Lords Sitting of 11 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Edinburgh Assessments.
3a Government of the Navy; Customs and Inland Revenue.

CHIEF JUSTICE MONAHAN.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must earnestly beg your Lordships' attention while I bring to your notice what has taken place in reference to an attack which was made by a noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim), whom I am glad to see in his place, upon Lord Chief Justice Monahan. Yesterday, in presenting a petition to your Lordships, the noble Earl made most severe animadversions upon the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice and imputed to him gross misbehaviour in

899
his office of Judge. On that occasion I asked whether any notice had been given to the Chief Justice of this attack, and the noble Earl replied that no notice had been given; upon which I certainly expressed some surprise, and perhaps some indignation, at the mode of proceeding which the noble Earl had adopted. Then the noble Earl said he would give notice that on Thursday week he would bring forward this charge against the Lord Chief Justice Monahan. Now, I find on the Notices to day this Notice, and nothing beyond it, that he will, "on Thursday, move for Copies of two Presentments to the Grand Jury of the County of Donegal at the last Summer Assizes." That is the Notice, and no more—not intimating in the slightest degree the name of the Lord Chief Justice Monahan, or what the charge is to be brought against him, or what preparation he should make for his defence. Upon this I sent for the Petition on which the noble Earl had founded the charge he brought forward without notice, and to my surprise, in this petition there is not the slightest notice taken of Chief Justice Monahan. It is simply a Petition from certain inhabitants of the county of Donegal, who say that there is Ribbonism there, and that there are disturbances in the county, without imputing any blame whatsoever to the learned Judge who was the subject of this attack. Now, my Lords, I do object very seriously to this mode of making an attack on a Judge. No doubt he is responsible to Parliament, and it is the duty of Parliament to censure or punish him for any misconduct of which he may be guilty; but it is equally the duty of your Lordships and of the other House of Parliament, when a charge is made against a Judge to give him an opportunity of defending himself. The only instance within my recollection of a charge being brought against a Judge was in the case of Mr. Justice Fox, an Irish Judge. That occurred, I believe, in the year 1804. I have referred to that case; and there I find that there was a petition charging particularly the learned Judge with misconduct in what he had said and what he had done, and giving him the most ample opportunity of preparing for his defence, and showing whether the charges were false or substantially true. Now here the noble Earl proposes, without anything more than a notice that he will move for two presentments laid before the Grand Jury of Donegal at the summer assizes of 1860, to renew the
900
charges against Lord Chief Justice Monahan, which are loose, multifarious, and of a very serious nature. I did not catch them very distinctly, but I understood the noble Earl to complain that the learned Judge misconducted himself in addressing the grand jury and making himself a political partisan. I must implore your Lordships' protection for Lord Chief Justice Monahan as I would for any other of Her Majesty's Justices. I say that if the noble Earl intends to renew these charges he should state distinctly what they are, so that the learned Judge may have the opportunity of meeting them. No doubt, if the noble Earl on reviewing the circumstances, thinks that the learned Chief Justice has been guilty of misconduct, he can move an Address to the Crown praying that Chief Justice Monahan may be removed from his high office; but I hope your Lordships will take care that no Member of your House shall bring forward a charge of this nature without giving such an opportunity of defence as would be accorded to the meanest and most obscure among the servants of the Crown.
THE EARL OF LEITRIM: The noble and learned Lord certainly expressed his indignation last night in stronger terms than are usual in your Lordships' House; and not satisfied with that, the noble and learned Lord has this evening repeated his indignation, as appears to me, most unnecessarily. In presenting a petition to your Lordships' notice last evening, I thought myself called upon to animadvert on certain irregularities—which seemed to my mind very gross irregularities—which had been committed by the Lord Chief Justice Monahan, and from this I am not in the slightest degree prepared to depart. But I complain of something more; I complain that it is the practice of the Irish Judges to make partisan speeches of this character to the grand juries in opening the assizes; and it is upon this general ground that I wish, to bring this question before your Lordships. Now, however, by throwing down the gauntlet, the noble and learned Lord has challenged me to bring specific charges. I can only say that I shall be very happy to meet the noble and learned Lord, and to settle my Motion in any terms which may be suggested as convenient for taking the opinion of the House thereupon.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that since he had remarked upon the propriety of giving Chief Justice Monahan notice of

901
the charges to be made against him, the noble Earl had himself put upon the Minutes a notice, which, however, conveyed no idea of what those charges were to be. Now, surely, the Chief Justice ought to know of what he was accused so that he might be able to defend himself. It was the height of injustice to make such loose and multifarious charges against any functionary under the Crown; and to make them upon presenting a petition which did not at all inculpate the Chief Justice, or even mention his name, was extremely irregular, and was a course very much to be deprecated.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he was really quite at a loss to know what the noble and learned Lord wanted. He would beg their Lordships to allow his notice to be put off till Friday.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, what he wanted was that the noble Earl should state specifically what the charges were, so that the Chief Justice might be informed of the accusations against him, and might be prepared to meet them.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

  PETITION.
  LORD BROUGHAMbegged the attention of their Lordships to a petition which had been put into his hands by a very large body of their fellow-subjects, the inhabitants of Plymouth, on a most important subject, the evils of intemperance, and the necessity of discouraging and, if possible, preventing these excesses, which all Judges and all inferior magistrates had so often declared to be the cause of crimes as well as of pauperism. In most instances habits of intoxication had this 'dreadful tendency, and in many cases intoxication was the direct cause of offences. Their Lordships were appealed to as the highest Court of criminal judicature by that meeting, over which the mayor presided, and the prayer of this petition was that considering the evils of the present system of licensing, there should in any measure which received the sanction of the House respecting the sale of intoxicating liquors be inserted a provision conferring upon two-thirds of the inhabitants of any district the power of preventing the granting or renewing the licences within the district. There had been a canvas carefully made of all the inhabitants of the great town whence the petition proceeded, and nineteen in twenty had de-
  902
  clared in favour of the Permissive Law—four in five of the Parliamentary voters. It was remarkable that these proportions were not the same in the highest and lowest classes, but in the class of working men the vast majority was much the largest. The petition to the other House was signed by nearly 12,000, the largest number that ever signed a Plymouth petition. In other great towns the result of a similar canvas had been the same. Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield might be mentioned as entirely agreeing with Plymouth.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,in moving the second reading of the Greenwich Hospital Bill, said he would very briefly state its objects. Their Lordships would remember that three years ago a Commission was appointed to inquire into the revenues and management of the Hospital with a view to render the funds of the Hospital more available for the objects of the institution. The Report made was of some length, and generally it showed that some amendment in the system of management of the Hospital was desirable. The Commissioners in their Report made a comparison of the relative cost of the maintenance of pensioners in Prance and England. It appeared that the annual cost of the maintenance of a pensioner in France was £31; in Greenwich Hospital it was £60. But the cost of the administration of the system in France was only £5 per head, while the expense of the administration of Greenwich Hospital was £28 18s. per head. This proved that some better system of administration was required. The Hospital was founded in 1694, under a charter from William and Mary, and its objects were stated to be the relief of disabled seamen, and widows of seamen, the maintenance and education of their children, and generally for the encouragement of seamen. Some of these objects were provided for by the out-pension system for which Parliament annually voted a liberal sum. Last year the amount was £230,000; and it was clear that Parliament considered that the Hospital was intended for the reception of seamen who were incapacitated by wounds or otherwise. The present Bill dissolved the existing Commission, and placed the institution under the management of a

