Commons Sitting of 12 July 1869

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class II.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Nitro Glycerine *[211].
Second Reading—Parochial Schools (Scotland) [164]; Jamaica Loans* [200]; Cinque Ports Act Amendment* [206].
Committee—Report—Inclosure Awards (County Palatine of Durham)* [44–210].
Considered as amended—Insolvent Debtors and Bankruptcy Repeal * [180].
Third Reading—Sunday and Ragged Schools* [205], and passed.
Withdrawn—Trades Unions,&c. * [68].

POLICE CONSTABLES.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether police constables stationed at Government Departments are paid 1s. extra per day, in order to secure the services of the most respectable men in the force; whether some of the staff of officers required for the Houses of Parliament are excluded from this payment during the Recess, whilst in all other Departments payment has been made since April 1867; whether constables receiving this extra 1s. per day for special services are prohibited from contributing the ordinary amount to the pension fund; and, whether 2s. per diem is deducted from the wages of the police serving in this House in case of sudden illness?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply to the first Question of the hon. Member, that it was the fact that the police constables to whom it referred were selected on account of their being respectable men, and because of the responsible nature of the duties which they had to perform. The allowance was voluntarily paid by the Department in all cases, it being in excess of the ordinary regulated charges for the service of police. In answer to
1664
the second Question, he had to state that some of the officers employed in the Houses of Parliament had been excluded from the allowance during the Recess, owing to the lighter nature of the duties during that period. The number employed was thirty-seven, and out of that number fifteen had received the extra allowance of Is. a day. Those numbers did not include policemen employed on the night watch to prevent fire. The expenses or cost of police employed at the Houses of Parliament was greatly in excess of the sum annually granted by Parliament. The actual cost of the police employed was £3,983 9s., out of which amount Parliament contributed only £429, the balance of £3,554 being paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund. In answer to the third Question, he had to say that, by the regulations, constables received the amount of the extra allowance beyond the ordinary pay of the class to which they belonged only when they performed special duty. They were placed under stoppages for the superannuation fund, calculated on the actual pay of the class to which they belonged, and not upon the extra allowance. 1s. per day only was deducted from the pay of the police who were sick; the 1s. extra allowance was given to the man who actually performed the duty in the place of the sick man. During his illness, he consequently suffered a reduction of 2s.s a day.

EGYPT—SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any negotiations have been or are intended to be entered into with his Royal Highness the Sultan of Turkey, or with His Highness the Viceroy of Egypt, relative to the navigation of the Suez Canal by vessels of the British Naval and Mercantile Marine; if so, the terms upon which British and Foreign vessels are to have the use of it?
MR. OTWAYsaid, in reply, that he would reply to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member first. The 6th Article, regulating the concession to M. Lesseps, provided for the equality of the tariff for all nations in the navigation of the Suez Canal. No negotiations had been entered into with the Sultan or the Viceroy of Egypt on the subject;

1665
but, as his hon. Friend was aware, the opening of the Suez Canal was a matter of deep interest and importance to many nations, and to none more than our own. It was impossible, therefore, to say that no negotiations would occur on the subject.

IRELAND—RIOT AT PORTADOWN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS BATESONsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the loss of life at Portadown on the 1st of July, For what period of time has Mr. Noonan, the officer who gave the order to the constabulary to fire on the people, filled the post of sub-inspector; whether he previously served in the ranks; how long has he been stationed in Ulster; and, of what county is he a native; and, whether it is not the fact that there are three justices of the peace resident in Portadown, or in its immediate vicinity, the house of one of them being close to the scene of bloodshed; and, if so, why the party of police, after returning to their barracks for their rifles, did not communicate with one of them previous to adopting such extreme measures?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that Mr. Noonan had been a sub-inspector for about two and a-half years; he had previously served in the ranks; he was a native of Kerry; and had been employed in Ulster since his promotion to the sub-inspectorship. There were three justices of the peace resident in Portadown; one of them, as he was informed, was a gentleman far advanced in years and infirmities. His information was that Sub-inspector Noonan had taken precisely that course which his hon. Friend appeared to suppose he had not taken. Before leaving the barracks with the armed patrol he did possess the presence and assistance of a magistrate; but, in some way not yet ascertained, the magistrate got separated from him before the unfortunate collision between the police and the people took place. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to make inquiries of him as to further details of the occurrence, inasmuch as the judicial inquiry had not yet ended.
  SIR THOMAS BATESON: As the coroner has adjourned the inquest, in
  1666
  order to attend to duties not connected with the coronership, I beg to ask, without pre-judging the question, Whether it would not be expedient to transfer Sub-inspector Noonan to some other district during the interval until the 3rd August, which is fixed for the resumption of the inquest?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: It is really impossible for me to answer that Question, of which not even notice has been given.

IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF DUNDALK AND LOUTII.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the borough of Dundalk and the county of Louth, with reference to the fact that they are still under Proclamation; and whether, regard being had to their "eminently satisfactory state, both as regards offences against the person and property," Government are prepared to remove the Proclamation?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he felt as deep an interest as his hon. Friend in the county of Louth and the borough of Dundalk, and he had as high an opinion as he (Mr. Callan) could have of the order that prevailed there. He was proud to know that, in common with by far the larger part of Ireland, these places were singularly free from ordinary crime. But the powers conferred on the Executive by a Proclamation under the Peace Preservation Act were of considerable value, though they were moderate, and, as he believed, moderately exercised; and they were not to be lightly removed from any particular district or without the fullest consideration. He was not able to say that it was the present opinion of the Irish Government that the Proclamation should be removed from those particular districts.
MR. CALLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able, during the present Session, to give an answer to the Question?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: My hon. Friend had better put the Question again before the end of the Session.

HONG KONG—GAMBLING HOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the money arising from the licensing of Gambling Houses in Hong Kong has been included as an ordinary source of revenue in the Return of Revenue and Expenditure for 1868; and, whether such appropriation is sanctioned by the Secretary of State?
  MR. MONSELLreplied, that the money arising from the licensing of gambling houses in Hong Kong had been included as an ordinary source of revenue in the Return of Revenue and Expenditure for 1868. Such appropriation would never be sanctioned in future; and a letter had been addressed by Earl Granville to the Governor of Hong Kong, stating that it was the wish of the Government that the surplus gambling fees should be funded as a reserve for carrying out the vigorous efforts which might be made for the suppression of the exercise of the vice of gambling.

OYSTER DREDGING.—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that English fishing vessels are at present dredging for oysters within the limits prohibited, from June 16 to August 31, by Article 11 of the late Fishing Convention between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French; and if he will cause inquiries to be made on the subject, with a view of preventing a violation of the Convention on the part of British subjects?
MR. BRIGHTsaid, in reply, that the Convention referred to by the hon. Gentleman had not yet come into operation. According to one of the Articles of the Convention it was not to come into operation until a day to be fixed by the French Government, and as that Government were not yet in a position to fix the day the Convention had not come into force. He had no reason to believe that there had been any violation of the existing Convention.

IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF LONDONDERRY.—QUESTION.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for
1668
Ireland, Whether, considering the long immunity from crime in the City and County of Londonderry, and considering that the Proclamation touching the City was issued before the Government could give any reply in this House as to the cause of it, he is prepared to remove the Proclamation, more especially as the proceedings at the Coroner's Inquest do not appear to implicate the inhabitants of the City in the deaths of those unfortunate men who lost their lives just previous to the Proclamation?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that he could not agree with the hon. Baronet that the Government were not fully acquainted with the cause that induced them to proclaim Londonderry, that cause being, mainly, the fact of the possession of a large quantity of arms by an angry and excited population. It would be quite premature for the Government now, after the lapse of only a few weeks, to say that they were prepared to withdraw the Proclamation.

IRELAND—USE OF FIREARMS BY THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.—QUESTION.
MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, any instructions which have been issued to the Irish constabulary with reference to carrying and using their firearms?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in reply, said, it had not been thought necessary or advisable to issue instructions on the subject in consequence of the unfortunate occurrence at Porta-down. To have done so would have appeared to imply a foregone conclusion as to the conduct of the police, which the Government were not in a position to arrive at. He might add that by the standing regulations of the Irish constabulary force, with which the men, and especially the officers, were perfectly familiar, the most stringent caution is imposed on the use of firearms, as a course to be adopted only under the gravest circumstances, and in the last resort.
MR. VANCEsaid, his question referred to the standing regulations on the subject.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that he should be happy to produce them, if the hon. Member desired it.

ARMY—CRIMEAN PRIZE MONET.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Colonel NORTH,
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the amount of the property taken from the enemy by British Troops during the Crimean War would not, if distributed, have amounted to more than 2s. 6d. per officer, or 6d. per man; and to have given that would have been a mockery rather than a reward.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORD: Sir, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, If it be his intention to take the Telegraphs Bill at two o'clock to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No; and I may take this opportunity to mention that in consequence of the state of business, the Public Business will, during the remainder of the Session on ordinary days, commence at a quarter past four o'clock—when Questions can be asked—instead of half past four o'clock.

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

METROPOLIS—NEW PUBLIC OFFICES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the sums granted for the purchase of the site for the new Public Offices, and to the proposed expenditure for a new Home Office and new Colonial Office, and to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a plan of the land already purchased, and of the land intended to be acquired, with an explanatory statement showing what portion of the land is intended to be built upon, and the amount of money already, and when, and for what purchases expended; and, if the plans and estimates for the new Home Office are prepared; and, if so, the amount of the estimate, and where the plans may be seen? Hon. Members had that day received the Report of the Committee on the New Public
  1670
  Offices Sites Bill, and that, to a certain extent, answered some of his questions; but it disclosed the fact that it was the intention of the First Commissioner to carry out, to a large extent, the Report of 1868. The amount already voted amounted to £147,000, and under the new Bill £700,000 more was contemplated. The evidence brought before the Committee had been of the most meagre character, and not such as to justify the large expenditure that was likely to take place. He thought they ought to have something like a definite plan, and some detailed account of the property that was to be purchased, and of the sum asked for for that purpose.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he had no objection whatever to give the information asked for by the hon. Member. The fact, however, was that the greater part of the information had already been given to the House. If the hon. Member turned to the Paper laid on the table on the 3rd of April, 1865, he would find a complete plan of the Foreign Office, India Office, and the Colonial and Home Offices, and the proposed purchases in King Street. That Paper comprised all the information he was able to give on that part of the subject. In addition, the fullest plans of all the houses and ground proposed to be taken had been deposited according to the requirements of Parliament, and if the hon. Member would turn to the Public Offices Act of 1865, and the similar Act of 1866, he would find attached to those Acts copies of the deposited plans. The hon. Member had mixed up two questions entirely separate. There were two distinct transactions—the purchase of the property for the erection of buildings already decided upon and commenced, which had been completed with the exception of a very small block, and the contemplated purchase of a part of George Street, included in the Bill introduced this Session, which had come from a Select Committee. The site occupied by the India and Foreign Offices, and to be occupied by the Home and Colonial Offices—the purchase of which had been sanctioned by the House—cost £465,000. As regarded the plans for the Home and Colonial Offices, they were not yet in a state to be submitted to the House. When he came into Office he found that Mr. Scott had prepared plans for those Offices. He (Mr. Layard) had submitted

  1671
  them to a Committee, consisting of Sir Charles Trevelyan, Mr. Stevenson, and Mr. Fergusson, and by their assistance he had succeeded in including in the plan several Departments which Mr. Scott had omitted. Mr. Scott had, therefore, to prepare his plans anew, and they were not yet finished. There was no contract yet for the building; only the foundations were laid. When the plans were completed, which he hoped would be shortly, he would have them placed in the Library for the inspection of Members. All he could say was, that the plans had been looked over most carefully by the Committee, and had been sanctioned by the heads of the Home and Colonial Departments. So far, therefore, as regarded the site for which money had been voted, that necessary for the erection of the Foreign, India, Home, and Colonial Offices had been acquired. The other question was entirely distinct—namely, the acquisition of a further site for the erection of other public offices, as recommended by the Commission of 1868. That Commission recommended the acquisition of the whole block of land between Parliament Street, George Street, and the Park. The site thus recommended to be acquired appeared to the Government far more extensive than was necessary, and a Bill for the acquisition of a much more limited area had been referred to a Select Committee, which had passed it. The Bill had been recommitted to the Whole House, and the question of the acquisition of this site or of any fresh property could then be fully discussed. The Bill would not be proceeded with to-night, and probably not this week. As regarded that part of King Street which would still remain after the portion already acquired had been pulled down, of course, when the Home and Colonial Offices were erected, it would no longer be so convenient as a thoroughfare in consequence of its entrance being somewhat impeded by those buildings. The maps were already before the House, and the accounts should be laid on the table in a condensed form.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to know whether any estimate of the amount required for the Home and Colonial Offices would be given before the buildings were commenced?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, there was, of course, a general estimate, and the House might have any particulars it required.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he wished to know what amount of money had been expended in the purchase of the site?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had in his hand a statement of the whole of the expenditure in respect of the public offices. The Foreign Office was already erected, and the account for the offices to be erected on that site was exclusive of the India Office, which was paid for out of Indian revenues. The operation was a prolonged one, having lasted a good many years, but the account up to December 31, 1868, in round numbers stood thus—For the purchase of property, £409,484; preliminary and other expenses, £16,000; for the buildings, £258,000;furnitureandfittings, £15,000; miscellaneous, £6,000. The total was £706,223. Then with regard to the blocks on the south side, there would be required to complete the purchase of the land, £67,000; for buildings and public offices, £407,000; making a total of £1,181,000. The India Office had refunded £86,000; so that the actual expense up to the present time was £1,094,000 to complete the block of buildings as designed, subject to a further and complicated question of £50,000 for property taken in exchange.

