Commons Sitting of 10 March 1876

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Classes II. and III.—Resolutions [March 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Muncipal Corporations, &c. (Funds) * [101]; Local Government Provisional Orders * [102]; Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment* [103].
Second Reading—Salmon Fisheries * [60].
Committee—Cattle Disease (Ireland) * [94]—R.P.
Third Reading—Telegraphs (Money) * [90], and passed.

ARMY—RECRUITING.—QUESTION.
MR. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of discountenancing the use of public-houses for the purpose of enlisting recruits for the Army, and will, instead, encourage the establishment of rooms at recruiting stations available as clubs for all soldiers who may be in the locality, in addition to their use as recruiting stations?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I am not aware that I could strengthen the regulation at present in force in any way in order to carry into effect the object which the hon. Member desires. The following recruiting instructions are in force for the guidance of officers commanding Brigade Depots, and have been so for some time:—
"At the headquarters of the sub-district all non-commissioned officers and steady privates should he permitted to enlist men arriving there for that purpose and pass them into barracks. If accommodation in the barracks will allow of
1796
it there should be a recruits' room, into which men arriving late at night seeking enlistment might be allowed to sleep to prevent their forced resort to public-houses and their exposure to influences adverse to enlisting. Officers commanding Brigade Depots will see that the following directions are carefully attended to and promulgated throughout their sub-districts:—No recruit is to be enlisted in a state of intoxication, as it would render his enlistment void. Enlistment in public-houses or beer-shops is to be avoided as far as possible. After enlistment and until attestation the recruits are, if possible, to be lodged in the room provided for them in barracks, or in refreshment houses not licensed to sell beer or spirits. No recruits previous to enlistment are to be treated or entertained in public-houses by the recruiters. All recruiting-is to carried on in an open manner, like any other agreement between the employer and the person engaging to serve. No false pretences or misrepresentations are to be made use of to induce recruits to enlist, and no man is to be encouraged to leave his place of residence in order to conceal his enlistment."
In 1869–70 the experiment was tried of having an enlistment place separate from the recruiting departments in London and York, but after a year's experience, not a single recruit having enlisted at those places, the experiment was abandoned.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) ACT—THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

  QUESTION.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is true, as asserted in the "Mark Lane Express," that a circular bearing his signature had been addressed to the tenants of the Duchy of Lancaster, excluding them from the benefits of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act of last Session by giving them formal notice that their contracts of tenancy shall remain unaffected by that Act?
  COLONEL TAYLOR: It is true. Sir, I have issued a circular of the nature described by the hon. Member on the advice of the recognized and responsible officials of the Duchy. Having consulted several of the Council, I did that which was considered best for Her Majesty's estates. I may add that the difficulties intended to be met by the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act have never occurred between the Duchy and its tenants. The tenants are scarcely ever changed, and, as a matter of course almost, the farms pass from father to son, and the improvements, as a rule, are always made by the Duchy at a stated rate of interest.

MINES ACT—USE OF BLASTING POWDER—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will, in compliance with the recommendation of several of the Inspectors of Coal Mines in the Report issued yesterday, introduce this Session a small Bill to prohibit the use of blasting powder in mines where the safety lamp has been ordered to be used; if he will not introduce such a Bill will he consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the whole subject; and, further, seeing that several Inspectors have stated there is power in the existing Act to discontinue the use of powder "where it is necessary," whether he will enforce the existing Law?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to introduce any Bill of the nature referred to by the hon. Member, because it was, in their opinion, a measure which would tend rather to the increase of danger than otherwise and to the disuse of safety lamps. He wished that the men employed in mines would only be as earnest in putting the provisions of the Mines Act in force as the Inspectors were. If they would only give their assistance to the Inspectors in carrying into effect the existing Act, and more especially the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 30th general rules, and would also help them in carrying out the Act in other ways, he believed a great saving of life would ensue. He had called the special attention of the Inspectors, since the recent Reports had been made to the Home Office, to those special points, and had requested them to see, so far as they possibly could, that they were enforced, and he had also called their special attention to Sections 46 and 65 of the Mines Act. He hoped by this means that the safety of life in mines would be greatly increased, and he was sure it would be still more so if the men would give all the assistance they could to the Inspectors in the performance of their duty. The matter had been so fully discussed a short time ago that he was unwilling to ask for the appointment of a Select Committee until he saw whether the measures which he proposed to take would have a beneficial effect.

PAPERS RELATING TO CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LEATHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relating to China, promised in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of Parliament, will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the Papers were in print, and would be in the hands of hon. Members next week.

NAVY—CIRCULAR SHIPS.—QUESTION.
MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If Mr. Froude has made any report on Circular Vessels; and, if so, if he has any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, Mr. Froude had made a confidential communication to the Admiralty on the subject of circular vessels, but under conditions which prevented it being made public.

UNITED STATES—GENERAL SCHENCK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has observed a statement going the round of all our newspapers, said to be copied from the "New York Times," stating that "President Grant had requested General Schenck to resign in compliance with a demand from the British Government for his immediate recall;" and, if he has any objection to say if there is any foundation for the statement that any such demand was made by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he had seen the statement referred to, and he had to state that there was not the slightest foundation for the statement that any such demand was made by Her Majesty's Government.

LANDED PROPRIETORS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I have to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I have put a Notice on the Paper for a Copy of a Return of the Landed Proprietors in

  1799
  Ireland furnished for the service of the Government in the year 1870. The right hon. Gentleman objects to have it printed on the ground of the expense that will be occasioned. I will not go into that question. I have been here a good while and have not put the House to much expense for Returns of any kind; but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would have any objection to place in the Library one or more copies of that Return, in order that hon. Members of the House may have access to it? I have reason to know that some Irish Members and some others are particularly anxious to have the opportunity of seeing it, and it will not put the right hon. Gentleman or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to any expense.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think it hardly fair to mention in public reasons given to the right hon. Gentleman in a private conversation at a period of the sitting of the House when I should be out of Order if I attempted to explain them fully to the House. I am quite ready to place two or three copies of the volume in question in the Library of the House, as desired by the right hon. Gentleman.

ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he proposes to lay upon the Table any explanatory Papers showing how far the proposed changes in regard to the new Army Medical Officers will affect the future pay of Surgeons who entered under the old rules, and what bearing the proposed short service in the Army Medical Department is likely to have on the long service Medical Officers in India and in the Navy?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that all the information which the hon. Member asked for would soon be laid before the House. He would not go into any detail; but he might say generally that the future prospects of surgeons who entered under the old rules would be beneficially affected by the promotion they would receive at an earlier date. He was unable to say what bearing the proposed short service in the Army Medical Department was likely to have on the long services of medical officers in India and in the
  1800
  Navy, as that was a matter which would be tested by the operations of the new rules.

LAW AND JUSTICE—UNION OF LEGAL OFFICES (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government, during the present Session, to bring in a Bill to unite the offices of Clerk of the Crown and Clerk of the Peace in Ireland; and, if it is their intention to do so, whether the same will be brought in in sufficient time to enable Members to consider its provisions along with the Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Civil Bill Courts?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to bring in such a Bill, and he hoped to be able to lay it before the House in sufficient time for the purpose referred to by the hon. Member.

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

THE EDUCATION CODE—CHOICE OF SUBJECTS.—RESOLUTION.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, in rising to call attention to the Education Code; and to move—
"That, while reading, writing, and arithmetic should be obligatory in all Elementary Schools, it is desirable that the choice of other subjects should, as heretofore, be left to the School Board or Committee of Management,"
began by thanking the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) for the improvements he had effected in the Code, but as the question of elementary education was one on which there was a great divergence of opinion, he trusted he might be allowed to express his views in reference to it. Until the Code issued last year came into operation the school boards and committees could select such one or more of the so-called "extra subjects" as they thought most suitable; nor had there ever been any allegation that the power thus confided to them was injudiciously exercised. Under the Code

1801
of last year, however, they were compelled to take up as two subjects History, Geography, or Grammar. That constituted, for all practical purposes, an exclusion of all other subjects. He submitted to Her Majesty's Government that there was still so much difference of opinion as to the best system of education that it was very undesirable to lay down cast-iron rules of this kind, and thus to stereotype a system which after all might prove to be by no means the best. No doubt the great majority of schools had selected these subjects, but some, on the other hand, made a different choice. The Committee of Council, indeed, said that "a fair proportion of scholars take up other branches of study." Well, then, if they themselves admitted that the school boards had acted with judgment, why take away a power which had been so wisely exercised? By the New Code the subject of domestic economy was put into the shade and confined to girls, whereas there were many matters connected with it—such as the importance of ventilation and cleanliness in their homes—which ought to be as strongly impressed on the minds of boys as of girls. He showed that several successive Committees and Commissions had recommended that instruction in the elements of natural science should be made an essential part of the course of instruction in elementary schools. Grammar, at any rate as it was ordinarily taught, seemed to be of very doubtful value. At present a knowledge of grammar, even in the upper classes, was a matter of practice and taste rather than of tuition. Again, he would have the teaching of history improved. If properly taught, it was a most important branch of education; but as taught at present, it was little better than a list of dates and battles, enlivened by bloody murders and other crimes, with a sprinkling of sensational stories, most of which, he believed, were no longer regarded as true. It was said that happy was the country that had no history, and though it could not be said that happy was the child who did not read history, still the short histories in general use were very dry and uninteresting. The quotations from history used in these schools dwelt more on times and acts of war than times of peace; whereas in reality the true condition of a country depended more on wisdom in times of peace than success in times of
1802
war. If, however, among those who were best qualified to judge there was a general opinion that History, Geography, and Grammar were clearly the best subjects, the case would be very different. But that was not so. Perhaps there had never been more successful village schools in England than those organized by Dean Dawes and by Mr. Henslow. Dean Dawes' school at King's Somborne was the subject of a special Report made to the Education Department by Mr. Mosely, and to what did Mr. Mosely principally attribute the excellence of the school? He said—
"That feature in the King's Somborne School which constitutes, probably, its greatest excellence, and to which Mr. Dawes attributes chiefly its influence with the agricultural population round him, is the union of instruction in a few simple principles of natural science, applicable to the things familiar to the children's daily observation, with everything else usually taught in a National School."
Dean Dawes himself, in his excellent Suggestive Hints on Secular Instruction in Schools, dwelt most forcibly on the great value of elementary science as a means of education. He said—
"In no way can the teachers in our higher class of elementary schools give such a character of usefulness to their instruction as by qualifying themselves to teach in these subjects, introducing simple and easy experiments which illustrate the things happening before their eyes every day, and convey conviction with them the moment they are seen and explained. It is a great mistake to suppose that boys of 12 and 13 years of age cannot understand elementary knowledge of this kind, when brought before them by experiment."
The Committee of that House which was appointed in 1868, on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), reported that the opportunities of acquiring knowledge of elementary science in the National Schools were far greater on the Continent than in this country, and added that the witnesses they examined concurred in considering "that nothing less will suffice here if we are to maintain our position in the van of industrial nations." They recommended, therefore, that elementary instruction "in the phenomena of nature "should be introduced into our National Schools. In their reports to the Education Department several of the Inspectors of Schools, whose official position and practical experience

