Sitting of 5 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Oxford University; Insurance on Lives (Abatement of Income Tax) Continuance; National Gallery Site.
3° Sleeping Statutes.

TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL QUESTION.
MR. STAFFORDasked whether the Government intended to propose any Amendments in the Tenant Right (Ireland) Bill; and, if so, whether they would place them on the Notice Paper before Wednesday next, on which day the Bill stands for Committee?
MR. HORSMANsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had put his questions in such a form that it was necessary to make some explanatory remarks before replying specifically to them. The House would remember that, at the commencement of the Session, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, upon being asked whether he intended to legislate during this Session upon the subject of tenant right, stated that the occurrences of last year had not given the Government any encouragement to hope to legislate successfully, and that, therefore, it did not intend to introduce or to take charge of any measure upon the subject. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) having obtained leave to introduce a Bill, the House had a fair right to expect from the Government, upon the question of the second reading, some explanation of its intentions, and he (Mr. Horsman), being responsible for the omission of any such explanation, begged to express his regret for that omission. When the hon. Gentleman sat down there were only six Gentlemen on those (the Government) benches; and he was unwilling to speak in the absence of those hon. Gentlemen who had taken an active interest upon this subject in former years. He was in expectation that some of those hon. Gentlemen would have entered the House, and therefore he waited, believing it very improbable that the discussion would terminate with the speech of the hon. Mover of the Bill, inasmuch as there were two Gentlemen present who were likely to speak after the hon. Member. He (Mr. Horsman) was however mistaken, and the House divided without any expression of opinion on the part of the Government. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) expressed a desire that no discussion of the provisions of the Bill should take place on that occasion, but that the House should simply reaffirm a Resolution it had affirmed in the preceding Session—that the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland were not on a satisfactory footing. The Government had no

979
difficulty about reaffirming that Resolution, although he (Mr. Horsman) could not think that such a declaration of opinion would lead to any practical result. He had been quite prepared to state the view of the Government, that proceeding to Committee upon the Bill would be a mere waste of time, but a general cry of "Agreed" arose upon the other side of the House, and there was only one cry of "No," and that did not proceed from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford); and, therefore, seeing the general feeling of the House, the Government deferred to it. As, however, the Government had opposed last year the measure of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee), which was not so extensive in its character as that of the hon. Member for Mayo, it was not likely that they would support the objectionable provisions of the present Bill. If, when the Motion for going into Committee upon that Bill was made, the hon. Member for Northamptonshire would move its committal on that day six months, he would have the support of the Government.
MR. DRUMMONDthought it would be as well to know whether the House was to look to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire or to the Secretary for Ireland for a declaration of the intentions of the Government upon Irish matters.

RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES— REPORTED DISMISSAL OF MR. CRAMPTON—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELI: Seeing the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown in his place, I will take this opportunity of inquiring whether it be true that Her Majesty's Minister at Washington has quitted that capital at the request of the President of the United States; and, if true, whether it is the intention of the Government to make any statement to the House to-day as to the relations at present existing between this country and the United States of America?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Indirectly Her Majesty's Government have received intimation of the fact to which the question of the right hon. Gentleman refers—namely, that Mr. Crampton had received his passports, and had quitted Washington for Toronto. Nothing from him has been received as yet; and I have no further statement to make at present.

MR. LONGWORTH'S MISSION TO THE CIRCASSIANS—QUESTION.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONwished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had any objection to lay on the table any Report which they had received from Mr. Longworth, as to the result of his mission among certain tribes of Circassia?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not think it would be proper to lay any such Report before Parliament. Such a Report would, in fact, furnish very little information; and whatever information it might contain, as it would relate to any intercourse which Mr. Longworth might have had with persons on the spot, he thought it was undesirable that it should be produced, as it was obvious that the relations of those persons with the Russian Government, whether as dependants or as enemies, would be prejudiced by such a step.

EDUCATION OF OFFICERS OF THE ARMY.
On the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT, in rising to call the attention of the House to the Education and Instruction of officers in the Army, said: Sir, I have to thank my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) for allowing me precedence in bringing this subject under the notice of the House; and before I do so I may state, as shortly as I can, the reasons which have induced me to adopt the not strictly regular course of bringing forward on the Civil Estimates a Motion having reference to the army. The House will recollect that at the commencement of the Session, Estimates were laid upon the table, framed with a view to the expenditure of the year on the supposition that the war would continue, and upon those Estimates money was taken on account. Since that time we have had a Supplementary Estimate laid upon the table, stating the smaller amounts which will be required to be taken; but we have had no revised detailed Estimate, showing on what items reduction will be made, what will be altogether omitted, or what increased. I observe that there has disappeared from the Estimates which had been placed before us for the present year, an item not large in amount, but which, I think, and the majority of the House will think, of great importance—the Vote for the education and instruction of the officers

981
of the army. I can understand, that while the war was at its height the Government should be unable to inaugurate any change or to establish any new system with respect to the education of officers; but I regretted extremely to find in the amended Estimates, which have been avowedly drawn up since the termination of the war, that this item has been withdrawn, for the first time since they were submitted to and received the approval of Parliament, when, as Secretary at War, I had the honour to propose the Army Estimates to the House. Now, I wish, by bringing forward the question this evening, to elicit some expression of opinion from the House as to the necessity of creating some means of affording facilities to officers of the army to perfect themselves in the higher branches of their profession—in the first place, to regimental officers, but still more to officers on the staff. My hope is, that if in the course of the debate I should meet from different Gentlemen that interest and that support which I trust I may obtain, the Government may be induced, previously to discussing the reduced Army Estimates, to produce a revised Estimate, in which provision may be made for the instruction of regimental and staff officers. We have, at this moment, an immense opportunity before us of creating, de novo, a peace establishment which shall be free from the errors and defects of that which was too hurriedly created at the commencement of the great peace. At that time there existed in the country the strongest feeling of hostility to the army. In 1816 the petition called the "London Petition" was presented to Parliament, protesting against the maintenance of the army—although that army had been reduced by a great amount—as incompatible with the constitution and prosperity of the country, and as sapping the foundation of the national liberties; and the strength of this feeling may be inferred from an opinion which the Duke of Wellington expressed to myself not many years ago, when I proposed that there should be an encampment of a large body of men for instruction in field duties. The Duk of Wellington declined to listen to that proposal, and founded his objection upon the feelings entertained by the country towards the army in the first years after the peace. He said, "Depend upon it, the only way to maintain an army in this country is to keep it out of sight." I
982
think there is no doubt that the unpopularity of the army at the period in question arose from its having been used as a police force in the repression of political disturbances. At that time it was the custom of the Government to deal with grievances rather by repressing the symptoms than by removing the causes. At any rate, whatever the reason, the army was at that time very unpopular. Much of the change now observable in the feeling of the country towards the army, has arisen from the great improvement in the army itself, and from the increased good conduct of the officers and men. At no period of our history was the army more popular than it is at this moment, nor was there ever a warmer or more general sympathy with the army, or a greater desire to see it efficient; and therefore, in endeavouring to give increased facilities for study and instruction to officers, the House will have this immense advantage, that it will carry the opinion of the country with it. I apprehend that the new organisation of the army will greatly facilitate instruction in the higher branches of the service. I presume it is intended that the army shall no longer be scattered about the country in single regiments, much less in detachments of regiments dispersed as they have hitherto been; but that you desire to agglomerate, as it were, your forces together as much as possible, and have something worthy of the name of an army. I do not mean that you are to have an army of greater numbers than you have hitherto possessed; but I presume it is intended that, instead of being broken into isolated bodies, which remain perfectly ignorant of the functions appertaining to them in time of war, they shall be brought together in brigades and divisions; that they shall habitually be exercised together, and that the advantage which the troops in Dublin have hitherto alone possessed shall be extended to the whole force in England. With regard to the amount of the peace establishment, I do not presume to say what its numbers should be. The Government are the only persons to judge of that; but this I will say, that when we proceed to make the reduction to a peace establishment, we should take care not to make that reduction in those corps where the necessity for scientific education is the greatest, and where the amount of training required is the longest. You cannot expand upon a sudden a scientific or a highly-trained corps, but you can expand more

