Lords Sitting of 3 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Working Men's Dwellings (135); Apothecaries Act Amendment * (116).
Committee—Conjugal Eights (Scotland) Act Amendment * (126).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order * (125).
Report—Alkali Act (1863) Amendment * (115).
Third Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act (1863) Amendment * (133), and passed.

IRISH NATIONAL EDUCATION—SCHOOLMASTERS AND SCHOOLMISTRESSES.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD EMLY, in drawing attention to the number of untrained teachers employed under the Irish National Board of Education, said—I trust that your Lordships will consider the deep interest I have taken for many years in the Irish National system of education as a justification for my venturing now to call attention to the qualification of its teachers. That system has conferred greater good on Ireland than any other institution founded there by the Imperial Parliament. It has overcome religious difficulties which appeared to be insuperable. Through the elasticity of its rules it has accommodated itself to the different parts of Ireland; and after many years of conflict, its principles have received the approved and even warm support of almost every one of its opponents. Yet, no one who impartially investigates the quality of the education it gives can doubt its inferiority to the quality of the education given in the English and Scotch primary schools. A momentous consideration; in these days inferiority in education means inferiority in wages, in lodgings, in food. It means that Irishmen are to be hewers of wood and drawers of water to their fellow-countrymen; it means the absence of that peace without which the resources of Ireland cannot be developed—for ignorance is the soil in which agitation flourishes; and those who in the battle of life are unsuccessful, those upon whom, perhaps, no ray of hope shines from their cradles to their graves, are not likely to be contented. The Report of the Royal Commission, over which

  971
  the noble Earl who usually sits opposite (the Earl of Powis) so ably presided, described the progress of the children in the Irish national schools as much less than it ought to be. That decided, though gently expressed, condemnation is more than borne out by the Reports of almost all the Sub-Commissioners—gentlemen of great intelligence, with a thorough knowledge of English and Scotch schools, who inspected the Irish schools, and reported on them to the Royal Comissioners. Mr. Richmond regretted that the system should permit so many inferior schools. Mr. Laurie described their marked inferiority to kindred schools in England; Mr. Cummins says that Irish schools are inferior to British schools; Mr. Jack describes them as unsatisfactory; Mr. Balmer laments that intelligence in them is but little developed; but I invite your Lordships special attention to a letter I have received from one of these Sub-Commissioners—Mr. Le Page Renouf. He is, and has long been, one of the Privy Council Inspectors here. I need not tell your Lordships that he is a man of distinguished ability. He describes clearly both the evil and its cause—
  "While examining schools in the counties of Waterford, Wexford, Tipperary, and Kilkenny, I was careful to bear in mind the very different circumstances under which I was accustomed to examine and report upon the whole of my own district in England; but every allowance being made for the difference of circumstances, it was altogether impossible to avoid perceiving that the efficiency of the Irish schools was not only inferior in degree but even in kind. The teachers and children were everywhere fully as intelligent as the teachers and children in England, yet not only did the children break down in the examinations of the mildest character, but their teachers seem to be totally ignorant of the amount, and still more of the quality, of instruction which might fairly be expected from those under their care, especially from the lowest classes of these schools. The first school which I inspected on my return to England (the St. Patrick's, at Walsall) was almost as thoroughly Irish a school as any I had seen in Ireland—the priest, the teachers, and the children being all Irish Catholics. But the amount of work done by the first standard children, and the accuracy of the style of it, were such as perhaps not one of the teachers I had seen at the other side of the water had a conception of. How could it be otherwise? The teacher in Ireland had—in general at least—not been taught how to teach."
  These, my Lords, are painful facts. I now must ask your Lordships' attention to the last Report of the National Board, from which it appears that out of 9,802
  972
  national teachers only 3,518 were trained. This is sufficiently startling, but not one even of these 3,518 have been trained in the sense in which the word is used in England and Scotland. Parliament, with ungrudging liberality, has provided funds for Irish education. During the 27 years I passed in the House of Commons, the Irish Education Votes were constantly on the increase. They now amount to.£550,000. Yet when I look to the Estimates of the present year, I find that while in England £95,200 is voted for 39 normal schools with 2,894 students, and in Scotland £20,500 for five normal schools with 707 students, in Ireland there is only one normal school with 200 students, and only £7,646 is taken for it; and recently the Chief Secretary for Ireland alleged the imperfect training of the Irish teachers as a reason, not for having them better trained, but for giving them small salaries. My Lords, "as is the school so is the schoolmaster," and I need not waste your Lordships' time by proving that without sufficient training you cannot produce good schoolmasters. Every authority on education in every part of the world agrees that the art of teaching—imparting as distinguished from acquiring knowledge—must be acquired like every other art—like medicine, law, and music. If it were necessary, I could cite the testimony of every English Inspector of schools—some of them now distinguished Members of your Lordships' House—to prove the absolute necessity of efficient training for teachers; but I will trouble your Lordships only with one or two of them. Mr. Harvey, Assistant Commissioner to the Commission on Primary Scotch Education, puts the whole case vividly—
  "Those only," he says, "can appreciate fully between trained and untrained teachers who have seen and suffered much from visiting schools taught by untrained masters of hitherto little experience. It is impossible to imagine how great a contrast two schools may and do present. Precision and definiteness result from normal school training. Training is of more importance for female even than for main teachers, and, in point of fact, I need not remind your Lordships that these opinions have been acted on in England and Scotland, and that the normal schools in Great Britain supply annual demand for teachers. When the schools in England were multiplied by recent legislation, there was a difficulty in getting a sufficient number of trained teachers; but efforts were made to meet this new demand, and these efforts have, I believe, been adequate to the occasion."