1803
gave great weight to their opinions, expressed grave doubts whether History and Grammar were the best subjects which could be selected. Moreover, it was remarkable, as showing how much different Departments of Government differed even among themselves with reference to the choice of subjects, that there was one—namely, agriculture—which was absolutely ignored in England, which had not even a place in the specific subjects, and which was in Ireland absolutely obligatory. The children there received simple explanations of the different kinds of soil—clay, sands, &c.; of the advantage of drainage and manure; of the implements and machines used in agriculture; of the principal crops and the rotation of crops; and the kinds of cattle and stock. Surely that was a very suitable and practicable subject for country schools; and it would, he had no doubt, be far more interesting and important to the children than some of our English subjects. He might even be permitted to point out that Her Majesty's Government was not always consistent with itself in this matter, and it was somewhat remarkable that out of 14 specific subjects which were included in the Scotch Code, more than one-third were excluded from that of England. Now, why should that be? Was there any one in that House who would maintain that the system which was best for one school was necessarily best for another? Surely, differences of locality, of district, of situation, were sufficient to negative that view. Her Majesty's Government admitted, that in principle, because in Northumberland they did not propose that the subjects should be the same as in Roxburghshire. But surely the differences between England and Scotland were not the only ones? "Was it not conceivable that in towns where there was some special manufacture, the upper Standards might with advantage receive some instruction which would lead up to the occupations of their after life? Again, something must depend on the schoolmaster. A schoolmaster might have special gifts in, or knowledge of, some special subject, which it would in such a case be very desirable to utilize. Even assuming that History, Grammar, and Geography were the best subjects, why should they receive the whole of the time? The classes affected by the
1804
provision were five—that was to say, they covered five years of school life; and surely that was unreasonable. Even admitting that they should come first, ought not other subjects to come somewhere? One objection which might be raised to the Resolution was, that they should not throw upon the rates any instruction, except on the most elementary subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic. That objection hardly applied to that Resolution, because the teaching of the specific subjects to which he had referred would not cost more than those special subjects which were now so much favoured. Another objection which had been raised by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council was that it was undesirable to make continual alterations in the Code. He admitted the force of that argument, but it hardly applied to the present suggestion, which was merely that greater freedom in the choice of these subjects should be allowed to the local bodies. If it were suggested to impose any new restrictions or any fresh conditions, there would be much weight in the objection; but in this case he only wished to restore a power which the local authorities possessed until last year, and which they were admitted to have exercised with sound discretion. Those managers who did not notice the change could not be affected by it, so that could not lead to inconvenience or confusion. Every one in that House, he might add, would admit that centralization was in itself objectionable. Perhaps, however, that was peculiarly the case in matters relating to education. It was most desirable that we should induce the very best men and women to serve on school boards, but in order to secure them we must not interfere with them more than could be possibly avoided; we must leave them a real interest and responsibility. But if we practically took out of their hands all control over the system of education pursued in the schools, we certainly diminished very considerably the interest they would otherwise feel, and thereby tended greatly to impair the efficiency of our schools. Every one knew that there were the greatest differences of opinion as to the best system of education. To many it seemed that our present methods relied too much on memory and too little on thought; that they sacrificed education to instruction; that they confused book

1805
learning with real knowledge; that, instead of training the mind to act with freedom and effect, they choked the machinery of the brain with the dry dust of facts which at best were but committed to memory, instead of becoming a part and parcel of the child. In education, and especially, perhaps, in elementary schools, our object, he contended, should be to train, rather than to teach, the child. What the children knew when they left school was comparatively unimportant. The real question was, whether we had given them a wish for knowledge and a power of acquiring it. What they learnt at school would soon be lost, if it was not added to. The great thing was to interest them, and not so much to teach them as to make them wish to teach themselves. Unfortunately, our system of education had too often the very opposite effect, and under it the acquirement of knowledge had become an effort rather than a pleasure. He had been good-naturedly criticized, both in that House and out of it, as an enthusiast on that subject; but every one who loved children must know how anxious they were for information, how they longed to understand the facts of nature, how every bird and beast and flower was full of interest for them. Under these circumstances, he would appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to stereotype their present system, not to restrict the education given in our elementary schools to the outlines of slates, the technicalities of grammar, and the series of crimes and accidents which was misnamed history. He hoped he should not be thought unduly pertinaceous in urging these views, but he did so under the conviction that the more we could make the schools interesting to the children, the more they would conduce to the benefit of the country. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while reading, writing, and arithmetic should he obligatory in all Elementary Schools, it is desirable that the choice of other subjects should, as heretofore, be left to the School Board or Committee of Management,"—(Sir John Lubbock,)
—instead thereof.
LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet was somewhat
1806
premature in bringing his Resolution under the notice of the House before the New Code was submitted to its consideration. What he proposed to do was to cancel some of the most material alterations in the Code which were made last year—a course which, in his opinion, it would be somewhat precipitate to take before the House had some experience of the results which those alterations produced. As yet no school had been examined under the altered system. He was not prepared to say that the Schedule of extra subjects might not be enlarged; but he thought we should go on with cautious steps, and not be in too great a hurry again to make a change. Since the question of the Code had been started, he would say a word on the subject of physical education in elementary schools, which had been overlooked for many years, and which deserved the attention of the Legislature. Take the case of swimming, for instance, which was an accomplishment quite as valuable as the drill ordinarily taught in schools. He should be glad if the Vice President of the Council would allow attendances at swimming to rank as school attendances, such attendances, under proper instruction, to be alternative with military drill. In large towns very little attention was paid to the proper development of the physical faculties of children, and he trusted his noble Friend would see his way to do something in this important and hitherto overlooked branch of education, by allowing attendances at an adequately conducted gymnasium to also count as attendances at school. He wished also to call attention to the hardship inflicted on infant schools by the provisions of the Code as they at present stood. It had been usual for the teachers to present a small number of their best scholars for examination in the Standards. That was the only adequate test they could get of their ability to teach and of their assiduity in teaching, but it was no longer possible for the children to be presented in the usual way. He thought, however, the hon. Baronet's Motion was somewhat inopportune, and hoped he would not deem it necessary to press it to a division.
SIR WALTER BARTTELOTthought the Resolution covered more things than had been mentioned by the hon. Baronet, and that his object was, as it

1807
always had been, that children in elementary schools should he trained in far higher subjects than those to which he had referred. However, the two points raised by the Resolution ought to be carefully considered by the House. Considering the class of children they had to deal with in the agricultural districts, it would be very hard if fresh requirements should now be demanded of managers of schools, who were making every effort to come up to the requirements imposed by the Code of last year. In agricultural schools there were so many difficulties to contend with, that even his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), if he went into all these considerations, would agree that much more energy was being displayed than formerly, and that there was a real determination throughout the country to give to children the benefit of education. It must be remembered, however, that all these things could not be done in a hurry, and that time must be allowed in order to get gradually into a good working system. He would, however, ask the hon. Baronet if these children were educated too highly, what were they to do? It must not be forgotten that the great majority of them must earn their bread by daily toil; and what would be the effect upon them through life, if the hon. Baronet's suggestions were adopted? Then, again, there was the class of children immediately above them in social life. What was to become of them? They would be unable to obtain such an education as it was proposed to give these children at the expense of the State, and the injustice thus committed was manifest. Much had been said by the hon. Baronet with regard to education in Scotland. Well, he himself was greatly struck with the admirable way in which instruction was imparted in the schools he had visited in the Highlands. The Scotch teachers, he was bound to admit, excelled pre-eminently in imparting knowledge to their pupils. What we wanted was not merely knowledge in the schoolmasters and mistresses themselves, but also an aptitude for imparting it to others. As he had said, the great majority of the children had to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, and while we were educating them we must not prevent them from learning that which must be their mainstay
1808
in after life. He hoped his noble Friend would not assent to the Resolution, because it would lead to great difficulty in the future, would cover more than the hon. Baronet stated, and would produce no good results for the people of this country.
MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the hon. and gallant Baronet who had just addressed the House had somewhat misunderstood the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), whose proposal would not increase the difficulties of managers in earning the Government money. They would only have greater latitude given to them as to what they should do. His hon. Friend bad not expressed a wish that a great number of subjects should be taught, but considered that two would be sufficient. The question was whether there was too much limitation in regard, not to the special subjects for individual scholars, but to those subjects upon which the classes were examined. For his own part, he confessed he thought his hon. Friend ought to wait two or three years before he asked for an alteration. It should be recollected that everything taught in these schools, in order to have much effect, must be imparted according to some system. With regard to the special subjects, quite as much choice was allowed now as had been allowed before, with the additional advantage that more money could be earned.
MR. A. MILLSsaid, he very much wished, if it were possible, that no public money should be granted for any subject but reading, writing, and arithmetic. He apprehended, however, that it was not possible now, because education was proceeding on different lines from those of former days. So far, however, as his experience went in education in the country, unless we were very cautious, it struck him that we were running great risk of departing from that which ought to be the first object of elementary education—namely, to qualify children for doing their work in the position in which their work lay. In the case of girls, needlework was obviously a subject for which public money ought to be granted; because it was necessary to enable children to fill the station in life to which they would be called. But he thought the children were overcrammed, and the teaching of history, particularly of the kinds of history to which reference