FOREIGN OFFICE—UNPAID ATTACHES.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to call attention to the employment in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service of unpaid Attaches, and would contrast their position with that of the junior clerks in the Foreign Office. There were ten of these unpaid attaches, who were appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. They must be between twenty-one and twenty-six years of age, and they must serve four years without pay. At the end of that time they were to receive £150 "contingently." Every junior clerk in the Foreign Office, on the other hand, received £100 a year on appointment. The unpaid attaches were subject to many expenses. They were obliged to provide themselves with an expensive uniform, to lodge near the Embassy, which was usually in the most expensive quarter, and they were called upon to contribute to the relief of their fellow countrymen in distress. They were continually being removed from one Embassy to another at a considerable

  1673
  expense; for when it was discovered that an attaché was comfortably settled anywhere, the rule at the Foreign Office seemed to be to remove him as far off as possible, while the clerk lived in London, often in his father's house, and had the great advantage of a club. The Committee of 1861 did much to assist the diplomatic profession, but the class of unpaid attaches still remained, although the most distinguished diplomatists and Ministers, including Lord Kimberley, Sir Andrew Buchanan, Sir John Cramp-ton, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord Malmesbury, Lord Cowley, and Lord Napier, condemned the principle, and agreed that unpaid service was no more desirable in this than in other public Departments. As regarded the prospects of these gentlemen, under ordinary circumstances a man might, perhaps, expect to become a Secretary of Legation at about forty; but it appeared to him that diplomatic pensions depended entirely upon the caprice of the permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and he would mention one instance to show the peculiarity of the system adopted. Mr. A. was named Secretary of Legation in 1852, and retired, in 1867 while Mr. B., who was also appointed Secretary of Legation in 1852, retired in January, 1868. One would naturally have supposed that both these gentlemen would have the same claims upon the Government for a pension; but, in point of fact, though A received a pension, B did not, he being told that it was not usual for a man to enter Parliament on quitting the diplomatic service, notwithstanding that an Act had been passed in 1859, intituled "An Act to remove doubts as to the qualifications of persons holding diplomatic pensions to sit in Parliament." One reason assigned for giving a pension to B was that he was about sixty years of age. He could not see what objection there could be to placing attachés on the same footing as clerks in the Foreign Office. Ten first-class junior clerks received £4,664; nine second-class clerks, £1,605; and six third-class clerks, £688; while even the doorkeeper and the housekeeper received £100 a year each. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask that an attaché should receive a larger salary than was given to a housekeeper and a doorkeeper. The Committee had recommended that the attaché
  1674
  should occasionally exchange their posts with those of clerks in the Foreign Office; but this recommendation, though theoretically good, would not work in practice, because the Foreign Office clerks would be unwilling to accept diplomatic posts, which were for the most part disagreeable. There was a story told that Lord Palmerston, when he handed over the Seals of the Foreign Office, said to his successor, Lord Malmesbury—"You will find, my Lord, that diplomatists are very hard to please; in fact, there are only two courts that are coveted—Paris and Vienna." Having been himself connected with the diplomatic profession, he knew that they were a most efficient corps, and that it was quite a mistake to suppose, as many persons seemed to do, that they were engaged in a continual round of courtly amusements; and he thought a great and rich country like our own. ought to remunerate the attachés for their services.
  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, the unpaid Attaches in the Diplomatic Service are entitled to salaries equal to those now given to the Junior Clerks in the Foreign Office,"—(Mr. William Lowther,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the House could not be justly charged with not taking an interest in the diplomatic service; but, as the whole of the expenditure connected with it was now for the first time shown on the Estimates, and fully under the control of the House, he hoped that more careful consideration would be given to the subject than heretofore. He was unable to support the Motion, because he was of opinion that attaches, who gave their services gratuitously for a time, were not worse off than young surgeons, lawyers, and other professional men, who had to expend large sums of money before they got any return for the outlay. It should also be remembered that an attaché at first could do very little, and he thought there was no hardship in asking a young attaché to serve without pay for a few years while he made the experiment whether or not he was fit for service. The attaché was not entitled to remuner-

  1675
  ation on the same principle as the clerks in the Foreign Office, who were obliged to attend for several hours in each day. The electric telegraph, by enabling persons engaged in negotiations to receive instructions in a very short time from the Government at home, had, in a great degree, changed the character of the diplomatic service, and it was questionable whether it was necessary to maintain such large diplomatic staffs as formerly.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would remind the House that the Diplomatic Pensions Bill, recently passed, contained a provision that no person should receive a pension unless he had served four years without pay in addition to the time for which he received pay.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he regretted that he had not heard the commencement of his hon. Friend's speech, as he was sure, from the hon. Member's experience, that any remarks that fell from him on the subject must be valuable. He understood him to complain that people had an opinion that the diplomatic service was a place for triflers and idlers. He (Mr. Otway) could only say that the sooner those who thought so got rid of that delusion the better. No one could read the Reports sent home from time to time respecting the commercial and political affairs of the different foreign countries without seeing that, whatever it might have been in the past, the diplomatic service must now be composed of able, intelligent, and industrious persons. His hon. Friend drew a comparison between the services of the attaches and those of the clerks in the Foreign Office, and suggested that attaches should receive the same pay as the junior clerks. He should, however, recollect that the clerks in the Foreign Office had no possibility of rising as the attaches had—to the attaches the highest grades in the diplomatic profession were open—while a clerk in the Foreign Office could never rise higher than permanent Under Secretary of State, with a salary of £2,000 a year. That was the highest prize open to him. As to the payment of the attaches, it would be perhaps better that every person serving the Government should receive a salary, whatever his rank; but the salary of a junior clerk in the Foreign Office was only £100 or £110 a year; and of what use would that be to an attaché serving at Paris,
  1676
  Vienna, or St. Petersburgh? [Mr. W. LOWTHER: A great deal.] He was surprised to hear his hon. Friend say so; for he had taken some trouble to ascertain, from various gentlemen filling that position in those capitals, what was the result of their experience as to the expense connected with it, and he was told that an attaché could not live in St. Petersburg, for instance, unless he had an allowance of £600 or £700. It was a mistake, he might add, to suppose that the expense of removal from one place to another was paid by the attaché himself. It fell upon the State, and in the quarterly accounts for every Embassy there was an allowance made for loss by the rate of exchange. It was also a mistake to attribute the assignment of pensions in any way to the permanent Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It was not only that Mr. Hammond was entirely incapable of bringing any injustice to bear in the exercise of any power which he might possess; but he in reality had no such power, inasmuch as the pensions were assigned by Act of Parliament. In principle he himself should not be opposed to granting the junior attaches a moderate annual sum; but if that were granted them it would be impossible to continue to them the advantages which they recently received. Formerly a man entering the diplomatic service acquired no right to a pension until he had been commissioned as secretary of Legation. Now, however, after four years as an unpaid attaché he at once received his commission, and from that moment his time towards his pension began to count. Under those circumstances it would, he thought, be somewhat inopportune to put the public to an expense for the purpose of conferring on those gentlemen what would be hardly a boon, especially seeing that no complaint emanated from them on the subject.
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, that after the explanation of the hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £47,413, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to draw attention to the large amount of salaries paid to Queen's messengers—£23,700. He did not question the ability and intelligence of these gentlemen; in fact they were too good for their work. In former times, and especially in times of war, this expense might have been necessary, but now the railway and the telegraph might advantageously supersede them. He did not propose, however, to abolish them altogether, but to reduce them to the ordinary class of messengers. He thought that £200 a year and their expenses was sufficient. The Austrian and French Embassies used, he understood, at the present day the Post Office and the telegraph to convey communications for the purpose of carrying which messengers were formerly employed. He did not propose to make any Motion now, but he hoped the Under Secretary's attention would be directed to the matter before the next year's Estimates.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he should be glad to hear some explanations as to the changes in the commercial department of the Foreign Office.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he must express his opinion that it was undesirable for clerks receiving salaries in the Foreign Office to act as agents for diplomatists abroad.
MR. CANDLISHasked if there had been investigation at the Foreign Office with the view of reducing the large staff engaged there?
MR. OTWAYsaid, he must admit that he had always thought the salaries of the messengers in the Foreign Office very large; and he was not disposed to quarrel with the assertion that the duties might be discharged for a less sum and by persons in a humbler position in life. He did not say a word against the present messengers. They had nearly all served in the army, and were gentlemen in the true sense of the word, and he believed there was no instance of any despatch entrusted to them having been tampered with. It sometimes happened in the case of illness, that re-
1678
course was had to home service messengers, who were not in the same social position; and it was only fair to say that despatches entrusted to them had always reached their destination safely. The Foreign Office messengers received, in the first instance, a salary of £400 a year, and when travelling, besides expenses, they received an allowance of £1 1s. a day. That was generally looked on as a fair allowance. Since 1863–4 the Vote had been reduced from £10,198 to £9,629. He had been directed by the Secretary of State for the
Foreign Department to make some inquiry into the matter, and when that inquiry was completed it would be his duty to propose a scheme which would ensure a considerable reduction in the rate for foreign messengers. In the meantime it had been found practicable to dispense with the services of one of them. With regard to the commercial department, it had had the advantage of being presided over by a gentleman of great attainments, Mr. Spring Rice, and although he had been recently appointed to the office of Assistant Under Secretary, he would continue his superintendence of the department. Whatever objections might be entertained to agencies, they entailed no charge on the public, although he confessed he had no sympathy with the system. The matter was one purely of voluntary arrangement between certain persons in the diplomatic service and clerks in the Foreign Office, and the Office had no direct control over it. Under the arrangement made by Lord Stanley no clerk in the Foreign Office would, in future, be allowed to accept such an agency. The result would be that all the agencies would fall into the hands of one clerk, and when this came about it would be a serious question whether it was compatible with, proper attention to a public office that a gentleman receiving £800 or £1,000 a year from the public funds should be receiving £4,000 or £5,000 annually for acting as the agent of diplomatists abroad. The great difficulty was that these agencies had been in existence during 100 years, and it therefore became a question of compensation for vested interests, if the agency business was at once put an end to. In his opinion the system was objectionable in principle, and he should be very glad when the present arrangement ceased.
MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to call attention to the fact that Foreign Office telegrams were sent without any regulations whatever at an enormous expense to the public. Somebody should be made responsible, and no telegram should be sent without being signed, by the responsible person. This would prevent a great waste of public money, for many of the telegrams sent were of little use. As to agents, he thought some of the pensioned clerks should be appointed, the agency business not making any great demand either in regard to time or intellect.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he did not see why bankers should not be employed as agents instead of the clerks at the Foreign Office.
MR. MELLYsaid, he must draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had not given any answer to the questions of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) with reference to the clerks in the Foreign Office.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would be glad to know whether the salaries in the Foreign Office were likely to undergo revision? He observed that the office porter had a salary of £230 a year. Surely this was too much.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he could not hold out any hope of a reduction in the number of clerks at the Foreign Office. He did not think the number was too large to enable them to get through the business satisfactorily. At times a great amount of work was thrown on the office, and as the entire business of the day was disposed of, as a rule, during the day, the clerks were often kept employed long after the hours when they might expect to leave; and, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge of the matter, it would not be possible to do the work satisfactorily, as at present, with a smaller staff. With regard to telegrams, the laying of the Atlantic Cable had made a large addition to the telegraphic expenditure of the Foreign Office, and as telegraphic communication was extended over the world, the charge would, no doubt, be increased. With a view to the interests of the public service, he was inclined to encourage, rather than discourage, the use of the telegraph. The hon. Member for Westmoreland stated that there was an instance of a telegraphic order for turtle being sent,
1680
but then it should be recollected this was a delicate fish, and a good deal might turn on the question of its punctual arrival. He only hoped with an increase of telegraphy there would be some diminution in the expense of the messages. The office porter, whose salary of £230 had been alluded to, had filled the situation of head porter for a considerable time, and had the custody of the building, with very valuable documents within its walls. His length of service and good guardianship of the building deserved some consideration.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he was surprised at the smallness rather than the greatness of the sum which the Government paid for their telegrams. He knew more than one private firm in the City which paid something like £5,000 a year for telegrams.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £23,884, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
(3.) £27,413, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office and Departments.
(4.) £68,033, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade and Departments.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that if he had had the honour of a seat in the House when the Bill for abolishing the Office of Vice President of the Board of Trade and substituting that of Parliamentary Secretary was before it, he should have opposed that measure, because he could speak from personal knowledge—having formerly served as Private Secretary to three several Presidents and Vice Presidents—of the public advantage of the old practice of having the President of the Board in one House and the Vice President in the other. He observed that there was an increase of £3,000 in the salaries, &c, of the Board of Trade, a large portion of which was caused by an addition to the senior clerks of the office. There were now twenty senior clerks—a number out of all proportion to the total clerical staff—and it was worth inquiry whether the office had not become top-heavy. He saw a gentleman down in the list as a corresponding clerk in the Railway Department, who was stated in the Estimates to have been appointed for the unusual period of eighteen months only, which seemed to require explanation. The Accountant of the Board of Trade had