983
rapidly the other corps of the army—the cavalry and the infantry of the line; the engineers and artillery are, therefore, the last corps upon which the hand of retrenchment ought to be placed. I believe we shall never have, and never ought to have, such an army as the great military nations of the Continent possess. The existence of such an army would be foreign to our habits and to our institutions, and I do not wish to see it; but we ought to compensate for our numerical inferiority by the highest possible training and efficiency in the force which we maintain.
It is to be presumed, then, that our army will be divided into divisions and brigades, for two reasons—first, because that is the only decision to which a Minister of War can come, that is compatible with common sense; and, secondly, because it has been announced that this plan will be carried out in the Colonies, and therefore, a fortiori, I presume it is intended to be carried out at home. Now, in asking the House to listen to a plan, I am acting contrary to the advice generally given to Members unconnected with the Government, never to expose any plan of their own, because, if the plan be bad, it will be pulled to pieces, while if it be good, the credit of it will be got by the Government that adopts it; my object is not to avoid criticism, but to put something tangible before the House which may assist them in forming a judgment upon this question. And, when I speak of giving greater facilities for the instruction of the army, I wish to be understood as casting no imputation upon the army as it is now constituted; that army has done wonderful things, and if there have been any failures, or rather any drawbacks to our successes, they are not the fault either of the officers or the men. It has been customary to say that this House has been guilty of parsimony towards the army; that we are blameable for these shortcomings. That is true in one sense, but not in the sense in which it is usually understood. I have seen calculations, the object of which is to show that it would have cost us much more to maintain a large army through the peace than to create one by a great effort at the beginning of a war; but the amount of money which would render an army efficient by giving it a good training, is small in comparison with that necessary for the maintenance of an army, great merely as regards the number of men composing it;
984
and the amount required to maintain an efficient though small force is nothing to that required to maintain a large army completely uninstructed. I may say, in drawing a comparison between our army and the armies of foreign countries, I find, from all I have heard from military men who have seen our forces in the field by the side of allies and of enemies, that in many respects we enjoy a certain superiority. For instance, with regard to equipments, as to which there is a great variety in the comparative condition of the different armies which were engaged in the Crimea—in the matter of tentage the Turks stand first, the English second, the French third; in that of clothing, the French are first, the English second, the Turks third; and in that of arms, the English are beyond comparison first, the French second, the Turks third. With the Russians no comparison is possible, as no opportunity has been afforded of instituting one; but in the three armies I have mentioned we have every possible variety of advancement in the one point of equipment. I believe, too, it will be very shortly admitted as a fact that in spite of the privation, suffering, and disease endured by the English army, its mortality was less in proportion to its numbers than that of any of the other armies engaged, including the Russian. I am not, therefore, going to bring any charges against our army; on the contrary, I think it is wonderful that men provided with no means of learning the higher branches of their profession during peace should have adapted themselves so rapidly to a new state of things, and, by their determination, energy, courage, and constancy, should have achieved such immense results.
I will not deal, except in passing, with the question of the instruction of the men, because, as regards them, a plan is already in operation which is, no doubt, like everything else, susceptible of improvement, but which is being improved and extended every day—we are, at any rate, in the right groove. One observation, however, I must make. In a pamphlet, very well worth reading, entitled Thoughts on Military Administration, by a Field Officer, dated Aldershot, 1855, some criticisms are offered upon the proceedings at that encampment which are deserving the attention of the House. The author remarks—
"Our soldiers, in other respects so efficient, are notoriously wanting as compared with the

985
troops of other European countries in contrivance and resource, and less fitted, therefore, to cope with many of the difficulties and privations to which all armies in the field must at times be exposed."
The obvious cause of this is, that the high state of civilisation at which this country has arrived, prevents the humbler classes from having recourse to those make-shifts which, in less civilised countries, are the habitual arts of the peasantry. "And yet," continues the author—
"I believe that, with nearly 10,000 soldiers and militia on the spot during the past summer months, civil labour has been employed almost exclusively at the camp. You build, drain, construct roads, bake, butcher, and wash by contract, and contract alone. Now, I do not enter into the question as to whether this is the most economical expedient that can be resorted to under such circumstances; but it certainly is not calculated to impart that knowledge or those habits to the troops of which they stand so much in need."
I heartily concur in that opinion. At the same time there is this to be said for the Government—that they had to deal at Aldershot, principally, with a large militia force, and it was more important at that moment to convert labourers into soldiers than soldiers into labourers. But there was also there a large body of the line, and I certainly regret the great opportunity which was lost of thoroughly instructing those men how to drain, make roads, construct bridges, and build huts for themselves. In future, they must be taught something more than their drill—the army must be made, so to speak, self-sufficient for its own purposes.
Before passing from this subject, I fear I have a quarrel to pick with my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the War Department—this time for the insertion of an item in the Estimates, or rather for the manner in which the money voted is to be applied. The regimental schools have become so numerous, that it is out of the power of any one individual, however able, to conduct the work of their inspection. It has overtasked even the energy of the present Inspector General; and three additional inspectors have, therefore, been appointed. So far good—but, as the object of the Government must have been to make the instruction of the army more military, more professional than it was, the course taken by the Government in the selection of these new inspectors strikes me as being singularly defective; for, instead of appointing military men for the new inspectorships,
986
the Secretary of State has nominated to two of those offices gentlemen who are clerks in the War Office; that appears to me to be a great mistake—for, although these gentlemen are, no doubt, efficient and indefatigable men in their proper situations, they are no more fit to inspect these schools than I am. The principle to be adopted should have been this—these inspectorships should have been kept as prizes, open to officers who have distinguished themselves in the higher and more scientific branches of the profession of arms, and who would therefore have carried more weight with them than any who could be introduced into the army from the civil service. I have seen a Minute of the Privy Council which proposed to place those regimental schools under the inspection of the Privy Council. That was certainly a most objectionable as well as fanciful idea; but I am happy to hear it has been abandoned. Officers commanding regiments are not some of them much disposed to education at all; but certainly, least of all, would they be induced to regard with favour an educational system for the army not under the direction of the Horse Guards, nor would they have bowed to the authority of the rev. Gentlemen who are inspectors under the Privy Council. They would probably have resisted their authority; the Privy Council would have complained to the Horse Guards, who would have backed their own men, and there would have been a continual war between the Horse Guards and the Privy Council, in the meantime the schools would have greatly suffered. It is, therefore, I think, fortunate that this plan has been abandoned.
I now come to the question whether or not means of instruction should be afforded to the officers of the army. A few years ago any project with that object would have been very unfavourably received. It was not so two years back. I hope it is not so now. I think the popular fallacies upon this subject have died away. An idea was once prevalent that there was some sort of antagonism between knowledge and action; that if a man was instructed in his duty, he was likely to become a pedant and a bookworm, and no longer to be an active, zealous, handy officer. Now, it cannot be denied, that there is no effective substitute for experience; war is, of course, the best school for soldiers. But although armies are

987
created for purposes of war, their more habitual state is a state of peace—war is not the rule but the exception in a soldier's existence, and long may it continue to be so. Well, the only substitute that an officer can have for his own experience in war is the experience of other men, and by every nation except England that principle is recognised. Some people speak lightly of it as a mere theoretical principle; but Napoleon, no mere theorist in the art of war, was himself a highly instructed officer, and he never had his hand off the military colleges and schools of France, some of which he himself created, while others he remodelled, always with the view of raising around him that phalanx of officers who led the French armies to victory. I have read with great care an able Report on the subject of education at Sandhurst, and I will quote one or two sentences from the evidence upon which it is based, in which much valuable matter is to be found. I must first, however, remind the House that in 1850, the Duke of Wellington issued his "confidential memorandum," in which he proposed, in the first place, to examine young men who were candidates for commissions, and then to have a further examination on promotion to the ranks of lieutenant and captain. Here is the opinion of Lieutenant Colonel Adams upon this subject:—"Generally speaking," he says, "the officers of the army have no education at all, and they have nothing to interest them." But recollect what is done with young men who intend to enter the army. I ask any Gentleman who remembers his own education, whether the great bulk of what he knows was not acquired after, not before the age of sixteen, and that not through the instruction of masters, but by his own self-teaching? And why? Because at that age he began to feel the responsibilities of life pressing upon him, he began to prepare himself for the struggle upon which he was about to enter. But what happens now when a young man enters the army? That is just the time when he shuts up his books; his education is assumed to be ended—he is told that he is "an officer and a gentleman," and undoubtedly he almost invariably, it must be allowed, acts up to that character worthily. But how great to him is the disadvantage of thus closing his studies at that time! Just at the period when the mind is most susceptible of improvement and good impressions he
988
is debarred from instruction, and forced to learn nothing besides the bare routine of his regimental duties. Colonel Adams proceeds to say—
"If they know anything it is a little Latin, nothing more, and how are they to amuse themselves? They do not take any interest in any reading; they do not know surveying; nor are they interested in military matters at all. But I have observed that officers who know anything, instead of engaging in racing and billiards, will say, 'Let us go out, and take a sketch of such and such an object to-morrow.'"
That is the spirit we want to encourage. We want to put the minds of our young officers in the right groove. And what does Colonel Prosser say?—Lord Lovaine asks, is it of no use to consider these things as anything but the means by which the men after all must acquire knowledge in the field—they are but steps? Colonel Prosser replies—
"I regard them as a means of facilitating them very much. In the application of that, I may mention that Sir John Jones mentions the apathy of the officers in the line, and the absolute want of assistance on their part, because they know nothing about it; but by teaching them the nature of saps, approaches, and so forth, they enter readily into it and assist the engineers with spirit."
Again, General Pasley mentions, in the account of the siege of Copenhagen, that "there was not an officer or a private with him who knew anything of the construction of fascines and gabions." I will read another extract, because it is the statement of an important witness. Undoubtedly, Sir John Burgoyne gave strong opinions against the requiring a high education for officers of the line; and I was surprised at that circumstance, because there does not exist in the service a more accomplished or more highly educated officer; and I should have supposed he would be the last person to depreciate acquirements which he possesses in an eminent degree himself. He said that the Duke of Wellington could not solve a problem of Euclid when he was at the head of the army. I dare say not, and I do not know why he should when at the head of the army. The object of teaching an officer mathematics is not so much to enable him to solve a problem in Euclid as to train him for receiving scientific military instruction. The illustration, however, I must say, is not a felicitous one, because the Duke of Wellington was one of the few officers of the army who had received a scientific education, having been