1809
had been made, did not come within the same scope of necessary preparation, and it had the further inconvenience of entailing unnecessary and very arduous labour on the pupil teachers. He feared that already both children and pupil teachers were crammed with subjects far beyond those which ought to be insisted upon from them. There was a danger lest the result of this pressure upon the brain should injure the health and strength of pupil teachers, especially girls. It must be remembered that, while working up these extra subjects, they were engaged in teaching. At present throe-fourths of the work in our elementary schools was done by the pupil teachers, and in increasing the special subjects for which public money could be earned there was great risk that many of the pupil teachers would overtask their strength in order to enable the schools to earn this public money. The result of such a state of things must be that the pupils would receive an unsatisfactory education as far as the elementary branches were concerned, while the energies of the pupil teachers would be over-strained, and their health imperilled.
VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, no apology was necessary from Ms hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Lubbock) for bringing forward a subject involving a question of science, with which he was preeminently qualified to deal; and the House was to be congratulated on having among its Members one who showed an ardent enthusiasm upon such questions, and who handled them with the grace which distinguished every act of the hon. Baronet in that House. Unfortunately his hon. Friend was absent during an interesting discussion which took place last year on the New Code, when the changes proposed to be made received a warm assent from the House. On that occasion, while he (Viscount Sandon) did not pretend that the curriculum so altered was the best in the world, he then urged the House to support him in resisting proposals for changes during the next two or three years, and when he announced this view it was strongly supported by the House. Nothing was more destructive to our elementary schools, more annoying to teachers, or more discouraging to school managers than the introduction of constant changes in our
1810
curriculum of education. He appealed, therefore, to his hon. Friend not to press his Motion. It was undesirable, he thought, that he should enter now into the various points that had been raised in the discussion; but he would observe that some useful remarks had been made in the course of it which should receive his attention. His hon. Friend, however, could hardly blame the Government for showing some amount of coolness towards subjects of education other than those which were clearly the most necessary or desirable. They increased the grant for extra subjects from 3s. to 4s. per head, and these extra subjects were mathematics, Latin, French, German, mechanics, animal physiology, physical geography, botany, and domestic economy. While doing so, without wishing to disparage their utility, he thought it questionable whether the study of such subjects could be of any certain advantage to those who were educated in these schools. At the same time, the substantial grant which was given to these extra subjects to meet the wishes and wants of different schools and communities showed that the Government had no hostility, but rather a warm wish to raise the standard of education if they could. But he felt strongly that the business of his Department was to try and make the work of education as solid as possible. They were dealing with a new class of scholars; they were fighting against irregular attendance and other difficulties; and it was, therefore, undesirable that anything should be done by which these difficulties would in all probability be increased. The great object was to impress upon children, teachers, and parents the necessity of laying a permanent basis of education. Now, if you gave loopholes for introducing what he might term, without undervaluing them, more fanciful and less necessary subjects, there was a danger lest young teachers should be led away to cultivate these higher subjects at the expense of the more solid ones. Information which came before him led him also to agree with the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. A. Mills) that there was considerable danger of the younger teachers being intellectually overworked in their zeal and anxiety for knowledge. It would be disastrous to a national system of education to have a body of teachers highly developed intellectually,

1811
but with constitutions shaken and shattered by their intellectual work. A body of dyspeptic teachers would, in the long run, tend to very bad results in the way of education, and such a danger was by no means a fanciful one. This danger affected pupil teachers not only in that career, but afterwards in the training colleges. He begged the House, therefore, to support him for rather holding back at present in this matter—first, because it was not well to be constantly meddling with the Code; and next, because further changes to any considerable extent would interfere with the solid basis of national education which everybody desired, and with which it would not be well at present to interfere. He should not forget the subjects mentioned by his hon. Friend, though he could not for the present accede to the Motion.
MR. LYON PLAYFAIRdefended his hon. Friend for having brought on the discussion, because one of the objects of the Code being laid on the Table so many weeks before it became law was to enable Members of Parliament to enforce their suggestions on the Vice President of the Council. What his hon. Friend wanted was to produce a certain elasticity in the working of the Code; he did not desire to increase the subjects taught in schools in agricultural districts, but only to give the managers of these schools the option of teaching the children something about their own occupation, such as the soil, the plants that grew upon it, and the manure that was used to dress it, instead of confining their attention to grammar and history; and he put it to hon. Members whether that information was not more likely to be useful to them than a knowledge of trifling questions in history, such as to the number of Queen Anne's children who died in infancy? What his hon. Friend's object was, not so much to have many subjects taught, as those subjects which might be adapted to the wants of particular districts. The Scotch had been very much complimented on their success in teaching, but the secret of it was this, that they encouraged the teachers to teach what they knew best. After what had been said, however, he would advise his hon. Friend not to press his Motion, but to remain satisfied with the discussion the subject had received, and which
1812
he thought would not be found unproductive of good results hereafter.
DR. WARDsaid, he had devoted some attention to the subject to which the discussion related, and he must say he deprecated the extent to which scientific education in primary schools was sometimes carried at the present day. He even thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University would not find very many to go with him the whole extent of his views on the subject, even among those who were engaged in scientific teaching. He doubted, in fact, the value of the scientific teaching which the right hon. Gentleman had advocated for agricultural districts, and thought, on the contrary, that such subjects were too much cultivated. It appeared to him that they had a craze in favour of scientific teaching, and that it would be far better to keep to the good old lines, and give sound instruction in grammar, geography, and history, rather than go into so many branches of science. In Ireland the national system of education excluded national history. History was excluded, and its exclusion, he thought, was unfortunate and a blot upon that system. But that was in despite of the people of Ireland. It was because they had in Ireland that which did not exist in England—an injurious governmental system—that they consented to the entire and complete exclusion of history from their schools. If their history was a sad one, still they were not to be congratulated upon its exclusion in Ireland.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was quite willing, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the Resolution. ["No, no!"]
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

MERCANTILE MARINE—PENSIONS TO SEAMEN.—RESOLUTION.
MR. T. BRASSEY, in rising to call attention to the present condition of our Merchant Seamen, and to the Report of the Royal Commission on Pensions to Seamen, and to the regulations in force in Foreign Countries for providing Pensions to Seamen; and to move a Resolution thereon, said: Sir, in order to justify the Motion which I desire to submit

1813
to the approval of the House, I shall not consider it necessary to allege that our seamen have deteriorated. I believe that there are in our Merchant Service many ill-conducted and inefficient men, while there are happily a still larger number, who are the best seamen in the world. I would rather insist on the miseries and hardships inseparable from a sailor's life. It is on this ground, and because our national security and greatness are mainly dependent on the loyal attachment of our seamen to their native land, that I would especially urge the re-establishment of the Seamen's Pension Fund. The subject has been frequently investigated by Royal Commissions and by Parliamentary Committees, and they have invariably recorded a strong opinion in favour of the establishment of a Seamen's Pension Fund. The fact that no practical legislation has resulted is a, convincing proof that the special interests of seamen have been too long neglected. That negligence has arisen, not so much from lack of sympathy, as from ignorance of the condition and necessities of a class whose calling keeps them apart from the great mass of their fellow-countrymen. The efforts of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) have of late aroused the deepest interest in seamen, and my hope is that I may be able to obtain for the proposal I now submit to the House a support which, under ordinary circumstances, I could scarcely hope to command. The example of foreign nations supplies me with an important argument. A plan for securing pensions to seamen was established in Prance by the great Minister, Colbert. The fund of the Invalides de la Marines is supported by contributions of 3 per cent, deducted from the pay of all persons in the National or the merchant service. In 1844, the fund had an invested capital of £4,000,000 sterling, and an income of £300,000 a-year. Mariners became entitled to pensions after their names had been borne for 25 years on a ship's articles, and they had attained the age of 50. The pension varies from 600f. to 96f. a-year, according to the grade of the pensioner. Widows receive half the pension, to which their husbands were entitled, and an allowance is made to children. In the United States there is a benefit fund, supported by a compulsory deduction
1814
of 20 cents per month from the seamen's wages. Every worn-out or disabled seaman is entitled to maintenance in one of the asylums established by the State on the American seaboard. In Norway, by the Royal rescript of 1834, an independent charitable institution for seamen has been founded in the principal seaports; and at the time when seamen sign their articles of agreement for a foreign voyage, it is usual to agree upon a pro rata contribution to the institution established in the port from which he sails. The Scuola di San Marco, at Venice, is an institution very similar to that of the Invalides de la Marines in Paris. In Holland, there is an institution called the Seamen's Hope, on a somewhat similar plan to those established in Norway and Sweden. In our own country a Seamen's Pension Fund formerly existed. It was established by Act of Parliament in 1747, in compliance with a Petition from merchant seamen. Its object was to give to the merchant service the same advantages which the Navy enjoyed at Greenwich. It was supported by a contribution of 1s. a-month, which was stopped from each man's wages; and the Fund received liberal contributions from great merchants and shipowners. It worked extremely well until the year 1820, when our great merchants unfortunately withdrew from the shipping trade. From that period their voluntary contributions rapidly fell off. In the meanwhile, a fatal laxity had crept into the management, the results of which were described by Admiral Denman in his evidence before the Manning Commission of 1859. While the State was responsible for the management of the Fund, its administration was entrusted to a local committee at each port. There was no general system, and no effectual audit was provided. Hence arose jobbery, confusion, and eventual bankruptcy. At one port pensions of £13 were paid; at others the amount was £2 or £3; and again at others it was as low as 10 s. A widow at Sunderland, aged 84, received 2s. a-month; while a widow at Liverpool, aged 24, received 14 s. for herself, and 12 s. each for her children. Such inequality justly created discontent; and the Fund being bankrupt, a Winding-Up Act was passed in 1851. The process has already cost £1,000,000, and

1815
will probably cost £500,000 more. But no objection has ever been taken to the principle of a compulsory self-supporting Pension Fund by those who are best acquainted with the condition of our seamen. The Select Committee on Lighthouses, in 1845, strongly insisted on the necessity for such a Fund. The Royal Commission on Pensions, appointed in 1848, made a Report, which is still the best authority on this subject, and which was entirely in favour of continuing the Pension Fund, under improved regulations. In 1853 the Prince Consort, as Master of the Trinity House, addressed a letter to Lord Cardwell, then President of the Board of Trade, in which he urged, on behalf of the Elder Brethren, the importance of substituting for the Corporation's charities a more comprehensive scheme, such as should do honour to the great maritime and commercial character of the United Kingdom. The Manning Commission of 1859 gave great prominence to this subject in their Report. They said that, among the many suggestions, which had been offered to them, none had been so ably advocated as the re-establishment of the Merchant Seaman's Pension Fund; and that such a provision would be a great inducement to youths to join, and to seamen to remain in, our Merchant Service. The Committee on Merchant Shipping of 1860 concurred in this view, and pointed out the great facilities, afforded for the administration of the Fund through the shipping offices, which had recently been established. Passing over an interval of several years, I may quote as the latest authority on this subject the Report of the Liverpool Committee of shipowners on the condition of our merchant seamen. They were strongly of opinion that, both in the general interests of commerce and the nation, as well as of our merchant seamen, a Compulsory Benefit Fund should be established, there being at present no provision for old or disabled seamen, except the workhouse. The existence of such a fund would serve to bind the sailor both to his ship and his country by the consideration, now almost unknown to him, of having something to lose by deserting his ship when abroad. Lastly, the Royal Commission on Un-seaworthy Ships expressed their opinion that a self-supporting Pension Fund for seamen might prove of great value, in
1816
creating a tie to bind the British seaman to the Merchant Service of his own country. The subject, they said, well deserved the attention of the Government. The concurrence of these eminent authorities supplies a conclusive argument in favour of a Seamen's Pension Fund; and a calm consideration of the proposal on its merits cannot fail to satisfy the House that it is both reasonable and necessary. Seamen are a scattered body. Their lives are spent far away from home, and when they return, it may often happen that they are not paid off at the port, at which they originally shipped. They cannot, therefore, organize a machinery for collecting contributions or administering the funds required to provide sufficient pensions. The task, in short, is so extensive in its scope, and important in a national point of view, that it can only be carried out by the Government, and this is the conclusion at which every Commission and Committee, during the last 30 years, has arrived. The necessity of making the contributions compulsory is the only point on which doubt has been felt. The majority of the Manning Commissioners proposed that the Pension Fund should be self-supporting but voluntary. The contribution for the Naval Reserve was to be paid by the State; but they wished to admit to the benefit of the Fund every seaman, whether in the Navy or the Merchant Service, who might think proper to contribute. Mr. Lindsay differed from the other Commissioners; and his opinion, which is of the greatest value, was that any Pension Fund on the voluntary principle would be a failure. These views were shared by all the professional officers of the Board of Trade. The late Mr. Graves told the Merchant Shipping Committee of 1860 that, although he did not like compulsory measures, yet he thought in the case of the Seamen's Pension Fund compulsion would be a necessity. The same opinion was expressed by Captain Ballantyne, who was specially appointed to represent the views of the Mercantile Marine Association of Liverpool before the Royal Commission on Unseaworthy Ships. The view of those, who are in favour of compulsory contributions, were very ably summed up in the memorandum, prepared for the Manning Commission by Captain Peirce, Superintendent of the Sailors' Home, in London.