  903
  new Board of Commissioners, composed partly of ex officio Members; but the executive Commissioners were a "Civil Commissioner," who was to be permanent and resident, an "Admiral Superintendent," also resident, a "Medical Commissioner," not necessarily resident. The two last named to be appointed for five years. The accounts relating to the Hospital and the income and expenditure of the large estate belonging to the institution were to be annnally passed through the Audit Office and brought under the direct control of Parliament. In moving the second reading he wished to state there were some amendments which he wished to introduce into the Bill, and, therefore, he should ask the House to allow it to pass through Committee pro formâ, in order that it might be reprinted, and he hoped that all discussion would be deferred for the present.
  Bill read 2a; and committed for Thursday next.

GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVY BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  THE EARL OF CARNRVONsaid, that before this Bill was read the third time, he wished to say a few words upon a subject that was somewhat akin to the measure, and of which he had given the noble Duke notice. A few days since a right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) made a statement in the House of Commons which attracted considerable notice both within and without the walls of Parliament. That right hon. Gentleman called attention to the great disproportion that existed between the English and the French navies in respect of iron-cased ships. The pith of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was this—that while we might have by the close of the year six or seven of those vessels, the French Government would have a number little if anything short of twenty-six. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) ventured to think that BO far from his right hon. Friend's statement having been overdrawn, he had rather underrated the strength of the French navy in iron-cased ships—he might have added that within the last two months the French Government had issued orders for the construction of a large number of
  904
  steel or iron boats, which were capable of being taken to pieces and put together again with great rapidity, and afforded remarkable facilities for disembarking troops upon an enemy's coast. Now, it was true that France might be engaged in war with many continental nations, but it was obvious that in a war with these nations steel launches of this description would be totally useless. Most of the warlike operations of France would be land operations, and, as experience of the Italian war had shown, there would probably be facilities for a disembarcation in a friendly country. However that might be, and ingenious as this scheme might be, it was hardly applicable to a state of war between France and any other continental State. That, however, was not the point to which he wished to call the attention of the Government. He understood that the French dockyards, both public and private, were at this moment occupied not solely in constructing French ships of war. He understood that both the Italian and the Spanish Governments were having iron-cased ships built in France, and he was further informed that there were at this moment building near Toulon two sister ships to La Gloire, which had been ordered by the Italian Government, and which were rapidly approaching completion. It was stated, moreover, that two other ships of the same character had been ordered, and the lines were already laid down. By the side of the naval preparations in France it must not be forgotten that in the Italian dockyards, measures had been taken to accelerate the construction of vessels of war as much as possible, and the workmen employed on them were working extra hours with a view to their speedy completion. The Spanish Government also was understood to be taking similar measures, and four ships had been already commenced, while negotiations were pending for the construction of others. It had been calculated, as he conceived upon very reasonable grounds, that before the close of the year there would be a great accession of strength to the naval forces of Spain and Italy in the shape of iron-cased vessels. No one could feel any jealousy at this accession of strength on the part of those countries regarded by themselves; but if the supposition of a combination of those Powers with France were admitted, the question was at once changed, and such a state of things must be regarded

  905
  as pregnant with danger, at least to our naval position in the Mediterranean. But while, on the one hand, foreign Governments had been proceeding cautiously, silently, and steadily, in the work of augmenting their naval strength, we, on the other, had been making no proportionate progress, partly owing to our precipitation and partly to our vacillation in our plans and policy in constructing our ships. He himself recollected that within the last seven or eight years there had been four distinct changes of policy on the part of the Admiralty. Before the Crimean war large ships of war were held up as the great safeguards of the country. But at the commencement of the Crimean war a cry arose for gunboats, and gunboats were built in large numbers, only, in many instances, to rot in the dockyards of Ports-mouth. The gunboat fever then died out, and large ships were again resorted to, until within the last two years, when the policy of the Admiralty was changed in favour of building ships encased in iron. He understood, however, that within the last few days some invention had been discovered by Sir William Armstrong by which his guns could be brought to bear with such force and accuracy that the strongest iron plate would be pierced or pulverized by it. He knew that every system of naval architecture must be subject to changes of circumstances, and that new rules of construction must be devised conformable to them. It, would, therefore, be idle to suppose that what was suitable in one state of circumstances must be the best adapted to every other. In saying, therefore, that the Admiralty had frequently varied the forms and principles of naval architecture. He did not intend to condemn necessarily all change or thereby to impute misconduct to the Admiralty. But what he did complain of was a wasteful expenditure which sometimes occurred under the administration of that Board, which seemed to be governed by none of those rules of common prudence which any man in private life would be deemed little less than a madman if he did not observe. He would not weary the House by quoting cases, but as an instance within his own knowledge he would mention the circumstances connected with a dock at Malta. About thirteen or fourteen years ago the Admiralty ordered the construction of a dock in that island, at a cost of about £60,000 or £70,000; but it was built on the worst possible place, at
  906
  the extremity of a creek, and exposed to the wash of the sea, in some of the most tremendous storms of the Mediterranean. Then, again, it was constructed, not on Crown land, but upon private property, and was surrounded by houses, so that in the event of war or disaffection it would be in the power of an enemy to destroy it. The work itself was bad, the stones after a short time opened, the whole dock settled, and it became evident that its ruin was only a question of time. It might naturally be asked, did not the Admiralty inquire into these facts? They did inquire, and were told that the mischief was attributable to an earthquake that had occurred at Malta. Now it was true that there had been an earthquake, but the collapse of the work took place two or three years before the earthquake happened. At this moment the dock was in such a state of decay that the first heavy gale might bring down the whole of the masonry. But this was the least part of his complaint. About two years since the Admiralty, seeing that this dock had been built for ships of a smaller size than we now used, determined to construct a second dock. For that purpose £60,000 was taken in the Estimates, and another Vote was proposed to be taken this year, which would bring the entire amount to £83,000; but, although they had been warned by the experience of the past—although they had seen the mistakes into which they had fallen in regard to the first dock—incredible as it might appear, they actually constructed the second dock precisely in the same place, and open to precisely the same objections as the first. It was not merely surrounded by private property, but was built through and behind the dock originally erected. There was consequently no access to the larger dock except through the outer and smaller one, and, therefore, a ship could not be admitted to or released from the inner dock until the one in the outer dock had been removed. Thus, a large part of the additional space thus obtained was literally useless. No ship could enter the inner dock if it was too wide for the outer, and if in a severe tempest the work fell in, the whole of these two docks would be completely closed for five or six months; and that, perhaps, at a period of war or of extreme emergency. The steps of the new inner dock had been projected to such a width that when the work was done no large-bottomed vessel could rest there.