  973
  Mr. Renouf writes to me his experience of the Irish National teachers—
  "The only kind of training some of them ever received consisted in listening to the remarks made by the Inspector during the short evenings of their schooling, as evidenced by the results of the examination. These remarks are, no doubt, always of the most judicious, instructive kind. But it would be ludicrous to say that they can in any way compensate for the absence from regular systematic training, beginning as it does here, with an apprenticeship of four or five years, and completed by one or two years' instruction in a training-school; nor, again, can any number of examinations compensate for the want of it. The possession of knowledge is certainly one important qualification of a teacher, but it is not the only one. The amount of knowledge which has been taught in our elementary schools is hardly greater than that which is possessed by every man and woman of the middle and upper classes of society. But it is a most fatal mistake to imagine that those who are possessed of it are thereby qualified to be teachers. Teaching is an art, the theory and practice of which have to be learned, like those of every other art, from competent masters. The best of the 'adventure' schools in this country, though sometimes conducted by persons who have had a very good education, cannot stand a moment's comparison with those taught by our certificated teachers. The teachers of ragged schools are sometimes almost as well informed as the certificated teachers, but their schools break down whenever examined even according to a low standard. There is a very noticeable difference, too, between two classes of the certificated teachers themselves. All our certificated teachers have not been trained. The English Code allows teachers who have obtained a favourable Report from an Inspector, or served as assistants for at least six months under a certificated teacher, to present themselves at the Christmas examination for certificates. Now, although some highly gifted teachers have in this way come into the profession, I do not for an instant hesitate in saying that it would be most disastrous if the great supply of teachers ceased to be derived from the training schools. The result of my experience is that school managers who find themselves tied by their engagements to teachers who have not been systematically trained, are perpetually in danger of seeing the efficiency of their schools dwindled down to the lowest degree. I could mention some very striking instances in proof of this. It was part of my duty while reporting to the Royal Commission, to discuss the question of training schools. That question, if I rightly remember, was reserved for two very competent members of the Commission; but I had no more doubt in 1868 than I have now in 1874, that the schools in Ireland will never attain the efficiency of English schools in connection with the Education Department, until they are conducted by masters and mistresses who have gone through as completely systematical a course of training as the immense majority of the certified teachers of Great Britain."
  If I were to stop here I might ask your Lordships, how can the Irish, two-thirds
  974
  of whose teachers are untrained, compete in the battle of life with their Scotch and English fellow-countrymen? But, my Lords, we have not yet sounded the depth of the inferiority of Irish teaching power. What does training mean in England and Scotland, in Europe, in America, everywhere except in Ireland? With hardly an exception, in every country except Ireland, two years in a normal school is required; in many countries three, and sometimes even four years' residence is insisted upon. I will not weary your Lordships by describing the training of foreign countries; I will confine myself to Great Britain. Here the future teacher has to pass five years as a pupil teacher, and two years in a normal school. Can any part of that training be dispensed with? I might cite here the opinion of the Privy Council, as expressed in its minutes of the heads of the normal schools, of the Inspectors. It is sufficient for me to appeal to the high authority of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Manchester. Listen, my Lords, I beg of you, to the weighty words of so competent an authority—
  "The value," his Lordship says, "of a second years' training, morally and intellectually, is indisputable. It is the one fact in the entire range of educational questions, upon which there is an entire consensus of witnesses."
  Scotland, as my right hon. Friend Mr. Playfair informs me, not content with two years' training in a normal school for her schoolmasters, is about to recommend to the noble Duke the Lord President that the Scotch schoolmasters should be required to take out University degrees, and Professors of the Art of Teaching are about to be appointed in the Scotch Universities. Turn now, my Lords, I beg of you, to Ireland. The English and Scotch, with their minerals and their commerce, have many advantages over us. We require good education—not less, but more than they do. Forty-four years after the establishment of the national system, only 3,518 of our teachers, out of 9,802, have received any training. The 3,518 so-called trained teachers have been trained, not two years as in Great Britain, not even one year, but only four and a-half months; and this training they received, not before they became teachers, but afterwards. They have been taken from the schools they were teaching, and

  975
  sent up by the Inspectors to the one model school in Dublin. Only 70 per cent of the Irish teachers have been pupil teachers, or even monitors; and they have been so, not five years as in England, but for about four years on the average. The Royal Commission justly remarks that to spend 20 weeks in incessant occupation, wandering from one subject to another, is hardly the most promising method of training an inefficient teacher into an efficient one. The able men at the head of the Marlborough Training School deplore it. Mr. Keenan, the resident Commissioner, has in the strongest language recognized the absolute necessity of efficient training. With untiring energy training here is from year to year being improved and raised. Why are we drifting backward, instead of pushing forward? The effects, as I have shown, are lamentable. One of the most distinguished of our colonial statesmen told me within the week that the education of the Irish emigrants to Australia was inferior to that of the emigrants from other portions of the United Kingdom. I now, with your Lordships' permission, will state in a very few words the causes which have produced these most unhappy results. The Board was from the first fully alive to the importance of training their teachers. In 1835 they appointed two years as the period of residence in their training school, and required previous training in a model school as a condition for admission. They established no now training school, but they proceeded to establish model schools where pupil teachers were to be trained for normal schools, but most unfortunately they took these schools into their own immediate management. Lord Derby's letter had proscribed that all schools except the Marlborough Street schools were to be under the control of local managers. This was in accordance with the principle recognized very generally in this country, and laid down emphatically by Lord Brougham, in words which I will quote to your Lordships—
  "I think that no Government should appoint masters, for if anyone were to give me the right of naming the teacher, I should not trouble myself to obtain the power of prescribing the course of instruction."