989
educated at the military college of Angers in France. But Sir John Burgoyne is asked—How far on active service is it of advantage, that officers of the line should understand the principles and operations of fortification? And he answers—
"It would be a great advantage if the officers generally of the line, in a siege for instance, understood the principles of fortification; many of them were quite at a loss during the operations in the Crimea, to perform the duties that are really required to make the best use of their position, which they would understand better if they knew more of fortification; but it is hardly to be expected that every officer of the line should attain much knowledge of it."
Certainly, I do not see how officers are to attain such knowledge, if you do not give them the means of acquiring it; but if facilities are afforded, I do not see why they should not do so. I do not say that it is necessary for every officer to acquire the same amount of scientific information as engineer and artillery officers, but they should all know enough to understand the fundamental principles of the operations in which they are engaged, so that they might be enabled to avoid mistakes and prevent unnecessary sacrifice of life. I will quote one other sentence, and I refer to the passage, because it is important as bearing on the cause of the drawbacks to our successes in the Crimea. In Captain Morton Spearman's notes on military education, it is stated:—
"The strength of every army depends more on the instruction and talent of its officers than on its numerical value. It is those armies, therefore, in which the education of the officers has been most carefully attended to and developed that are most to be depended on in the hour of need. Everywhere except in this country this is a recognised truth. On the Continent it is practically acknowledged. Many persons have remarked the difference in result between the earlier and later campaigns of the British army in the last war; few the means by which that difference was initiated. To dispute the zeal and devotion of either the officers or men engaged in those earlier campaigns is impossible. But the fact is, that, in 1793, neither the regimental officers nor the officers employed on the general staff of the British army were sufficiently instructed either in the theory or in the practice of their profession. To the want of such instruction, especially of theoretical instruction, experience has since shown that the early disasters of the war are alone to be attributed."
The following curious sentence was dictated by Napoleon to Montholon, at St. Helena, in which he alludes to some observation he had made to his brother Louis at Toulon:—
"Brought to France when fourteen, Louis entered on the life of a man at the siege of Toulon
990
on hearing me say to him, in the midst of the corpses of 200 grenadiers slain through the ignorance of their commander, at the assault of an impregnable side of Fort Pharon:—'If I had commanded here, all these brave men would be still alive. Learn, Louis, from this example, how absolutely necessary instruction is to those who aspire to command others.'"
Well, my own belief is that the opinions as to the non-necessity of instruction to officers have been dissipated by the experience of the last war. I believe that many Gentlemen would not now be found bold enough to express the opinion, if it be entertained by any, that mischief and danger will result from military instruction. I am not going to contend for high literary acquirements. What I wish for is strictly professional and practical knowledge; and when people argue that the cultivation of the intellect detracts from the activity of the body, I must say I am at a loss to know where an example is to be found of this physiological curiosity. There may be persons of very great intellectual and very little physical powers; but I cannot understand why the muscles of a sound, active, and vigorous man should shrink, or his spirits abandon him, merely because he is taught the reason and cause of the work he is engaged in. One-half of the complaints of the conduct of officers during peace, of vulgar jokes and boyish follies, has resulted from the forced idleness of their position. Cases in which these complaints have been made will be in the recollection of the House. I will not mention the names of the regiments, because the courage and the constancy with which they afterwards faced danger, privation, and suffering do them the greatest honour, and entitle them to the oblivion of any follies they may have committed in a time of peace.
I will just explain shortly what the present system of military education is, and how I propose to amend it. The young men intended for the artillery and engineers are placed first at the preliminary establishment at Carshalton, and thence go to the academy at Woolwich, and are there transferred to the practical class. Those intended for the line may go at the age of thirteen years to Sandhurst, where they remain till they are old enough for their commissions, or they may receive their commissions without passing through any military school. Now, in reference to the age at which these boys are taken into the military establishments, I do not believe that it is the business of the State to give

991
education to children; I do not believe that the State can give it effectually or well. I do not believe that either at Carshalton or Sandhurst the boys acquire the same healthy tone of feeling or of morals by one-half as they do at the great English public schools. I therefore think it advisable that they should not be sent to Sandhurst until after the period when a boy's education is completed at a public school or at home. When he has been so educated, then take him and convert him into an officer. With respect to Carshalton, I propose, therefore, that it should be altogether abolished as a preliminary school to Woolwich; and with respect to Sandhurst, I propose that, instead of taking boys of thirteen years of age, they should be taken at sixteen. At present the students are subjected to a system of discipline properly applicable to persons of more advanced years; and I believe the system does not work well, but fails. It is admitted by all, and here I might again quote the evidence before the Sandhurst Committee, that it would be advantageous to introduce a greater number of officers into the army through Sandhurst, and you can do so by shortening the course of those who go there. It is true that I have heard that the youths from Sandhurst, when they join their regiments, are not well looked upon. They are considered conceited with what they know, and not to have the same gentlemanly tone as boys from other schools. The reason, however, of their being considered conceited is because they stand in a peculiar position—they know more than the rest—they have received a regular military education, not shared in by their fellows. That ground of objection would be at once done away with by raising generally the standard of military education throughout the army;—and really, if that objection against Sandhurst means anything, it amounts to this, that ignorance of military matters has become a sort of badge of gentility. I will not enter into details about the defects of the establishment at Sandhurst, but I will say one word about the system of passing by what is called "steps"—that is to say, the boys are instructed first, say in one language or science, carried to a certain point, and there left, and then instructed in another. It is a system of cramming, and when a boy is crammed to a certain extent in one branch of instruction, he is compelled, as it were, to forget that, to shoot all the rubbish he has taken in on
992
that head, and, having so emptied his memory, he is carried on to another. That is radically wrong, and I believe that the masters at Sandhurst, if you could hear their opinion, are convinced of it. You have an examination there of a high standard to which boys may submit themselves, and if they pass it they get a commission without purchase. That is the only examination out of Sandhurst; but the boy who knows that his father can purchase for him, or has interest at the Horse Guards, will not trouble himself to pass that examination; and I believe there are instances of a boy who has been plucked at Sandhurst afterwards getting a commission, either by interest or purchase, having gone through the minor examination which is established for those who enter the army without having been at Sandhurst.
The fact is, that there are two entirely different modes of getting into the army; and I believe the result to be that a great proportion of boys at Sandhurst, who know that there is no absolute necessity for them to go through the ultimate examination there, do not trouble themselves about it. The great incentive to study—an inevitable examination in prospect—is thus entirely lost. What I propose is to reduce the course at Sandhurst to eighteen months or two years, taking the boys at the age of sixteen, and to make several alterations in the education, the tendency of which would be to render it more practical and less theoretical; and after the course at Sandhurst, I should propose that those boys who showed the greatest aptitude for chemistry, mathematics, and so on, should go to Woolwich to prepare for the artillery, and that those who showed the greatest aptitude for architectural science and the like should go to Chatham to prepare for the engineers. I would have also a third school for the cavalry, where those officers who are destined for that arm should learn veterinary surgery and farriery besides, and all such matters as are necessary for a cavalry officer to know. This school, of course, would most naturally be placed at Maidstone, which is our great cavalry depôt. I would propose that no one should be admitted into the army who had not passed the examination at Sandhurst, or, at all events, an examination equal to it. It has been argued that every man who goes into the army should pass through Sandhurst; but I do not think that would do. It would tie parents up too much;

993
and I do not think it would be suited to our English habits to force all through a particular or exclusive educational establishment. I would require that from whatever schools the boys came, they should pass through as strict an examination as is required in the military schools. Besides, as an examination between boys keeps boys up to the mark, so an examination between schools keeps masters up to the mark, which is equally important. At the open examinations at Woolwich—which the pressure of the war rendered necessary not very long ago, first, I think, in the time of the Duke of Newcastle, and then, again, of Lord Panmure—it was found, to the astonishment of the examiners, that some of the stranger boys were ahead of the boys at the Academy, and I believe that that has not been without its effect on the professors at Woolwich. In order to secure perfect impartiality, the examination should not be conducted by the Sandhurst professors. You must have a separate board of examiners; and this board would play a considerable part in my plan.
Having got the officer into the army, then comes the question how we are to deal with him afterwards. At this moment you have for promotion a certain, or rather an uncertain examination. It is an examination, for example, of an officer whether he knows the different duties of a company, the places of officers in a battalion, and so on; but whatever examination there is it is a defective one. It is an examination which some captain in the regiment is ordered to make; but it does not at all follow that the captain is very much more instructed than the officer who is to be examined. That may or may not be, but, at all events, the character of the examination must vary very much in each regiment. The Duke of Wellington, in his confidential memorandum, contemplated one universal system of examination throughout the army. Many persons are apt to suppose that, because little was apparently done in this direction during the time that the Duke was at the Horse Guards, therefore he was opposed to a system of examinations; but that is not so. He began by proposing, first of all, that all candidates for commissions in the army should be examined in a certain manner, and that was done; but the rest of his plan fell to the ground. The examination which he established was not a high one. The East India Company have adopted
994
identically the same plan of examination, and it has now been in operation for some years; but it has not been found that the standard is too high, for, during the whole time that it has been in operation, there have been only four rejections. The Duke proposed that the officer who had obtained his commission should afterwards undergo an examination for promotion in certain subjects, of which he gave a list. A lieutenant who had entered the service subsequently to July, 1849, was to be required before his promotion to a captaincy to pass an examination in geography, history, the first six books of Euclid, the properties of the circle, algebra, logarithms, trigonometry, mensuration, and fortification, with the principles of which latter science he was to be sufficiently well acquainted to project a plan on the system of Vauban, the provisions of the Mutiny Act, the Articles of War, and so on, besides, of course, the evolutions of a battalion.
In January, 1854, I proposed a plan which will be found in the appendix to the Sandhurst Report. That plan obtained the sanction of the Horse Guards. I then applied to the Treasury for money to enable me to carry it out, and the Treasury having given me permission to take a sum in the Estimates for the purpose, I explained my plan to this House, and the House approved it. That was before the war. Now that is the plan which I lament to see is dropped out from the Estimates of the present year. My proposition was, that there should be a board of examiners for the purpose of conducting all examinations, whether for commissions or promotion, and I believe these examinations would give employment to at least three persons. In the year ending in March, 1853—that is, before the war—there were 441 ensigns and cornets who received commissions, and 365 lieutenants and 282 captains were promoted; so that there were 1,088 persons in all who would have been subject to examination. The examiners should be men of weight, and the President ought to be the Director General of military education. They would go down to Sandhurst to examine for commissions, and they would also examine at London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. Questions would be sent out to every station which officers, being candidates for promotion, would have to answer in the presence of an officer of the staff specially appointed for the purpose. I am aware that objections