1681
claimed his retirement, and he had been succeeded, at a salary of £1,000 a year, by a gentleman in no way connected with the Board of Trade. Now, nothing exercised a more injurious effect on a Department than bringing a stranger out of other professions or some other public Department, and putting him over the heads of deserving clerks, who had a right to look for promotion. The library of the Board of Trade was one of the most valuable collections of works on economical and statistical science in this or any other country. It consisted of upwards of 30,000 volumes, and was of the greatest possible use to the commercial department of the Board of Trade. He understood, however, that when the Board moved over to the building lately occupied by the Foreign Office in Whitehall Gardens, they left their valuable library behind them in a temporary wooden building, where it was exposed to the greatest risk from fire. He was told that the library would either be broken up or retained to form the nucleus of a large library common to all the Public Departments. Now, the value of the special library required by each Department consisted in its easy accessibility to the Department, for if it were necessary to send to a distance for a volume the chances were that it would seldom be consulted. He supposed that the librarian, a gentleman of considerable experience in the commercial business of the office, who received a salary of about £600 a year, would remain with the library, and thus the advantage of consulting him would likewise be in a great measure lost.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the increase referred to was not due to the present Government, but to their predecessors in Office. There had been cases of retirement among the senior clerks, whose places had been filled up as usual from the juniors. An inquiry had, however, been instituted by the President of the Board of Trade into the whole work of the Department, and the Report was now under the consideration of the Treasury. A corresponding clerk had been appointed in connection with the railway accounts. When the accountant resigned, the President of the Board of Trade was exceedingly desirous of filling up the post from the Board of Trade itself, but he could not find anyone sufficiently fit to occupy it, and he ap-
1682
pointed a gentleman who was Accountant to the Privy Council. The library was an exceedingly valuable one, and it was superintended by a librarian, a
sublibrarian and a clerk. The volumes were formerly spread over the whole of the rooms, and it was not thought worth while to remove them to the late Foreign Office, now temporarily occupied by the Board of Trade. The library was, therefore, left in the temporary rooms of the Treasury buildings, where the volumes could be consulted by other Departments. The Board of Trade were now considering whether this might not be treated as a library for the whole of the Public Departments. He had never found any inconvenience himself in sending across the road for any books he might happen to want. His hon. Friend would, he hoped, excuse him for not entering upon the subject of the salary and appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, there was an increase of £3,300 in the Vote under consideration. The House of Commons, no doubt, was responsible for some of these additions, and the increase was mainly caused by the creation of new offices and officials, such as inspectors of factories, alkali works, &c. He suggested that fees should be charged, as in the case of the Joint-Stock Companies Registration Department. Those which were inspected ought, in his opinion, to pay for their inspection.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought the Government ought next Session to take up the question of the general reform of the Public Departments. The duties of some of the Departments, such as the Privy Council Office and the Home Office, had been greatly increased of late; while, on the other hand, the In-closure Commissioners were probably not overburdened with work. It was a defect, too, of the present system that one Office hardly ever knew what another Department was doing.
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk), he had to state that the question of making fees and charges reimburse the Exchequer the expense incurred by particular establishments had, to a considerable extent, already engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It would be necessary, however, to examine care-

1683
fully the provisions of numerous Acts of Parliament before an alteration in the present system could be proposed; but he hoped that during the approaching Recess the whole subject would be thoroughly investigated. In his opinion, when a special service was carried on for the benefit of a particular class, they ought to pay the cost of inspection.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was glad to hear that this subject was engaging the attention of the Government. His hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) had asked the First Minister of the Crown to review the staff and personnel of the whole of the Public Departments; but to approach this subject in a comprehensive spirit would be to postpone its settlement for a great number of years. In his judgment it would be much more practicable to take each Department by itself and re-organize it from time to time.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) £1,921, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.
(6.) £13,265, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that there had been some difficulty in carrying out the Resolution passed last year that the Charity Commissioners should defray their own expenses. There was a large number of charities the objects of which had altogether failed, as well as what might be termed demoralizing charities, and those charities in the City of London and elsewhere, in whose case there was no applicant, such as those for the release of slaves and of debtors in prison; and he should like to see a Bill brought in for the purpose of placing all those charities which were now obsolete or useless in a common fund, out of which the expenses of the Charity Commissioners might be paid. By that means new charities of great advantage to the public might be set on foot.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Chippenham. He might mention that in one case which came under his own observation, there was a certain sum of money left to bind a boy apprentice to a saddler yearly in a parish in which there was none.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £6,694, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.
(8.) £13,281, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he must point out the absurdity of having five Commissioners to do work 19–20ths of which was purely mechanical. He did not wish to interfere with existing appointments, but he hoped that as vacancies occurred the Government would see the expediency of not filling them up. One man at the head of the Commission, with assistants, would, he felt satisfied, be amply sufficient to carry on the business.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman might rest assured that new Con-missioners would not be appointed without very careful consideration.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he had made a Motion in the early part of the Session, with reference to the question of having a responsible Minister to deal with agricultural subjects, and an assurance was given by the President of the Board of Trade that the matter should receive the attention of the Government. It was his belief that a good Minister of Agriculture would be able to do the work of the Copyhold Commissioners, and thus save the expense of that Department. He trusted that the Government had not lost sight of the subject, and would give it their careful attention at the earliest opportunity.
MR. BRUCEbegged to assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) that the subject to which he had alluded had not been lost sight of; but, as it would require the re-adjustment of the business of several Departments, it had not been possible to make the necessary changes during the pressure of the Session.
Vote agreed to.
(9.) £7,000, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses.
(10.) £25,324, to complete the sum for the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department.
(11.) £28,060, to complete the sum for the General Register Office.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he hoped means would be taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to extend the area over which the vital statistics of large towns were published weekly. If something like a population of 100,000 were the line adopted, many

1685
new elements of social life would be included—Merthyr Tydvil, for instance, with its mining population; Stoke, with its manufacture of pottery; and Sunder-land, with its maritime and shipbuilding interests. The vital statistics of these large industrial populations would be extremely interesting, and their weekly publication would, no doubt, be attended by beneficial results. The additional expense would probably not exceed £100, or £200.
MR. BRUCEadmitted that there was much force in what had been stated by his hon. Friend. The only objection that could be urged against extending the area of the large towns, whose vital statistics were published weekly, was the expense; and he was informed by the Registrar General that such an arrangement would involve some serious addition to the present expenditure. But he would make further inquiry; and if he found that the number of large towns could be increased, with no further addition to the expense than what his hoh. Friend had stated, his suggestion would be adopted.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) £3,000, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission.
MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he thought it might be well that the salaries of the Lunacy Commissioners should be placed on the Votes.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it would require an alteration of the law to place these salaries on the Votes. They were now charged on the Consolidated Fund.
Vote agreed to.
(13.) £30,550, to complete the sum for the Mint.
(14.) £11,110, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
(15.) £23,669, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to call attention to the great additional expense which was thrown on patentees and inventors in making searches for patents previously granted, owing to the very imperfect indices kept in the Patent Office. Notwithstanding the large balance of £73,000, to which they had contributed, they were often obliged to expend £50 or £60 more than their fees, in order to find out whether their inven-
1686
tions had been anticipated. The staff was too limited.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, that some five years ago a Committee was appointed to consider the question of the establishment of a patent museum, &c, and that Committee recommended that there should be associated with the Patent Office, a museum of patented inventions, and that a museum of mechanical inventions should be established on the Government land at South Kensington. A vote of £10,000 was consequently taken. for it on the Estimates at that time, but was not proceeded with, and nothing more had since been heard of it. He should be glad of an explanation on the subject from the Secretary to the Treasury.
MR. AYRTONundertook that the observations of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) should be communicated, to the Attorney General; and after that, they would probably come under the consideration of the Treasury. But, he would remark, in reference to the sum put down, as derived from patents, that only one-half of the sum was derived from fees on granting patents, and the other half consisted of stamp duties on patents. With reference to the establishment of a patent museum, he observed that the Committee referred to were by no means unanimous, with respect to the conclusion they came to; and the Report of the Committee had not, consequently, carried with it any great weight. Nothing had been done with respect to buildings at South Kensington, as the whole of that question had been from time to time postponed.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the stamp duties were paid by the inventors, just as well as the fees on patents.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £13,417, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
(17.) £176,762, to complete the sum for the Poor Law Commission.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he desired to call attention to the internal system of the Poor Law Office, and to the arrangement of the work, which he thought might be altered very much for the better. In 1848 the expenditure for clerks at the Poor Law Board was £7,000, and there was a further sum of £1,800 for contingencies. This year the expenditure for clerks was £15,000,

1687
and for contingencies £2,400. The business, no doubt, had increased, but by no means in the same proportion. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board might say that no Public Department sent out so many letters as the Poor Law Board. Well, it was a disputed question whether they did not write many more letters than were necessary. They were, indeed, so frequent, and often upon such trivial subjects, as to be received, he feared, with a feeling of ridicule. In 1868 upwards of 64,000 letters were sent out by the Poor Law Board, but a large proportion were of a formal nature, and would not have been written by other Departments, but would have been printed or lithographed. A material reduction might thus be made in the number of clerks and others employed. In 1860 the right hon. Gentleman then at the head of the Poor Law Board (Mr. C. P. Villiers) expressed an opinion to the Treasury that the number of clerks might be diminished, and, in 1867, his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), when Secretary to the Treasury, came to a similar conclusion. No doubt an Act was afterwards passed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) which threw a great deal of increased work upon the Department; but although the pressure might be great at the present moment, very much of the work would soon be completed and the pressure would then be considerably diminished. There were now two Secretaries to the Poor Law Board—a permanent Secretary and a Parliamentary Secretary—and two Under Secretaries, one a legal gentleman and one in the office. These had existed from 1848, and having himself filled the office of Parliamentary Secretary, he spoke with some knowledge of the subject when he said that this official and one of the Under Secretaries were doing work which might be performed by one man. In the Committee which sat upstairs a proposal was made—he believed by the hon. Member the present Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton)—that the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Poor Law Board should be abolished. [Mr. AYRTON: I believe I was the hon. Member who prevented it from being done.] It was said that it was necessary that this Office should be retained in case the President of the Board had a seat in the House of
1688
Lords. There was, no doubt, some force in that argument, but it was a very exceptional thing for him to be in the other House, and there would be no real hardship if the office were virtually confined to Members of this House. His own chief (the Earl of Devon) was the only head of the Department who had not been a Member of that House, the Members of which had, as a rule, more experience in the working of the Poor Law than those of the other House. The suggestions he had to make were that nine of the supplementary clerks should be abolished, that two of the senior clerks should be reduced, that one of the chief clerks should be abolished, and that one of the Assistant Secretaries should be abolished and his work done by the Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, these changes could not be immediately made, but he trusted that, as vacancies occurred, the right hon. Gentleman would carry out these recommendations. He knew that a great reform was also suggested—namely, whether the Poor Law Board might not do further useful work in the supervision of the Local Government Office. There were no better inspectors in any public Department than those of the Poor Law Board, and he should be sorry to see any reduction made in either their number or their salaries. He had made these few remarks because he was practically acquainted with the subject, and he begged in conclusion to express his belief that the changes he had suggested would unite economy with increased efficiency.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought that the superintendence of the pauper lunatics might be advantageously transferred to the Poor Law Commissioners.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he wished to express his general concurrence in the remarks of his hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). At the same time he was of opinion that it would be very inexpedient to abolish the office of Parliamentary Secretary, because it ought to be always possible for a Member of the House of Peers to occupy the office either of President or Secretary. It was highly desirable that the House of Lords should be made acquainted with what was going on in matters of such importance, and he was decidedly of opinion that there were many noble Lords as capable

1689
as Members of that House to hold either of the offices he had just referred to. It was remarkable that after the lapse of so many years he should have been the first Parliamentary Secretary who represented the Department in that House. The office had been too much of a sinecure, and this was a circumstance much to be regretted. It was absolutely necessary that in future the Parliamentary Secretary should be considered to have cognizance of all the business of the Department, and qualified, if not required, to answer for it in his place in Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that the precedent set by the late Government would be followed on a future occasion. The reduction of the establishment had been undoubtedly proposed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers); but his right hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) did not think fit to carry out the reduction to such an extent as had been proposed. He agreed with the remarks of his hon. Friend as to the superfluity of letter writing in the Department, and during his tenure of Office he had done all he could to diminish it. Under existing circumstances the right hon. Gentleman opposite could not be expected to give a pledge of immediate reduction, but if he turned his attention to diminishing the amount of work to be done, no doubt reduction would follow.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he would be glad of an explanation respecting the expenses of some of the inspectors being in some cases merged in their salaries.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who introduced this question supplied, in his own person, a most excellent argument for the retention of the office of Parliamentary Secretary, since but for the existence of that office the hon. Baronet would not have gained that accurate and extended knowledge of Poor Law matters which placed him in a position to contribute so usefully to the debates on that subject. The work of the Poor Law Board was quite as great as that of the Board of Trade, the Committee of Council on Education, and other Departments which had both a chief and a Parliamentary Secretary; and the tendency at present was to an increase rather than to a diminution of that work. He had himself derived valuable assist-
1690
ance from his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. A. Peel); and it would be highly desirable not to abolish the office—at all events, until the whole Poor Law system was changed. As regarded the number of letters written, or the number of persons to whom letters were addressed, he believed the correspondence of the Poor Law Board exceeded that of any other Department. When there were 700 Unions, the correspondence must be very voluminous, and though it might be possible to shorten and simplify the work, the details would always be enormous. But he must state that during the six months he had been in Office he had issued much fewer circulars than his predecessor, who had had a tendency to bombard Boards of Guardians with them. No doubt the Department was susceptible of improvement, and he should hesitate to fill up any vacancies as they occurred without taking into consideration those points which had been submitted by the hon. Baronet to the notice of the Committee. As to the increase of expenditure, he must remind hon. Members that the work to be done by the Poor Law Board had increased enormously. The public demanded more work of it, and the consequence was that if more was to be done, the cost of the machinery for doing the work would be naturally more or less increased. He should, however, turn, his attention with the utmost care to the reduction of expenditure as far as possible. The incidental expenses, he might add, were greatly increased by the very large number of Returns which were moved for by hon. Members. Nothing, however, seemed to annoy a Member so much as the refusal of a Return. That very day he had been asked to give a Return which would cost £200, and would be, he thought, of very little value. In answer to the question which had been put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Elliot), he had to state that a new arrangement had been made with regard to inspectors, the whole salary being, in the case of the later inspectors, merged into one payment. As to the case of the pauper lunatics, the subject, with the exception of the heavy charge made for paupers in county asylums, had not been brought under the notice of the Government, but the entire question should receive consideration. A special knowledge was required to frame