  In England, as many of your Lordships will recollect, the Privy Council attempted to establish normal schools
  976
  under their own immediate control. The only one founded was Kneller Hall. It failed. Public opinion pronounced emphatically in favour of local management, and governmental management was abandoned. Governmental management in Ireland was also protested against, but it was persevered in. Consequently, a great number of the model schools are empty, so far as the class they were intended for is concerned. They are frequented, as the Royal Commission informs us, by children who go to them in cars and carriages, and no new normal school has been founded. English public opinion is attended to, and. England is provided with first-rate normal schools. The wishes of Ireland, not surely unreasonable—for on the principle England and Ireland agreed—were set at nought, and in Ireland we have not at this instant one single teacher trained according to the English standard—a lesson and a warning to those who apply different weights and measures in questions of principle between the two countries. What, then, is the remedy for this scandal, which dooms the Irish, as long as it lasts, to hopeless inferiority to their fellow-countrymen at this side of the Channel? If your Lordships look for it with a single desire, as I am sure you will, to train the largest number of teachers in the best manner, there can be no difficulty in finding it. This simple remedy was proposed by my noble Friend near me (Lord Carlingford) in 1866. It was approved of unanimously by the National Board. He went out of office; the Royal Commission was appointed; they also approved of his proposals. More exciting topics occupied the public mind when their Report was printed, and his scheme sleeps in the pigeon holes of Marlborough Street. It was not proposed to change the Marlborough Street training school. It is, I believe, admirably managed, and has a most efficient staff; but it was proposed that boarding houses should be attached to it, where the students, during the two years' residence, should have the advantage of domestic training under the guidance of masters and matrons of their own faith. This school could supply 300 teachers for Ireland; 700 annually would be required. Allow private individuals to establish normal schools on the same conditions as ordinary schools

  977
  are established; bind the patrons of those schools to observe strictly the rules of the Board; let the secular instruction be mixed, the religious separate; let the normal schools be conducted in Ireland as they are in England—on the same principles the schools are conducted on for which they are to supply masters and mistresses. As to the model schools, you would increase three times or even four times the number of their pupils if you placed them under the management of committees to be chosen by the patrons of the National schools in their respective districts; but I do not wish to mix up the totally distinct questions of normal and model schools. Let the latter be made as good as possible, still the teachers in training in them could not become efficient masters without passing two years in a normal school. And now, my Lords, I commend this question to your most serious consideration. The condition of education in each of the Three Kingdoms is a matter of paramount importance. Upon it mainly de-ponds our industrial supremacy; but I venture to think that Irish primary education has a special claim on your Lordships' attention. The rejection by the other House of the University Bill last year was, in my opinion, the greatest misfortune to Ireland that has happened in my time. It has left the higher education of the majority of Ireland scandalously bad. As regards the intermediate education of Roman Catholics, the State has absolutely abdicated its functions. There is hardly one Roman Catholic in an Irish endowed intermediate school. On the other hand, with exuberant liberality, primary education has been endowed. It surely then is the duty—as I am sure it will be the pleasure—of your Lordships; it is the duty of Government and of Parliament at once to insist on the Irish teacher being properly trained, and to compensate in some degree for the neglect of higher and intermediate education, by making the primary education you so liberally provide for as perfect as possible.
  Moved that there he laid before this House, Return showing the number of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses employed under the Privy Council in England and Scotland, and under the National Board in Ireland, who have been trained for two years in a normal school, and the proportion the teachers so trained hear to the whole number employed in each country.—
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the Notice of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House (Lord Emly) had not led him to imagine that he intended to go so deeply as he had done into the whole system of National Education in Ireland. The comparison which the noble Lord had drawn between the education in the Irish national schools and primary education in the schools of England and Scotland was lamentably to the disadvantage of the former. The picture which the noble Lord had drawn was one, the fidelity of which, he was not in a position to either affirm or deny, because he had not the necessary documents before him; but might not the deficiencies as regarded trained teachers in Ireland be attributed to those circumstances which in Ireland had rendered the training of teachers by the mixed system difficult, if not impossible? The Normal School was started in Dublin under the Letter of the late Lord Derby 40 years ago, and teachers to the number of 3,000 or 4,000 had been sent out through all parts of Ireland. It could not be denied that four or five months was not sufficient for the training of a school teacher; but the monitorial system, by means of which inducements were given to masters and mistresses to bring forward teachers, had grown up in Ireland, and that system had, no doubt, in some respects made up for the want of sufficient training in normal schools. As for what the noble Lord had said about degrees and a professorship of teaching in the Scotch Universities, he believed there was a proposal to establish in the Scotch Universities an Educational "Chair"—he did not know that this proposal had been carried into effect, but he know it was in contemplation, and that when established all Scotch schoolmasters would be required to have gone through some description of University education. It must, however, be remembered that the arrangements in the Universities of that country were very different from those in connection with the Universities of this country, and a system which might be feasible in one country might be altogether impracticable in another. The promotion and elevation of education in all parts of the United Kingdom was what they must all have at heart, and the present Government were as anxious in the cause of education as any