995
have been urged to this plan. In the navy, it is said, an officer can study his profession, because he is always on board ship; he has his books with him, and he has his naval instructors always at his elbow; but that it is not so in the army. There are no such instructors in the army, and the officer who is on a foreign station has no facility for procuring books or instruction. I would propose to station an officer at the head-quarters of each division to act as military instructor, of whose services for the purpose of passing through a course of military education every officer who chose might avail himself. In the Colonies and in outlying stations, it is said, it would be impossible for officers to avail themselves of the services of this military instructor; but field operations are generally carried on in the summer, and in the winter there is inaction, so that there would not be much difficulty in an officer obtaining leave to repair to head-quarters to place himself under the military instructor of the division. In cases where even this was impossible, promotion might be given, as in the navy, subject to the condition of passing the requisite examination at a future opportunity. The instructors should all be military men who had passed through the senior department at Sandhurst, and I would give them good pay and the rank of staff officers while they held their appointment. The advantages derivable from a position on the staff would stimulate the ambition of officers to qualify themselves for it. I would also give them the duty of inspecting regimental schools. It has been proposed, as I have already stated, to put these schools under the inspection of the Privy Council or of a War-office clerk, but by making these military instructors inspectors of them you would gain the advantage—first, of being able to inspect the schools in the Colonies, which you could not do either by a Privy Council inspector or a War-office clerk; and, secondly, of keeping your instructors from rusting by constant familiarity with the business of education.
I now come to the question how we are to deal with the staff. In France they have a staff school and a staff corps quite distinct from the army. The system is to send a young man first to the Polytechnic or to St. Cyr, whence he can enter by competition into the Ecole d'Application, privates and non-commissioned officers likewise competing. When an officer has
996
attended this school for a certain period and passed an examination, he has to serve two years in the infantry, two in the cavalry, and two in the artillery—thus spending six years in making himself acquainted with all the branches of the service. He is then called to serve as a captain in the staff corps, and from that moment all his promotion is there—he never goes back again as a regimental officer. That is not the system either in Prussia or in England. Here every officer who has been taken from his regiment and has served five years upon the staff is, or ought to be, at the end of that period, sent back to his regiment. But we have a staff school. During the last five years of the Peninsular war, I believe, there was but one officer on the staff of the Quartermaster General who had not passed through our staff school at High Wycombe. I am afraid we have retrograded in that respect within the last few years. The staff school at High Wycombe, afterwards moved to Farnham, produced some of the most eminent men in our army. It was established by the Duke of York, and was at first presided over by General Le Marchant, and military instruction was given by a distinguished French officer, General Jamy, who had left the French army with Moreau. Among the celebrated officers educated there I may mention the names of Sir George Murray, Sir John Hope, Sir Richard Bourke, Lord Hardinge, General Wetherall, Sir Charles Napier, and Sir William Napier. The school was removed first to Farnham and then to Sandhurst. Its original course of instruction was much superior to that which obtains now. Military science has comparatively dropped out and mathematics have got almost exclusive possession of the school. In the senior department I am told that the text books are in the proportion of one on military science to seven on mathematics. But that department has languished, because during peace you have not taken officers from it for the staff. You have not had your army in divisions or brigades; and a number of scattered regiments does not deserve the name of an army any more than a number of scattered men can be called a company. There has been no proper staff employment, and, there having been no great necessity for good staff officers, the senior department at Sandhurst has lost its prizes, and with them its efficiency. I want to restore it to its former effective state. The whole establishment,

997
when at its best, cost but £5,080 a year, showing how small is the sum by which the additional efficiency of an army can be secured. I have consulted many military officers with respect to the comparative merits of the French system and our own. There is one great defect in the former as applicable to our army. We want to inoculate the whole army with a more professional spirit. The professional spirit in the navy far exceeds that in the army. Naval officers are more thoroughly devoted to the duties and interests of their branch of the service than military officers. I think the object would not be attained by the establishment of a separate staff corps. For if you make a separate staff corps, which is to be a distinct caste, it will be regarded with jealousy by the other departments of the army, and you will not have the advantage derivable from the return of highly qualified and instructed officers to their regiments. I do not propose, therefore, to adopt the French system, but to revert to our old plan, only making it compulsory instead of optional. I propose to remove the staff school back to Farnham, where, being in the neighbourhood of the head-quarters of Aldershot, it will be close to a vast camp, and will see all the operations of an army conducted on a large scale. I purpose to leave the junior department at Sandhurst, and thus, in addition to other advantages, get rid of the objectionable practice of putting officers and boys together. After consulting with military officers whom I thought capable of giving me sound advice, I have come to the conclusion that, following so far the French system, every officer who serves upon the staff should not only go through the staff school and qualify himself for the higher duties of his profession, but should be attached for a certain period as a supernumerary to each branch of the service. In France, six years is the period allotted for that purpose, two in each branch of the service. In the evidence before the Sandhurst Committee, six months in each service is recommended. I believe, however, having consulted others, that three years of such duty—one in the infantry, one in the cavalry, and one in the artillery—would, in addition to the staff instruction at Farnham, be sufficient to procure a good staff officer. But, it may be said, what advantage will an officer derive if, after thus qualifying himself, his position with respect to the staff is no better than that of others? I confess the present
998
system is indefensible. An officer is not only anxious to serve upon the staff, but is ambitious, and wishes to make himself conversant with the higher scientific branches of his profession. He asks leave of absence from his regiment, in order that he may go to the senior department at Sandhurst; but his request cannot be complied with unless he has served four years with his regiment and has passed a certain examination. If, however, he gets a nomination to the staff itself, then no examination is necessary; so that, in fact, you do not require for an actual appointment on the staff what you demand from an officer who merely wishes to prepare himself for the staff. I propose that it should be laid down as a rule—speaking, of course, of times of peace—for all rules disappear in time of war, which is itself a rude, but nevertheless the best of all instructors—that no officer should be eligible for a staff appointment who has not passed through the staff school with a certificate, or passed an equivalent examination if he has studied elsewhere, and who has not served for three years in each branch of the service, namely, one year in the infantry, one in the cavalry, and one in the artillery. It may be urged as an objection to such a plan, that it might exclude many officers who, though men of talent and energy, are not scientifically instructed. In the first place, I answer, that if you exclude one man you probably get another just as good, but I doubt very much whether it would have any such effect; for if an officer thought he had a chance of getting on the staff, he would naturally be induced to obtain the necessary qualifications, and would be impelled by a sense of his own interest to go in search of them; and thus you would get such men, with all their talent and energy unimpaired, plus all the scientific knowledge to be imparted at Farnham. Such is an outline of the scheme I propose. I am supported in its favour by the opinion of Sir Howard Douglas, a competent judge, who has suggested a plan for the re-establishment of the staff school, in accordance with my proposal; and by that of Major Addison, one of the officers whom I intended to appoint as staff instructors, the others being Colonel Moody, late of the practical class at Woolwich, Captain Watson, a man of great ability, and Captain Gleig, also engaged at Woolwich. I think, therefore, it will not be unacceptable to military men.
Let me recapitulate shortly what my proposals

999
are. I propose to do away with all military education under the age of sixteen. I propose to admit students in larger numbers to Sandhurst, and to increase that establishment in proportion to the additional number of inmates. I propose to admit them, not only into the school, but out of it into the army, by one uniform standard of examination, and I also propose to admit those who have not attended any military college, if able to pass the same examination. I propose further to establish sit the head-quarters of every division a staff officer for the instruction of subaltern officers, and to subject the latter to an examination uniform throughout England and the Colonies. With regard to the Colonies, I propose that the examination shall be conducted in writing, and that the answers to the questions shall be in writing anonymously; the machinery for this is simple enough. I propose to remove the senior department from Sandhurst to Farnham and to render the education there more practical and military in its character. I propose, lastly, that every officer who serves on the staff shall pass through the staff school, or pass through an equivalent examination to that which procures a certificate, and attach himself for three years to the different branches of the service—spending one year in each branch. The English army is almost the only army in Europe which has not this system or something like it. In almost every other country there is a stronger military turn; the population look with greater interest at military subjects; the gentry especially understand them better than in England. Our bent is naval, theirs is military. But if there is a less military turn here than elsewhere, there is so much the greater necessity for an attempt to infuse a professional spirit by supplying a good military education to our officers. I have heard it said by some persons, "You cannot expect young men, officers, to submit to an examination." But why, I would ask, should it not be the same in the English army as it is in the navy? I saw it stated the other day in a newspaper that an officer in the navy, a master, who had distinguished himself in the service, a man advanced in life, passed an examination in the most signal manner; and I cannot conceive why what is done in the navy cannot be done in the army. Why should it be impossible to do that in the English army which is done in the French, the Prussian, the Hanoverian, and almost every other
1000
European army? True, we have a purchase system,—I am not now going to enter upon that question, but only notice it, as it is sometimes said, "How can you have examinations with the purchase system?" It is just because we have purchase that we the more require examination. There is no doubt that purchase has great advantages, but it also has great disadvantages, and the question to be considered is, which weigh the heaviest? The evils of purchase of course are, that many young men enter the army without intending to make it their profession, only intending to stay in it a short time—in plain English, they enter it more for amusement than as a profession, and we want to correct that evil by infusing a spirit of emulation into the minds of our young men, and by creating an incentive to military study, with a view to its adoption as a regular profession.
I have now made my proposals to the House, and it must take them for what they are worth. I thought it my duty to do so, having been necessitated, from the official position which I have occupied, to pay considerable attention to the subject. I look upon one part of these propositions, and that the most important, as having already, two years ago, received the sanction of the Horse Guards, of the Government, and of the House of Commons. I am strengthened by that support, and I hope the Government will continue it. The country, I am sure, will support—I will not say my plan, but something like it, which shall be intended to accomplish the same objects. Sir William Napier ends his History of the Peninsular War with these words:—
"Our troops embarked, some for England, some for America. So terminated the war, and so terminated with it all recollections of the veteran's services."
That was an eloquent and unfortunately a just sentence, but I do not believe it will apply to the present time. We do not know what we owe to our army. Look at what has been done under great disadvantages. I do not believe there exists in the world such raw material for men and officers. Is it physical energy and hardiness that are required? I believe our army has those qualities in a greater degree than any other army. Is it devotion to the call of duty that they are deficient in? Where will you find greater or more numerous instances of such devotion? If there have been instances of shortcomings, have they