  907
  Last winter the workmen were engaged in undoing the work that had been done at a sacrifice of the public money. It was proposed at first to separate these two docks l>y a sliding caisson; but representations having been made to them against that plan, the Admiralty gave way, and substituted, an order to erect the usual dock-gates. Suddenly, however, without rhyme or reason, while the workmen were employed in constructing the gates a counter-order was issued one fine morning, and the plan for a sliding caisson was restored. In the event of a war with France—which God forbid!—and still more if Trance were supported by Italy and Spain, it was morally certain that there must be a great naval engagement in the Mediterranean. In that case, unless our arms were crowned with one of those overwhelming victories of which there were some instances in our history, both fleets must obviously put back to their respective ports for repairs. The French fleet could go to Toulon, and would, perhaps, be again afloat in three weeks. The Italian could refit at Genoa, La Spezzia, or some other harbour on their own coast; while the Spaniards could conveniently do the same at Carthagena or elsewhere. But what would be the case with our own fleet? With the works at Malta in the ill-arranged, and, perhaps, ruinous state which he had described, we might not have a dock in the Mediterranean ready to receive a single ship of war, and we should have to send our fleet across the Bay of Biscay to be repaired at home. Observe the danger that must thus ensue to ships disabled, and, perhaps, in a half sinking condition, the risk of their being intercepted on the way, and the certainty of the enemy obtaining the command of the Mediterranean in our absence. These were matters which must suggest themselves to every reasonable mind that reflected at all on this subject. He trusted he had said quite enough to draw the attention of the Government to the dangers of our position; if these had been secret facts he should have been the last to publish them, but they were known and patent to all Europe. He did not wish to impute any special blame to Her Majesty's Government or to the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, but he ascribed the evils to which he had called attention rather to the vicious system of incessant change and weak vacillation which characterized so much of the naval administration of this country.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, the noble Earl first called your Lordships' attention to the question of iron cased ships, and referred to a speech lately made in the other House, founded on information furnished to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich by Admiral Elliot. Admiral Elliot went to France, and applied, through the English Minister at Paris, for leave to visit the dockyards of that country, in the same way as French officers have often applied for leave to visit our dockyards. His request was acceded to with the courtesy and civility which the French authorities always desire to show in such a case. They said, that they should always be anxious to afford every facility for the inspection of their establishments to any officer accredited by the British Minister. Admiral Elliot went and saw all that was going on in those establishments; but I must repeat that, under the circumstances, I sincerely regret the course which he took on his return to England. If I myself had given a French officer permission to view our dockyards, and I afterwards found that he took the first opportunity of publishing in the French Chambers a minute statement of the proceedings in our dockyards, such as had been made in the House of Commons on the authority of Admiral Elliot, I certainly should not think he had done a very friendly act. At the same time all the information brought by Admiral Elliot was only what we knew before. We were well aware of the progress that had been made in regard to the building of iron-cased ships in France; and we had taken some measures, since our accession to office, for the construction of iron ships ourselves. The House is aware that the French had a considerable start of us in this respect. The late Government was in power in 1858, when it was perfectly well known what France was doing in the way of building iron-cased vessels; but they took no step in the same direction till May, 1859. Certainly some time was lost in these operations, which was all the more important because the opportunity of making actual trial of this class of ships was delayed. We have not yet been able to make trial of the first iron-cased frigate, although in a few weeks one will be in commission, and we shall then have more practical results than any we have yet obtained. When the present Government came into office we found only one of those vessels laid down, and a sum taken in the Estimates for another.

  909
  We ordered this second vessel to be built; and, not satisfied with that, although Parliament was not then sitting, I brought before the Treasury the necessity of at once ordering two more. I did not wish to go on building these ships until their effect had been tested; but, seeing the progress made by other countries, I thought we ought not to be unprovided with this class of vessels. Although we were necessarily ignorant on many points of detail, I subsequently proposed to build three more, which, accordingly, have been commenced. We have, therefore, now seven of these ships in the course of construction. We are now preparing some of our wooden ships for plating with iron. I do not think they will be very efficient; but these ships will be at least as good as the French. My opinion is that we ought to construct our ships of iron to be afterwards iron-plated; but the whole subject is one of very great difficulty. Every day brings out new points and new difficulties. When I came into office two things came upon us at once—novelty in shipbuilding and novelty in the construction of our guns. When I came into office in 1859, the late Government had ordered the Warrior to be built, but had calculated that she would carry the old style of arms. She was not calculated for the new style of rifled guns, but for the old style of arms. When I came into office my attention was naturally called to these subjects. With regard to iron ships, I saw various persons; naval men having a knowledge of engagements at sea and men of great experience in shipbuilding—with the view of acquiring all the knowledge that could be had on the subject. They said their opinion was that we should build ships of iron and plate them with such iron plates as would keep out shell though they might not resist solid shot, before doing this we wished to have some experiments tried. We had some experiments at Portsmouth, and one of the first was upon an iron target of less than an inch thick. The result was that round shot in striking the iron broke into pieces, but passed on into the vessel, and no less than 700 pieces of iron were picked up inside the ship. That showed that round shot produced as bad an effect as any shell. It seemed, therefore, that merely to case ships with thin iron would be to expose men-of-war to as great destruction as possible, while such ineffective would load the ship with unnecessary weight. We had no end of suggestions and recommenda-
  910
  tions. Some people recommended India-rubber, others a thick matting of hemp, others chain armour. The answer I sent to these gentlemen was that, if they would send their inventions to Portsmouth, we would try them. I myself saw chain armour which had been tried, and the very first shot destroyed it. India-rubber and hemp were equally ineffective. Last year it was said we should slope the sides of vessels, and shot striking at an angle would glide off; but when we came to try flat-headed bolts, the slope made no difference at all. That was the last answer I received from Sir William Armstrong. Then it was said that the iron should be 4½ inches thick. I was rather doubtful whether that would be sufficient, and I ordered the vessel to be laid down at Chatham to have such flotation that she might carry at least six inches of iron. I thought six inches tolerably safe. I now find that Sir William Armstrong's guns have fired through 8-inch iron with the greatest facility. In building these iron vessels it is a great problem where we are to stop. Thin iron will not do; thick iron is very little better. It is, therefore, very difficult to say how we are to make our vessels safe. One fact, however, is clear, and to that we have chiefly addressed ourselves—namely, if we cannot make our vessels so secure as we could wish, at least we should arm them with as good weapons of offence as possible, and by ordering that our ships should be armed with Armstrong guns we felt that we were taking a course which would produce the greatest effect, while, at least, it would be a safe mode of proceeding. With regard to these different experiments, the noble Earl says the Admiralty have always been changing their policy. Why, my Lords, the reason is obvious. The world is changing; alterations are going on everywhere. So far from the Admiralty vacillating, from the time we came into office we have gone on in the course which I believe your Lordships will say was the right and proper course for us to adopt under the circumstances. My noble Friend the other day said we were going on building three-deckers and laying down wooden ships of war; but what is the fact? The last three-decker ordered to be built was in January, 1855. It is quite true that two three-deckers were launched in the course of 1859, but these three-deckers had been nearly finished for a long time; their engines and everything had been or-