  979
  Government which had preceded them. No man was better acquainted with the working of the national system in Ireland than the noble Lord. He had listened with the greatest respect to all the noble Lord had said; and he could assure him that the subject would receive the attention of the Government.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that though the noble Duke had expressed himself in general terms only, his observations must be satisfactory, as far as they went, to the friends of education in Ireland. He by no means blamed Her Majesty's Government or the party opposite, in regard to the subject which his noble Friend had brought before the House, except in this one respect. When, eight years ago, it became his duty, on the part of Lord Russell's Government, to propose a plan to remedy the state of things in respect of the training of teachers which had then become serious, and when that plan had been accepted unanimously by the Commissioners of National Education, then, unfortunately, the incoming Government of Lord Derby refused to give their consent to it, and instead of doing so appointed a Royal Commission. That Commission collected some very valuable evidence, but, owing to the delay at a favourable moment, nothing had since been done in the direction of the plan. For this no blame was attributable either to the late Government or to the present one. Certainly no one could accuse the late Government of having done too little in Irish affairs; and in the matter of education they did much. They had introduced the system of payment by results into the schools of the Irish Board, and they had added considerably to the scanty and still inadequate salaries of the teachers. But the question of training teachers remained unsolved, and as to it the state of things was even worse than in 1866. There could be no doubt that in Lord Derby's Letter a bonâ fide system of training teachers for the national schools was contemplated—and, indeed, such a system had been suggested by a Commision as far back as 1812. It was remarkable that whereas in England and Scotland, with denominational difficulties far less serious than those of Ireland, the Government had found themselves compelled to leave the organization and management of those training
  980
  schools to private enterprise in connection with denominations, and in aid of this private enterprise large grants were paid. In Ireland, on the contrary, with a mixed population of Roman Catholics and Protestants, the exclusive system was maintained in the single Normal School. If it had not been for the pupil teachers and the monitors, which was so valuable a part of the system, he did not know how the national system could have gone on in Ireland. There were pupil teachers in this country also, but they did not supersede the system of training schools. They ought not to supersede it in Ireland. In 1866 there were 7,472 schoolmasters in the service of the Irish Board, of whom 4,309 had received no training. Three years later on, in 1869, the Royal Commissioners reported that 58 per cent of the national teachers in Ireland were untrained. The Report of the Board for the year 1872, recently presented to Parliament, stated that of a large number of new teachers who came into office in that year, only a few had received training in the Normal training school at Dublin. The room in the school was so scanty, and the term for training so short, that the inconvenience was felt in every school in Ireland; but those who felt it most were the Roman Catholics, for though of the students in the Marlborough Street Normal School one-half were Roman Catholics, of the total number of teachers in the national schools about 80 per cent were Roman Catholics. An assistant commissioner who made an inspection of the schools in the county of Londonderry, where the schools were nearly all Protestant, found that nearly all the teachers were trained; while on an inspection of the schools in the county of Limerick, where they were nearly all Catholic, it was found that special training was all but extinct. His friend, Sir Alexander M'Donnell, the late Resident Commissioner, who had rendered the greatest service to the cause of national education in Ireland, asserted that the present system of providing trained teachers had failed to the root. His own proposal in 1866 was that grants be made to training schools established by private efforts, such grants to be made without regard to religious denomination, provided that the school submitted to all the educational requirements of the

  981
  Board, and was open to inspection. In this case the State must be liberal in Ireland as it was in England. Local support unaided could not be expected to maintain training schools. The question was one of great interest, and he hoped that no party feeling would be allowed to interfere with its satisfactory solution.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that as a Member of the National Board, he should not be doing his duty if he did not say that his views were in entire accordance with those of the noble Lord who had preceded him. He would assert that though the present system had been assailed from all sides, it had been most successful. From the centre of Ireland to the sea, everywhere the anxiety of the people to obtain a good education was demonstrated. No one would assert that the Irish children were inferior in intelligence to those of England and Scotland; but there could be no good teaching without good teachers, and the want of proper training would nullify, to a large extent, the benefits of the noblest institution which Ireland ever owed to the Imperial Government. There were difficulties in connection with the denominational principle, as affecting family life. It had not the same relation to the clay scholar and the boarders, or to the teacher residing in community with his brethren and the scholar resident in his home. The distinction had been recognized by the Legislature in the cases of reformatories and industrial schools, and it would justify such a solution as had been proposed by his noble Friend, of which he entirely approved.
  LORD LISGARconsidered that the salaries given to teachers were too small—so small were they that teachers were tempted to leave the public schools for the purpose of giving instruction in private schools, and of going to the Colonies. The salary of a teacher was £20 less than many gentlemen gave to some of the servants in their household. Unless the Government should be prepared to give an increase to the salaries of the female teachers, he thought that all efforts to improve the training system would go for nothing.
  Motion agreed to.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL—(No. 135.)