1001
been the fault of the officers or the men? Have they not, rather, been exclusively chargeable on our defective system at home? We owe it to these gallant and devoted men, to give them every means of attaining the utmost proficiency in their profession. Having officers and men willing to throw away their lives at the first call of duty, if you have officers thoroughly conversant with all the means of saving those lives which the men are willing to sacrifice, you will have an army which will be invincible. I would now beg to press this subject upon the attention of the Government, hoping that they will take it up. Public opinion will support them in any efforts to improve the military character of the army. Recollect that by every day's delay you raise up fresh difficulties—the recollection of past evils will pass away—people will begin to acquiesce in the old routine, and, above all, you create fresh barriers to the efficiency of the army by admitting more uninstructed and incompetent officers; you create vested interests against you, and postpone to an indefinite period the ultimate attainment of your object. I have brought forward this subject with the view of pressing it upon the notice of the Government, and especially of the House. If you think this plan sound in principle, and the reasons I have adduced for the necessity of adopting some such plan to be, as I think they are, incontrovertible, I call upon you to assist me in pressing upon the Government the duty of at once setting about to devise a scheme which shall effect that improvement in our military system which is so universally desired. Of this I am certain, that if the Government will undertake the work, the House of Commons will not be slack in furnishing the means of carrying it into effect.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, no one could undervalue or receive otherwise than with welcome any attempt to advance the cause of education, whether for the country generally or for particular classes, and he thought his right hon. Friend had done good service in stating his views in respect to the nature of the education to be given to officers in the army. The long period during which the right hon. Gentleman had been connected with the administration of the army and the interest he had always taken in the subject of its education, justly entitled his views to consideration and respect. He (Mr. Peel) only regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not found
1002
it consistent with the course he intended to pursue, to afford him some intimation, either privately or by the terms of his notice of Motion, of the subject he was about to introduce, and of the probable direction of his remarks. He must confess, in consequence, that at present he did not feel capable of following the right hon. Gentleman through his speech, full of details, upon a subject in reference to which details were more important than principle; for all were agreed as to the necessity of improving the education of officers in the army, and the only question was, how it was to be put in working operation. He therefore felt considerable embarrassment in remarking upon the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, and would reserve to himself the liberty to modify those remarks in case future consideration should show a necessity for so doing. It appeared that the House was indebted for the right hon. Gentleman's speech to two things—first, the omission of a certain item from the Estimates of the present year, and next the introduction into them of a new Vote. The right hon. Gentleman complained that in the Estimates for the current year he found no provision for certain persons whom it had been contemplated to employ to instruct officers in the science of their profession; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had inferred that the Government did not intend to persevere in improving the military education of officers of the army. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that in time of war the Government was justified in throwing over all schemes of education that might impede the working of the army on active service in the field. It must be remembered that at the time the present Estimates were framed we were in a state of war, and, as provision had been made for three consecutive years for the instruction of officers without one single officer having been instructed, it appeared quite useless to renew the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman also complained of the provision for assistance to be given to the officer charged with the inspectorship of garrison and regimental schools, although he paid a compliment to the present state of the schools for the education both of adults and of the children of soldiers. The number of those schools was, he was happy to say, continually increasing, and it was quite impossible for any single officer, much less one who, however indefatigable, was already charged with the duties of Chaplain

1003
General of the Forces, to discharge satisfactorily those of school inspection in addition: and as it was desirable that these schools should be inspected, at least once in each year, the Government proposed to provide for the creation of an assistant inspectorship in each of the three countries of the United Kingdom, with which assistance it was hoped that an annual inspection of every garrison and regimental school might be made. The right hon. Gentleman had said, he understood it had been contemplated to place those schools under the inspection of persons appointed by the Privy Council; but he (Mr. Peel) had never heard that any such idea had been seriously entertained by the War Department. The right hon. Gentleman had hardly done justice to the course which had been taken by the Government, because he said that these inspectors were War-office clerks, the fact being that one of them was the very Captain Gleig, the officer of Artillery, whom the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had proposed to appoint one of the instructors of officers.
Coming now to the question of the education of officers of the army—he (Mr. Peel) would admit that the Government had not done much for the education of officers of the army—much less than had been done for the private soldiers. In France, in Switzerland, in Prussia, and at Turin, he believed in almost every continental country, the provision made for the professional training of the officers of the army formed an organised and systematic institution of the country. In England we had nothing of the sort. With the exception of the Academy at Woolwich, where young men were prepared for the scientific corps—the Artillery and Engineers—and Sandhurst College, which provided to only a very small extent for the line, there was in this country no establishment for the education of officers which could claim the character of an institution. He (Mr. Peel) thought that the country had a right to expect that in future the Government would provide for officers who loved study and were ambitious of distinction in their profession, ample means of obtaining the knowledge which was necessary to the fulfilment of their desires. Staff appointments and other situations at the disposal of the Government ought also, in his opinion, to be honestly conferred as far as possible upon those officers who availed themselves of the means which might thus be
1004
presented to them. Whether personal or family connexion could ever be entirely excluded in the consideration of claims for appointments might well be doubted; but it might at least be expected that it should not be allowed to have any influence except in cases where the claims of the rival candidates might be equal. He also agreed with his right hon. Friend that the cause of education in the army had suffered from the circumstances that many officers had gone into the army merely with the view of obtaining amusement for a short term of years, and with no intention of remaining permanently attached to it. Of course, such gentlemen could not be expected to manifest much anxiety to perfect themselves in professional knowledge. He did not think that his right hon. Friend had sufficiently appreciated the difficulties which beset the establishment of any standard of professional training, without which an officer should not obtain the second and third steps in the army. He would like to hear from his right hon. Friend what he thought should be the ingredients of that training. First, as to the ingredients of the standard. He (Mr. Peel) should not think it fair to an officer to refuse him his lieutenancy or captaincy merely because he did not come up to some educational test. He did not see how the capability of an officer to discharge his duties could be measured solely by such a test. In any test which might be established he would give quite as much importance to nerve as he would to brain. Some of the qualities which were of most value, both to a man and an officer, were common sense, sound judgment, a clear mind, and indefatigable activity of body, and he did not see how these qualities were to be taken into account if a purely educational test were established. Again, it would not be fair to make the standard of education the same for the whole army. His right hon. Friend himself seemed to feel the objection to this. It must be obvious that, scattered as our army was throughout the various dependencies of the British Empire, officers were often placed in positions where they did not enjoy the same facilities for acquiring knowledge as were afforded elsewhere. For instance, what comparison could be made between the means of acquiring information in strategy, tactics, military history, and other ingredients of professional training possessed by an officer stationed at Woolwich or Chatham, and those

1005
afforded to one who was engaged in a war with the Caffres on the frontier of Cape Colony? In the West Indies, again, an officer might frequently be stationed in some detached island, or some place like Hongkong, where the intellectual and literary tone of society was very low, where there was no inducement to him to study, and where he naturally entered into the amusements of the place. He (Mr. Peel) therefore thought it would not be fair to apply the same standard to all officers, before allowing them to obtain a lieutenancy or a captaincy, and that a great deal of deliberation would be required before assent could be given to a plan, such as he understood to be proposed by his right hon. Friend, by which a board of officers sitting in London should circulate throughout all the different dependencies of the British Empire the same questions, on the answers to which all promotion should depend. He must also put in a word for those officers who did not possess what was called "book learning." Many officers had, either by natural ability or by their personal character, risen to high positions, and had undoubtedly done the State good service; and it would, in his opinion, be difficult to adopt any single plan for the entire army which would not deprive us of many valuable public servants. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had adverted to the system established by the Duke of Wellington in 1849. The Duke of Wellington required that before persons received first commissions in the army they should prove that they had the general education of a gentleman. The examination with the view of ascertaining that was held at Sandhurst, and, with the exception of so much of it as referred to fortifications, was entirely of a civil character. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sidney Herbert) would, with regard to the qualifications to be possessed by gentlemen before they obtained commissions, have two concurrent plans in force. The first proposed to modify the existing regulations of Sandhurst College; and he (Mr. Peel) agreed with him that there were disadvantages in the State taking charge of boys who were destined for the army at so early an age as that of thirteen, and never losing sight of them until they received commissions. The education which such boys received at Sandhurst might be equally well, and perhaps better, given at the public schools of the country, which were continually improving themselves in
1006
consequence of the competition among them; and he entertained no objection to the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman, that the youths who went to Sandhurst should be at least sixteen years of age. At present the practice was to admit the great bulk of officers not upon any instruction given them in military schools, but upon the results of an examination in subjects which were not military. He thought that the principle of requiring candidates for commissions to pass an examination in non-military subjects was good, and that the plan was answering well. He would take that opportunity of stating what had been done by his noble Friend at the head of the War Department in extension and amplification of this principle. The standard for candidates for commissions in the line was not a high one, but in the case of the Artillery and Engineers the standard had been raised to a level with that which existed in the country in relation to general education. It was well known that up to the breaking out of the late war candidates for commissions in the scientific corps had to have their names placed on the list of the Master General of the Ordnance, were sent down to Woolwich, passed through the academy there, and then obtained commissions in either the Artillery or the Engineers. When the war broke out there was a great alteration in those corps. Many commissions were at the disposal of the Government and might have been filled up by drawing on the students in the military academies. But those students had not completed their education according to the ordinary term of years, and Lord Panmure determined to dispose of those commissions by open competition. The subjects of examination were advertised, and it was open to any one, from any public school or college, or any profession in civil life, to compete, subject only to certain conditions as to age and moral character. Great numbers came forward, and those who showed most proficiency in the examination were selected for the commissions. The plan had been found to answer well. The successful candidates had proved to be men of superior education; they were gentlemen and officers in every sense of the term, and worthy to hold the commissions they had won for themselves. It undoubtedly became very important to decide between the two modes of obtaining commissions in the army, namely, by deriving a military