  911
  dered; it was, therefore, thought better that they should be launched, and thus whilst we obtained two wooden ships of great power we also made room for other work to be gone on with. Well, then, it was said why do you go on with two-deckers? Now, we have not been going on with two-deckers. The last two-decker ordered was by the late Government in 1859. The present Board have ordered none. But it is said the Admiralty is going on ordering new large wooden ships. Nothing of the kind. It is quite true that we have converted sailing ships of the line into steam-ships, and we have ordered small vessels—corvettes, sloops, and some frigates and gun vessels; but if you mean to keep up the maritime power of this country we have not yet arrived at that forward state in which we can leave off building. We have been building the vessels what we thought would be most useful, and we have ordered them all to be armed with the new guns, and, instead of carrying the large number of guns they formerly used to do, our vessels will carry few guns, but guns of great power. The noble Earl referred to our gunboats, which he said were rotting in harbour; but if these were armed with an Armstrong 100-pounder they would be most formidable vessels, and would serve most materially to defend our coasts in case of hostile aggression; while being themselves small they would present a very slight object of attack for the enemy. With regard to what we ought to do in the way of preparation, there are two or three courses that might be adopted. If there was any immediate necessity or alarm, we could readily cut down some of the three-deckers and case them in iron. I have had calculations made as long ago as in 1859, and I find if you were to cut down, say the Royal Albert, and case the vessel in iron, it might bear 41 inch iron; but it would not then be a very effective ship—the ports would be too near the water, and it would not be so good a sea-going ship as I should wish the Admiralty to build, unless there was any pressure. Next year we ought to have better ships than three-deckers cut down would give us. Another course might to some extent be adopted. We have frames cut out for certain line-of-battle ships. We can easily add to the length of vessels and make effective wooden ships, which we can use hereafter as wooden frigates or as iron-cased ships.
  912
  Another course would be to order frames of iron ships to be prepared with a view to ease them with thick iron. Then comes the question of what iron they ought to be constructed, and the best mode of fastening the iron plates. Every day new questions arise. I am unwilling to advance too fast, because I feel that we can advance much more efficiently by waiting a little longer. It is only a few days since the last of these experiments took place with 8-inch plates. I had previously considered that 6-inch plates would afford sufficient resistance, and I ordered 6-inch plates. I have great doubt whether the mode of fastening the plates is satisfactory. On that account, therefore, we thought a trial should be made before we laid down new iron ships on a large scale; and that done, we felt we might rely on the power we have in building iron vessels if the country once takes it in hand. We know what the private yards in this country can do. We could soon produce a fleet of iron ships far greater than all the other Powers of Europe besides. It is true, as the noble Earl has stated, that France is not the only country which is building wooden ships to be covered with iron. There are some being built for Russia. I do not know where the contracts were taken, but contracts are in course of execution for Russia and also for Spain. One wooden ship covered with iron has, likewise, been built for Sardinia. Austria is adopting a similar system. The French ships are for the most part wooden ships covered with iron. I believe the best ships will be found to be those which are built of, as well as covered with, iron. Ours are iron ships with two coverings over a large portion of the ship—one of teak twenty-six inches thick, and one of iron four and a half inches thick. That is how the Warrior is built, and I have no doubt it will offer great resistance to shot and shell. Complaints have been made that the Admiralty are going on buying large quantities of timber. We must do so, and especially we must continue to purchase considerable quantities of teak, if we persist in building our ships with teak coverings. Teak, I need hardly say, is the best timber for that purpose, because it is of all woods the least liable to decay. I hope I have made a satisfactory statement in answer to the remarks of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: The noble Duke has said nothing of the two ships

  913
  built at Toulon for Italy, or of the two more which are ordered.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: I cannot say what is doing in the French dockyards. I know there was an iron-cased ship built for the Sardinian Government in France, but I believe it was built, not in any Government dockyard, but by a private builder at Marseilles. I know nothing of the second ship, but the noble Earl may be correct in his statement. All I can say is, that in the fact that iron-cased ships have been, and are being, built for Italy and Spain, I see no great cause for alarm. It is very natural that other Powers should desire to advance as well as France and England, and we have no reason for believing that either the Italian or the Spanish ships are meant to attack us. At the same time, it is our duty—and especially the duty of the Admiralty—to watch the progress that is making, to follow our own course, and to apply to Parliament if Parliament be sitting, and if not then to take measures on the responsibility of the Government—to make such preparations for maintaining the maritime position of this country as may seem to be necessary. For that I am quite prepared. The noble Earl, in referring to the works going on at Malta thought it expedient to go back six or seven years. What has been brought to my notice since I have been at the Admiralty with respect to Malta is that we want more harbour accommodation there, not merely dock accommodation, but accommodation in the harbour for our vessels, for our ships-of-war being now built so much larger than they formerly were cannot ride where they used formerly to be moored. On that subject I communicated with my noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office, and through him with the local Government at Malta. The conclusion we came to was that the Imperial Government and the local Government should each pay half the expense of deepening the upper part of the Great Harbour at Malta, that the merchant vessels should be put in that portion of the harbour, and that the lower part should be given to us as the place most convenient for our fleet. We have sent out vessels to dredge the upper part of the harbour accordingly, and operations are now in progress for providing increased accommodation for our large ships. The noble Earl says that in the event of war the French fleet after a battle would go back to Toulon, while we
  914
  could not repair our ships at Malta. That certainly is so. The French have great advantages over us in the Mediterranean, because Toulon affords much more ample accommodation than we have at Malta, even taking into account the two harbours there. Beyond those two harbours, as every one acquainted with the ground knows, it would be impossible to extend the accommodation, and they will hardly suffice for the fleets of England, if we must have great fleets in the Mediterranean. There must be difficulties in that respect, but this country has met difficulties before, and I have no fear that we shall be able to meet and overcome them again. At the same time, we have taken care to enlarge the harbour accommodation, and the local Government has met us in a generous spirit, having agreed to pay half the expense. We are cutting out stones for making wharfs and piers connected with the new works, and we have given directions that those stones shall be taken from a place which will eventually form a canal between the two harbours, thus separating the town from the rest of the island by a new channel of water. I have no doubt that the improvements when completed will prove a great advantage, not only to our vessels of war, but also to the local Government and the inhabitants of Malta generally. He hoped he had succeeded in showing to their Lordships that the Government had taken all necessary measures for the naval security of the country, and he trusted their Lordships would not hesitate to pass the Bill.
  EARL GREY: I am sure your Lordships must have heard the statement of the noble Duke with great satisfaction. For my own part, instead of finding fault with the Admiralty for being too fond of change, I am rather disposed to blame them for being too slow in adopting improvements. What I complained of two years ago was not that we were adopting new inventions, but that when new inventions had been tried, and found to a great extent successful, we still went on building ships of the line which it was morally certain would never be used. I objected to that in 1859, and I think I was right in doing so. I did not mean to censure the present Board of Admiralty, because I was ignorant as to what they were about. We have now heard from the noble Duke what is the course he is really pursuing. I believe that course is the proper one—