(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL—(No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to encourage the erection of dwelling-houses suitable for persons employed in manual labour, to afford facilities for the acquisition of sites for such dwelling-houses, and for their cheap and easy transfer. Their Lordships were well aware of the great hardships inflicted on the labouring classes—particularly in largo towns—by the difficulty of obtaining healthy and decent habitations. It seemed impossible to expect that this great evil could be remedied by any amount of individual exertion—it must be encountered by operations on a large scale. This had been done successfully at Edinburgh, and Glasgow, and other places. There were two classes of artizans—those who had fixed employments, and fixed places and hours of work—the others were without these advantages. Now, it would undoubtedly be an advantage to the better class if they could be provided with, or provide for themselves, an improved class of dwellings in country districts, where, in addition to the advantages of a better dwelling at a cheaper rate, they could also have the benefit of fresh air. This the Bill was intended to promote—and it should be remembered, further, that if this could be done, and the working classes of the large towns could be removed to country districts, the closely packed dwellings of the towns could be improved and turned to the advantage of that other and less fortunate class of workmen. The Bill provided, in the first place, to authorize the town council of any borough to direct that lands vested in them should be laid out in sites for dwelling-houses suitable for the occupation of persons employed in manual labour, in accordance with plans to be approved at a public meeting of the burgesses of such borough and by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It provided a Register Book, in which was to be entered a concise description of each separate parcel

  983
  of land delineated in the plan of sites. It authorized such corporations to make the necessary roads, walls, drains, and other works, to fit the property for use as building lands; and to put the land when so improved up for sale by auction in separate parcels to be conveyed to the purchasers by a simple form of conveyance under the corporate seals; such sales to be subject to the condition that a dwelling-house should be erected on each plot within the term of three years from the date of the purchase on pain of forfeiture. On the completion of a dwelling-house in compliance with the plans the registered owner would receive a certificate, after which the site could not be forfeited. The Bill, while it registered the site, and gave to the owner a registered title, proposed also a simple form of conveyance, on the execution of which the transfer of ownership would be recorded on the register. In like manner, all leases or agreements respecting any site were to be produced to the proper officer, and placed upon the register. The site could not be subdivided, but several persons might become joint owners. He thought this measure would meet an urgent and daily-increasing want, by increasing the number of dwellings for the poorer classes, and would afford the working classes a means of investing their savings profitably and securely, which they did not at present possess. Under these circumstances, he trusted their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETpointed out that the Bill gave the freehold of the sites to those who became possessed of them. How would it be possible to prevent those parties from dealing with them in any way they might think proper? There would be no security that the dwellings would be continued as those of the working classes. The Bill was very well-intended, but it was very defective, and, in his opinion, would prove impracticable.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, the noble Duke had, he thought, pointed out a weak place in the Bill, and he thought some security should be required that the powers given by the Bill should not be diverted to purposes alien from the principle of the measure. According
  984
  to the Bill the plan of the houses to be built must be approved by the Municipal Council; and, no doubt, under their supervision, only those would be built which were essentially working men's houses. But, in his opinion, it would be necessary that the builder or purchaser of the houses should not be able to dispose of them, or make any change in their construction, without the consent of the Council that had sanctioned their construction, so that a control might be exercised in the future in this respect. It was provided by the Bill that after the land had been once marked out and appropriated, the "sites" could never again be divided. That seemed to him unreasonable, and he thought a clause might be introduced permitting, with the consent of the Municipal Council, the division of the sites, should it appear advisable. He thought there were imperfections in the Bill; but they were imperfections which could be remedied in Committee, and the Bill might be made a very useful measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, the object of the Bill was a very good one—namely, to allow municipal corporations to dispose of land in their possession for the purpose of erecting dwellings suited for the artizan and labouring classes. He did not, however, see that a Bill of 46 clauses was required to effect that object; a short Act simply giving power to corporations to sell the land for a term of years, with a reservation of a certain rent—a nominal rent if they pleased—and with the condition attached that houses built on it should be of a character suitable to working men, and, further, that those conditions should not be departed from without the consent of the corporation, would effect all the noble Earl desired.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that the objection raised by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) required some answer. He did not very well see how the difficulties suggested in the course of the discussion were to be removed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the object sought to be attained was of so desirable a character that he was unwilling to say a word that would throw a doubt on the possibility of the working of the Bill. He confessed he was surprised to hear that there were corporations which had got any amount of land

  985
  they would be enabled to dispose of in this way. No doubt, there might be some corporations in such a position; but, as a rule, they generally sold their land, or applied it to other purposes. But, assuming there were a number of places in which the Bill could be brought into operation, no doubt the size and description of the dwellings to be built upon the sites might be determined in the manner provided by the Bill; but then there would arise the question of title. How could they dispose of land in fee-simple without giving to the owner all the rights incident to ownership in fee-simple? There was a provision in the Bill which made the town clerk an agent for registering these properties, and which placed him in the position of a Land Registrar. Now, the provisions of the Land Registry Bill would be seriously interfered with, if the town clerks throughout the country were made Land Registrars. If it were desirable that corporations should be allowed to parcel out their land for dwellings for the labouring classes, the only way was to give them the power to grant leases. A building lease for 99 years was in London thought to be almost as good as a freehold, and the corporations might insert covenants as to the way in which the land should be used. He did not wish to offer any objections to the second reading, but the Bill would require considerable revision in Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the Bill only allowed a single house to be built upon each parcel of land, and it might thus be unfavourable to the ulterior improvement of those dwellings. There might be a difficulty in dealing with the land for the very purposes contemplated by the Act. He would not oppose the second reading, but he doubted whether the details would be found practicable.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdesired to point out that a site which might in the first instance be convenient for working men's dwellings, might not be so at a subsequent period. A few years might change the whole character of a neighbourhood, and the land thus divided and appropriated might be required for other purposes. But, as the sites were devoted in perpetuity to the purpose of working men's dwellings, they would possibly create impediments to great improvements; or the particular industry