1007
education in a military college, or proving a title by the results of a non-military examination. He should be sorry to decide that question hurriedly, and he thought the Government might be fairly allowed some time to watch the result of the experiment in the Artillery and Engineers before extending it to other branches of the army. That was the state of the case with regard to the examination which took place before officers were admitted to first commissions in the army. The other part of the scheme of the Duke of Wellington applied to examination before they became lieutenants and captains. He believed that portion of the scheme had to be worked out, because although ensigns were required to pass an examination before they became lieutenants, that examination was not of any strictness, being merely intended to show they had taken advantage of their opportunities to advance in a knowledge of regimental discipline. But, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed the appointment of instructors at all the chief stations of the army by whom the officers should be taught the theoretical knowledge which all agreed they ought to possess, he thought it was a question whether that theoretical and professional knowledge ought not to be given before officers were allowed to take up their commissions. The right hon. Gentleman had urged the Government to proceed with expedition in this matter. That was certainly their intention; but they ought not hurriedly and precipitately to come to a conclusion with regard to it. The House should remember the circumstances which required the Government carefully to consider the question. The right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the new organisation which the army was about to assume. It was undoubtedly intended that in the colonies, as well as at home, there should be a brigade and divisional organisation of the army. It was obvious that the effect would be to create a number of staff appointments which might be conferred on the most capable officers that could be found. Hitherto the mischief had been that the army was broken up into regiments and detachments, so that, on the one hand, the junior officers had no opportunity of acquiring proficiency in the higher duties of their profession, and, on the other, the senior officers had no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the most meritorious of the subalterns. The brigade organisation would remedy that
1008
great defect. The junior officers of superior merit would be called to fill those situations where their intellect would come into play, and the senior officers commanding brigades and divisions would have the opportunity of seeing which of those young men were most fitted for promotion to higher situations. There were also advantages to be derived from the camps of exercise and instruction. The right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the garrison at Dublin being admitted to be the best school of instruction for the army. He believed that that arose from a large force composed of the various branches of the army, having been collected at Dublin, and now, by means of the new camps of exercise and instruction, the advantage hitherto peculiar to Dublin would be extended to the whole army. He should also state that some time ago a Committee was formed by the War Department for the purpose of inquiring into the scientific requirements of the army. The Committee was composed of professional persons engaged in the examinations for Commissions in the Artillery, and they recommended the appointment of a commission to proceed to the Continent to obtain information as to the system of instruction prevailing in the various countries of Europe. Such a commission was accordingly formed by the War Department and consisted of three highly qualified and intelligent gentlemen. They were received with great cordiality in the various capitals through which they passed. They had brought back most valuable information from France, Belgium, Prussia, Switzerland, and other countries, and he understood that in the course of a few days they would present their report. He thought it only fair the Government should have time to consider the recommendations in that Report before committing themselves to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. There had been no undue procrastination in disposing of the question; but during a period of war, from which the country had only recently emerged, all such matters were necessarily kept in abeyance. It had been well said that from the first day of making war they ought to anticipate the return of peace, and from the first day of making peace they ought to provide for the contingency of war. It was the intention of the Government so to do. The Government would devote their best attention to this question of education, and he trusted the result would be that they would succeed in

1009
educating the officers of the British army so as to make them worthy instruments of the power of the country.
MR.ELLICEsaid, he could not withhold his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) for having brought this subject under consideration, and he did not blame his hon. Friend (Mr. Peel) for expressing himself with considerable caution as to what might be the ultimate decision of the Government on the means for accomplishing the object in view, but he thought some parts of the speech of the hon. Gentleman were not quite so satisfactory as might have been wished. He would not enter upon the details of the plan submitted by the right hon. Gentleman; but it was quite time the subject should be pressed from a quarter having so much influence on the attention of the House, and he should have been glad to hear that it would be taken up by the Government with all the decision which in his opinion it required. His hon. Friend said he had never heard of the proposition from the Committee of Council on Education for the appointment of spectators to inquire and examine into the state of the regimental schools.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: I said I never heard of its being entertained by the War Department.
MR. ELLICEbegged pardon for mistaking the expression of the hon. Gentleman, but the impression conveyed was, that the question of inspection had not been taken up either by the Council of Education or by the Government. The recommendations of the Committee of Council on Education were carried into effect by Orders in Council, and in the last of those Orders in Council was this passage:—"To inspect the regimental schools in the United Kingdom and the establishment for training regimental schoolmasters, and to report thereupon to the War Department." He could not say whether the hon. Gentleman had read that Order in Council, but what fell from the hon. Gentleman led him to entertain the impression that the hon. Gentleman was in error in the statement he had made. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) appeared to anticipate a difficulty in the way of a stricter examination than had hitherto been required. But no difficulty had been found in the examinations for the navy. An officer in the navy was obliged to undergo a severe professional examination before he could pass for the rank of lieutenant.
1010
He did not think it necessary that that examination upon promotion should be carried beyond professional objects, but they had a right to demand proof that an officer was qualified for command and able to take care of his men. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) in thinking that the money spent in army elementary education was thrown away. So far from thinking it a good system that young officers should be educated in the first instance in institutions provided by the public, he thought it much better that they should be taken from public and private schools in this country, and from different military colleges and seminaries in those countries having larger military establishments than ourselves, and where they could consequently obtain more efficient instruction to fit them for the profession in which they were to embark. There were, however, two branches of military education which the public should provide—that for the Artillery and Engineers, and for those who were to be employed as staff officers. Care ought also to be taken that the patronage of the army should be so bestowed as that the public should be satisfied that none but qualified persons should be appointed to such situation. Twenty-four years ago, when he filled the situation of Secretary at War, he proposed in a Select Committee that a rule should be established that all staff officers should be changed every five years, and that rule was accepted by the Committee and sanctioned by the House. In 1854, he was appointed a member of another Commission to inquire into the organisation and promotion of the army. The Commissioners found that the resolution of the Select Committee had remained a dead letter at the Horse Guards, and that in no one instance had an officer been changed—that in fact it had been evaded by making new appointments of the same individual every five years. If that resolution had been carried out, and if young men had been continually employed upon the staff, we should not have been so deficient in efficient staff officers when the late war broke out. Look at the manner in which some of the staff appointments were filled now. He had the highest opinion of the eminent services of Lord Seaton; but when he found an honoured officer of eighty-two years of age in command of the forces in Ireland at a time when young men ought to be gaining experience

1011
in organising troops and preparing new levies for the field, he could not accept such an appointment as an earnest of the principle which ought to regulate the staff appointments of the army. It was essential that the country should set to work in earnest to place the army on the most efficient footing, by insisting that there should be a thorough and complete examination of all officers, not only before their introduction into the army, but on their subsequent promotion. He trusted also that young officers would be selected for employment, and that every course which could accelerate promotion would be adopted to prevent the employment of old officers, who, however distinguished their services might have been, were not fitted for the active duties of their profession. He would give no opinion upon the details of the right hon. Gentleman's plan, but it was essential that the best system of examination should be insisted upon for officers entering the army, that there should be a further examination upon promotion, and that young officers should be selected for employment.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, that he would not detain the House more than a few moments, for the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. S. Herbert) was so able and so admirable that it would be impertinent in him to go over the same ground. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) that it was most inexpedient to permit staff appointments to be held by the same individual for a long series of years; and he thought it a matter of so much importance that the Government ought to be called upon to give some pledge for the future with regard to the various staff appointments of the army. The right hon. Member had referred to the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, that staff appointments should change hands every five years. That recommendation was so far from having been carried out that, in many instances, if gentlemen with tolerably good interest got into staff appointments they held them for the rest of their lives. In peace there was scarcely any staff appointment that might not be filled by a variety of officers, and the more changes there were the more practical experience of those duties would be diffused in the army. The Under Secretary for War had adverted to the competitive examinations which had
1012
been instituted, and he for one, offered his acknowledgments to the Minister for War for having adopted that most wise and liberal measure—one, he was happy to say which had answered every expectation. The tone of the Under Secretary for War was, however, not very cheering to those who looked forward to speedy improvements being made in military education. The formation of brigades and divisions, instead of allowing the army to be scattered about the country in detachments, performing police duties, would no doubt be of some use, but it would not supply those essentials of a scientific education to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts had referred. Those gentlemen who took part in the inquiry, instituted some time ago, as to the condition of the military colleges would remember that, with regard to examination, the evidence was extremely unsatisfactory. There were two classes of examination. One of them was too theoretical, being very much directed to the higher branches of mathematics; while, with regard to the other, Colonel Prosser (the Lieutenant Governor of the College) said it was so slight that a remarkably stupid man might, with a little cramming, pass it. Yet the Under Secretary for War asked for time, and said they must not be precipitate in altering the present state of things. It might be unreasonable to demand a complete plan from the Government at the close of a Session if this were the first that had been heard of the subject; but that was not the case. He was glad to hear that the Report of the Commission which had been sent to inquire into military education in foreign countries would be laid before the House when it came into the possession of the Government. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that a high scholastic test would be objectionable; but there was a great difference between a test of that kind and one which would admit every remarkably stupid man into the army if he happened to have £700 or £800 in his pocket. It was clear from the speech of the hon. Gentleman that the postponement he called for was no less than another year; but he thought that the War Department, with the co-operation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts, could have no difficulty in coming to some decision before the close of the Session, and he was sure the House would not hesitate to vote the necessary means. If the proposition they made should