1691
the regulations for pauper lunatics; but he must confess that he had been startled at seeing the sums charged for some of the county asylums.
MR. GILPINsaid, he believed that the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Board, instead of being a sinecure, was one of great importance. Speaking with a considerable knowledge of the facts, he could state that only in one instance had that absence on the part of those filling that office, of which complaint was made, occurred; and in that instance the Parliamentary Secretary was also what was technically called a "Whip" of his party. He concurred in the view that in certain portions of the Department expense might be saved; but it should be borne in mind that there was no Department whose efficient working was of greater consequence to the country. It was an important question whether the Poor Law Board should interfere quite as much as it did with Boards of Guardians, and whether some saving might not be effected in that direction. He should be glad if the Board could, consistently with the performance of its other duties, take under its control the pauper lunatic asylums. The cost of their maintenance might, he believed, be very materially reduced by a better system of supervision.
MR. ACLANDsaid, he knew that county rate-payers were dissatisfied with the expense of the lunatic asylums, and he believed that if the expenditure were brought more directly under the review of that House and the action of a responsible Minister great advantage would be the result. With respect to local taxation generally he trusted that the pledge given by the President of the Poor Law Board at the commencement of the Session to consider the subject would produce fruit at no distant period. He did not, however, believe that the investigation of the subject would do much in the way of transferring burthens from the land.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he had visited almost every lunatic asylum in England, and he found they were better managed than those in Ireland, the patients receiving much greater advantages in the way of education and amusements. In the Irish lunatic asylums the average cost per head was £22, and in England £27 or £28; but then it must be re-
1692
membered that in Ireland provisions were cheaper and the rate of wages lower, so that there was very little to complain of with respect to the difference of cost so far as this country was concerned. A considerable saving might, however, he thought, be effected by removing those lunatics who were hopelessly incurable from the asylums to the workhouse.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, that the poor rates were becoming a very heavy burden, and there was an impression among some of his constituents that this burden was increased by large official expenditure; but he felt confident that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Poor Law Board would do his best to lessen all charges in his power.
MR. KEKEWICHsaid, he thought it would be extremely difficult to reduce the staff of the Poor Law Department. There were few members of the Government of whom more questions were asked than of those connected with the Poor Law Department; and there were few who gave more satisfactory answers, whether of those now in Office or of their predecessors. He was exceedingly anxious that by some means or other the Poor Law inspectors should become inspectors of pauper lunatic asylums; but looking to the increased price of provisions, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Poor Law Board) would not think that those asylums were managed in an expensive way. In Devon they had never been able to get the weekly cost of maintenance under 8s. a week, and it was now 9s.6d. Having been chairman of the Visiting Committee of the Devon County Asylum for twenty years, he knew it was the opinion of medical men that the poor inmates had no chance of recovering unless their physical strength was well sustained with food. The question of local taxation was a most difficult one; but he was of opinion that some portion of the sum required for pauper lunatic asylums should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that he never intended to imply that the office of Parliamentary Secretary of the Poor Law Board should be abolished, but rather that the Gentleman holding the office should perform a certain amount of office work.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could assure

1693
his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Acland) that the Government would by no means shrink from the investigation of the subject of local taxation, but would give their earnest attention to it during the Recess, and he trusted that by-and-by they would be able to submit measures dealing with the question.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) £14,624, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
MR. MONKsaid, he wished for some explanation of the item £481 charged by the police for watching the Record Office.
MR. ATRTONsaid, the charge was made in respect of the special guardianship of the police, required in consequence of the extreme value of the contents of the Record Office.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) £3,009, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan and West India Islands Relief Commissions.
(20.) £1,684, to complete the sum for the Registrars of Friendly Societies.
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £264,133, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Public Departments, and for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
MR. SCOTTRFIELDsaid, it was much easier finding fault with this large amount than suggesting a remedy. He had once suggested that if every hon. Member were obliged to pay a small percentage on the cost of the Returns moved for, he might not be so ready in moving for them; but certainly before Returns were granted some estimate of their expense might be made, and it might then be put to Members whether they would insist on their production in view of the expense they would occasion. On one occasion the same Paper appeared in two Returns laid on the table at the same time.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, he begged to call attention to the item of £13,285 for the sale of waste paper and Parliamentary Papers, with a view of suggest-
1694
ing a mode of utilizing a portion of them. He wished to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury to the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Papers appointed in 1853, of which Mr. Tuffnell was the Chairman, and Mr. Ewart, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Hume, and other distinguished Members of the House were Members. The Committee reported that all the witnesses, who gave evidence on the subject, were agreed as to the great advantage that would accrue from a general diffusion of Parliamentary Papers, by dispelling ignorance, correcting misrepresentations, and enabling the mass of the people to form for themselves a just opinion upon subjects of legislation, and other important questions of the day. One of the witnesses, the Rev. Dr. Booth, F.R.S., said—
"I think on public grounds the country should know what is done in Parliament; that as Parliament has thrown open to the public what is said in Parliament, it ought also to have the means of access to know what is done in Parliament."
And if this opinion were correct in 1853 it was still more applicable at the present day, when so large an increase had been made in the number of the constituencies. The Committee, after hearing a considerable number of witnesses, recommended that a selection of Parliamentary Papers should be sent to mechanics' institutions, and other popular literary institutions, and in the case of free libraries, established under Mr. Ewart's Act, they recommended that the whole of the Parliamentary Papers should be sent free of charge immediately upon publication. He (Mr. Rylands) regretted that this recommendation of the Committee had never been attended to, as there was really no difficulty in carrying it out, and the cost would be practically nothing. He believed that free public libraries had been established in about forty towns. The actual number was not accurately known, though they would shortly be in possession of the information, as a Return had been moved for by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines). The Act had to be adopted in the first instance by a majority of the rate-payers at a public meeting, and the Town Council had power to levy a rate in support of a free library and museum not exceeding 1d., in the pound, the manage-

1695
ment and property being vested in public authorities. They, therefore, possessed a permanent character which justified the recommendation of the Parliamentary Papers Committee. In other respects these institutions deserved every assistance, as they were of great use to the working classes in large towns. In Liverpool the Town Council devoted £10,000 a year to its museum and library, and about 1,000,000 volumes were annually issued. Manchester paid £5,000 a year, and its library issued 673,432 volumes annually. Sheffield paid. £1,800 a year, and issued 162,573 volumes. The Birmingham library issued nearly 250,000 volumes annually, and so with the libraries in similar proportions in other large towns. As to other public libraries connected with mechanics' institutions, &c, it was recommended that a Select Committee should sit from year to year to decide to which of them the papers and blue-books should be supplied. He believed that there were many intelligent working men connected with those institutions who would be glad to have an opportunity of seeing Parliamentary Papers, and who would probably make good use of them, by calling the attention of their representatives to many matters of interest. In the case of the Estimates, even, he thought it not unlikely that if the bulky book of the Civil Service Estimates, which they were then discussing, were brought more generally under public notice, the effect would be to lessen many charges in future years. In addition to the ordinary Parliamentary Papers, he (Mr. Rylands) urged that the calendars and historical documents published by the Record Office, and for which considerable sums of public money were voted, should be presented to the free public libraries, established under Mr. Ewart's Act.
MR. O'REILLY DEASEsaid, many of the documents printed by order of Parliament were utterly worthless.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, he had heard a great deal of the expense incurred by printing the Returns of private Members, and in order to test the matter he had moved for a Return on this subject. He found that out of an expenditure of £413,000 last year for Parliamentary printing, the cost of printing the Returns moved for by private Members did not exceed £4,700. This showed
1696
conclusively that this Vote was not unduly swollen by the Returns moved for by private Members. He trusted the day was far distant when, under the plea of saving public money, they should combine to keep the public in the dark as to the work of Parliament.
MR. PIMsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that the distribution of Parliamentary Papers would supply the most valuable information on political affairs. Some economy might he effected if a larger proportion of blue books were sent to those Members only who expressed a desire to have them. For himself he did not know what to do with so many.
MR. AYRTONsaid, a great deal of misapprehension existed both inside and outside the House with regard to this Vote of £71,750 for Parliamentary printing. The sum included the whole expense of the printing operations of both Houses of Parliament. Those operations were not confined to the mere printing of Returns, but extended to the printing of all documents necessary for the information of the 658 Members of the House of Commons, and the Members—more than 400 in number—of the House of Peers, as to all done the day before, and all to be done on the current day. This required an expensive system of printing to be carried on between two and eight o'clock a.m. The Vote also included printing connected with the proceedings of Committees and Royal Commissions, which was also of a very expensive kind. He was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) had obtained the Return, which showed that no less than £4,700 had been spent in. satisfying the demands of hon. Members who moved for the production of Returns. The question of economizing printing under this head had been under the consideration of the Printing Committee during the present Session. As to the circulation of Papers, he might mention that attempts were made every Session to discriminate between Papers which it was probable a great many Members might not desire to see, and those which every Member ought to peruse in order that they might properly discharge their duties in that House. Her Majesty's Government, however, felt great delicacy in withholding Papers from hon. Members. The Printing Committee had been lately considering how

1697
far the system of printing only a limited number of certain Papers might be extended, and in many cases only 250 copies were printed instead of between 600 and 700. One hon. Member had suggested that instead of limiting the circulation of these Papers they ought to be sent all over the country for the information of the working classes; but he could not help thinking that the people had access to so large an amount of instructive literature that they had much better not embark upon the study of Parliamentary Papers which, he thought in many instances, would only be misunderstood. It was far better to leave to periodical publicists the task which they so ably performed of popularizing the information contained in the more interesting of those documents. In conclusion, he assured hon. Members that the Printing Committee would do all it could to keep down the expense of printing within the narrowest limits which were consistent with the legitimate requirements of the House.
MR. MONKsaid, he wished to call attention to the enormous item of £9,870, arising from the sale of waste paper, consisting of the publications of the Record Office. He would suggest that fewer copies of documents should be printed. As to sending the Parliamentary Papers and blue books to mechanics' institutes and free libraries, he had tried the experiment in the city he represented (Gloucester), and he afterwards found that the copies he sent were all covered with dust.
MR. MILLERsaid, he should be glad to know if the printing was done at the lowest cost for which the work could be done. He thought the salaries in the Stationery Office, in some cases, were exorbitant. There was an Examiner of Binding at £450 a year, while a respectable journeyman bookbinder would do the work better. The same system seemed to prevail here which he was ashamed to find in Scotland—of first appointing a big man with a big salary, and then appointing a small man to do the work.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he supposed that when the Secretary of the Treasury spoke of statistics being misleading, he meant the word to apply to his own estimates. Statistics meant a statement of facts, and facts could not be erroneous, He was of opinion that although there
1698
were many Parliamentary Papers, such, for instance, as the Poor Law Returns, which there would be no use in furnishing to the public, Papers such as the Estimates and the Statutes as they were passed, might, with advantage, be supplied to mechanics' institutes and free libraries throughout the country.
MR. SERJEANT DOWSEsaid, he had been a member of the Library Committee of the Dublin Society, of which the élite of the working classes were members, and that he found the Parliamentary Papers with which it was supplied were put in places where they could not be got at. He might add that if they could be got at they would not be read, and since he had been a Member of Parliament himself he by no means felt disposed to quarrel with the taste of those who felt no inclination for such reading.
MR. M'LARENsaid, that it made little difference in the expense of supplying a Parliamentary Paper, whether 200 or 500 copies were printed. The great waste was incurred in the printing of matter which was totally useless, seeing that the waste paper which was sold for £13,285 must have cost nearly £52,000 in white sheets. For the first time in his life he found the work of printing in Dublin cheaper than in Edinburgh. The Dublin Gazette cost £285 17 s. 2d., the Edinburgh Gazette cost £1,138 19 s. 10 d. He should like to know from the Secretary of the Treasury how much of the printed work in the case of the Edinburgh Gazette was done in that city, how much of it was contracted for, and what was the date of the contracts. As to sending Parliamentary Papers to the libraries throughout the country, that, he thought would be a useless expense; but if every Member were allowed to send, free by post, the copies which he did not wish to retain, the privilege being limited—say, to those who sent through the post office of the House itself—much benefit might result, because then they might be sent to those who were known to take an interest in the subject to which they related.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must protest against the closing sentence of his hon. Friend's remarks. Of all descriptions of public expenditure, by far the worst, in his opinion, was that which was never brought to account, and which

1699
the House of Commons had no means of ascertaining or criticizing. If they went back to the old system of compelling the Post Office to do a great deal of gratuitous work for the public, they would be taxing the people of this country without their knowing it. Bills were now distributed gratuitously from that House, and when it was taken into account how great was the interest which persons had in those Bills, and how desirable it was that they should be speedily distributed, he was not prepared to offer any objection to that being done. But to send a large mass of Parliamentary Papers through the Post Office free of charge, and thus to impose a heavy tax on the public, was, he felt sure, a proposal to which his hon. Friend would not adhere. Experience had satisfied the heads of the Public Departments that the gratuitous distribution of these Papers was unwise. These Papers were produced and sold, he believed, considerably under cost price, and if they were circulated gratuitously there was no doubt that many would desire to have them, who did not want them, merely because they could get them for nothing, taking no account of the fact that the public money had been expended upon them. The subject was a very fair one for investigation, and before anything was done the matter should be examined by a Committee. He must say a word in defence of the Stationery Department. As far as the arrangements of the House of Commons were concerned, they were better than formerly, but they were still defective, and, in the main, they were accountable for the production of this great mass of waste paper. Justice should be done to the efforts of public servants out-of-doors; and he must say that ever since the Stationery Department was placed under the late Mr. McCulloch it had been, conducted in a spirit of great economy. If there were room for amendment—as he did not deny there might be—he was satisfied that any suggestion proceeding from that House would be met by the Stationery Department in a spirit of sympathy and co-operation.
MR. MACFIEsaid, he thought that the publications of the Patent Office, would, if distributed, be found very acceptable by persons throughout the country.
MR. MILLERsaid, that unless some satisfactory explanation of the item of
1700
Examiner of Binding were given he would move that his salary, amounting to £450, be struck out.
MR. AYRTONstated that the Examiner of Binding superintended to a very large amount the binding for all the Departments, and the office must necessarily be filled by a person of intelligence and of considerable responsibility. He was not aware of the state of the contracts in Edinburgh; but the officers of the Government had revised the contracts for the printing for this House, and had shown a disposition to retrench.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the Examiner of Binding ought to be a practical man and a most competent person, for a man to do this duty might be obtained for £100 a year. It was melancholy to observe the change in his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton), who, when an independent Member below the Gangway, was most active in picking out these faults in the Estimates, but was now, when in Office, the most ready defender of them.
MR. HUNTsaid, that a similar observation was made in the time of Lord Palmerston, and the noble Lord explained that independent Members, when they came into Office, found that what they had before thought unreasonable and improper was both reasonable and proper.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had endeavoured to show that this salary was not for a workman, but for a master, who had bookbinding to the amount of £39,000 to superintend, and had a very large number of men under him.
MR. SHERLOCKsaid, he thought that the House should turn its attention to large comprehensive items, for to strike at these small items was not the true principle of economy.
SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he thought, on the other hand, that if they wanted to effect reductions they must look after the small items.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished for further information as to the cost of the paper, binding, and printing.
MR. MILLERmoved that the Vote be reduced by £450, the salary of the Examiner of Binding, and by £500, the salary of the Examiner of Paper, being a total reduction of £950.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £263,185, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