1817
"Seamen," he said, "were an exceptional class." What other description of men required their agreements for labour and service, the correction of their accounts, and the payment of their wages, to be watched over by a public officer? This arose from their habits, and their peculiar duties. From youth to manhood they were exposed to temptations and dangers, by sea and land, which surrounded no other class; and they therefore required more than others the protecting arm of a kind and beneficent Government to do for them what they could not and would not do for themselves. Why is it that the seaman does not calculate? It is because the universal feeling among seaman is that they will not live to be old. They see so many die around them, they so seldom meet with an old sailor at sea, that they consider it quite unnecessary to prepare, as other people do, for the contingency of old age. But, it may be asked, what are the views entertained by the seamen themselves? Enquiries were made in 1845, on behalf of the Board of Trade, by Captain Brown, who reported, as the result of conversations with many hundreds of seamen, that there was scarcely any objection to contribute, provided a substantial pension were guaranteed by Parliament. Again, when the Winding-Up Act was passed, a Petition was presented to this House, signed by 400 masters and mates, and 700 seamen, stating that any attempt to raise a Pension Fund on a voluntary principle would be precarious and inefficient. I have recently made an effort to ascertain the feelings of the seamen by personal inquiry. I addressed a meeting at the Liverpool Sailors' Home in December last on this subject, when a resolution was unanimously passed in favour of the plan. I have subsequently been in correspondence with the Secretary of the Seamen's Protective Society, of Liverpool, which numbers several thousand members, all able seamen; and I am informed that since the date of the meeting the subject has been repeatedly considered by the society, and that the general principle of compulsion has been invariably approved. Ten days ago I attended a meeting of seamen at the Shipping Office in the East India Road, when the plan was also received with the warmest approval. But the main point we have to consider is whether the
1818
thing proposed is right in itself; for if the House be satisfied that a particular measure is calculated to do good, they will probably be prepared to exert, in case of need, a gentle pressure on prejudiced or improvident men, whom it might be necessary to train up in habits of prudence. Any objection, which might be raised on the part of the seamen to a forced contribution, would be removed if the shipowners were prepared to take a share of the burden. Lord Ellenborough suggested a tonnage contribution of 1s. a-ton, arguing that it was but just that the shipowner should relieve those, who would otherwise become chargeable with the maintenance of the seamen by whose labour the shipowner himself had specially benefited. Mr. Young, the chairman of the London Shipowners' Society, proposed that the necessary sum should be raised in three equal amounts—by contributions from the State, the seaman, and the shipowner. With these views Mr. Green and Mr. Dunbar concurred. More recently the Committee of Liverpool shipowners have proposed that a benevolent due of one farthing a-ton should be levied upon all shipping entering our ports, by which means a considerable amount would be raised. It has been calculated by an officer of the Cunard service that the Liverpool proposal for a tonnage contribution would produce £60,000 a-year. Coasters would pay an annual contribution, in lieu of dues for every voyage. Mr. Lindsay expressed an opinion that even though the payment required from the seamen should, in point of fact, fall absolutely on the shipowners, they would be gainers thereby; for the seaman would by this means be bound to the English flag, and less easily tempted to desertion by the higher wages in America. Wages from Liverpool, for a voyage to Callao and back, in a sailing ship, average 60 s. a month. The wages at Callao and the Colonial ports are almost double that amount. The result is, that the seaman, having nothing to lose by desertion, is easily tempted to leave his ship, and the shipowner must engage a substitute for the voyage home, at double the amount originally agreed upon. Two months' wages must be paid—the proceeds of the advance note passing, as a matter of course, into the hands of the crimp. The administration of the fund

1819
must be in the hands of the State, and, with proper regulations, there should be no deficiency. But even if there were an occasional small deficit, it is to be remembered that under the Winding-Up Act the State took possession of £200,000, and that the Government now receives an unclaimed surplus of £9,000 a-year from the wages and effects of deceased seamen, which are administered by the Board of Trade. With the aid of these supplementary resources we have next to consider what amount of pension it will be possible to guarantee to the seamen without loss to the State. The calculations made by Mr. Finlayson for Mr. Labouchere in 1850 and for the Manning Commission in 1859 were based upon the Northampton tables, which gave a more unfavourable view of the expectations of human life than almost any other published experience, and which, it was ascertained by communication with the seamen's benefit societies, accurately represent the duration of the lives of mariners. Mr. Finlayson was asked by the Manning Commission to state what amount of pension commencing at the age of 50, would be secured by an annual payment of £1 from the age of 14. The amount, according to the Northampton tables, payable at the age of 50 would be £8, and at 55 £12 a-year. In this calculation, however, no allowance was made for the secession of some of those who had been contributors to the Fund. When, however, allowance was made for the probable number of seceders, which, in order to make a safe calculation, was taken at 3 per cent per annum, it appeared that the pension commencing at 50, would be increased to £11 5s., and that it would be £18, commencing at 55. The number of seceders was taken at the most moderate amount. In the Royal Navy desertion took place to the extent of 8 per cent per annum of the whole number of men employed; and in the merchant service there were fewer obstacles in the way of desertion. Had Mr. Finlayson calculated upon a secession to the extent of 8 per cent, the amount of pension at the age of 50 would have been raised to at least £17 a-year. It will be observed with regret that no proposal has been made with respect to widows. The Commission on Pensions were of opinion that it would be impossible to require
1820
the payment of a contribution sufficient to provide for this object. They therefore proposed a voluntary benefit society for seamen's widows, to which the State should contribute £5,000 a-year. I opened my-statement by asserting the importance of a Seaman's Pension Fund on national grounds. I conclude by pointing out that it has always been associated by its warmest advocates with the organization of the Naval Reserve. Mr. Lindsay was of opinion that, in lieu of the annual retainer, it would be far wiser to pass men for a year through the Navy, and, instead of giving the yearly fee and an imperfect training, as at present, to offer to the men enrolled in the Reserve the prospect of a pension of £20 a-year, to commence at the age of 50, provided they had in the meantime always followed the sea and held themselves in readiness to serve in the Navy. He calculated that, supposing a Reserve of 60,000 men were obtained, not more than 7,000 would live through their precarious and hazardous career to claim their pension. Thus, for £140,000 a-year we should have, as he believed, a far more effective Reserve than we could command by a payment of £720,000 a-year under our present system. I appeal once more to the example of every maritime State, and to the repeated recommendations of the highest authorities in the country, as furnishing a conclusive argument in favour of the proposal I now make. Why should we longer hesitate to adopt a course which wise statesmanship and enlightened charity alike recommend? I beg, Sir, to move—
"That, in the opinion of the House, it is expedient to establish a compulsory, self-supporting Pension Fund for Seamen."
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the original Question affirmed by the House was, "that I do now leave the Chair," and on that Question it was not competent to the hon. Member to move his Resolution.
LORD ESLINGTON, who had given Notice of an Amendment to add to the Motion the words—
"And further it is expedient to establish a system of combined training for the Royal Navy and the Merchant Service in commercial ports in pursuance of the recommendations of the Manning Commission of 1859,"
said, that in doing so he had a two-fold object; first, to raise the tone and character of the merchant seamen of the country, and, secondly, by so doing, to increase

1821
its naval power. Higher objects than those no man could aspire to attain. He would premise that on the outbreak of war merchant seamen were absolutely necessary for national defences and other State purposes; and therefore the State ought to contribute in a fair and moderate degree in the training of seamen. But there was another reason why there should be State aid given in this matter. The House voted annually £28,000—last year it was £30,000—under the head of "Relief to distressed seamen abroad." If they substituted the word "diseased" for "distressed" it would more accurately describe the condition of a great portion of those men. The seeds of disease were sown here, they became unfit for duty on the voyage, were discharged at the first convenient port, and brought home at the national expense, that expense being practically a fine on us for neglecting our seamen. He thought he was therefore justified in using the words of the Amendment, which, had he been in Order, he should have moved, and more especially in connection with the phrase, "Combined training," upon which he laid special stress. It was admitted on all hands that the condition of our seamen was not so satisfactory as it ought to be, or as it might be made by proper training. There were two great causes which led to the deterioration of our seamen. The first was their lodging-houses ashore, which ought to be licensed and placed under proper inspection. The other the "advance note," and the power it gave to crimps over the seamen. Both these evils could be remedied; and he was glad to say that most of the best men earnestly desired some remedial measures. A committee had been sitting for the last three years at Liverpool to inquire into the condition of their seamen, and it had collected a mass of most useful and trustworthy information. The House would probably like to know what the real number of our able seamen was, and in connection with the point he would lay some figures before them which would probably startle them. The committee stated that the seamen available at all our British ports at the present time were 202,239 in the gross. Out of these 130,877 were on board sailing ships, and deducting stewards, cooks, &c., the number was reduced to 117,790. In steamers there were 71,362
1822
sailors employed, but of these 50 per cent were engineers, stokers, &c., leaving only 35,681 British sailors. Deducting the foreigners in sailing vessels also, the total amount of British seamen was reduced to 134,496. But from the most careful inquiry made amongst the captains and shipowners of Liverpool it was found that only one quarter of the fo'k'slle men were fit to be rated A.B., and therefore, according to this calculation, there were only 33,600 A.B. sailors in this country, or he would call it 40,000 in round numbers. These were instructive figures, and, if as they stated, we had not got more than 40,000 able seamen in this country, surely it had become a great national object and an earnest duty to try and increase that number. He arrived then at this point. If we wanted able seamen it needed no argument to show that we must train them. If a system of training were necessary—and he thought the House had come to that conclusion—how were they to set about it. In order to answer that question he should refer to the evidence taken before the Manning Commission which sat in 1859. That Commission was one of the strongest ever appointed by the House, and its Report was drawn by Mr. Cardwell, a statesman trained in the most rigid school of economy, and against whom the holding of exaggerated or extravagant views could not be charged. That Report had ever since been regarded as a text book on the subject. Mr. Cardwell presided at one of the sittings of the Commission, and he drew from Commander Hoskyns Brown, a seaman of vast experience, who had been for 25 years registrar of seamen in this country, and who had devoted his life to the study of the question, strong evidence to the effect that the training of boys for the Merchant Service would raise its character, and that if boys were taken from a better class than these found in industrial training ships the Merchant Service would be raised, and desertions would be fewer. He had always advocated the adoption of such a system, and his object was to draw from a better stock, both from the Royal Navy and the Merchant Service, by a combined system of education for both services. There could, he thought, be no doubt that if the class of seamen in the Reserve, under a system which did not commence the training of