  915
  not to hurry on too rapidly with new inventions until they have been fairly tried; but, on the other hand, when there are new inventions which bold out every prospect of being successful, not to continue spending large sums of money in building vessels which in all probability will be useless; to make arrangements for the rapid creation, in case of necessity, of a large force of that description of vessels which will be most wanted and most serviceable, but not, under the influence of panic, to proceed too fast in the construction of ships which will not be likely to answer. Let me add that I was extremely glad to hear what the noble Duke stated with respect to gunboats and the smaller class of vessels. It is obviously not wise, in the face of the extraordinary improvements which are constantly being made in modern artillery, to build enormous ships in which a very large number of men would be exposed to certain destruction. I think the smaller kind of vessels, armed with Armstrong guns, will prove the most useful we could have; and in a recent visit to Portsmouth nothing gave me so much satisfaction as to see our fine fleet of gunboats in such a state of preparation. In the event of any sudden attack there is no force on which we could so safely rely as upon these gunboats, armed with rifled guns.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.

  THIRD READING. BILL PASSED.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that before this Bill was read the third time, he wished to recall their Lordships' attention to the difficulty which was the cause of the Paper Duty Bill having been rejected last year, namely, the hardships which the British papermaker would labour under as long as difficulties were thrown in the way of the importation of foreign rags. He found from the reports in the public press that it had been stated by the gentleman who had been mainly instrumental in carrying out the Commercial Treaty with Trance, that when he urged upon the French Government the expediency of allowing the free exportation of rags, the answer returned was that they were then engaged in negotiating a commercial treaty with Belgium, and that
  916
  until that treaty had been concluded they could take no decided step in the matter. The objection then made upon the part of the French Government had, however, now no ground upon which to rest, inasmuch as he found that the treaty between France and Belgium had been concluded. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Ministers would be able to inform the House that further steps had been taken with a view of obviating an injustice to which the papermakers of this country were still subjected, owing to the difficulty which lay in the way of their procuring the raw material of their manufacture.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that urgent representations had been made to the Governments of the various countries from which rags were exported with respect to removing the very high duty on their exportation which at present existed. The treaty to which the noble Earl alluded as having been concluded between Belgium and France gave, he believed, considerably increased facilities in that respect, but he hoped the Government would be in a position before long to give some more satisfactory assurance on the subject. A point, perhaps, of even a greater importance than the exportation of French rags was that there should be a systematic collection of rags in this country. He was surprised to learn from an eminent papermaker that in scarcely any other part of England except the Metropolis was there any organized system for the collection of rags.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 3a accordingly and passed.

RAGGED SCHOOLS.

  ADDRESS FOR RETURNS.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYrose pursuant to Notice to move
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of the Names of all the Witnesses who, either orally or by Document, gave Evidence in respect of Ragged Schools in the Metropolis to the Central and Assistant Commissioners; and the Names also of the Schools therein visited by any of them.
  "The same also for the Towns of Manchester and Liverpool."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, if the Commissioners had contented themselves with simply saying, that after a due examination of the ragged school system they could not recommend Government to lend their assistance, neither I nor those with whom I act would have said a single word on the subject. They, however, instead

  917
  of pursuing that course, brought such heavy charges against the system, and condemned it in terms so strong, that if their statements be true, we ought, I do not hesitate to say, to break up the system altogether, as unworthy even of that benevolent aid which it has hitherto received. But then the question arises, are those allegations well founded? and in order to furnish an answer to that question it is necessary that we should have the names of the witnesses who gave the evidence upon which these allegations are based. In the first volume of their Report (vol. i. page 394) the Commissioners say—
  "The bulk of these scholars appear to be children either of out-door paupers or of persons who can send their children to paying schools, and who would do so if there were no ragged schools."
  Now, here we have at once a statement that we are carrying out this system in a manner the most injudicious, and, if the Report be correct in this respect, we are, no doubt, open to animadversion. Again, in the following page I find this passage—
  "It is indispensable that they (i.e., any class of schools claiming Government aid) should be shown to be likely to produce permanent valuable results, but this is not the case with the ragged schools."
  The Commissioners, adopting the language of one of the Assistant Commissioners, Mr. Cumin, and thus making it their own, further say—
  "There may be one or two cases in which, under such unpromising circumstances, a boy or girl has derived benefit from a ragged school, though I admit that I have been unable to discover any."
  Now, I have searched through the Report to see whether the Commissioners, in making this statement, have referred to any evidence with a view to support it; but I cannot find that such is the case. I have, I may add, been informed that a good deal of evidence was given by word of mouth, both to the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, which does not appear in the Report; there being no reference even to the names of the persons by whom it was given. It is then, your Lordships will at once perceive, a matter of great importance that we should have those names, in order that we may be able to form a judgment as to whether the witnesses were persons conversant with the ragged school system, and whether their testimony is of a character on which reliance can be placed. There is one very
  918
  important point, with a view to the elucidation of which I am anxious to have those names. In page 388 of the Report the following statement is made:—
  "There are in England and Wales 14 evening ragged schools, containing 707 scholars."
  But I find that, according to the Returns for the same year which were given in to the Commissioners by the Secretary of the London Ragged Schools Union, that the number of those schools in London alone was 187, while the number of scholars was 9,465. It was, however, stated some time ago that when the Commissioners had looked into these returns they found that a large proportion of those who attended these schools were adults, whom they did not take into account in making their calculations. It is nevertheless the fact, that although there may be in the evening schools in London a very few pupils who are sixteen years of age, the vast majority were only thirteen years and under. I should, under these circumstances, very much like to know the evidence on which the statement in the Report of the Commissioners is founded. It is further stated, in page 603 of the Appendix to the Report, that the number of ragged schools in the whole of Lancashire was in 1858 only six, and the number of scholars 927; whereas, the fact is, that in Liverpool alone there were in last year 46 schools, the average attendance at which amounted to 5,822. I may add that Mr. Gillespie, of the Ragged School Union of Liverpool, with whom I communicated upon the subject, wrote to me to say that he had himself sent to the Commissioners a copy of a Report containing a statement to that effect. There is no notice, however, in the Report of Mr. Gilles-pie's figures. They are altogether omitted, his name is not even mentioned, and the number of schools throughout Lancashire is stated to be six, and the number of scholars 927. Now, I shall be very glad to have the evidence upon which these figures rest. The Ragged School Union, I may say, is in no way responsible for the provincial returns, and is responsible only for its own. The returns which I have mentioned were their returns in 1858, and they are utterly contradicted by those for the same year given by the Commissioners. Again, the Report of the Commissioners is not sustained by the reports of their assistants. In some parts it may be, but in others it is not so sustained. In the reports of the Assistant