1701
necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment dining the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books For the several Public Departments, and for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. Miller.)
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 110: Majority 75.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,227, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue, Records, and Inrolments."
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he wished to call attention to an item in this Vote of £143 15s. for keeping the Queen's Road, better known as Kensington Palace Gardens, private, except for carriages. There was a keeper at either end of the road, and he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had himself seen great inconvenience arise from the manner in which the regulations were enforced. Cabs with fares had entered at one gate—the keeper being away—and had been turned back when they arrived within a few yards of the exit. When the public had been allowed to travel in public cabs across St. James' Park in front of the Royal Palace, and also across Hyde Park, it seemed inconsistent that this exclusiveness should be maintained in Kensington Palace Gardens, in regard to a palace not in the Royal occupation, and to a road partly kept up at the public expense. The truth was that the Woods and. Forests always acted antagonistically to the public advantage, and were always ready to erect barricades against the public. The road was about 100 feet wide, and there was no reason why cabs should not traverse it. If, however, the occupants of the; houses insisted on keeping it private the least they could do was to pay this £143 15 s. 11 d.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that this road was part of the estate of the Crown, and the Woods and Forests were the guardians of the rights of the nation. The mistake was in considering these roads as the property of the inhabitants
1702
of the metropolis. The estate in question was laid out for improvement, and fine mansions were built upon it on certain conditions and with certain advantages, one of which was that the road should be kept private. Other portions of the property of the Crown in various parts of the metropolis were let on building leases on similar terms, and the leaseholders claimed the right of putting up gates and closing the roads against public vehicles in consideration of the large ground-rents they paid. Whenever the Metropolitan Board of Works were able to consider this question, it would be for them to discover whether, and in what manner, they could free these gates, with or without compensation, and consistently with the rights of particular parties. With regard to the form of these accounts, the matter had been before the Committee of Public Accounts, and their Report would be considered by the Government before the next Estimates were framed.
MR. LOCKEsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury was in error if he supposed that these gates were maintained by the proprietors of the houses on the estates of the Crown. He lived among gates in a part of the town sometimes called Belgravia, and he and other occupiers of houses paid £1 1s. a year to the people who looked after these gates. He said with confidence that the Woods and Forests was a Department which was not entitled to the slightest consideration from that House. It was a Department that was leagued against the British public, and which endeavoured to do them all the mischief it possibly could. He had the honour to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on Open Spaces, and it came to their knowledge that the Woods and Forests had let out to different persons the right to dig gravel over Blackheath, which was disfigured by enormous holes in consequence. And how much did the Committee think the Woods and Forests received for damaging and disfiguring this splendid recreation ground? Why, the trumpery sum of £54 a year. Blackheath was a place on which people rode, although, he admitted, it was sometimes on donkeys. That, perhaps, was a reason why so aristocratic a body as the Woods and Forests discountenanced such recreation. The Committee had Mr. Gore before them and asked Mm how he reconciled

1703
it to himself to commit such an infamy. Strong words were, in fact, used to Mr. Gore, but he cared not. He said—
"I care not for the British public at large, or for the British public in particular. My only duty is to exact as much as I possibly can, and when I do so I am upheld by those in high authority."
Mr. Gore now said that no one in a cab should go along this road in Kensington Palace Gardens, and to the power of saying this he joined the power of mulcting the public in the sum of £143 for keeping up the road. This was not a new question, and he commended it to the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury. If the inhabitants of these gardens insisted on having a private road let them pay for it, like the inhabitants of Belgravia.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that without joining in an attack upon the Woods and Forests, he hoped the roadway would be opened, as a great benefit would be thereby conferred on the inhabitants of the district.
MR. KINNATRDsaid, he could endorse what the hon. Member for South-wark had said respecting the Woods and Forests. The Thames Embankment had been vehemently opposed by that Department, which engaged in an expensive and tedious dispute with the Metropolitan Board of Works on the subject. Surely nothing could be more unseemly than the spectacle of two public Departments fighting each other in such a manner.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that there were in the metropolis no fewer than 247 of these private obstructions. He hoped the roadway would be thrown open to the public. The Government must, sooner or later, take up this question of private obstructions.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that two or three years ago he presented to the House the Report of a Committee, which recommended a method of dealing with this question. The recommendation was to the effect that the Metropolitan Board of Works should, at the instance of the local authorities, take immediate measures to free the metropolis from these interruptions of private gates. It was the duty of the Board in accordance with that Report, to communicate with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, in order to free the roads from the gates. If no steps had been taken it must be
1704
owing to the neglect of the local authorities.
SIR PATREICK O'BRIENsaid, it was not the duty of the Committee to enter, on the present occasion, into a discussion of the larger question raised by the Secretary to the Treasury, as to roads upon private property, but to consider that of a road upon Government property, and which was closed to the public. He moved that the Vote be reduced by £143, the sum paid for the maintenance of the gatekeepers.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,084, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue, Records, and Inrolments."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he was dissatisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. This roadway could not be opened until the Government took the matter in hand, and it was idle, therefore, to attempt to throw the odium on the Board of Works, or the local authorities.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, the Motion could not be received, as the £143 formed no charge in the Vote under consideration.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that the money ought not to be paid except on the assurance that the roadway would be opened.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chairman if he was out of Order in moving that the Vote be reduced by £143?
THE CHAIRMANruled that it was quite competent for the hon. Baronet to move the reduction of the Vote.
MR. AYRTONsaid, this part of the Crown estates was let on building leases at very high rents, and the sum of £143 was a portion of the expense required to obtain those high rents. Before the gates could be opened it was necessary that the local authorities of the district or of the metropolis should make with the Crown the arrangements requisite for converting that part of the estates of the Crown into a public road.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he did not think the hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) would divide the Committee if the Secretary to the Treasury

1705
would give an engagement that the Government would bring their influence to bear upon the mysterious local authority to which he alluded, with the view of inducing it to open the street for the use of the public.
MR. BROGDENsaid, he thought that 25 per cent on the gross rental was a very extravagant sum for the management of the property.
MR. CANDLISHsaid, that if there was a proprietary obligation to keep the road closed, the lessees of the houses would have a claim for compensation if it were opened against their consent.
MR. AYRTONsaid, if the local authorities, whether the parish or the Metropolitan Board, would undertake to maintain the road as a public road, there would be no objection.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that even if the Motion for the reduction of the Vote were carried, it would in no way effect the object which the hon. Baronet who made it had in view, but would merely reduce the salaries of the clerks. He might add that the Motion was not needed to induce the Government to look into the matter in the public interest.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, after that promise he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(23.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,722, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and public Buildings."
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had to complain that a correspondence which the Secretary to the Treasury had promised some time ago should be laid on the table of the House, relating to the changes which had been made in the establishment of Works and Public Buildings, had not been produced. The Estimate, as it stood, contained on the face of it no explanation of those changes, and he was disposed, under these circumstances, to ask that it should be postponed. From the Estimate it appeared that the expenses of the secretariat had been reduced by £500 a year,
1706
but then there was a new officer called the Surveyor of Works, who was to have £750 a year, so that there was a net increase for the secretariat in reality of £250 a year. Then the salary of the Architect and Surveyor was reduced from £1,000 a year to £750. The architect was Mr. Pennethorne, and it was reported that that gentleman had been dismissed, and that the reduction of salary was connected with his dismissal. He should like to know who was the officer who was to succeed Mr. Pennethorne, and what were to be his duties.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that when he had acceded to his present office, he found that a most valuable public officer, Mr. Austin, the Secretary, having resigned his place, it was absolutely necessary to fill it up without delay. He at the same time found no officer in the Department competent to give the First Commissioner advice on the many questions relating to architecture and estimates which were constantly being brought before him. Mr. Pennethorne was called the architectural adviser of the Office of Works, but he was at the same time an architect engaged in the practice of his art, and therefore he did not feel that it was open to him to give an opinion on the estimates and plans of other architects. He thought it fair, Mr. Austin having resigned, that he should be succeeded by Mr. George Russell, a gentleman who had long filled the office of Assistant Secretary with much ability. A place then remained to be filled, and it seemed to him that it ought to be filled by a gentleman of competent architectural knowledge, who was at the same time not a practising architect, and who could advise the First Commissioner upon the questions connected with public buildings which were constantly brought before him. It was difficult to find such a person, and, indeed, there was but one name which presented itself, and that was that of Mr. Fergusson. He proposed to that gentleman that he should accept the office of Secretary for Works and Buildings, and the House would admit that the salary of £750 was a moderate one for a gentleman of his distinction and reputation. For a short time Mr. Pennethorne would continue in office, as it was thought desirable to retain his services while certain sales and Government works, in which he was directly concerned, were

1707
going on. A reduction of £200 was made in the salary of the Secretary. The Surveyor of Works, Mr. Hunt, who had £1,000 a year, agreed to a reduction of 25 per cent. Other salaries had also been reduced, and now, with the addition of Mr. Fergusson, there was no increase of expense in the staff of the Department.
MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that Mr. Pennethorne was dismissed because he had private business, and that a Surveyor of Works was appointed who was still to have the power of carrying on private business.
MR. LAYARDsaid, that in the one case an architect had been employed who received a percentage, and in the other case the person employed would only give his professional advice without having to construct any buildings for the Government.
MR. HUNTsaid, that the question put to the right hon. Gentleman had remained unanswered, which was why certain correspondence passing between the Treasury and the First Commissioner of Works had not been produced; and he thought that the Vote should be postponed until the correspondence was produced. The reduction in the Vote appeared to be only nominal, as the travelling expenses had increased.
MR. AYRTONsaid, there were two questions—that of the permanent arrangement and that of the temporary. The former architect and surveyor was in the delicate position of being consulting and advising officer of the Department, while, at the same time, he had the privilege of undertaking works for the Government, on which he was paid by a percentage as in his private practice; therefore, in the latter capacity he came into competition with any architect whom the Government might desire to employ, and could not, consequently, properly revise the operations of a person who might be his competitor. In the new Secretary for Works and Buildings his right hon. Friend would find an officer able to advise him on all operations in his Department. With regard to Mr. Pennethorne, it was necessary to make a special arrangement to the effect that he should complete the works which he had in hand. The Papers were now in readiness for production, and would be presented. They
1708
had not been kept back an hour longer than was necessary, and there was even now wanting one letter to complete the correspondence. He trusted, therefore, the Committee would not think it necessary to postpone the Vote.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he hoped there would be a reduction in the furniture department. One of the charges was for a clerk of the furniture, with a salary of £600 a year; while altogether not less than fifteen persons were employed in that department.
MR. BOWRINGsaid, he wished to bear testimony to the great value of Mr. Hunt's services.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he hoped the Government would not object to the postponement of this Vote. The correspondence relative to the change in the office had been promised three months ago, and had not yet been produced. What the Committee desired to know was why a gentleman of Mr. Hunt's qualifications had consented to take a salary of £750 instead of £1,000. Was he to be recouped by any portion of the item in which there was a large increase for travelling and personal expenses?
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, he also desired to bear testimony to the eminent character and valuable services of Mr. Hunt. He wished, however, to know whether Mr. Fergusson and Mr. Hunt were to have the privilege of carrying on private business? He did not believe that a more able or more disinterested person existed than Mr. Pennethorne, who was also an old servant of the Government. He wished to know if that gentleman was to leave the service without any retiring pension or allowance.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to ask whether it was not the fact that all estimates and plans for public buildings in Scotland were prepared by one gentleman, Mr. Matheson, at a salary of £925. He could not understand how fifteen persons appointed to examine furniture for the public offices should receive a yearly sum of £4,000.
MR. LAYARDsaid, Mr. Hunt had behaved in the most generous manner. The desire being to make the office more efficient without increasing the expenditure, Mr. Hunt had himself offered to give up 25 per cent of his retaining fee. No part of that reduction would be made