  986
  which had made those dwellings desirable might depart from the neighbourhood, and they would thus become useless for the purpose for which they were intended, and would not be applicable to any other.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS—RULES OF MILITARY WARFARE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH, in rising to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government have decided on sending a Commissioner to the Conference at Brussels, and to present Petitions on the subject, said, he desired to elicit information on the subject, so that their Lordships might clearly understand what was proposed to be done. Very shortly after the Franco-German War he received, in common with many others who had devoted their attention to the care of the wounded during its continuance, a written communication from a German nobleman, whom it was not necessary to name, requesting support to a scheme having reference to the conduct of hostilities by nations engaged in war, and in especial with reference to the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. This scheme it was proposed to carry out by means of an International Society, to be called the "Universal Alliance," and to be worked by means of diplomatic action. This had a very philanthropic sound, and at first sight seemed very desirable. He accordingly gave a general, though qualified, approval. For months he heard nothing more; until he received one or two letters from an English gentleman, who said that, seeing his name, with that of many others, figuring as supporting the action of this German nobleman, he thought it his duty to warn him to be on his guard. The writer gave his reasons for the warning; and he (the Earl of Denbigh) accordingly wrote to desire that his name might not appear any more in connection with the plan. Soon after he received a communication from another correspondent—this time a French nobleman. He wrote to paris to make inquiries as to this person's character and antecedents, but failed to obtain any information that could be considered satisfactory,

  987
  and he took no notice of the communication. He next heard of a deputation of the Universal Alliance being received by the Emperor of Russia at Buckingham Palace, and His Majesty's adoption of the project. But their Lordships ought to know the difference between the original programme of the Universal Alliance and the sheet which he now held in his hand. Originally this Society had been instituted for ameliorating the treatment of prisoners of war, under diplomatic action; but it had now developed itself into a large scheme for the "promotion of international works of humanity," and was contained in 147 Articles—a broad sheet of which he held in his hands—which, it was added—
  "Will be submitted to a Conference of delegates from the various Governments. These will constitute a Convention analogous to that of Geneva in favour of the wounded in war, and will eventually add another page to the Code of International War."
  A Vienna journal gave the programme of the forthcoming Congress at Brussels, and a résumé of the principal Articles which Prince Gortchakoff was said to have proposed for the consideration of the future Congress. By the 3rd Article the very point of maritime seizure would be seen to be barred without the subject being even mentioned—
  "3.—Establishment of the principle that, in case of war, the armed force of one State only fights against the armed force of the other, but does not consider as an enemy the peaceable citizen who is not equipped as a soldier."
  This applied generally would debar our naval force from capturing merchantmen. Article 4 was as follows:—
  "Establishment of the principle of public law that in territories occupied by the enemy the army of occupation alone is to be considered as possessing legal authority."
  By this it would appear that if a foreign force landed in Kent, that county would cease to belong to the Queen, and would belong to the invader. Hitherto the safeguard of a country had been thought to be the breast and arm of every citizen. However powerful the attacking force, it was at least in an enemy's country; the object now was to deprive the country attacked of that advantage. When once a pitched battle was lost the attacking force was to cease to be in an enemy's country, and all resistance to it would be considered a crime. All hostilities not commanded by Government were to be
  988
  treated as piracies or brigandage; therefore, if any part of a country should be separated from the seat of Government it could no longer resist. Then the question might arise—Who were the Government? The whole country would follow the fate of the seat of Government—for the enemy might refuse to acknowledge a Provisional Government. By these laws, Osborne must be allowed to be an inviolate marine residence for Her Majesty; otherwise, if an enemy's fleet obtained possession of Her Majesty's sacred person we should have no right to continue the contest. All this was to be worked out on the pretext of insuring the good treatment of prisoners of war. But had we any such doubt of our own humanity that we needed a Congress to compel us to treat prisoners of war humanely? He would also ask, who was to enforce these regulations? Were the neutral States to have an armed force and commissioners for this purpose? In order fully to appreciate the importance of the whole question, and the reasons which would naturally impel Russia to use every endeavour to impede the maritime action of England, he would bog their Lordships to consider briefly the respective geographical position and configuration of England and Russia. England might be likened to one of those marine monsters of which we had heard, which had a small head but enormous limbs, and long and powerful tentacula. Through her maritime power she was able to scour every sea and seize her enemy's goods and annihilate their commerce at the ends of the earth. Let this power once be taken from her, let her be shorn of her tentacula, she then would become an inert and helpless mass, incapable of aggression, and an easy prey to any superior military power. Russia, on the other hand, was like a huge giant with a slender throat, which could be compressed by three fingers. Her commerce consisted, for the most part, of raw and bulky materials, which necessitated sea transit—timber, hides, tallow, and minerals. Her mercantile navy had but three outlets—the Black Sea, the Baltic, and the White Sea. A small squadron sent to the Dardanelles and the Sound, would command the two first, and the British cruisers thus securing every outlet, Russia would in a short time die, as it were, of asphyxia, and be at the complete mercy

  989
  of England. Two of the most able men in their several spheres—Sir John McNeill and the late Mr. Richard Cobden—had said of Russia, the first that—
  "The Right of Search and Seizure, which constitutes the Maritime Power of England, is a providential weapon placed in the hand of England for the coercion of Russia."
  The second that—
  "It is clear that Nature itself has doomed Russia to a condition of abject and prostrate subjection to the will of the Maritime Powers."