  919
  Commissioners I find what never would have been gathered from any part of the general report or from the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle). I mean a great many passages strongly laudatory of ragged schools and of the ragged school system. Mr. Hedley says—
  "In provincial towns (his observations are confined to Newark and Doncaster) there does not seem to be any necessity at all parallel to that which suggested ragged schools in London and other large towns."
  Mr. Winder says—
  "In Bradford the permanent pauper children are fairly cared for by the guardians. There is abundant room for the children of the criminal and degraded classes in the ragged schools."
  Mr. Foster mentions ragged schools in Durham and Penrith, but gives no opinion on them. These two gentlemen speak disparagingly of ragged schools as a permanent system, while they admit that good is done. The Commissioners, having quoted so largely from Mr. Cumin in disparagement of ragged schools, ought in fairness to have quoted from him passages which are in a great measure laudatory of those schools. So far as you can gather from the Commissioners' Report you would suppose that Mr. Cumin condemned ragged schools from beginning to end. Now, let me quote this passage—
  "But, making every allowance, I cannot doubt that a very considerable influence for good is exerted by these Ragged Evening Schools, conducted by voluntary teachers."
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I read the passage.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I certainly did not hear it, nor do I find any reference made to this question, which was put to Mr. Jago, master of the Free School, Plymouth—
  "Q. What is your opinion of ragged schools? A. The establishment of ragged schools has, no doubt, conferred a very important benefit on the ordinary day schools, by separating the vicious and incorrigible from the mass of the more respectable and working men's children."
  Mr. Hare speaks with disapproval of the ragged schools in Ipswich; he adds, however,
  "The three ragged schools in my district are, most undoubtedly, confined to their declared purpose."
  Miss Elizabeth Twining speaks highly in favour of Evening Ragged Schools—
  "They (the ragged scholars) often gain good characters in their first place, for diligence and willingness to work."
  920
  Why was no allusion made to the strong evidence given by Mr. Tuffnell? He says—
  "There are a great number of children about London who do not go into either the National Schools or pauper schools; and I believe that ragged schools are of great utility in getting hold of these children."
  Then this important question was put to him—
  "Is your experience strong with regard to the number of children who have been permanently improved from their attendance on a ragged school?"
  His answer is emphatically, "Yes." There was no reference to this in the general Report, and you must take the trouble of wading through several portentous volumes in order to arrive at it. Again, it was said to me—
  "You ask why we did not apply for the evidence of the police. But we did apply, and the testimony of a policeman was given,"
  Now, what is that evidence? Here are are the words of Policeman Handcock, as quoted by the noble Duke—
  "I do not know any facts which should induce me to say that ragged schools have diminished juvenile crime,"
  and there the quotation ended. When I heard it I was a good deal surprised, but I was not at the time prepared to make any reply. On referring to the original, however, I find that the quotation ended, not at a full stop, but at a comma or semi-colon; and Mr. Handcock went on to say—
  "But I believe that they must have diminished crime."
  I ask, why a passage was suppressed which completely reverses the whole effect of the sentence as quoted? Again, the noble Duke quoted this passage from Mr. Hand-cock's evidence—
  "From my experience in London I have no doubt that the parents, if they chose, could afford to pay one penny per week for each child capable of going to school."
  That was quoted to show that the parents were in a position to pay for the education of their children. My argument is, that many can pay, but are so profligate that they will not pay; and it is remarkable that this opinion expressed by Mr. Handcock was also omitted—
  "I think that those children who now pay nothing to the ragged school would not go if they had to pay a penny."
  Why was this suppressed? Then we

  921
  come to Dr. Hodgson, to whom was assigned a part of the metropolitan district. The noble Duke quoted Dr. Hodgson as speaking doubtfully of the quality of children admitted. He certainly does. But why was no reference made to his high praise of the schools? Dr. Hodgson
  "For those really unable from destitution, culpable or not, to pay even the present rates, special provision must be made in the ragged schools or otherwise."
  Again he says—
  "That these schools provide a useful, kind, and a respectable amount of teaching for many children who would otherwise be utterly neglected is beyond doubt."
  [The Duke of NEWCASTLE: "Hear, hear!"] No doubt there was a laudatory passage in the Report of the Commissioners. At the end of the Report there is a compliment to all those who have laboured at this work; but it is a compliment to their benevolence at the expense of their judgment, and that compliment excited more pain than anything else on the part of those to whom it was addressed. Moreover, if the compliment be true the Report must be false, and if the Report be true the compliment must be false. I say again that the assistant-commissioners by no means bear out the general Report. Dr. Hodgson says in another part of the volume—
  "The value of such schools is not to be judged of by the amount of knowledge imparted, or even of power given to write and cipher, but by their effect in taming, and softening, and cleansing, through sympathy and kindness, those young victims of others' wrongdoing, and making them feel that they are cared for and that even for them an honest and creditable, if laborious, future may be in store."
  Here is a strong objection taken by Mr. Wilkinson, to whom another part of London was assigned. He says—and this passage was quoted by the noble Duke—
  "The short result of my inquiry upon this branch of my instructions is that in my district ragged schools do not sufficiently retain the distinctive features with which they were originally instituted; and that thus, while they give instruction to those who desire to receive, and often use it for a bad purpose, they do not supply a moral and mental education to those who most want it."
  Now nothing could be more condemnatory than this statement:—but only one page before the same Commissioner says, while hoping for the substitution of industrial for ragged schools—
  "I freely admit, upon a balance of good and
  922
  evil, the good effected by these schools largely predominates."
  Yet this was never mentioned in the general Report or in the debate in this House. I merely require the names of those who have given testimony, that it may be known from what evidence the facts and figures are derived; and, if the names are refused, it will appear as if the Commission has been pretty nearly a secret one. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Address for the Returns.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE:—My Lords, I cannot help thinking that, if the noble Earl desires to ascertain the truth in this matter, he has taken a very inconvenient mode of obtaining it. He has not only not contented himself with impugning the justice and accuracy of the Report, but at least half the speech he has made this evening has been a reply to the speech I made on a former occasion, and he has attempted to prove that I then read garbled extracts from the Report, with the view of establishing my case against his. If the noble Earl intended to take this mode of elucidating the truth, it would have been more conducive to his object as well as more courteous had he given me some intimation of his intention, instead of putting a plausible notice on the paper for a mere return of names. I so completely anticipated that the noble Earl would have moved for these returns in a speech of a single sentence, or without making a speech at all, that I did not think it necessary to bring down with me my own copy of the Report with the passages marked that I read in the last discussion. But, seeing a few minutes ago the noble Earl armed with a mass of papers, I sent to the library for a copy of the Report, that I might be able to answer any statement of the noble Earl. Now, first, as to the charge of garbling extracts—that is no light charge to bring against any man; and, therefore, I must call your Lordships' attention to the circumstances from which the last debate arose. The noble Earl brought an accusation against the Commissioners that they had founded "foul charges" against the system of ragged schools solely on the evidence of Mr. Cumin on the only two towns he had visited. The noble Earl having been before that debate engaged in a newspaper controversy with Mr. Cumin, I knew what to expect. Now the Report, as far as it refers to the ragged schools, is not based on the evidence of Mr. Cumin alone, but on the testimony of forty