1823
sailors until they had reached manhood, was superior to that of former times, a higher state of excellence would be attained by the adoption of a system which should commence with the training at an early age, and should also include instruction calculated to fit boys either for the Royal Navy or the Merchant Service. The training of seamen was a self-evident proposition, and in proof of it he had only to refer to the Royal Navy, where boys had been trained with the greatest advantage to the public service. The two gentlemen from the Board of Trade who were sent out to inquire into the condition of our seamen, in their Report spoke in favour of a system of training. Mr. John Burns, who was connected with the Industrial School ship near Glasgow, said that the in-put and out-put of boys was inexhaustible; that there was no difficulty in getting boys, and after they had been trained getting them into the Merchant Service. The Manning Commission proposed that 12 training ships should be placed in as many of the principal commercial ports of the country, but he (Lord Eslington) suggested that only half that number should be at first established, and that if it were done that one should be sent to Ireland—each ship should contain 300 boys, 100 of which number should be trained for and at the expense of the Admiralty; that the Admiralty should provide two guns for each ship, small arms, and cutlasses for the purposes of drill; that there should be a gunnery instructor on board of each ship; and that a tender for sea-going purposes should be also attached to each ship in order that the boys could be occasionally taken well out to sea for the purpose of obtaining additional experience and getting rid of the objection sometimes raised to what were called "port-trained" boys. He did not at all wish to interfere with existing training ships, which were doing excellent work; but the material from which they drew was not that which he desired to see join the Merchant Service. It was calculated that they would produce 3,500 boys a-year, but the Mercantile Marine did not, so far as he could ascertain, get from them more than 1,000. The drain of men in the Merchant Service was 16,000 annually. The annual number of apprentices turned out was, he might add, only 3,500,
1824
and taking the extreme view that the Reformatory and Industrial School ships produced a similar number, we should then have only 7,000 to supply an annual drain of 16,000; and it was, as far as possible, to meet that drain that he desired to see training ships established. It would be preposterous for any one to propose that these ships should be maintained entirely by the State, but the shipowners who complained of the in-efficiency of the sailors, and who would benefit by their improvement, if their complaint was well grounded—and he had no reason to doubt it—should contribute their fair share of the expense. The Royal Commissioners proposed the imposition of a rate of 6d. per ton on all ships except those which took apprentices, and the Liverpool Committee recommended that all ships below 100 tons should be exempted because they were chiefly coasters employing boys, and they were practically one of the best nurseries of seamen. He must candidly admit that at present there were objections raised by a large number of shipowners to the proposed tax. One reason, which he trusted would prove a passing one, was the present depressed state of the shipping trade; but he apprehended the principal reason for their objection was the idea, that if anything were done to elevate the able seamen it would have the effect of raising wages. Even if that were so, the shipowners would have no reason to complain, because they would get good and efficient men, and there would ultimately be an improvement in the tone of the Merchant Navy that would be of the greatest possible service to the shipowners and to the community at large. A great many shipowners advocated the imposition of a tax, and Mr. Burns suggested 4d. a ton. The British tonnage was estimated at 6,000,000, but, taking it at half that amount, a 6d. rate or tax would produce £75,000 a-year, but taking it at only £60,000 it would go a considerable way towards the maintenance of training ships. Taking the cost of a boy at £25 per annum, it would only give 3,000 boys to be added to the 7,000 already referred to with which to meet our annual drain of 16,000 men. That was a moderate proposition, and if it should be tried and proved successful it was capable of unlimited expansion, and would be a great boon to the mercantile community

1825
of this country. The proposal had already obtained public support to this extent. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in distributing the prizes in June last on board the Conway training ship, advocated the training of boys, and expressed a hope that before he left office he should see training ships started in all the large ports of the country, and therefore he claimed the right hon. Gentleman as a powerful ally in support of this Amendment. Then there was the Report of the Royal Commission in support of the view for which he contended, as well as that of the Liverpool Committee of Inquiry. At a great meeting, too, of shipowners which had been held in the early part of the year in the City of London a resolution was unanimously passed to the effect that a large proportion of the annual casualties at sea were caused by "the inefficiency, intemperance, and negligence of seamen," to his mind clearly pointing out the necessity for some remedy; while at a meeting of the representatives of the Associated Chambers of Commerce held at the Westminster Palace Hotel a few days after, a proposal in favour of a system of training boys for the Merchant Service was adopted. We had, moreover, the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce suggesting that the Government should establish and assist in maintaining such ships, while the Liverpool Underwriters' Association had declared it to be their opinion that the present inefficiency of seamen had a very material bearing on the rate of premiums on insurance. The Liverpool Seamen's Protection Society had also passed a resolution in favour of training ships for the Navy. These opinions were not confined to the Merchant Service, but had been favourably received in the United Service Institution, at discussions in which naval officers had taken a part. The Secretary of State for War had proposed schemes of mobilization, the formation of camps, and the increase of the Army, which had received the assent of the House, all incurring a large increase of expenditure for the Army, but, after all, the Army was a secondary consideration to the Navy. If their first line of defence was broken, a great amount of the expenditure which they had devoted to military improvement would be thrown away. If once the soil of England was trodden by the foot of an invader, the honour of
1826
this country would receive a terrible blow, and it was in order to strengthen the naval power of this country that he had brought this subject before the House. He would conclude by reading to the House a maxim which was as true now as when it was first expressed—"Trade and navigation form the foundations of naval power; and the nation possessing these elements in the highest degree must always command supremacy at sea."
MR. GOURLEYsaid, he could not agree with the noble Lord in his Motion respecting training ships, because he believed that seamen would never submit to be compulsorily taxed for the purpose of providing a pension fund, more especially because the management of former pension funds had resulted so disastrously. The Motion, however, brought forward by the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) was one of an entirely different character. He (Mr. Gourley) held that it was the duty of the State, in order to secure for itself a proper supply of seamen, to provide in some form a pension fund for our Mercantile Marine; because they were, in the first place, liable to be impressed in time of war to fight the naval battles of the country, and formed at all times a nucleus for the equipment of the Royal Navy. During the Great War ending in 1815, it was computed that 100,000 merchant seamen were drawn from their regular employment to serve their country, and it was to them that we must look on any sudden emergency. There were several sources from which a seamen's pension fund might be provided. One was the surplus light dues. Those dues, levied from the merchant ships of this and other countries by the Trinity Board, brought in £340,000 a-year, and the surplus of £40,000 a-year might be well appropriated to a pension fund for seamen. The receipts of the Mercantile Marine offices were derived partly from seamen and partly from shipowners, and the surplus might be appropriated to the same object. Then the fines levied in police courts in connection with seafaring offences might, as in Prance, go towards such a fund, together with the proceeds of unclaimed wrecks and wages, and a certain portion of the Greenwich Hospital fund. By these sources of revenue about £100,000 per annum might be secured towards a

1827
seamen's pension fund. At the same time, he agreed in the necessity of establishing training ships at the various ports. That was one of the recommendations of the Manning Commission of 1859, and if it had been carried out not only would there be at the present moment a better supply, and especially a better description, of seamen, but also a more efficient Naval Reserve. There was an abundance of seamen—more, indeed, than were wanted—but, although there were many good seamen, there was a large supply of indifferent seamen. The other elements of our Mercantile Marine were Norwegians, Swedes, Prussians, Italians, Greeks, and Lascars; and the Peninsular and Oriental Company now navigated some of their ships by Indian seamen, who were not to be compared as seamen with the able seamen of this country, but who were sober men, and therefore navigated ships more safely. They were, however, not to be relied upon in case of emergency, and a captain had recently told him that in case of bad weather or collision, they would run below and make no effort to save either themselves or the ship. It was the character of our seamen that was of more importance than the number, and training ships and other means of providing them would be of little avail until we got rid of our drinking customs. In the ports of Liverpool and Portsmouth there were more public-houses by the side of the docks than in any other part of the Kingdom. The public-house was brought, as it were, to the very decks of the vessels, and until we got rid of this evil, and of its associations and consequences, we should never make our seamen what they ought to be. He would urge the serious consideration of the question of training ships, and while he agreed that a pension fund was necessary, he thought it ought not to be raised from the sailor by compulsion.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would leave the President of the Board of Trade to deal with the question of pensions for seamen, but he might say that if shipowners were to adopt the system of the Navy and enter men for continuous public service, he thought the question of pensions might be settled. In the case of the great steamship companies there would be no difficulty in adopting such a system, and even by combination smaller shipowners might engage men
1828
for continuous service and make pensions part of the engagement. He rose, however, to make some observations on the subject of training ships for boys for the Mercantile Marine, and with regard to it, he would repeat the sentiments he had expressed on board the Conway at Liverpool, and state that he took the deepest interest in the establishment of training ships for the Mercantile Marine in the different ports; and to a deputation of shipowners he had expressed the willingness of the Government to promote the movement, and had stated what the Government might fairly be called upon to do. The question was one of Imperial interest as well as of interest to shipowners, for the Government naturally looked to the men of the Mercantile Marine as their Reserve in case of war, and it was therefore perfectly fair that the Imperial Treasury should bear a proportion of the cost of training boys for the Mercantile Marine. Those who were anxious to see the establishment of training ships were of opinion that the Government should bear a large portion of the expense, and he admitted that the Government ought to bear its due share; but he could not admit that a due share would be anything like the larger part of the cost. He could not endorse the opinion that the Government ought to maintain 100 boys in each ship, unless, indeed, they could get from each ship 100 boys for the Navy; but he was willing to adopt the principle of payment by results, and he had conveyed to the shipowners the willingness of the Admiralty to pay £25 for each boy who actually joined the Navy, that being the sum mentioned in the Report of the Manning Commission as the cost of the maintenance of each boy, and £3 a-head for those who joined the Naval Reserve. He thought also the Admiralty might be called upon to provide ships, but instead of beginning with 12 or six, he should be glad to make a beginning with three in the first year, and to go on increasing them year by year till they had a sufficient number of ships for the different parts of the country. These were all the charges that he thought Imperial funds ought to bear. He was surprised that shipowners did not see that their interests were involved in promoting the movement. It could not be started and maintained unless they would put their hands into