  So sensible was Russia of her dependent position as regarded England, that she had most consistently used every opportunity of enforcing as an international rule that the goods of an enemy not contraband of war should be inviolate in neutral ships. For this, the league called the Armed Neutrality was formed in 1796, and firmly and successfully resisted by England. At the commencement of the Crimean War, England and France were inveigled into conceding it, and after that war in 1856 we were foolish enough to agree to the Declaration of Paris, which professed to establish that fatal principle. What had been the result to France? In the late Franco-German War, the German fleet shut itself up in the harbour of Kiel, surrounded by torpedoes, and the French fleet, estopped from touching her enemy's commerce at sea, was useless. This rumoured Congress was, doubtless, proposed to give an additional sanction to these principles, and it had created great alarm in some parts of the country, and public meetings had been held at Newcastle, Sunderland, Birmingham, Keighley, and other places, when Petitions to both Houses of Parliament were agreed to, praying that an Address might be presented to Her Majesty against sending a representative to the Conference, which he would now present to their Lordships. He had also an important Petition which he wished to read to them in extenso. It was from a gentleman well known to the leading statesmen and diplomatists of his day, and admired for his genius by all who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. He was as remarkable for his untiring industry in unravelling the tortuous mazes of diplomatic action as he was for his wonderful forecasts of their result: while he, as a second Cassandra,
  990
  stood warning from time to time his countrymen of the dangers which were coming upon them. The Petition was as follows:—
  "To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  "The Petition of the Undersigned sheweth,—
  "That your Petitioner, at the moment of the despatch of British troops to the Ottoman Empire, under colour of a pretended Declaration of War against the Emperor of Russia, did address to the Honourable House of Commons a Petition representing that such forces were not required to support the Sultan, and that their presence on the field of War and the use that would then be made of them would only have for effect to aid that ambition of the Czar against which it was proposed to protect the Sultan and the world.
  "That the events of the twenty years which have elapsed have confirmed the allegations of the said Petition.
  "That, further, your Petitioner had represented that it was in the design of this most needless but fatal War to bring upon the British Empire by means of it, the gravest injury and peril by the surrender of its strength, so that it should be deprived of the use of its natural arm for its own just defence.
  "That this anticipation was in like manner confirmed by the so-termed 'Declaration respecting Maritime Law,' secretly signed at Paris for the suppression of the use of Privateers and of the capture of the produce and property of belligerents embarked on the vessels of neutrals.
  "That from April, 1856, to the present day, no reason has been assigned by any public man for this surrender, and that no such man, either in your Honourable House or elsewhere, has spoken thereon without condemning it, and designating it as a ruinous, fatal, or suicidal measure.
  "That, nevertheless, no measure has been taken and no act proposed for its reversal.
  "That through its operation Great Britain has, during these eighteen years, been shown to be powerless as a great State, and is acknowledged to be incapable of exercising either power or influence over foreign events arising out of the ambition of the Governments whose power is exclusively territorial and military.
  "That France, who joined in the same Declaration, although a Military as well as a Maritime Power, has, in consequence thereof, been struck down by a Government inferior to herself in the aggregate, being absolutely destitute of naval means.
  "That Maritime Power consists entirely in the capture and confiscation of the goods of the enemy.
  "That this power as applied to Russia, becomes, in consequence of the nature of her products and the configuration of her territory, an absolute supremacy, against which she cannot struggle and to which she must submit.
  "That by causing the sentiment to prevail throughout Europe, and to be acted upon, that it is not proper to capture the goods of an enemy

  991
  if these goods be afloat and not on land, the control actually possessed by the Maritime Powers over the Military Powers will be changed into a control of the Military Powers over the Maritime Powers.
  "That these truths have been severally perceived and announced by the two men of most authority in their several branches, the late Envoy to Persia, Sir John McNeill, and Mr. Richard Cobden, the first declaring that it is the Right of Search and Seizure which constitutes the Maritime Power of England, which power he designated as a providential weapon placed in the hand of England for the coercion of Russia.' The second said—'It is clear that Nature itself has doomed Russia to a condition of abject and prostrate subjection to the will of the Maritime Powers.'
  "That this position has not been apprehended, by the reason that the Maritime Powers (with the sole exception formerly of the surrender of the Right of Search) have had no other will than that of Russia, seeing that the Ministers of the Crown of Russia are abler ministers than those of the other Crowns of Europe.
  "That in 1780 the Government of St. Petersburg first put forward the maxims contained in the Declaration of Paris, with the avowed purpose of destroying, through their general acceptance, the power of England.
  "That the advantage for which an able Government has toiled for a hundred years, must be for itself very great, as also the difficulties that it has had to encounter. So proportionately great must be the injury which it expects will be thereby inflicted on the other Governments, to circumvent whom its care has been given. At that period it succeeded in obtaining the adhesion of all the Powers to a measure without advantage to them, but nevertheless ultimately failed, through the opposition of the British Government, acting under a duo sense of its duties and its rights.
  "That this same Government of St. Petersburg, in 1856, abstained from appearing to suggest or enforce their adoption, but really did obtain them through indirect means.
  "That in 1870 France might have resumed the exercise of her Maritime means; in view of such a contingency the English Minister for Foreign Affairs addressed a despatch to Paris, calling on the French Government not to depart from the rules laid down in the Declaration of Paris 1856. A similar despatch was addressed to Berlin which was without meaning, Prussia not having any maritime power to exert.
  "That France, if again attacked and now enlightened as to the effects of such surrender, might resume those rights.
  "That England might do the same. That to bar such contingency it must be and is the design of the Government of St. Petersburg to obtain such sanction for the Declaration of Paris, as shall prevent, in future contingencies, the Naval Powers from putting forth their naval strength.
  "That having failed, during eighteen years, to obtain such sanction through the Crowns or Parliaments of either of these countries, other means will be employed for the attainment of this end.
  "That this end can be attained through what is called 'Public Opinion.'
  992
  "That 'Public Opinion' is to be made to believe that it is desirable, for the common good of humanity, that the property of belligerents shall enjoy immunity when coming within reach of maritime belligerents, in other words, 'sparing private property at sea.'