1013
turn out insufficient, it might afterwards be amended. With regard to the pecuniary part of the question, it was remarkable that so completely had military education been contemned or ignored as an element requisite for the efficiency of the national armaments, that for about thirty years not a shilling had been expended upon it by the nation, and officers had been educated upon what was called a "self-supporting" system. Other nations, republican as well as monarchial, had, on the contrary, paid great attention to the education of their military officers. He was old enough to recollect the last American war, in which he served, and he remembered that one advantage which we possessed over the Americans during that war was, that they had scarcely any military knowledge, theoretical or practical; but they discovered their mistake, and after the peace, although not mixed up, like us, in European politics, or menaced by great standing armies in adjoining countries, they founded an excellent military college, by means of which they were able to provide a greater amount of professional instruction for their small army than this country had provided for its large army. Only yesterday, too, evidence had been given before the Purchase Commission, with respect to the steps taken by the Austrian Government in this matter, from which it appeared that for the education of 7,000 students, non-commissioned as well as commissioned officers, no less a sum than £280,000 was appropriated—equal to at least £1,000,000 in this country. He did not propose that England should expend £1,000,000 upon the same object, but he mentioned the fact in order to show the attention paid to military education by other nations. Very large sums were also expended upon it by the French, Sardinian, and Prussian Governments. With regard to the staff, he was not quite certain whether the system hitherto adopted by us or that of foreign armies was preferable. He had not yet sufficiently turned his attention to that point. At the end of the Peninsular war the staff of the British army was, perhaps, the best in the world; but no rule could be drawn from that fact. He trusted that Parliament would not be allowed to separate without a proposition from the Government on this subject.
COLONEL DUNNEurged that it was evident that the Government was in no hurry on this subject, for they had materials enough to proceed on, and the waiting
1014
for the Report of the Commission to inquire into the system of foreign armies was a futile pretext for delay, for there was already ample evidence on the subject before the House. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert), to whom every one connected with the army must feel grateful, would press on the Government the necessity of action in this matter. The system even of practical instruction in the army had diminished since he had first entered it. He was of opinion that a great many theoretical subjects which were required to pass examinations in the army were of no use, and would be better supplied by practical instruction. It was no use having the highest knowledge of abstract mathematics, and yet be unacquainted with any of the practical principles of fortification. He had himself the honour of being educated at Trinity College, and had studied fluxions and the higher branches of mathematics, but he had been obliged to teach himself all that he knew about the scientific branch of his profession. The right hon. Gentleman had touched the real reason for a deficiency of professional feeling in the army, when he showed that staff appointments and promotions were not given to the best, most meritorious, and most instructed officers; but were awarded for very different reasons. He trusted the Motion now before the House would induce the Government to act with more celerity with respect to this question of military education, and bring forward some plan before the end of the Session. He again repeated his acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire, whose plan he thought deserved the gratitude of the army and the country.
MR. RICHsaid, that he thought the House ought to feel grateful for the admirable manner in which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) had brought forward this subject and pressed it upon the Government. He had fully established the anomalous manner in which commissions, promotions, and staff appointments were obtained. He did not blame the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War for having declined to enter into details or to pledge the Government to any particular course—the hon. Gentleman had been obliged to deal in generalities; but he rejoiced that the hon. Gentleman had not hesitated, after experience, emphatically to praise the system begun by the Duke of Newcastle and followed up by Lord

1015
Panmure, of allowing commissions to be obtained by competition in the two most important branches of the service, the engineers and artillery. The hon. Gentleman had assured the House that that system had been most eminently successful, and the clear inference was, that it would be equally successful in other branches of the army. The introduction of such a system and its application to other grades of promotion would supply what was wanting in our army—motives for exertion and a professional feeling. The hon. Gentleman talked of an examination of merely an intellectual nature being nugatory as a test of the professional ability of officers. That might be true to a certain extent, but what could not be denied was, that considerable mental qualifications, added to other qualities, were required to constitute a good officer. He also thought that sufficient importance was not attached to the due requirement of service. The duties of the camp at Aldershot constituted an improvement on the idle life formerly led by officers and soldiers in towns; but there was still a more efficient teacher than a summer-camp service—real service—and that was ordinarily to be found only in our Colonies. In drawing up a scheme of education, he trusted that the Government would weigh well the consideration of the service of officers, and service abroad ought to be counted more highly than service at home. In the Guards, an admirable and efficient body of men, the officers by certain privileges had obtained promotion more quickly than in the rest of the army; yet they, from their especial functions, never saw foreign service except when a continental war broke out—they were never engaged in Indian, Kafir, Australian, or Chinese operations, and, therefore, had no opportunities of learning the more important elements of their duty in time of European peace. Nevertheless, it was from this body that a large proportion of our general and staff officers was drawn. Service, however, mingled with education and other qualifications, was absolutely necessary to make an efficient officer. Every one agreed that staff officers should be well educated, and he would press the Government to include the appointment of staff officers under their arrangements and education. Staff officers should be required to fulfil certain conditions before appointment; and the best plan to prevent those conditions becoming relaxed in a time of peace was to make the appointments
1016
obtainable only by competition, so that presumably the best men would always get them. A system of open competition, under well-defined and well-conceived regulations, would stimulate and elevate the character of the whole profession, and would secure as fine a body of officers as ever led the British or any other army to victory. With regard to the Military College of Sandhurst, the hon. and gallant General the Member for Westminster had spoken of it as self-supporting; but it was self-supporting only by making one set of students support the others. The Government professed that the orphans of military officers should receive a gratuitous education at the military college; but they paid nothing towards it; for they charged the sons of civilians from 130 to 150 guineas a year for an education which was admitted did not cost more than half that sum. Out of this surcharge the entire education of those orphans was defrayed. That was a wrong which ought to be redressed, for it was not just that the parents of the general students should be made to pay more than the legitimate expenses of their sons' education; and especially when it was found that this extortionate demand actually precluded many persons of moderate means from sending their sons to Sandhurst, whereby the military education of officers, which Sandhurst was found to promote, was plainly to that extent impeded or prevented.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Rich) were directed more to the subject of a Motion he had two or three times brought forward in that House than to the subject which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire had introduced so clearly and so ably, and in a manner showing that he had paid very great attention to it. He could not join in the blame that had been cast upon the hon. Under Secretary for War for not having given more decided answers to the questions mooted; for not only were many of the points to which his attention was directed now placed before him for the first time, but it must also be remembered that the hon. Gentleman was only the representative of the War Minister in that House, and was not competent to answer decidedly as to any new course of policy for the War Minister, much less for the Government, with whom the decision of such a matter must necessarily lie. The hon. Member

1017
(Mr. Rich) had referred to the want of experience of the officers of the army, and had spoken of the experience to be acquired by service in the Colonies. The hon. Gentleman should have said in some of the Colonies; for in some—the West Indies for instance—the regiments were broken up into small detachments, and the experience to be thus acquired was of no value. The hon. Gentleman might equally have spoken of the want of opportunity for gaining experience in this country; for he (Lord Hotham) had known an instance of a cavalry regiment being two years without the advantage of a riding-school, and yet this regiment would have been expected to be in an efficient state and ready for any service. He should not, however, have trespassed upon the attention of the House had it not been for the observations of the hon. Gentleman in reference to the brigade of Guards. The hon. Member had complained of the advantages in respect of promotion enjoyed by that corps, but he would beg to remind the House that the Royal Warrant of 1854, whatever its other effects might be, would certainly leave no ground for complaint of the rapidity of promotion in the Guards. The hon. Gentleman had also said that the Guards never went on service except in the case of an European war, and therefore had no opportunities of learning their duties in time of peace. But it must be remembered that, if the Guards were not sent on colonial service during peace, they were always among the first to embark in the event of war. No expedition had ever sailed from this country without a brigade of Guards forming a part of it, and no instance could be found of a General, under whose command a brigade of Guards had been placed, who had not spoken with the highest approbation of the manner in which they had performed their duties, and of the state of discipline in which he found them. The House would probably consider the Duke of Wellington a tolerably competent judge of such matters, and he was also a perfectly unbiassed judge, never having had any connection with the Guards until the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of York. And what opinion did the Duke of Wellington form of the brigade of Guards placed under his command in the Peninsula? On one occasion, in September, 1809, a General Order appeared, complaining of the mistakes constantly made in the returns and states of regiments; but what said the Duke of
1018
Wellington as to the conduct of the brigade of Guards on this matter? His General Order concluded by saying that—
"The Commander of the Forces deems it but justice to the two battalions of Guards to state, that their returns have in every respect been as accurate as the conduct of these excellent troops has been regular and exemplary in every other respect."
Again, in January, 1810, the Duke of Wellington wrote, in these terms, to Major General Stopford, then commanding the Brigade of Guards—
"I have taken frequent occasions of stating publicly, the great satisfaction which the conduct of the Guards has invariably given me; which satisfaction has been recently increased in the march through Portugal, in which, as they were at the head of the column, they set the example to the other troops of the most orderly behaviour,"
"I am anxious to testify this satisfaction in a manner which shall make an impression upon the non-Commissioned Officers, and shall prove to them that the attention which they pay to their duty is not unobserved by their superiors; and if the Commanding Officers of the two Battalions will be so kind as to recommend a sergeant each, I will recommend them to vacant Ensigncies in the Army. (Signed) "WELLINGTON."
On another occasion, in March, 1811, when the army was in the lines of Torres Vedras, the sentence of death, awarded by a general court martial, was ordered to be carried into effect, and, for the sake of example, in presence of all the troops at Cartaxo; but here, again, it was stated, in General Orders, that—
"As during the two years which the brigade of Guards has been under the command of the Commander of the Forces, not only no soldier has been brought to trial before a general court martial, but no one has been confined in a public guard, the Commander of the Forces desires that the attendance of this brigade at the execution may be dispensed with."
And, again, during the siege of Burgos, in September, 1812, a General Order complaining of the conduct of the working parties during the previous night, stated that—
"At the same time that the Commander of the Forces notices the misconduct of the working parties, he is happy to make an exception in favour of the brigade of Guards, who have performed this duty as they have every other duty in this army, in the most satisfactory manner."
These instances which he (Lord Hotham) had thus cited, would be sufficient, he thought, to show that the Guards were not liable to the criticisms of the hon. Member (Mr. Rich). Had he thought that such criticisms were well founded, he should