1829
their pockets, either voluntarily or by the payment of a tax to be imposed by Act of Parliament. He could not but think they would find it to their advantage to incur the necessary outlay, because they would diminish their losses by providing a better class of men to navigate their ships. He felt sure the investment would be a paying one, and that they would reap the advantage. Concurring in the view of the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington) that boys should be trained while young for the Naval Reserve, he had established a third class of boys, and he had intimated to the different training ships that the Admiralty were prepared to receive boys in that class, making a payment of £3 a-head, and entering them as soon as they joined a mercantile ship on leaving the training ship. In addition to the payment to the ship the Admiralty had undertaken to find each boy a suit of clothes. He thought this would be the means of increasing the Naval Reserve, which was in a more flourishing condition now than it had been for some time.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the true solution of the Plimsoll difficulty was to take means for manning their ships by men of character, and he believed that public opinion both in Liverpool and Manchester were in favour of the movement. He thought that voluntary training ships were admirable institutions, there being a great advantage in their being supported by men who took an active interest in the welfare of the sailor, and he was glad that the Government were so ready to lend assistance in this work. The great thing that was wanted was, that the sailor should feel that he had a home to return to, and that he should have the confidence that there were men in his own land who were untiring for his good. If they had sailors properly trained in the manner he desired, each of these men would be a sort of "moral torpedo," and would be likely to keep those who were inclined to be wrongful doers on the watch. He thought it would be better that Government should give substantial assistance in the undertaking, rather than that the work should be taken wholly in hand by them.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.
MR. WHALLEY, in resuming his observations, expressed a hope that the chief management of such undertakings might remain under voluntary direction.
MR. WILSONthought it would be satisfactory to the House and to the country that the subject had assumed so prominent a position, and that such opportunity had been given for full discussion. He thought the pension fund seemed to point to an additional tax upon seamen, but the wages of our seamen were already more than duly taxed as compared with those of foreign seamen. While he believed that the establishment of the good-service pension fund would tend to improve the character and increase the efficiency of the merchant seamen, he did not think it advisable that Parliament should establish such a fund. There were certain public funds which at present stood to the credit of the Mercantile Marine, and he should be in favour of applying a portion of those funds to the formation of a good-service fund, out of which pensions might be given to deserving and well-conducted men. The shipping trade was, at present, in a state of depression, and the attempts which had been made during the past two or three years to interfere with it by almost incessant agitation had greatly discouraged those who invested capital in this important branch of industry, by making them feel that, with increasing liabilities, it was becoming a hazardous, if not an unprofitable enter-prize. One of the evil effects of the agitation to which he had referred was that foreign steamers were increasing in a greater ratio than English ones. He was favourable to pension funds formed among the seamen themselves, as friendly societies were established by working men. In the port of Hull there had been formed a society called the "Plimsoll British Seamen and Firemen's Defence Association." In justice to the hon. Member for Derby, he ought to say that the hon. Gentleman had retired from the presidency of that association, though it still retained his name in its title. The members of it each contributed 10 d. a-month, which was 10 s. a-year; and there were from 400 to 500 belonging to the association. It surely followed if seamen could combine together for that purpose they could also combine to establish a pension fund, without the interference of Parliament.

1831
The question of training ships should be dealt with on the voluntary principle. If shipowners found that there was a deficiency of seamen it was their duty and their interest to establish these training ships in order to provide themselves with what they required. He doubted, however, that there was so great a deficiency in the supply of seamen as had been represented. As to demoralization among seamen, in his opinion it was caused mostly by drunkenness and intemperance; and, so far as his experience in Hull went, he deplored the extension of the opening hours of public-houses granted by the House under the Bill of the Home Secretary, because it had produced a great amount of evil among the seamen of the port as well as among the inhabitants of the town. Why did English merchant captains ask to be allowed to employ Lascars? Because Lascars could be relied upon as sober men and as honest men. He did not understand why the shipping interest should be legislated for at every turn, so that even the men could not be engaged without being taken to the shipping office; and he deprecated a feeling which seemed to be not content with the Government interference which now prevailed, but wished to carry this interference still further. With the Mercantile Marine of the whole world to compete with British shipowners had to study every item of expense; and legislation concerning them must take a very different turn from what it had done lately, if England was to maintain the supremacy of her Mercantile Marine.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had stated that English captains preferred to employ Lascars because they were honest and sober, apparently intimating that British sailors were neither the one nor the other. For his own part, he did not think that was a character which the British sailor deserved; but if it was so, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman's evidence must be taken as showing that the condition of the British seamen was not what the House would desire it should be, and that it deserved inquiry. With regard to a pension fund, his own impression was that it would be of the greatest advantage to seamen, but that until the shipowners approved of its formation, it would be impolitic to insist upon the proposal being carried out. He
1832
had a suggestion to offer for the consideration of the Vice President of the Council. It was, that at seaports a school-ship should be substituted for an ordinary board school on shore, and that the education to be given there be under the control of the Education Department. In that way the proposal which had been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty would be assisted by the ratepayers of the locality near which the ship would be situated, while the First Lord might obtain from such a school a certain number of educated boys for the service of the State, and the Merchant Service also might obtain seamen who would be found superior to those Lascars of whom the hon. Gentleman thought so highly.
SIR ANDREW LUSKwished to know why it was that hon. Gentlemen selected the shipping interest for experimenting upon, and shipowners for receiving instructions as to how they should carry on their business. Why should a tax be placed on seamen and not on cotton-spinners, miners, and engineers, who earned such large sums of money? We did not like compulsion in this country. The President of the Board of Trade was a man of great discretion and prudence, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not interfere with the shipping trade where it could be avoided. At present, as compared with that of other nations, it was heavily handicapped and tied down by the trammels which Parliament was continually imposing upon it. He did not think training ships had been quite so successful as they were sometimes represented. Boys might be trained, and after all refuse to go to sea; and who could compel them? He objected to their throwing any charge on shipowners on that account. He hoped the Government would discourage this kind of experimental meddling which never ended in any good. The only true remedy for the deficiency of seamen was an easy and a simple one—namely, the offer of higher wages, and if that course were taken, improvement would soon manifest itself.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYwished to say a few words with respect to the two very important subjects which had been brought under the consideration of the House. One of them was for the revival of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, and the other for the

1833
increase of training ships; but neither the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. T. Brassey) nor the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington) had pointed out any practical scheme for carrying out their proposals or leading to any change in the policy which Government were pursuing on both those subjects. The hon. Member for Hastings said nobody disputed the value of a pension fund to seamen. Undoubtedly that was so. A pension fund on a sound basis would be the greatest inducement to seamen of the best description to join the sea service; secondly, it would be the greatest inducement for them to continue in the service; and, in the third place, it would prevent that most painful degradation of the service, that seamen, on arriving at the age of 60, if they did reach that age, generally fell on the poor rate. That being so, the hon. Member said it was most desirable to revive the Merchant Seamen's Fund; but he did not even indicate the mode in which he proposed to do it. The Merchant Seamen's Fund was a failure. Could the hon. Member propose a fund on another principle which would not be liable to failure like the first? Mr. Labouchere brought in a Bill in order to carry out the views of the Royal Commission; but it could only be carried out by a tax on shipowners, and the shipowners objected. So far there was no encouragement to revive the fund. In 1851 the Winding-Up Act was passed. That Act had cost this country £1,000,000, and it would cost at least £600,000 more, and Mr. Hamilton, of the Board of Trade, a gentleman of great experience, told him it was within possibility that it should take 100 years from now to extinguish the ultimate liabilities on the fund. So far, at all events, there was very little encouragement to carry out the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Since 1851, nothing had happened on the subject but the Report of the Manning of the Navy Commission. That Commission reported in favour of voluntary funds. He need not go into the details of their proposition; nobody thought of recommending the adoption of it. And what had occurred before? A distinct condemnation by experience of the principle of their proposition. As to a compulsory self-supporting system to provide pensions for the Mercantile Marine, the difficulty was
1834
that nobody knew how to carry it out, and it had been found by experience impossible to work it. He maintained, therefore, that the hon. Member for Hastings ought, in support of his proposition, to have shown how it was practicable to re-establish a Merchant Seamen's fund upon principles different from those which were fatal to the experiment formerly tried. The first difficulty connected with a re-establishment of the Merchant Seamen's Fund upon principles different from those which were fatal to the experiment already tried was the actuarial difficulty. Actuaries failed to find the average life of seamen, or to make safe calculations on their wandering and precarious employment; and he believed it to be an unsolvable problem. [Mr. T. BRASSEY: I adopted Mr. Finlayson's figures.] But they had signally proved treacherous. The shipowners had positively refused to tax themselves to provide a fund for pensions to seamen. He recollected the utter failure of an attempt made some years age to raise a schoolmasters' pension fund, and it failed on this simple ground, that schoolmasters as a body were so differently circumstanced, and so many of the best had insured themselves, that it was impossible to reduce to any uniform system for that class of men, either a rate for their contributions or the benefits they were to receive. The most provident schoolmasters had themselves secured pensions for their old age, and the only men left to subscribe would have been the least inclined or suited part of the schoolmasters. He believed the case of seamen would be much the same. The most provident of them—and that class, he believed, had increased—had already provided for themselves by large deposits in the savings banks. That, he thought, was the best way for a seaman to provide for himself in old age, or for his widow and children after he had gone. He fully admitted that the country was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for having-brought forward the subject. No man was more competent to deal with it, and no man could have dealt with it in a more philanthropic spirit; but he must say he thought the hon. Gentleman had failed in showing an efficient plan for the avoidance of former failure in the establishment of a seamen's pension fund. With respect to the proposal