1709
up by allowances for travelling and personal expenses. Mr. Hunt was a most valuable public servant, and had saved the office many thousands of pounds. There was no intention to lay the slightest blame on Mr. Pennethorne, and the only object had been to release him from a disagreeable position. Mr. Fergusson was not a practising architect, and could give an independent opinion on all matters connected with architecture. He could state that during the three or four months Mr. Pergusson had been in office his services had saved many thousands of pounds to the public. With regard to the Scottish business, the salary of £925 did not include travelling expenses. He should use the best exertions he could to reduce the expenditure on furniture, not only in London, but in all the public offices wherever placed. Mr. Austin, it is believed, had saved £50,000 a year by his system of cheeks on the expenditure on furniture, and it was this gentleman who formed the present staff and introduced the present system. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt) would not insist on the postponement of the Vote, which would lead to great inconvenience. There had really been no desire to delay the production of the correspondence. As soon as Mr. Pennethorne had finished the works in hand he would receive his pension, and he was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, many Gentlemen round him were not at all satisfied with the explanation relative to furniture. While the item for furniture was £14,000, the cost of examining the furniture accounts was £4,000 a year. He moved to reduce the Vote by half that item—namely, £2,000.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £16,722, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31at day of March 1870, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings,"—(Mr. Craufurd.)
MR. AYRTONsaid, that one of the most onerous duties thrown upon the Office of Works was to control and examine the demands for furniture and fittings which were incessantly made from all the other Departments. The sav-
1710
ings resulting from these investigations amounted to many thousands a year.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(24.) £18,000, Foreign and other Secret Services.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he wished to express his gratification at the reduction of £5,000 in this Vote, and assumed that next year would see a further and similar reduction.
Vote agreed to.
(25.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,317, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1870, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly paid from the Hereditary Revenue."
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he must object to the item of £217 13s. for Queen's Plates. He viewed with much disapprobation and feelings akin to disgust the system of plunder carried on in connection with races, which led to men ruining themselves by wholesale. This might be of little consequence to Dukes and Earls, who were supposed to be able to take care of themselves, but he much feared that the same system was spreading widely amongst the lower classes, and the House ought not to encourage it. He denied that there was any real pleasure or amusement in this feverish pursuit, and looked upon the allegation of improvement in the breed of horses as a mere pretence to cover a most demoralizing system. He moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £217 13s. for Queen's Plates.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Item of £217 13 s., for Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Lush.)
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would beg to ask whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would state, before the Report was brought up, what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the office of Lord Treasurer and Queen's Remembrancer?
MR. AYRTONreplied in the affirmative.
MR. M'LARENsaid, he wished to know the amount of fees received in the Lord Lyon's Office for patents of heraldry, and why they were not stated in the Estimate?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he could not at present answer the question, but he would make inquiry and state the result.
Question put,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 191: Majority 118.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [BILL 64.]— [Lords.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: I think, Sir, looking at the lateness of the hour, and on the terms of the understanding which we have come to with some of the Scotch Members of this House, I shall content myself on the present occasion with stating very shortly the views of Her Majesty's Government on this Bill sent down to us from '' another place" leaving the general discussion of the details until we go into Committee. At the same time, it is impossible not to acknowledge the very great importance of the measure the second reading of which I have now to move—an importance which, in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—was not in the least exaggerated in the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) who introduced it in "another place." We have spent this Session in doing, or in attempting to do, what is termed on this side of the House an act of justice to 5,000,000 of our countrymen in Ireland. But, Sir, I think it will be not less a distinction of this the first Session of the first Reformed Parliament that, while we have disestablished and disendowed the Church of the minority in Ireland, we shall have established and endowed a system of
  1712
  education for the whole of our 3,000,000 countrymen north of the Tweed.
  I propose to confine myself at present to a simple outline of this Bill—to explain the alterations we propose to make upon the Bill as it has been sent down to us from the House of Lords. There are some things, certainly, I need not enlarge upon. I need not in this House, and speaking to Scotch Members, say a word on the importance of the education of the people. We have known it by experience, and are encouraged by that experience to attach to it the importance we do. And, at the same time, I would remind hon. Members that, while we are proposing to reduce pauperism, and are dealing with social questions in order to the removal of crime, what we can do in the way of education will prove of greater importance than anything else we could do, and if we can succeed, therefore, in founding, as we hope to do, a system of education which will thoroughly educate the people, we shall do more to diminish poor rates, to diminish intemperance, and to diminish crime than all the Bills for the direct purpose of such diminution that will be passed by this Parliament. In the second place, Sir, there is no difference of opinion in Scotland on the question that a national system of education is preferable to a denominational one. I need not prove it, because we have experienced the benefit of it. We have a national system of education, and we seek to extend it. The reasons why we are attached to a national system are, in the first place, that denominational efforts will not accomplish the work we seek to do. We may indeed in some special districts so conduct education on the denominational system as to be able to say that the average of education is high; but what is it to the district where the average is low that in some other more favoured quarter the average is high? Our object is to bring education to the door of the people, and we should not have done our duty if we had left any part of the country without the means of education furnished to it. Therefore, what we propose, and are in favour of, is that we shall have a system of national education not dependent upon voluntary effort—not resting on denominational work—not dependent, therefore, upon fitful efforts of individuals, but fixed down by legal provisions, so that it shall not be chance, but certainty,

  1713
  that the education of the people is provided for. But there is another element in the national system to which I attach very great value. It is strongly the view of Scotland that all the people should be, if possible, educated in the same school. All ranks, all religions, should be so educated. That was the old Scotch principle, and therefore, Sir, I need not say more for the purpose of showing that a national system of education is the right one. We have it already, and wish to extend it. The third matter of general topic I think I may exclude, is, that education in the local schools ought not to be confined to the elementary branches. We have been in the habit in our parochial schools of considering them, not as merely elementary schools, but as schools for the whole people of the district in which they are placed. Many men who have risen to eminence since have never received any education except what they received in one of these schools. I believe also that a very large percentage of the students who enter at the Scotch Universities come directly from the parish schools, and I should therefore be very sorry to lose sight of this principle indeed. I hope that, under the measure we have now before us, it may be still further enlarged. These are the general principles of our system—that, wherever an efficient school is required, such a school shall be had. That is a very simple proposition, and I think it is a noble one. It is one that has not yet been accomplished in this country, and, as far as we can see, it is not yet on the eve of accomplishment. If we can accomplish this by this Bill, it appears to me we can afford to disregard a great deal of those minor topics upon which so much difference of opinion exists. We shall have done a great work, and we may trust to other Sessions and other men to carry on the work. In the means by which this object is to be accomplished we do not aim at any theoretical symmetry; we wish to produce a measure such as can be passed into law; and we take it that the Bill I now hold in my hand is the best evidence that it is one thing to start with theoretical views of education, and another thing to pass through both Houses of Parliament a measure which shall accomplish it. I have every reason to say this, for it is now nearly sixteen years since I first had the honour to endeavour
  1714
  to promote education in Scotland. It was not for want of support from the people that we failed, but because we differed upon details of measures of this kind; and if we are now to succeed it will not be by standing stiff upon what we are pleased to call general principles, but by endeavouring to find out the best means we can for overcoming these difficulties. In the earliest Scotch Education Bills we were looked upon as political capitalists, and the Bills did not pass; but alas, Sir, while our Bills are brought in and lost, education stands still, but crime, intemperance, and poverty make rapid strides. I do not suppose there is a Gentleman here who does not know how great is the necessity of something to be done. The Report of the Royal Commission estimates that 90,000 children in Scotland are now destitute of education, and therefore I entreat hon. Members to take this subject in hand, and in no party spirit endeavour to make the best of it. I hope this subject will be approached purely on its own merits apart from all extraneous considerations; that it will be approached simply with a view to do what is best for the educational interests of the country. With that view, the original proposal of Her Majesty's Government was not to introduce any absolutely new system, but rather to adopt and adapt what we have. We found the venerable old system of the parochial schools, and side by side with these—and grown up from the parochial system more or less—a large number of other schools, all doing a great work in the country; and what we proposed to do was, out of the materials which we have, to construct a national system of schools, trusting to time and the operation of of the Bill for its gradual development into a symmetrical and harmonious whole. The means we took to effect this object were simple. We proposed to leave these schools exactly as they were excepting to provide for their inspection. It was proposed to throw the schools on the rates, and we afforded facilities for that being done. It was thought advisable, with the view of making the system general and equal in its operation, that there should be some central authority, and we provided that in the shape of the Board suggested by the Royal Commission. The duties of that Board were to superintend the schools

  1715
  generally, to ascertain what schools were required in order to supply the wants of the country; and, when it was ascertained that these schools were required, there were provisions under which they should be established in harmony with the general system. The Bill was not framed upon any theory of one party or another, but was the offspring of a Royal Commission, composed of all parties, including the Gentleman who held the Office I now have the honour to hold in the Government, and Sir James Fergusson, Under Secretary to the Home Department, and other persons strongly imbued with Conservative as well as Liberal prepossessions; and they all came to be of one mind upon the subject. They were unanimous in regard to most of the provisions of the measure, and there were only three dissentients in respect of its details. The Bill has come down from "another place" altered no doubt in many material points, but still in such a form as to be capable of being made a good working measure. The alterations that have been made relate mainly to the rural schools; the arrangement with respect to the burgh schools is left exactly as it was, in the hands of the Town Council. The result is, that we find for the first time in my experience in this House a concurrence on the part of the other House in a measure—at all events as regards education in the burghs—which would be a most material been to the country. The question now is whether the alterations with respect to the rural districts are of such a nature that we ought on that account to give up the whole Bill. I do not think they are. I was surprised in looking over the Amendments on the Bill to see how few of these involved points of material difference. But I am not going to enter generally into the provisions of the Bill. I promised to explain the alterations which we think necessary on those Amendments. In doing so I shall speak, first, of the central authority; secondly, of the local authority; thirdly, of the question of denominational grants; and lastly, I shall make a few observations with respect to the schoolmasters, and the share of the Privy Council in this process. The central authority, as originally proposed by the Government, was an elective representative body, to which it was proposed to delegate the supervision of the system, but not the
  1716
  command of the funds. The funds to be provided by the Privy Council were left to be managed by the Privy Council, and over these the central authority were to have no power. The central authority was to consist of representatives from the counties, the burghs, the Universities, the schoolmasters, and bodies of that kind. In the House of Lords that has been altered, and it is proposed, as the Bill now stands, that the central authority should be a paid Board, nominated by the Crown. I most carefully considered—and I considered it with a sincere desire to arrive at the conclusion—whether it might not be possible to manage the affairs of education in Scotland by the Privy Council without the intervention of any separate Scottish management, and I came very clearly to the conclusion that that was impossible. The duties which are to be devolved on this Board are duties that must be administered in Scotland. In the first place, it has to be administered geographically and locally, and from local information as to where new schools are required. In the second place, it is under the condition of the Bill a very important judicial tribunal for the trial and suspension and deprivation of schoolmasters for a number of offences. Then the whole system of education in Scotland is so peculiar that no proposition of that kind would be satisfactory or acceptable to the people of Scotland. Accordingly in all the discussions on the subject—in the evidence before the Commission, in the public meetings which have been held, in the debates in "another place," among the deputations that have come to London since the Bill was passed in the other House—there has never been any doubt or hesitation expressed upon the subject that Scotch management was essential to make the Bill effectual. Sir, I know that there are differences of opinion upon this subject. I believe that Boards, as they are called, are unpopular among a certain section of my fellow Members. Whether that view be altogether founded on fact is a question into which it is unnecessary to go; but it is at least certain that the amounts spent by the departments managed by Boards in Scotland are much less compared with the expenditure of similar departments in England and Ireland. But I will not raise any discussion on the subject. Have we not enough of difficulties to

  1717
  contend with on the subject of education? No Education Bill has yet been substantively brought forward for any part of the Kingdom. We have now a chance in Scotland. We have the best chance we have had for the last twenty years. Our difficulties are vanishing away, and even from "another place," where the views entertained on this question are materially different from that which prevail here, we have this year sent down a Bill in a shape in which at least it may be made useful and manageable. We ought, then, not to throw this advantage aside and enter into the discussion of controverted questions and collateral issues not necessary to the adjustment of this matter, however important in themselves. I do not want to anticipate discussion on this matter, but it involves important topics for discussion and inquiry; but surely the consideration of that matter ought not to be thrown across the question of education. I trust, in considering this proposal that I am now about to make, it will be considered entirely apart from these controverted topics and dealt with on its own merits, with this single object in view, and with our eye directed to this one end—how shall we best educate the people of Scotland. What I purpose is this—We feel that a permanent Board nominated by the Government will not be satisfactory. We do not think that the system of election and representation of the present constituencies can be very easily adapted to the purpose, and we propose a temporary Council for three years, with power to the Queen in Council to extend its existence for a longer period. We propose that the Board shall consist of the Law Officers of the Crown for Scotland, for the purpose of advising them on legal questions, of which there may be a good many at starting. We propose that there shall be other five members, who shall be paid in this way—The Chairman shall be paid £500 a year, and the other four members shall be paid three guineas for each attendance up to fifty attendances. Thus, none of these gentlemen will be in a position to make a livelihood out of their position as Commissioners or Members of the Board, and at the same time there will be an inducement to regular attendance which will not reach a very extravagant amount. The expense of such an establishment
  1718
  will certainly be far short of that which many such establishments cost. On the other hand, I believe it will result in a considerable degree of efficiency. I may state that in a matter of such importance, when such extensive powers and authorities are to be given to the Board, it is only right that the House should know, before ultimately deciding on the measure, whom we propose to appoint Commissioners under the Bill; and in that way the public will gain additional confidence if the names of the Commissioners are communicated. That is the proposal which we make with regard to management. There is no doubt that in three years this educational machine will be fairly started, and though some hon. Members may favour a more ideal system of management, I do not think it will be necessary to give up that machine. That, however, is a question which it will be for the country to consider at the time.
  I now come to the question of the local authority, which has been very strangely dealt with in "another place." I confess I cannot altogether understand the views upon which the alterations have been made. The Commissioners came to the conclusion that the parochial schools should remain managed as they are at present, with a power to the heritors to throw them upon the rates if they thought fit. The management of the parochial schools has everything against it but one thing. It is a management which it is impossible to defend, because the management of the school is the heritors who pay £100 rent on the old valuation roll. One would suppose that they were the only heritors who paid for the school, but that is not the case. All the heritors pay, but only those who have £100 a year manage it. That is not the old law of Scotland. It was introduced in 1803. The old law of Scotland gave the voice to every heritor, and it was later on, as I have stated, that the restriction which remains to this day was placed upon it. The old valued rent is not the present valuation roll, and nothing remains of it but one or two of these ancient privileges or restrictions such as the present management of the parochial schools. The minister has also a seat upon the Board. I said that there was only one thing in favour of this system. It is only right to say that that one thing is a very important one. It is that these schools