  "That this design has been brought so far towards maturity that a mixed Congress of anomalous nature has been summoned at Brussels, under the personal influence of the Emperor of Russia, to determine the new laws that shall regulate the action of belligerents.
  "That Representatives, not only of the different Sovereigns, but also of the various departments of the separate Governments, are to constitute this new extra National Legislative Assembly.
  "That your Honourable House, together with the other House of Parliament, and the Queen, can alone alter the laws of England.
  "That all three cannot alter the Law of Nations in its fundamental parts, such as that of forbidding a nation to use its natural means of defence.
  "That the measures proposed are contrary to, and subversive of, the laws of England, as well as of those of Nations and of Nature.
  "That the object in view is to deprive England of the power of resisting any and every unjust demand, and to repeat with impunity a further partition of France, and the infliction on her of a further ransom.
  "Tour Petitioner therefore prays your Honourable House in your wisdom to perform the service of advice due on your allegiance to the Queen, by presenting a humble address warning Her Majesty of the danger of affording, by the presence of Her Representatives, any colour to such an anomalous assemblage, but instead thereof to declare null and void the Declaration of Paris of 1856.
  "And your Petitioner will ever pray,
  "DAVID URQUHART.
  "Carstairs House, Lanark."
  He (the Earl of Denbigh) would now invite his noble Friend, who would perhaps toll him that naval questions were not to be imported into the discussions, to give some such answer as the following to the invitation to join the Congress:—"We have already become aware of our error in consenting to the conditions laid down in the Declaration of Paris. So far, therefore, from consenting to take any fresh obligations of a similar nature upon ourselves, we here declare that we withdraw from those conditions. We desire to remain at peace, but should we ever again be engaged in war, we intend to employ our full powers as a Maritime Power to which we are entitled by a natural right, and England shall be herself again." He begged to ask his noble Friend the Question of which he had given Notice—whether Her Majesty's Government have decided on sending a Commissioner to the Conference

  993
  at Brussels? The noble Earl presented Petitions from Keighley and other places praying that no representative might be sent from this country to the Congress at Brussels; and also for the abrogation of the Declaration of Paris.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I am not sorry that my noble Friend has taken this opportunity of putting to me the Question of which he put a Notice on the Paper, because the subject of his inquiry is one which has attracted, and very properly attracted, a considerable share of public attention; and I cannot doubt, from various communications which I have received, and what has appeared in the public journals, that some uneasiness and some apprehension is felt in regard to it. Now, I do not think that feeling of uneasiness is, under the circumstances at all unnatural or unfounded, and I am glad that my noble Friend gives me the opportunity of doing something to dispel it. I do not think I need follow my noble Friend through his inquiry as to the origin of the Conference which is now proposed. I am not aware that I ever heard of the body calling itself the "Universal Alliance," and I suspect very few have done so. Nor do I understand how any of the Governments who are to send representatives to the Conference about to be held at Brussels can be considered responsible for the Articles to which my noble Friend has referred. All I know about the matter is that one gentleman whose name appears in the paper which my noble Friend has placed in my hands, wrote some months ago to the Foreign Office, suggesting some plan for universal agreement among European Governments as to the treatment of prisoners of war, &c.; but I did not take any particular notice of that communication, because it came with no authority. But the Conference to which we are now invited has been set on foot, as everybody knows, by the Emperor of Russia, and though in many quarters great doubts are entertained as to the possibility of its accomplishing its purpose and leading to any practical results, still all the Governments of the great European Powers, and, I believe, all the Governments of Europe, great or small, have accepted the invitation to send representatives to it. We thought it better, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to wait to the last before giving our reply
  994
  to the invitation we received. We have not given any particular encouragement to the proposal, nor have we assumed an attitude of confident expectation or belief that any great result would come from the Conference; but, considering that the object put forward is the mitigation of the suffering caused by war, and considering that all the great military Powers, without exception, have acquiesced in this Conference being held, it seemed to us that absolutely and unconditionally to stand aloof from the discussion which is about to be held would be a proceeding liable to misinterpretation, both upon grounds of humanity and upon grounds of international courtesy. We have therefore decided, not, on the one hand, to refuse that invitation, but, on the other hand, not to accept it unconditionally. We propose to accept it only under certain important reservations and conditions, and these reservations and conditions will be fully stated in the reply which I am now sending. In the first place, we shall state that we are firmly determined not to enter into any discussion of the rules of International Law by which the relations of belligerents are guided, or to undertake any new obligations or engagements of any kind in regard to general principles. We further propose to protest against any extension of the scope of the Congress which should include matters relative to maritime operations or tonaval warfare; and we have announced that unless we receive distinct and positive assurance that no such extension is contemplated, we shall decline to send a representative to the Conference. Lastly, if a representative should be sent, he will not be invested with plenipotentiary authority; he will not be empowered to consent, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to any concession, or to the adoption of any new rule; he will be simply present to assist in the discussions which may be held, and report the proceedings to us. But Her Majesty's Government will reserve to itself entire freedom of action in regard to any proposals which may emanate from the Conference. I think that, under these conditions, even my noble Friend will consider that he has sufficient security against our being hurried into precipitate conclusions or into concessions of which we might not see the consequences. I hope to be able to lay the Papers on the Table in the

  995
  course of the next three or four days. I should have done so already, but that it would hardly be courteous to the other parties concerned that they should see my Answer in the form of a Parliamentary Paper before it had reached them in any other shape.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till Monday next, eleven o'clock.