1835
of the noble Lord the Member for South Northumberland (Lord Eslington), it was a well-known fact that a great many more casualties arose from the unseaworthiness of crews than from the unseaworthiness of ships, and if we could get a better disciplined class of seamen, who from youth had been brought up in steady, moral habits, self-respect, and intelligence, more than one-half of the casualties at sea would cease. All were agreed that we must rely upon the education of boys more than upon any influence on men to introduce improvement in that respect. To train up a nursery for seamen was of the utmost importance. The question was very much a question of money. Who was to supply the funds? The State had to a certain extent done its part. He was not sure whether it had done all its part. Perhaps it might do more in the same direction, but he thought on the point of principle the State had adopted all that it ought to do. It had established and maintained training ships under the Reformatory Acts, Poor Law, and under the Industrial Schools Act. The duty of the State was to look after the waifs and strays of the country and see that they were put out of the way of mischief, and in the way of useful service, and that the State had undertaken. With respect to the children of independent parents, we must leave to the principles of supply and demand their special training for any kind of industry. If we would only bear that principle in mind we should see that the public money ought not to subsidize the natural obligations of parents in bringing up their children for this or any other line of livelihood. The result would be fatal to the independence of the people, and the practice would be open to almost unlimited abuse. Charitable and voluntary societies might most usefully assist poor parents to train their children for this or any other service, but to ask the State to come forward in loco parentis and undertake the industrial training of the children of this country would be a fatal error. The right hon. and gallant Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) thought that the Educational Department of the Privy Council might make such grants, but he appeared to forget that the Privy Council grants were never given for the board and lodging of any children, but only for the tuition of poor and young
1836
day scholars in school. The highest use of wealth was to enable the poor to get advantages which they could not themselves get. There were all sorts of institutions in the country in which the training for various branches of industry was carried on. And that was exactly what the shipowners ought to do for the sea service. So far as the national service was to be benefited by training seamen for the Naval Reserve, so far public money might fairly contribute. Training-ships for the children of respectable poor parents should be supported partly by charitable and voluntary contributions, partly by the State, and partly by the parents themselves. Nothing could be more unfortunate than the present state of things; the dependent class being necessarily aided, but the independent, well-conducted, industrious class receiving no assistance. While the reformatory boys, paupers, and vagrant boys were trained at the public expense, the respectable class of children were handicapped in the race of this kind of industry and alone obtained no help. The result was that, while taking strong measures to improve the Mercantile Marine, we were doing our best to draw sailors from the worst class, and were throwing away the natural supply of the better class to improve the service. The problem to be solved, therefore, was how we could promote on sound principles the establishment of training ships in which the better classes of boys could be brought up as sailors. He was glad to say that many such ships were already established on the Thames and on the other principal rivers, and that he had received offers to establish others. He heard with satisfaction the offer that had been made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, which he thought would be the right sort of contribution on the part of the State. By a clause in the Merchant Shipping Bill it was proposed that grants should be made to such training ships from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and he thought there could not be a more legitimate application of a particular portion of that fund than to that purpose. It might not be possible to make large grants from any present balances in that account, but it would be a good beginning, and if found useful, might lead the shipowners to consent to increase the fund.
CAPTAIN PIMsaid, he wished to say a few words, as his figures had been challenged. The Mercantile Marine consisted of 25,000 ships and 200,000 men, of whom 70,000 were seamen. The waste in the Mercantile Marine amounted to 16,000 per annum. Last year to supply that deficiency there were only about 4,000 apprentices and 1,000 boys from training ships, so that on account of waste there was a deficiency of no fewer than 10,000 men. Besides that, it should be remembered that great difficulty and inconvenience arose from the introduction of a large number of unqualified foreigners into the service. He had known ships that had passed Gravesend whose entire crews from the captain downwards were foreigners. From a Petition presented to that House by the London Seamen's Mutual Protection Society it appeared that the proportion of foreigners to British seamen on British merchant ships reached more than three-fourths of the whole; and from a Return which he had moved for and obtained last Session it appeared that no less than 968 foreigners were masters of British merchant ships, while at this moment nearly 700 were mates and 77 were engineers. Surely that was a state of affairs which required the earnest attention of the Government.
MR. T. E. SMITHbelieved they were in the wrong, as regarded their training ships. He looked upon training ships as very valuable reformatories, but did not think they were the best places to train up sailors. There was only one way of making a boy a seaman, and that was to send him to sea. With that in view, it would be better if the money were spent in giving the boys six months' real training at sea than in keeping them two years on board a training ship in a harbour.
MR. D. JENKINSsuggested that if shipowners felt themselves at a disadvantage owing to the deficiency in the supply of seamen they could remedy the matter for themselves by carrying and training a large number of boys on board their ships.

LEGAL DEPARTMENTS COMMISSION, 1874—THE REPORT.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked, What, if any, steps the Government
  1838
  propose to take with respect to the Report of the Legal Departments Commission, 1874? He explained that that Body had pointed out various reforms which ought to be carried out—for instance, they had shown that there were many officials whose duties were merely nominal; that in certain of the offices where the work was hardest the officials were the least numerous, and vice versâ; that in certain cases where the work was mose arduous the pay was the smallest, and vice versâ; and many other abuses. Recommendations were made by the Commissioners, in the way of appointing one responsible head in these cases, with the view of remedying these evils, which indeed were not denied by either side; but as nothing had yet been done he would like to know what were the intentions of the Government? One of the most important reforms suggested was the collection of all the scattered offices under one central roof. The excuse for inaction hitherto had been that until the effect of the working of the Judicature Act had been ascertained by practice, it would be inadvisable to take action. Beyond and above the reforms contemplated by the Commissioners an inquiry was recommended into the Scotch and Irish legal Departments. He should like to know when that was to be instituted.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had great pleasure in announcing that steps had been taken as far as possible to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission referred to by his noble Friend, recommendations whose value and importance were fully appreciated by the Government. They were as fully alive as any one could be, but they were prevented from moving fully in the matter, because a sufficient time had not as yet elapsed since the passing of the Judicature Act to enable the Lord Chancellor definitely to recommend the changes which might hereafter prove necessary. He could, however, assure the noble Lord that steps had already been taken in the way of suspending some appointments, and making others temporary, with a view to rendering the executive departments of the Courts of Law neither more nor less than was absolutely necessary for the administration of justice. If it were necessary to introduce a further suspensory Act it would be done in the course of the present

  1839
  year; but, in the meantime, the Lord Chancellor, who had already given the subject much careful consideration, would continue to do so. The noble Lord had referred to the Courts of Law in Ireland, and he could only say—not being in a position to speak of the provisions of a Judicature Bill which was in course of preparation—that inquiries had been made by Her Majesty's Government, and that the information obtained had enabled them to prepare a measure which he hoped and believed would prove satisfactory, and which was intended to effect economy on the one hand, and on the other to give that strength and force which were necessary to the due administration of justice.
  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.)
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,992, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
    MR. W. JAMESsaid, a great many of the officers whose salaries were included in the Vote seemed to be purely ornamental. What were the duties of Ulster King-at-Arms, who was set down for £750? Who were the "Gentlemen-at-Large," and what were their duties? They received £128 each, and the Athlone Pursuivant of Arms £190. Some gentlemen might wish to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant as a badge of conquest, an excrescence of modern growth, originating in an age when there was great vulgarity of thought. Though it might be acceptable to some, Irish tastes was at variance with English common sense.
    MR. W. H. SMITHreplied that the duties performed by Ulster King-at-Arms were similar to those of the College-of-Arms in London. The remuneration he received was less than the fees
    1840
    paid into his office, and the excess went to the Treasury. With reference to the Gentlemen-at-Large, the offices they filled were necessary to the dignity of the position held by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised some information on the subject of the Queen's Plates, which were included in this Vote; and asked whether the new rules for the regulation of those in England would be applied to those of Ireland and Scotland? He had hoped that after what the right hon. Baronet said last year the money this year would have been applied to some more useful purpose.
    MR. J. COWENremarked that these plates were given ostensibly to improve the breed of horses, and he did not know why there should not also be Votes for improving the breed of pigs and cattle. Indeed, he thought the money would be better bestowed for the latter purpose on agricultural shows, as certainly no improvement in horses resulted from these plates. The fact was that these prizes did not bring the best horses. Races, like everything else, had greatly changed in these days. The prizes given were larger and the distances run much shorter than formerly. There were 32 Queen's Plates in England, and it frequently happened that one horse won half of them. A year or two ago one horse won 17 out of the 32. In eight, nine, or ten cases, the plate was walked over for; and, on an average, no more than three horses ran for the remainder. The prizes, in short, were not large enough. Last year, at Newmarket, the three plates of £100 each were turned into one prize of £300, and the result was that nine horses competed for that race. At Newcastle and Carlisle, instead of a race at each place every year, it was now arranged that a race for £200 should take place at those towns in alternate years. Similar arrangements had been made between Liverpool and Manchester, and other towns. He would move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,562, the amount set down for Queen's Plates.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,430, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March