  1719
  have been exceedingly well managed. The sub-Commissioners who were employed by the Commission to report upon them came to that conclusion, and I have no doubt that the conclusion is a sound one. They found a great deal of efficiency in the Free Church and other schools; but, on the whole, the parochial schools were the best. That, no doubt, arises from the fact that the schools are endowed; but it is only fair to say that these schools are very well managed. The proposition which the Government made was that the transition of the parochial schools should not be compulsory, but that it should be left to the heritors to throw them upon the rates and bring them under more liberal management. In regard to the national schools—the schools that are to be set up by the Board, or to be made over by the heritors or the managers of the denominational schools—we proposed under the Bill to place their whole management in the hands of the rate-payers—that is, in the hands of persons elected by the rate-payers. Now, the action which has been taken upon this proposal in ''another place" is very remarkable. The first part of the compromise has been accepted. The old heritors are left in the management of the parochial schools. But the second part of the compromise has been rejected, and the management of the new schools—liberally constituted, as we thought—has been put under a committee, one-half to be elected by the old heritors, and half by the rate-payers. I venture to say that that is a suggestion which it is utterly impossible to adopt. The proposal is still more preposterous when we consider the way in which the incidence of the taxation of the old parochial schools has been altered. The taxation has been placed upon the new valuation roll, and every proprietor there is to be compelled to pay up his share, and at the same time is to be deprived of a voice in the school for which he is to pay. Now, it became a question what was to be done in regard to that. I do not say that the clause I am going to suggest is one altogether satisfactory to my mind, but you have a choice of difficulties in the matter. The suggestion which I have now to make is, to read the Bill as it originally stood. It was our original proposition, and therefore it is consistent on our part to make it again; and it is consistent, moreover, with
  1720
  the principle of the Bill throughout, which is to leave the schools as we find them until they are thrown for support upon the rates. I am quite aware that there is a considerable feeling in favour of that course, and that there is nothing to be said in favour of the system of management which now exists. In regard to the local committees, what I propose is that two-thirds shall be elected by the rate-payers and one-third by the heritors. I think that will be a fair division, and while it will secure a reasonable amount of the popular element will not exclude the more important heritors from a share in the management of the schools. The third topic is a very important one. I am not going now to dwell upon it; I shall simply state it. The Bill, as it originally stood, provided, on the one hand, for a system of national schools, and dealt, on the other hand, with denominational grants, and prohibited competing schools, aided by the State, from being set up against those to be affected by this Bill. That provision has been altered in the strangest way imaginable, and complete license has been given by the clause as it now stands in the Bill to set up denominational schools in all parts of the country in rivalry to the national system. I think that is a very inconsiderate provision, and it is impossible for us to agree to it. But while it is impossible to allow denominational schools to be set up in rivalry to the national schools, it is another question whether we shall shut the door altogether to denominational grants to denominational schools. I do not in the least evade the question that stares us in the face. There is a very large Catholic population in many parts of Scotland. I myself should like to see Catholic and Protestant sitting upon the same bench. I am very glad to say it is a sight not strange in Scotland; but, at the same time, I am not sanguine enough to expect to see it, or at any rate to see it all at once. Neither can I, in regard to this measure, which I believe to be a great measure intended to embrace the whole population, reconcile it to myself altogether to exclude the possibility of denominational grants, were it only in regard to those of the Catholic religion. But we need not make a special exception, and what I propose to do is this—to restore the Bill to the footing on which it stood before, and leave it open to the

  1721
  Board, having regard to the nature of the population and the suitability of the school to its peculiar wants, to certify to the Privy Council any special school for a special grant—I do not say a denominational grant—but to leave to the Board a discretionary power to certify any particular school as requiring, or being deserving of a grant, because of the existing means of education for the population not being sufficiently available. That will not be limited to the case of Roman Catholics. It will extend to the poorer parishes throughout the whole country. I do not expect it will be largely taken advantage of, but I think it is necessary, in order to make our provision complete; and I should hope, through its operation and the operation of the remaining provisions, we shall be able to reach the very lowest class of society. I should like to go further, and to have a compulsory clause compelling education, but I consider that one thing at a time is enough. It is of no use to compel children to go to school, unless they have a school to go to. It is of no use to deal with the compulsory question until the framework of your schools is complete; but, unquestionably, if the framework of the schools were complete, I should be of opinion, for one, that the time had come when a measure, and a pretty strong measure, of compulsory education would be of the highest benefit to the people of Scotland. I think these are all the topics to which I said I would refer. With reference to the matters relating to the schoolmasters, I do not think they have any reason to complain of the shape which will be given to the Bill by the Amendments I have presented to the House. I think that at this late hour we had better defer any observations on that matter until the Amendments are on the Paper. There will be a good deal more to explain in regard to the finance of the measure—as to which there has been a good deal of misapprehension—which, I think, I can undertake to make perfectly satisfactory, so far as the means of accomplishing the end we propose to ourselves is concerned. I thank the House for the patient attention with which it has listened to my statement.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERsaid, he thanked his right hon. Friend very heartily for the statement he had just made. It had given great satisfaction to the Scotch Members and to the House, and it would afford particular satisfaction to Scotland generally, for it was a matter of some anxiety to them to know how the Amendments made in the Bill by the House of Lords would be received by the Government in this House. Many of the Amendments proposed by his right hon. Friend on the part of the Government would be found satisfactory. There was, however, one point in the speech of his right hon. Friend, to which he must refer. He spoke of certain ideal notions entertained by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and of the undesirability of getting up a discussion on the central authority on the second reading of the Bill. Though he had been at all times willing to accept advice from his right hon. Friend, he must decline to do so on the present occasion. The central authority was the cardinal feature of this measure; and he did not see how it was possible to take any discussion, however slight, upon the second reading, without touching upon the question of the central authority. The powers to be committed to this central authority were very great; and the interests with which that authority would have to deal, were very considerable; and it therefore behaved Scotch Members especially to see that the central authority was one in which the people of Scotland could justly place confidence. With regard to the Scotch Boards, they were, no doubt, cheap—but there were many things that were cheap, were not good. There was a general feeling of dissatisfaction in Scotland, with regard to these Boards—the public knew nothing about their transactions—they sat with closed doors; and it was felt that they were not operated upon by the public opinion of the day. The Government now proposed a new and most important Board; but on this Board there would be no person directly responsible to this House; and he respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Government that, upon a question of such importance as the education of the people of Scotland, it was desirable that, if not the Chairman, at least some member of that Board should have a seat in this House, and be directly responsible for the management of the Board, and

  1723
  to whom any Member of the House might directly appeal for information on matters connected with its business. With regard, however, to many of the other Amendments which his right hon. Friend proposed to make in this Bill, he would give him his cordial support. With regard to the relief proposed to be given to the heritors, he would remind the House that the assessment was one which, for hundreds of years, had been levied on the heritors, and it was too much to expect that their pockets were to be relieved, and that the burden should be thrown upon the nation at large.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that he most heartily concurred in nearly every word that had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire. He did not believe that this Board would give satisfaction to the people of Scotland—he did not believe it was possible for it to work out the objects for which it was to be appointed; and all previous experience had shown that these Boards, unamenable to public opinion, and, as it were working in the dark, were out of date; to use an expression which was not too strong, the people of Scotland were disgusted with the operation of local secret Boards. It would be most absurd, he thought, to appoint another. As to its being only temporary that was the old story. Every Board was at first appointed on that pretext. The Board of Supervision for the Poor was to be temporary; but it had existed for more than twenty years. The same story held good of the Lunacy Board. Assistant Commissioners were appointed for three years, and then an Act was passed making their office perpetual. Then there was the Board of Fisheries, of the proceedings of which the public knew nothing at all. The members of that Board were most distinguished persons; they were fitted for anything and everything except conducting fisheries. With regard to the proposed local Board, as originally formed, it was not so good as it ought to be, but still it was better than that which was proposed in the Bill as amended in the other House. In reference to the point referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther), who objected to the sum which the heritors had heretofore paid for the schools being put into their pockets by being taken
  1724
  from educational purposes, he heartily concurred in what he had said. There never was a more unjust proposal made to this House than that of relieving the heritors from the payment of £48,000 a year and putting it into their pockets. Why, the old Act of 1696 enacted that in every parish in Scotland there should be a sufficient school provided by them for educating the children of the parish, and it required the heritors to raise a sufficient sum of money annually, in all time coming, to accomplish that purpose. From that time down to the present day the schoolmaster's salary had been uniformly deducted, just as the minister's salary was, in fixing the value of the land when offered for sale, by public advertisement or otherwise. The present heritors never bought that portion of their estates from which this school-rate came; it belonged to the public; and now it was proposed to relieve the heritors from this charge and throw it on the whole body of rate-payers, including owners and occupiers, down to a rental of £4. This would be equivalent to giving these large landowners a present of £48,000 a year. He ventured to say that the only just way in which they could touch that fund would be this—to enact that the heritors should continue to pay £48,000 a year in future, and that whenever more than that sum was required it should be fairly and equally levied on all classes, including heritors, and also owners and occupiers of houses and tenements. He trusted that the House would not touch this fund; and he was certain the people of Scotland would be willing to pay as much more as maybe wanted in supplementing that fund. He agreed with the learned Lord Advocate that the time must come—and he hoped it would come speedily—when a compulsory education Bill would be applied all over the Kingdom; but when that day did come, there must be either very low fees or no fees at all, in order to make the compulsion practically operative in the case of the humbler classes, as was the rule in the United States and in some other countries. He would conclude by saying that he was not satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as now proposed.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIR: * I understand it to be the wish of the House that we should not on this occasion discuss the

  1725
  general principles of this Bill, but that the question should be limited to the policy or impolicy of having distinct Commissioners in Scotland to put its powers in action. In other words, is the machinery to be worked in London by a Committee of Council, or by any other organization, directly and without intervention, or are there any circumstances that demand a special body in Scotland to watch over and protect the peculiarities of its education? Now I refuse to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) by introducing into the discussion of this subject the possibility of there being, sooner or later, a Secretary for Scotland. That is an important question in itself, and worthy of the attention of the House. But so, surely, is the subject of education by itself and for itself. The ignorance of the people, and the vice and misery which that ignorance engenders, is a field extensive enough and sad enough for us to traverse, but very ill fitted for playing a tournament upon, by tempting a Lord Advocate to change his purpose, and have a passage at arms with the spectre of a Scotch Secretary. An Education Bill has been presented to us involving immense interests to the people, and I for one shall not divert my gaze from its main object to any subordinate subject whatever. The only issue at present is this—Can we or can we not do without an organization in Scotland—call it a Board or call it a Commission—to promote the educational interests of the people. There is a peculiarity of Scotch education which requires the special consideration and care of any executive body charged with educational administration in Scotland. It separates so completely English elementary schools from those in Scotland, that in this peculiarity rests the justification and necessity for the creation of an educational body outside the ordinary organization of the Committee of Council. It has its origin in 1560, when John Knox and his coadjutors propounded a wonderfully wise scheme of education, embracing elementary and secondary schools, and connecting them with the Universities of the country. Such a comprehensive scheme is now in actual operation, by well-organized systems, in various Continental States, but unfortunately for us, the Government of his day did not fully adopt the wise counsels of the grand old
  1726
  Reformer. The Scottish Privy Council, in fact, characterized the scheme as a "devout imagination." I fear our present Privy Council would do the same if we urged upon it any educational scheme so boldly, widely, and wisely conceived. The object of John Knox's scheme was to have primary schools in every parish, and secondary schools in every town, all intimately associated with the Universities, so that boys of merit might pass upwards when their talents justified the ascent. As early as 1642, we find the General Assembly of the Kirk petitioning Parliament as follows:—
  "That the Parliament would find out means how the children of poor men (being very capable of learning and of good energies) may be trained up as the exigencies and necessity of every place shall require."
  But Parliament did nothing; so the Kirk enjoined on all its presbyteries the "pious work" of finding out boys of "pregnant parts." As soon as one was reported, the session held an inquisition on his mental pregnancy, and sent him, at their expense, either to a burgh school or direct to a University. By this aid, the poorest cottar's son felt, if he had ability, that the national Universities were not beyond his reach. Thus, though John Knox's scheme never became law, its spirit has animated every Scotchman for three centuries, and has led to an unformulated but practical connection between the whole system of lower and higher education. Those who want to know the secret which makes Scotchmen thrive in this country and the colonies should read the seventh chapter of the Fourth Book of Discipline. It was felt by the meanest shepherd or the poorest Highland crofter that education would enable his son to rise in the world. Sir Walter Scott alludes to this national ambition when he makes the father and mother of Dominie Sampson wish to live to see their son "wag his head in the pulpit." Amid all the changes, both social and political, which have passed over Scotland during three centuries, this intimate bond between the lower and higher education of the nation has never been loosened. It is the glory of our system that the deserving poor, if they be endowed with talents, dare to cry "Excelsior." No less than 19 per cent of the students attending the Faculties of Arts in our four Universities are the sons of labourers. They work with