  923
  or fifty other witnesses, whose statements fully justified the conclusions of the Report; and I read extracts from that testimony to show that there was much evidence adverse to the views of the noble Earl, and that there was none of that malignity which the noble Earl charges against the Assistant Commissioners. I read the whole evidence of policeman Handcock, who, I understood, was in the confidence of one of the most zealous promoters of ragged schools—Miss Carpenter. I remember distinctly saying, "I will draw out of the mouth of one witness most likely to be favourable to ragged schools a statement that, from his experience in London, he could not say that any facts he had observed justified the opinion that ragged schools have diminished juvenile crime." I did not profess to quote all the evidence I could find on both sides of the question. The Commissioners impartially examined the question; they gave credit to the promoters of ragged schools for having done much good but they adhered to the opinion that the ragged schools were not such establishments as ought to receive grants of money from the Committee of the Privy Council. That is the whole gist of the Report, and of the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners. The noble Earl says that nothing can be so unfair—that these passages from the evidence are not given in the body of the Report. But, my Lords, why do we print evidence separately from Reports? I am sure we all feel that, if the Report had a special fault, it was that it contained too many passages from the evidence. Had we encumbered it with more, We should have made it unreadable; and if we had quoted every passage for or against a particular system, we should have reprinted in the Report nearly all the evidence in the five volumes. The noble Earl has made one charge of an extraordinary nature, and has repeated a marvellous error. He says we paid great attention to the evidence of Mr. Cumin, but that he could not find any quotation from any witness favourable to ragged schools. Accustomed, as I have been, to strange inaccuracies on the part of the noble Earl, I confess I was amazed for the moment, and could hardly conceive that he had made such a statement—because I perfectly recollected that we had quoted the great supporter of ragged schools, Miss Carpenter. I turned immediately to the Report and I find that, so far from it be-
  924
  ing true that we quoted nobody but Mr. Cumin, the evidence of Miss Carpenter is quoted more fully. There are nearly three pages of Miss Carpenter's evidence given. Perhaps the noble Earl has done it more politely than he did on a former occasion, but, indirectly, he has made as strong, as unfair, and as unjustifiable charges against the Commissioners as he did more directly, and most violently, in the former debate. I little anticipated the noble Earl would go over the same ground this evening; but, with the advantage of having had time to examine it, he has attempted to answer the speech I made in the first discussion. He says, as before, that we have used language with regard to the ragged schools that is unjust and unfair. He says he should have been perfectly satisfied had we merely stated we did not consider them such institutions as ought to be patronized by the State; but that we had gone a great deal further, and condemn them as useless. I read various passages to show this is not the case; all we did Was—what has been done over and over again by the Privy Council—to state our opinion that, without an entire change in the system of grants of the £800,000 given to the sup' port of schools, ragged schools cannot be included in the number. I will not read any of the passages I read on the former evening, but there is one passage I did not read then. The noble Earl says it is an insulting Report, as it compliments the benevolence of the promoters of ragged schools at the expense of their judgment, and that if the compliment is true the Report must be false; while, if the Report is true, the compliment must be false. But, whether that be so or not, I feel bound to read one extract from our Report which will enable the House to ascertain whether we have laid ourselves open to the imputation of the noble Earl—
  "In order to avoid the appearance of ingratitude for service of the most valuable, disinterested, and self-denying character, we conclude our observations on this head by recording our strong opinion that no class of persons interested in popular education have conferred greater services upon the public, or services involving greater sacrifices of personal convenience and inclination than the managers of ragged and industrial schools, and similar establishments. We think that the time may come when these generous and charitable efforts may advantageously be replaced by a general system; but the fact that they first directed public attention to the subject, and that their labours showed the extent and urgency of the evil to be met, and the proper means of meeting it, ought never to be forgotten."
  I will ask your Lordships whether that is

  925
  a mere compliment to an individual? If the noble Earl thinks so, his mind must be so perverted upon this subject that it would be impossible to convince him. There is, no doubt, a compliment conveyed to individuals, but we go further, and say, "that they have conferred greater services upon, the public," and "that they recognized the evil and the means to meet it." That, I submit, is a distinct recognition of the good which ragged schools have done. It goes on to say that a time may soon come when the system of ragged schools may be dispensed with, and the public money should not be granted to those schools—at least, not to a greater extent than at present. I do not know whether the noble Earl really cares about the returns for which he has asked, or whether he merely uses them as a means of renewing his attack upon the Commissioners and myself. As to the return of the names of the witnesses and schools, it will be impossible for us to give any considerable portion. How far the Assistant Commissioners may be able or willing to give the information I cannot say, but certainly they would be justified in refusing to give it. We appointed the Assistant Commissioners, and we told them how to make a complete inquiry and report to us. We have not seem their note books of evidence; our Report is founded upon their reports. As I said before, our inquiry was twofold—first, to obtain the statistics of education and schools; and next, to ascertain the progress of education. Upon the first branch the Assistant Commissioners obtained returns from every school in their district, and, no doubt, they have the names of those schools in their note books, if they have not destroyed them. I am not at all endeavouring to prevent the noble Earl from obtaining the information he seeks, and if he wishes it I will make a private representation to the Assistant Commissioners to ask if they are willing to furnish information; but I do not think it would be fair for us to call upon the Assistant Commissioners to give up their note books to be scrutinized not only by Parliament, but by persons who had been unfavourably, and perhaps invidiously affected by their inquiries. The noble Earl will perceive from our instructions to the Assistant Commissioners that our object was not to reflect discredit or blame on any school, that we did not wish that the names of parties or schools should be sent to us, and that if they were sent
  926
  to us, we should not publish them in our Report. Therefore, I am not certain that, as regards the first part of the noble Earl's Motion, it will be possible to give it; but I repeat, that if he wishes it, I will appeal privately to the Assistant Commissioners to give such information as they can with propriety towards others and with justice to themselves, and allow it to be placed upon the Table. When the noble Earl goes on to ask for some returns from Liverpool and Manchester, I am equally as surprised as I was by his statement that we had omitted all reference to the evidence of the friends of ragged schools; because he must have seen from the Report, and gathered from my former statement, that Liverpool and Manchester were not included in the specimen districts to which the Assistant Commissioners were appointed. The reason for that was, that in respect of Liverpool we had a valuable report from a reverend gentleman named Howson as to the whole state of education in that town, and we thought it best to send the Assistant Commissioners to districts which had not been so carefully inquired into. I may here remark as a singular fact, that Mr. Howson, who was totally unconnected with us, and was acting solely with a view to ascertain facts in order to lay them before a body established for the promotion of Social Science, he, I believe, never mentions the ragged schools in the Report. Therefore, as far as Liverpool and Manchester are concerned, it will be impossible to give the returns, I may, however, take this opportunity of referring to a charge made by the noble Earl, that a Mr. Gillespie, who is connected with the ragged schools of Liverpool, had sent as certain documents and statistics, and that we had declined to insert them. I have had no opportunity of making further inquiries, but I am confident, from the information I have, that Mr. Gillespie did not make those returns, and that all that were received from Liverpool were inserted in the Report. I must leave it to Mr. Gillespie to explain the statement that the noble Lord has made. It is possible that there are some slight inaccuracies. I know, indeed, of one in the case of the independent schools; but an admission of the error, which arose from the accidental omission of a vote, has been: given under the seal of the Commissioners. The greatest possible pains were taken to insure accuracy, and in the case of the independent schools, we corrected a