    1841
    1877, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Cowen.)
    MR. STACPOOLEwished to see the new system now on trial in England tried also in Ireland. The Queen's Plates should be divided between the provinces. At present a regular "plater" was frequently sent over from England—one which had beaten the best English horses, and one, therefore, which nobody cared to run against. Such a system did nothing for the improvement of the breed of horses.
    CAPTAIN NOLANthought that it would be a great improvement if, instead of giving so many of the Queen's Plates to the Curragh, they were distributed between the provinces; or, better still, if the prizes were increased and the number of races lessened. In that case they would have more competition, and improve the breed all over the country.
    MR. MURPHYthought a better distribution of the money would be advisable. He would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle to be satisfied with having called attention to the Vote.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he gave an undertaking last year that it should be considered whether this money could be more usefully applied, either by the amalgamation of existing plates or otherwise. In pursuance of that promise, the Master of the Horse had been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant, in order to ascertain whether it would be possible to come to an arrangement for the redistribution of the plates given at present. The money was intended to serve two purposes, the improvement of the breed of horses, and contributing to the amusement of the people. As yet no definite plan had been decided upon; and there appeared, so far as he was aware, to be considerable objections to any change that had been proposed. He was afraid that the amalgamation of the plates into a far larger prize would increase the temptation to send over a few superior horses from England, who would carry off all the prizes and discourage the native breeders.
    MR. RAMSAYexpressed his regret that the Chief Secretary for Ireland felt it his duty to ask the Committee to sanction the Vote. This money had been
    1842
    proved to be wasted; and, for his own part, he could not see how the Irish people could be either amused or enlightened by seeing two or three horses merely go over a course. What the Government ought to do was to bring forward some proposal to expend the money in improving the breeds of horses and all kinds of stock in which the Irish so much excelled.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the breeding of horses was a very important thing in Ireland, and he should be glad at the expenditure of this money if he thought it would improve the breed of the horses; but by universal testimony this particular application of the money did not attain that object. In Scotland of late years very great attention had been paid to the improvement of agricultural and carriage horses, and experience had shown that the offering of a prize of £100 or £150 formed a very great inducement for this class of horses to be brought forward, and it was always a condition of winning a prize that the horses should be retained in the district during the season. He thought something of the kind might be applied to Ireland.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKcould not understand why £1,500 a-year should be taken out of the pockets of the people to throw it away on objects which had been generally condemned as useless if not mischievous.
    MR. COLLINShoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle would not press his Motion to a division, as the money was voted for a good purpose, and the Irish Members were unanimous in the opinion that the money was not wasted.
    MR. MACDONALDobserved, that Irish horses came over to this country and took away the principal prizes, and therefore there was no necessity to send money there to improve the breed of horses.
    MR. MUNTZthought it would be very ungenerous to refuse this money to the Irish, who loved fun and racing and horses. The English people loved Epsom and Ascot, and he did not see why the Irish should be precluded from their enjoyment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £27,530, Chief Secretary for Ireland Offices.
    MR. SULLIVANasked for some information as to a new office that was mentioned in the Vote—that of the Assistant Under Secretary.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the office had been created in the course of a re-organization, which had become necessary, but it really involved no extra charge.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKasked for an explanation of the duties of the director of the Veterinary department, who was paid £800 a-year, and his assistants and clerks.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Vote did not represent the entire staff of the Veterinary department in Ireland, but only those clerks under the direction of the Veterinary department in Dublin, and the sum paid to him was not a large sum compared with similar officers in England.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £460, Boundary Survey, Ireland.
    (4.) £2,058, Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
    (5.) £6,050, Public Record Office, Ireland.
    (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,675, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYcomplained that although the Act of Parliament required that there should be three Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, one of the Commissioners had ceased to receive salary, and an Assistant Commissioner was appointed without his proper rank and remuneration. The Office of Works was altogether under-manned, though there was no department of greater importance in Ireland. The Assistant Commissioner was moreover appointed in consequence of his knowledge of engineering, drainage, and waterworks; but he had been placed in the architect's department, where his special qualifications were not available.
    MR. SULLIVANbelieved there never was a greater misnomer or "sham" than
    1844
    the Board of Works in Ireland, for it was a bureau which executed no great public works at all. It managed a loan office in a very narrow spirit, and through its fault important clauses of the Land Act had been rendered inoperative. Its other functions were to mend the broken panes in the Chief Secretary's office and in the Four Courts of Dublin, or, perhaps, to build police barracks. Some of its officers, the architect in particular, managed to pass their time by discussing the conduct of Ministers and hawking Petitions about the office, compelling the subordinates to sign them for political and partizan purposes. The duties of the loan department were so managed as to deter persons from borrowing, and 7½ per cent for the management of the fund was far too high a charge. He begged, therefore, to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £839, the amount of the architect's salary.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £27,836, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Sullivan.)
    MR. MUNTZasked why it was, if the Commissioners discharged no duties, a sum of £500 was charged for travelling expenses?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought there was much more force in the allegation of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that the office was under-manned, than in that of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who said that it had little or nothing to do. It had important duties to discharge; if it had erred at all in discharging them it had been rather in occasionally giving loans without sufficient security than in refusing them where they ought to have been granted. The Secretary to the Treasury would shortly bring in a Bill to "write off" a considerable number of loans advanced by the Board of Works which could not be recovered for the State. The charge that a superior officer of the Department had hawked about the office Petitions for signature by the clerks was entirely unfounded. The fact was, as he had previously stated, that a Petition was brought into the office by a

    1845
    private individual and shown to the architect, who chose, in the exercise of his discretion, to sign it, and when it was handed to the other clerks they did the same.
    CAPTAIN NOLANobserved, that the Bill in reference to the Shannon had fallen through, chiefly in consequence of no appeal having been provided for the proprietors against the rates to be levied. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take any steps with respect to the drainage of the Shannon and the Suck?
    DR. WARDsaid, it was a great evil that a considerable portion of the government of Ireland was committed to Boards which were practically irresponsible. As an illustration, he might mention that a canal had been made through his own borough, but the keeping of it in repair was committed to irresponsible persons, and the consequence was that, being left without any protecting wall year after year, a large percentage of the population were in danger of being drowned.
    MR. STOKERcalled attention to the great increase in the Irish Votes in these Estimates.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid that the increase in travelling expenses was due to the increase of labour thrown on the Department, and nothing was passed but what was absolutely necessary. Some negotiations were going on with respect to the upper part of the Shannon, but they had not as yet been communicated to the Treasury.
    In reply to Mr. RYLANDS,
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the items composing the charge of £5,209 for the architect's department had reference to the National Education Buildings, the Queen's Colleges, the naval and military Departments, Law Courts, the convict prisons, and other important public Departments.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the complaints of himself and the hon. Member for Louth, though apparently opposite, were easily reconciled. There were three Commissioners; they were not employed in looking after petty details in the repair of public and private offices; and their function was to consider in what direction material improvement could be carried out. He wished to know whether the Secretary of the Treasury or the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended to carry out the provisions
    1846
    of the Act of Parliament by appointing three Commissioners, so that the office, which was one of great importance, might be conducted with the proper amount of brains?
    MR. COLLINScontended that as the Department was in no respect connected or under the control of the Irish Government the Vote ought to be an English and not an Irish one. If the office in question were brought under the control of the Government of Ireland, a great alteration for the better would be effected.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 123: Majority 45.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MUNTZmoved to reduce the Vote by £500, on the ground that he was not satisfied with the explanation afforded in reference to the travelling expenses charged in the Estimate.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,175, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Muntz.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 123: Majority 42.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (7.) £18,237, Registrar General's Office, &c. Ireland.
    (8.) £21,550, General Survey and Valuation, Ireland.
    (9.) £78,000, Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
    CAPTAIN NOLANasked if any portion of the Vote would be applied to the maintenance of lunatics in workhouses as well as in district asylums?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the question was one rather for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than himself, but he was not aware that any such intention existed. He should remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that all dangerous lunatics were provided for.
    Vote agreed to.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (10.) £57,061, Law Charges, England.
  (11.) £179,848, Criminal Prosecutions, &c. England.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not object to the Vote, but he considered the officers who came within the meaning of the administration of justice, and who accompanied the Judges on circuit, were more ornamental than useful. They had recently the appointment of three gentlemen as referees under the new Judicature Act.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had given an explanation on this question at an earlier part of the night; and with respect to those whom the hon. Member for Sussex alluded to, he might state that the question was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. GOLDSMIDconcurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Sussex in reference to those officers whose duties on circuit were generally performed by their deputies. The office was, in fact, a sinecure.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £173,025, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3Ist day of March 1877, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  MR. WADDYsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,700, which represented the salaries of one of the official referees of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of his clerk. It was of extreme importance that the gentlemen chosen to be referees should be men of talent, ability, and tried experience, inasmuch as they were to be the judges of law and fact com-pulsorily, often in cases of great difficulty and complexity. The gentleman whom he objected to was not, until his appointment, heard of in the profession, and he had not that experience in the regular practice of it which the public were entitled to demand.
  1848
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £171,325, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Waddy.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that although he was not personally acquainted with the gentleman in question, he had received from those who were fully qualified to judge the highest testimony to his ability, attainments, and general fitness for his office. He could not admit that a man could not be qualified to become an official referee simply because he had not obtained a large and lucrative practice. [Mr. WADDY: Any practice.] If it were the correct principle not to appoint men to high judicial offices until they had attained large practice at the Bar, he could only say that many of the most eminent Judges who had ever sat upon the Bench would not have been appointed. Further, it must be remembered that the appointment had been made by the Lord Chancellor, and no Member of the Committee would deny that the noble and learned Lord had been really and earnestly anxious to fill all the posts by the appointment of the best men. It was possible that the Lord Chancellor was not personally acquainted with all the gentlemen whom he had appointed; but in cases where he had no personal knowledge of the gentlemen in question he had relied upon the judgment, knowledge, and experience of those on whom he was entitled to rely for information and advice.
  SIR HENRY JAMESregretted the line of argument which had been adopted by the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he appealed from his hon. and learned Friend to the Government generally to prevent what would otherwise be regarded as a grave scandal. He protested against the question being made one of how the Lord Chancellor had or had not chosen a gentleman for a particular post. The Lord Chancellor had very little to do with the matter, and he therefore trusted that the Vote would be postponed, in order that further inquiry might be made before the appointment was ratified

  1849
  by Parliament. The duties of the gentleman appointed to the office in question would be both varied and responsible, and he would be subject to no public criticism. The gentleman in question had to decide cases without a jury, and before his appointment was ratified, the Committee should have reason to believe that he was a man of experience in the practice of his profession and one who possessed a judicial mind. He challenged any one to say this gentleman had ever substantially practised in his profession—as far as could be learned it appeared that he had never even attempted it. He had made only one appearance on the Home Circuit—and then the Judge dispossessed a revising barrister of his appointment, and gave it to this gentleman. The Attorney General knew, as well as he did, that it was the same Judge who made him a revising barrister that nominated him to the Lord Chancellor, and advised the Lord Chancellor to give him this appointment. Was it right that the House should ratify such an appointment without further information? He was speaking the universal opinion of his fellows in his profession when he said that there were plenty of men willing to serve who had not been failures, who had given proofs of their capacity as arbitrators for years, who were known to be good lawyers, and who had all been put aside merely to make way for the social acquaintance of a gentleman on the Bench. Whilst he felt that the objection and discussion might occasion hardship to a gentleman who was not to blame for having the appointment conferred on him, he trusted that under all the circumstances, the Vote would be postponed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconfessed that what had been said in the debate on this subject was quite new to him. The most convenient course, he thought, under the circumstances, would be to withdraw the Vote in order that inquiries might be made in reference to the appointment in question.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, that after the powerful language prompted by the public virtue of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, he must make a few remarks in favour of Mr. Verey, the gentleman so fiercely attacked—it was mere affectation to conceal his
  1850
  name. He had known that gentleman some years, and protested against his being specially singled out for attack. He did not hesitate to say that the whole four were unsuitable for the post. He believed, however, that Mr. Verey was by far the most fit. He hoped, however, the Government would re-consider all the appointments, as well as the one which had elicited such an unusual display of public virtue from the hon. and learned Member (Sir Henry James).
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £61,586, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for such Salaries and Expenses of the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, &C. (FUNDS) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW, Bill to amend the Law relating to the application of Funds of Municipal Corporations and other Governing Bodies in certain cases, ordered to he brought in by Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. LEEMAN, and Mr. DIXON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 101.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Arundel, the District of Bacup, the Rural Sanitary District of the Caistor Union, the City of Carlisle, the District of Milton next Sittingbourne, the Borough of Northampton, and the District of Toxteth Park, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 102.]

  IRISH CHUECH ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PARNELL, Bill to amend the Irish Church Act of 1869 by extending to Lessees and Tenants holding under the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners the right of purchasing the fee simple of their holdings, subject to the conditions allowed by section seven of the Act of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of Victoria, chapter ninety, to purchasers of Tithe Rent-charge, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PARNELL and Mr. FAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 103.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.