived of the opportunity of enjoying his only holiday in the week. This proposal did not take into account the state of three millions; and those hon. Members who supported the measure had not visited the working man's home. He believed the measure was one likely to cause great dissatisfaction both in the metropolis and throughout the country, and would, if carried, cause the same agitation as it did on a former occasion, and hon. Members would very likely end (as they nearly did before), by seeing all the restrictions as to opening public-houses on Sunday swept away.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that last year, in deference to the strong opinions expressed by a large number of persons in the country, and from a desire that the subject might be fully and fairly discussed, he gave his vote for the introduction of the Bill. He had no reason to regret that he did so, for the advocates of the measure had an ample opportunity of stating the grounds on which it could be defended, and the House rejected it, on the second reading, by a numerous majority. Therefore he did not think he could now be accused of any want of respect to the supporters of the Bill if he declined to follow the same course again. The proposal before them was substantially the same as that of last year. As had been remarked, if the Bill were allowed to be brought in and the second reading were fixed for a fortnight hence, the interval would be spent in canvassing and agitation, and in the end, he was confident, the House would reject the measure. It was only a few years since the existing restrictions were adopted, and he could not but think it was inexpedient to attempt to disturb the arrangement then come to. He should, therefore, vote against the Motion.
MR. HORSFALLsaid, he must express his surprise that the House, as an assembly of Gentlemen, should have tolerated the language of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). The hon. and learned Member had no right to stigmatize nearly a million of his fellow: countrymen as "canting hypocrites," or

175
to apply that epithet to any Gentleman in the House. He was astonished, also, to hear him say he spat on the Bill. He thought that such language was not becoming the dignity of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that he stood up for the rights and privileges of the people; but he seemed to ignore the claims of the poor barmen, who had petitioned Parliament in thousands to afford them relief. He appealed to the House to comply with their request. The hon. and learned Member undertook to prove that the Bill was precisely the same as that of last year, but had neglected to do so. The fact was, the Bill was different from its predecessor. His hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Somes) consulted him on the subject, and he recommended him not to submit the same Bill to the House, but to defer to the opinions then generally expressed, and allow two hours a day. His hon. Friend had taken that advice. He regretted that the Home Secretary had not seen fit to grant the courtesy of a first reading, but hoped the House would not yield to the influence of the Government in the matter.
MR. PACKEsaid, that the Bill confounded the innocent with the guilty, and deprived the sober man of his beer because others got drunk. That was a kind of legislation the House ought never to agree to. The case of Scotland was entirely different to that of England. There malt liquor was not the beverage of the people who drank whisky, which could be kept at home, whereas beer could not. He should vote against the introduction of the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 123: Majority 36.
House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.