  927
  numerical error in the returns which had been sent in to us. I really do not know that I need make any further observations upon the speech of the noble Earl. My answer has unavoidably been somewhat rambling, owing to my having had so little reason to anticipate this renewal of attack; but I may mention that, so anxious were the Commissioners to be just to the ragged schools, that on receiving Mr. Cumin's Report, which certainly in its general character was more unfavourable to the ragged schools than any other, we thought that before we came to a decision on that subject we would obtain as much evidence as we could on the other side. We, therefore, sent out a series of questions to no less than twenty-eight individuals of both sexes in different parts of the country who were most friendly to this class of schools, and from the largest portion of them we received answers. Mr. Cumin's Report was also submitted to Miss Carpenter, who had thus an opportunity of making any remark upon it. "With respect to the Returns now moved for, I shall endeavour to get as much of the information asked for as I can, and to place it before the noble Earl and those who act with him; and if he should then desire it to be laid on the table it will be competent for him to make a proposal to that effect. But, with regard to ragged schools, we have no wish to conceal or keep back anything. I find that it has been stated in discussion in "another place" that this Commission has been extremely costly. I hope your Lordships will not think it improper if I attempt to disabuse the public mind on that point, believe that this Commission, considering the extent of its task and the wide field over which its inquiry was conducted, was one of the cheapest as well as most laborious that ever sat. It was stated in the House of Commons that it must at least have cost the country £40,000. Now, I have ascertained that, so far from that being the case, including the salaries of secretary, assistant secretary, and clerks, the salaries of the ten Assistant Commissioners, and the cost of what was, in fact, an Educational Census, the whole charge to the public for the Commission—the printing Bill alone excepted—did not exceed £12,500. I can only say if the object is not to prejudice the case, or to bring unfair accusations against individuals who have performed a public duty but to elucidate the truth, then I do hope whenever this Report is again called in
  928
  question, be it by the noble Earl or anybody else, that notice of an intelligible Motion shall be given beforehand, so that as Chairman of the Commission I may have an opportunity of coming prepared answer any allegations that may be made against it.
  LORD OVERSTONEexpressed his regret that these discussions had been raised, because they originated in the most unaccountable delusions existing in the mind of the noble Earl who had brought forward the subject. At the same time he must say he thought the noble Duke had thoroughly exculpated the Commission, and refuted in a wholly satisfactory and honourable manner the imputations which had been cast upon it. Having looked carefully over the Report himself he was entirely unable to discover any ground for the charge of violent hostility to ragged schools which had been preferred against the Commissioners. The terms in which it referred to those schools were mild and reasonable. He had had some personal experience upon Royal Commissions, and knew something of the labours and anxieties connected with them, as well as of the misapprehensions and misrepresentations to which they must be exposed. He could, therefore, sympathize deeply with the Educational Commissioners in the attacks which had been made upon them for the manner in which they had contributed to the elucidation of a difficult subject, and rendered most valuable and important services to the public gratuitously. He had to thank them cordially for the satisfactory manner in which they had performed a laborious and invidious task, surrounded as they were by great and various difficulties, and liable to misconstruction through religious and other prejudices. When the aspersions which had been cast upon them were all forgotten, the service which they had rendered by the well digested collection of so vast a mass of evidence, and the useful suggestions accompanying it would, he believed, live in the grateful recollection of the country.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in reply, said he had never complained that the whole body of the evidence was not incorporated in the general Report. What he complained of was, that the condemnation of ragged schools rested, so far as that Report was concerned, upon the testimony of one Assistant Commissioner. He was most anxious to obtain the names of the parties who had given evidence. The noble Duke

  929
  said the Motion was informal; if it were so he should certainly remodel it. If the Government felt they could consistently with propriety give him the information he wanted he should be exceedingly obliged.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORadvised the noble Earl to withdraw the Motion. He did not say it was informal, but if complied with it would form a very bad precedent.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwas entirely in the hands of the noble Duke. If he could not consistently with his duty give the information desired, he would submit; if he could give it he would, perhaps, be kind enough to do so.
  THE DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he had just had the opportunity of speaking to a gentleman who had made up the statistical Returns, and tabulated them for the Commission, having bestowed on them much laborious and valuable attention. That gentleman confirmed every word he had uttered in his address to their Lordships-and made this further statement with regard to Mr. Gillespie:—No fewer than thirty-six forms of returns had been sent down to him with a view to a return of the Lancashire schools, but not one of these forms had been sent back to the office. Mr. Gillespie, so far as the office was concerned, had taken no notice of these communications whatever. The Commissioners were anxious to make the best statement they could for everybody, even where the parties had neglected their own interests; having no returns from Lancashire, they were, therefore, obliged to avail themselves of any knowledge they could obtain, and all they did take was the Census of 1851. But these returns were, of course, incomplete. The blame entirely rested on the promoters of ragged schools themselves, who were the best parties to furnish the required information.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYbegged to say that he had been informed by Mr. Gillespie that he had sent to the Commissioners a copy of their Report for 1858, relating to forty-six schools, with an average attendance of nearly 6,000 children, which ought to have been included in the Report of the Commissioners.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Eight, o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Four o'clock.