  1727
  their hands in summer to make money for their University studies in winter. In my own limited circle I have numerous friends who have risen in this way. Let me cite two cases by way of illustration. A few weeks since it was my duty, as University Examiner, to recommend a student for the high degree of Doctor in Science. This graduate is the son of a poor Highland crofter, and when a boy went out to herd cattle during the summer from March to October. His wages for seven months were only 25 s., but they were enough to pay his fees at the parish school during winter. It is true that the school was six miles from his father's hut, but a walk of twelve miles, to and fro over a bleak moorland, does not deter a promising Scotch boy from going to school. It did deter, however, some of the farmers' sons in his neighbourhood; so at fourteen my young friend took up a little adventure school to teach these less hardy-lads, and in course of time he made enough to carry him to the burgh school at Perth, where he extended the knowledge of classics and mathematics which he had begun at the parish school. Still working, still teaching, still saving, he fought his way step by step through bursaries and scholarships won by him, till he became a certificated teacher of the first class under the Privy Council, a Master of Arts, a Bachelor of Science in the University of Edinburgh, and, as I have said, a few weeks since it was my privilege to examine him as Doctor in Science. I might quote the instance of two labourers who have lately passed through the Scottish Universities, and obtained the highest honours in the English Universities, but I shall only allude to one other instance—that of Dr. James Henderson, lately a distinguished medical missionary in China, who was footman in the country residence of the Under Secretary for India, but being born near a parish school, took advantage of it. He then went into service in Edinburgh to be near a University, and while still a footman continued his education, graduated in medicine, and then pursued his honourable career in China. Do not suppose that these are isolated cases, and that they are not true illustrations of the secondary education which may be got at our primary schools. The Church long since provided for it by enjoining the heritors to select by prefer-
  1728
  ence Masters of Arts as teachers of parochial schools. And the consequences are now apparent, for one-half of all the Scotch ministers pass directly from these lower schools to the Universities, and no less than 58 per cent of our Scotch physicians and surgeons spring at once from these schools to the higher platform of our Universities. If we include those who have also had the advantage of a secondary burgh school, then from 70 to 80 per cent of Scotch students at the Universities pass through the primary schools. We have nothing like this in England. Neither your professions nor your Universities are fed by the primary schools; nor would ours be if we kept them at the level of "the three R' s." But our teachers have been educated at the Universities, and they rejoice to prepare their pupils for those institutions from which they received so much advantage. This introduction of a higher education into primary schools infuses a life and ambition into them which raises the whole tone of education in the country. An hon. Member on the other side of the House once said that you cannot teach pothooks and Horace in the same school. My reply is that we have the experience of three centuries to show that they can be brought together with great advantage, and that the pothooks may ultimately be used to hang up Horace, or Herodotus, or Euclid, or Molière, in the sight of all aspiring boys. The aim of our Scotch schools has always been, after giving to children "the three R's"—the spoon, the knife, and the fork of education—to give also some sound meat to which they may be applied. This Bill brings us under the Privy Council system and the Revised Code, and you need not be surprised that we are nervously anxious that our scholars should not be deprived of their meat, while the inspectors look to the polish of the implements of education. When Scotland was first examined by the Revised Code, it is true she did not come out so well as England; but this was mainly due to her not having a general system of inspection, and to the different methods of teaching, for in Scotch schools arithmetic is not begun so early as in English schools, and the children do not enter at so tender an age. But the percentage of passes is already greater in all "the three R's," showing that our educational system is adapted to the requirements of

  1729
  the Revised Code. There is, no doubt, a thorough dislike of the Revised Code among the teachers in Scotland, but I believe this is mainly due to the fear that it will lower and alter our whole educational system. The first rule in Schedule A, attached to this Bill, is our Parliamentary security that the Privy Council will consult the wishes of the nation on this important point. For myself, I think the payment by results, which is the foundation of the Revised Code, is right in principle, but then the results should meet the requirements of a nation—especially when they have three centuries of success as evidence in their favour. Scotland does not want a larger Parliamentary grant than she is entitled to by the number of scholars in attendance, but she desires that grant to be distributed in a way suitable to her habits. We are willing to come under any guarantee you choose that as large a percentage of our scholars shall pass "the three R's" as you find by experience can be attained in England under the limited system; but, when this result is achieved, do not cut off the higher education of our national schools. The ladder of education is a long ladder with many steps. In England, the three lowest steps have been selected as sufficient for primary schools. It may be answered that the Committee of Council, through the Department of Science and Art, aid the ascent of twenty steps more, and this is true, but with that incoherence of organization which marks our civil administration, this scheme runs side by side but never touches the other department of primary education. The restriction of education to "the three R's" in primary schools does not exist in Scotland, nor, so far as I am aware, in any other civilized country except England. France, Austria, Prussia, Belgium, and Switzerland encourage primary schools to select from six to eight higher subjects, according to the wants of the localities. So also in Scotland. After our children have learned reading, writing, and arithmetic, they are encouraged to continue at the primary schools in order to apply these elementary branches to higher information. Having taken the evidence of many masters on the subject, I believe I am not far from the mark in saying that in good schools, about one-third of the children study geography, one-fourth grammar and history, and
  1730
  from 5 to 10 per cent modern languages, classics, or science. Hence, only a select few take those subjects which fit them for the Universities. But this is precisely as it should be. Instead of contending for this in my own feeble language, I will quote from the writings of a philosopher whose opinions are always listened to with respect in this House. John Stuart Mill says—
  "The State owes no more than elementary education to the entire body of those who cannot pay for it. But the superior education, which it does not owe to the poorer population, it owes to the élite of them—to those who have earned the preference by labour, and have shown by the results that they have capacity worth securing for the higher department of intellectual work, never supplied in due proportion to the demand."
  This well expresses the sentiments of our old Scotch Reformer. By his counsel the Scotch people have always aimed at a selection of their meritorious poor, and have aided their advance in life. It is this which has impressed upon the Scotch a distinctiveness of character, and which has secured for their country a large measure of prosperity. We are therefore most anxious, as this Bill brings us under the Committee of Council, that the latter should not cut away the upper steps of our educational ladder, in order to bring our Scotch system into uniformity with the English system. We do not doubt the justice of the Privy Council, but we fear the rigour of its uniformity. Hence it is that there has been a universal demand throughout Scotland for an Education Board. There have been many opinions as to what should be its constitution; but every public meeting has expressed a desire for its establishment, as a guardian of the characteristics of our primary schools. The spirit of John Knox, which still animates the Scotch people, demands that the old connection between the lower and higher education of the country should be preserved. Our Universities draw their main strength from the national schools of Scotland, and you must not cut them off from the roots. You will pardon me, as a University Member, for having dwelt so long on this subject; but the Universities of Scotland belong wholly to the people. As the giant Antæus derived his great strength by contact with the earth, so do our Universities derive their vigour from constant contact with the people. Do not let the Committee of Council, by attempt-

  1731
  ing to assimilate Scotch schools to English schools, be the Hercules to lift our Universities above the heads of the people, and by severing us from the source of our strength destroy an educational system which has promoted the prosperity, peace, and tranquillity of Scotland, and of the great kingdom of which she is a part.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate having made some pointed allusions to him in reference to the Committee over which he had had the honour to preside, he could not allow his remarks to pass without some observations, so that the House might not assume that he agreed with what his right hon. Friend had said. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther), and from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). He did not at all agree to the representation made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh University (Dr. Playfair) of the statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire. What the hon. Baronet said was—not that he did not agree to a central authority, or Board, or Commission—but that he could not agree with the central authority proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend (the Lord Advocate). They objected to the central authority proposed in the first draft of the Bill, but ten times more did they object to the proposition—the most extraordinary proposition—made that night by his right non. Friend—the most extraordinary proposition he had ever heard for regulating education or anything else. He referred to the Board of Supervision. So far as the evidence given before his Committee went, it went in a direction directly contrary to that suggested by his right hon. Friend; nor did it seem to him that there was much difference between the constitution of that Board and the proposed new Education Board. What was proposed? There was to be a court of seven members; and who were these seven members to be? The two Law Officers of the Crown, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General. But the Solicitor General was a member of the Board of Supervision, and the evidence was that his hon. and learned Friend was unable to attend the meetings of the Board, and, more-
  1732
  over, apparently, did not consider it his duty so to do. The Lord Advocate was to be a member of the Board. Now, it was almost impossible for him to attend to all the multifarious business to which he had now to attend, and how could he be able to attend and advise the Board? There was to be a paid chairman of the Board, at £500 a year, with four other members, and these four members were to be paid three guineas an attendance up to fifty attendances. No doubt these members would attend, would get their three guineas, and would do nothing more. There were three learned sheriffs on the Board of Supervision, and they had worked uncommonly well. They were paid 150 guineas a year, for about thirty or forty attendances, to conduct all the legal work of the Board of Supervision. What was the practical result of the constitution of this Board? There was one paid chairman, three paid sheriffs, and the evidence was that nobody else attended that Board. But the sheriffs were frequently obliged to go to different parts of the country and attend to their duties, and the result was that the whole management fell into the hands of the chairman. He asked whether that would be a satisfactory system to introduce for the management of education? He objected to these Boards, because they did not sit in public—because they were not responsible—and because there was nobody in that House to answer for their conduct. It might be said that the Lord Advocate practically represented them here; but how could he undertake still further duties by having put upon him this new Board? The central authority was the most material and essential part of this Bill. They wanted a central authority—that that central authority should be a Scotch authority—that it should work in harmony, but not under the dictation, of the Privy Council—all these requirements were essential for the constitution of the Board. The Board should be represented in this House and responsible to this House. It was to be established for the management of the new system of education, and it should not be put upon the same footing as the close Boards in Edinburgh, which his right hon. Friend admitted that the people of Scotland condemn. [The Lord ADVOCATE said he made no such admission.] He entirely agreed

  1733
  with the proposal that there should be a central authority, but it was essential that it should be a central authority that should enjoy the confidence and respect of the country over whose education it was to preside.
  MR. M 'LAGANsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) were, at least, premature—so far as the evidence had gone it certainly did not go the length of condemning the Board of Supervision. The hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) had stated that no Board appointed to superintend education in Scotland could be satisfactory to the people of Scotland.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER: What he had said was that no Board would be satisfactory to the people of Scotland if it had not direct representation in this House to answer for its conduct.
  MR. M'LAGAN: The proposed Board would have representatives in this House—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General would be members of the Board. He would not go further into the question of the constitution of this Board than to say that he was certain the people of Scotland would not submit to have the management of Scotch education under the dictation of a Secretary or Board in London. The Board should be a central Board and a Scotch Board, and what was still better, it should be a Board not sitting in London, but a Board representative of education in Scotland. He agreed with the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh that it would be impossible for us to control and direct education in Scotland by anyone sitting in London, on account of the great difference between education in England and Scotland. At present they had a system of which they might well be proud. It combined elementary with middle-class education. In England the Privy Council took charge only of the elementary branches of education, but he should not like to see the Scotch parochial schools placed under the same control. If they were, the result would be that they would have in Scotland what they had in England—a mere mechanical routine in the schools, instead of that intellectual training which was now given in the Scotch schools. He was in favour of a Secretary of State for Scotland; but if the choice was whether they should
  1734
  have the education of Scotland managed by a local Board in Scotland, or by a Secretary of State in London, he had no hesitation in saying—"Sink the Secretary of State, and let us have our education managed in Scotland by Scotchmen."
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the hon. Members below the Gangway had spoken as if all the Scotch Members agreed with them; but that was not the case. For his part he very much agreed with the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Playfair), whose speech was the most practical that they had heard that night. He regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. M'Lagan) should have introduced this subject of a Scotch Secretary of State. It was a point on which the Scotch Members were anything but unanimous. He thought they would do wisely to confine themselves to the most important point, the education of the people, and not mix it up with other questions, which would only hinder its success.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, he was not at all sure, notwithstanding the assurance of the Lord Advocate as to the importance of this Bill, that the people of Scotland would be inclined to regard it as a great measure of national education. He could only say that he had long held the opinion that if they were to have a national system it must be a secular system—that the clergy should have as little as possible to do with it; that they should be restrained, and not allowed to interfere with education until the children were able to understand what religion means. He held, also, that if they were to have a system of education which was to reach the 90,000 children in Scotland the Lord Advocate had told us exist there without education, they must have a compulsory system—and he trusted that if this Bill passed through Committee—which he very much doubted—the Lord Advocate would be prepared to bring in a measure in which the education of the people shall be made compulsory.
  MR. CARNEGIEsaid, the question of education was of far greater importance than the constitution of the Board, and he would rather have twenty Boards than have this Bill thrown out on the point. However bad the Board might be, they could get rid of it; but if they lost this Bill, it might be a difficult thing

  1735
  to get such another chance of dealing with this question.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. YOUNG)said, he had listened with some surprise to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife-shire, and with still more surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs. The question was that this Bill be now read a second time? Both of these speeches, and especially the latter, were upon an altogether different question—namely, whether certain Boards entrusted with a great variety of business now existing in Edinburgh were satisfactorily discharging their duies. The hon. Baronet the Member for Fifeshire was perhaps hardly in a position to pronounce an opinion upon the question whether they satisfactorily discharged their duties or not, because he said that their distinguishing feature was that the people of Scotland knew nothing about them. The hon. Member was at least entitled to speak for himself, and if he knew nothing about them he was not in a position to say anything against them. The hon. and learned gentleman the Member for Ayr devoted his speech almost exclusively to a condemnation of the Board of Supervision. He spoke as if there were a general concurrence of opinion adverse to the Board upon all the evidence taken before the Committee appointed by this House to inquire into its operation. He (the Solicitor General) would take leave to say that such was not only not the unanimous opinion, but that it was not the opinion of the majority of the members of that Committee. The hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs admitted the necessity for a central authority in the Education scheme: but it had not been suggested that the central authority should be in any other form than that of a Board; and if the constitution of the Board proposed in the Bill were unsatisfactory, the proper course was to amend it in Committee. The main criticism, so far as he understood it, of the hon. and learned Member for the Ayr Burghs was that there was no provision made for the Board being directly represented in this House. But one of the proposals of his right hon. Friend (the Lord Advocate) was that the two Law Officers of the Crown, both of whom were in this House, should be members of the Board. He (the Solicitor General)
  1736
  presumed the purpose of having a representative of any Board in this House was that he might be able to answer any inquiry and give explanations with reference to any complaint which might be made in this House relating to the conduct of the Board. Now this Board, if it should be constituted in the manner proposed, would have two members sitting in the House, who, after due inquiries, would be in a position to give satisfactory answers to any such questions as might be put. But all this was matter of detail to be considered in Committee.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the second reading, but at the same time he must complain of the way in which it had been introduced, and the consequent difficulty under which Members found themselves in addressing the House. The right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) had met with compliments, and even with expressions of affection, from below the Gangway, such as, if he (Mr. Dalrymple) were in his position, he should not be at all grateful for, especially as they had been accompanied by expressions of hostility towards some of the Amendments which he proposed to introduce. No one on his own side the House had spoken against the measure—and for himself he (Mr. Dalrymple) desired to give the right hon. Gentleman all the assistance in his power towards passing the measure.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed, for To-morrow.

  NITRO GLYCERINE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit for a limited period the importation and to restrict and regulate the carriage of Nitro Glycerine.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN HAY, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, and Mr. GRAVES.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 211.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.