1019
have listened to them with pain and regret; but as they were altogether undeserved, he felt called upon to show, and on the high authority he had quoted, that although without the experience which the hon. Member seemed to think was only to be acquired on colonial service, the Guards had always been found efficient, and ready for every duty required of them.
Long as he (Lord Hotham) had sat in Parliament, so unwilling was he to occupy the time of the House on a matter which some might have thought of a personal nature, that notwithstanding the numerous opportunities which had arisen, he had never before opened his lips on the subject of a corps in whose honour and reputation he felt a deep and enduring interest. He wished not to claim for the Guards any peculiar merit, and, certainly, he did not desire to institute any invidious comparison between the Guards and other branches of the service; but he did feel anxious to give proof that they were not behind the rest of the army in the correct performance of their duties, and to declare for himself that he was proud of having been brought up, and of having long served, in a corps which had never failed to prove itself worthy of the confidence of its Sovereign, and to satisfy the just expectations of its countrymen.
Referring, before he sat down, to the suggestions of the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire, he would only say that the subject to which they referred was one of the greatest importance—a subject upon which the prompt action of the Government was urgently needed, and with respect to which he hoped that the House would be speedily informed what course it was intended to take.
MR. RICHexplained that he never meant to call in question the distinguished bravery and heroism of the brigade of Guards.
VISCOUNT GODERICHsaid, he was anxious to express the hope that, before the debate terminated, some Member of the Government would state to the House something more clear and definite with regard to their views and intentions than that which had fallen from the Under Secretary for War. The Government could not say that they had not had ample time to consider the important question of the organisation of the army. A considerable time ago the right hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) gave notice of his intention to bring the subject
1020
under the consideration of the House, and the details of his plan had nothing essentially new about them, but, on the contrary, the greater part of them were contained in the Report of the Sandhurst Commission. He did not wish the Government to pledge themselves to carry out all those details, although from the manner in which the speech of the right hon. Member for Wiltshire had been received it was the evident desire of the House that the course to be pursued by the Government should, as nearly as possible, coincide with his scheme. It was of the utmost importance at the present moment that the House should elicit from the Government some expression of their opinion upon the question under discussion. We had just returned from a state of war to a state of peace; public attention had been directed to our military organisation; and it might be difficult in future years to concentrate the same amount of interest upon such a subject as the improvement of our army. In respect of scientific education England was behind all nations which possessed what could be called a civilised army, and, whatever might be the undoubted great qualities of our officers, it was of the utmost importance to us, who must always maintain a comparatively small army, that we should take the best means in empower to render it as efficient as possible.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I must join with all those who have spoken in thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire, for bringing under our notice a question of so much importance as the organisation of the Army, and for stating his views in so clear and able a manner to the House. Indeed, there is nobody who, from his intimate knowledge of all the matters to which his speech related, from his natural ability, from the clearness of his conceptions, or from his skill in developing his ideas, is more entitled than my right hon. Friend to call the attention of the House to the affairs of the Army. I am afraid, however, that I shall not be able to satisfy the expectations of those Gentlemen who have requested the Government to state their views and intentions upon the present occasion. We entirely concur with my right hon. Friend in his estimate of the importance of giving officers of the army the best possible education adapted to their professional pursuits. I do not agree with

1021
the noble Lord who spoke last in thinking that the British army is behind every other in the world in any respect; because if we look to the exploits of that army we shall see that upon every occasion in which it has met an enemy under any circumstances whatever it has proved itself at least equal—I should say superior—to those with whom it has had to contend. At the same time I do not say that the system of education for our officers is not capable of great improvement, and it will be the anxious desire, as it is the bounden duty, of the Government to devote their best attention to that subject, for the purpose of making such arrangements as may appear to them best calculated to attain the object in view. I am sure my right hon. Friend will not expect that I should, upon the present occasion, follow him through the various details of the plan which he upon mature reflection has suggested. Those details will receive the best attention and consideration of the Government. There are two things to be kept in view. Some persons argue in favour of higher literary qualifications as a preliminary proof of capacity. That may be carried too far; but to a certain extent undoubtedly such qualifications should be required, because, though you do not want that a young man entering the army as an officer should have acquired high literary attainments—which are not always accompanied with those physical and constitutional qualities which are requisite for a military life—yet it cannot be denied that such acquirements are a proof of general capacity. I think, too, that in future the course of instruction should be more devoted to professional attainments than to those other acquirements which are not immediately connected with military duty. A certain amount of mathematical knowledge may be found useful, if not absolutely necessary, in every operation in which an officer, to whatever arm of the service he may belong, may be required to partake; but to demand that extent of mathematical knowledge which is obtained by a wrangler at Cambridge is simply absurd, necessitates a great waste of time, and will not render the young man fitter for the profession of which he is destined to become a member. The main qualities for an officer are contempt of danger, fearlessness of responsibility, a quick eye to estimate the nature of surrounding circumstances, a rapid decision how to act in every emergency, and resolution to take
1022
the course which upon reflection he may think best. These are qualities the possession of which by an officer is most important, and which may be found in a man who is deficient in many of those attainments which, nevertheless, are essential to giving these qualities their best and most useful application. What we want is to combine the two; and you cannot, by any examination, ascertain exactly whether or not a man possesses these constitutional qualities. The Duke of Wellington used in his campaigns to keep with him a pack of hounds, and he said that by taking young officers out hunting with him he could form a judgment as to their quickness of eye, rapidity of decision, and handiness under difficulties. Our officers might now practise hunting at Aldershot. What I want to impress upon the House is, that no examination which you can institute will afford a decisive test of the existence of the qualities which I have mentioned. You must take your chance. All that you can do by instruction is to give to your officers that scientific knowledge which is essential to their professional pursuits, and to the well conducting of the troops who may be placed under their command; and by examination to ascertain whether they have profited by the instruction which you have afforded them. It is said that it is not fair to make the military college at Sandhurst a self-supporting institution (according to the expression now in fashion), and that that is substantially to make one part of the students pay for the education of the other. I am bound to say that whatever injustice there may be in that arrangement, it was forced upon the Government by repeated discussions in this House. Year after year my late hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) urged the abolition of the military college as a matter of expense to the public, and it was in deference to the repeated and urgent representations made in discussions upon the Army Estimates that at last the military college was so arranged that no Vote of money should be required for its support. I hope that the experience of late years will have opened the minds of Parliament to the greater importance of these matters, and that hon. Members will, not only now, but in future Sessions, bear in mind of what immense importance it is that our army, whatever its numbers, should be as good and efficient as it is possible to make it. I entirely agree with those who think that

1023
it is of far less importance what shall be the actual number of your troops than what shall be their organisation and the instruction to be given to the officers who command them. I trust that the House will excuse me if upon these matters I do not go into further details than to say, that the Government are as fully impressed as are any of those whom I have now the honour of addressing with the deep importance of making our army as efficient as possible. During the war the whole attention of the Government was devoted to the efficient prosecution of its active operations, and it was impossible for them to give so much attention as their importance deserved to the questions which have been raised by my right hon. Friend. Now that peace has fortunately returned, however, it will be the duty and the anxious desire of the Government, as soon as possible, to come to some satisfactory decision upon the arrangements necessary to accomplish the objects which my right hon. Friend has in view.
Subject dropped.

TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL— QUESTION.
MR. G. H. MOORE: Before you leave the chair, Sir, I wish to put a question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland with respect to an explanation which I understand that he made in the House when I was not present. I understand that, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), he apologised to the House for not having spoken yesterday on my Tenants' Compensation Bill, alleging that his silence arose from a mistake, and stating that if the hon. Gentleman would next Wednesday move that my Bill should be committed that day six months the Government would support the Motion. No one has more reason to regret the silence of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) than myself, because as he voted for the second reading of the Bill, and therefore virtually for its committal, he must, had he addressed the House, have spoken in its favour. As he has explained his negative speech, he will perhaps also explain his positive vote, and tell us whether that likewise arose from a mistake. This is a question which concerns not only the credit of the Government, but also the personal character of a Member of this House, and it is therefore necessary that we should have an explanation upon the subject. I wish to know
1024
From the right hon. Gentleman whether, in case the Government should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, he intends to vote against my Bill, and if so, why?
MR. HORSMAN: Nothing can be more easy or, to those who know anything of the circumstances under which the hon. Gentleman brought forward this question, more satisfactory than the explanation which I am able to give. The hon. Gentleman made a speech yesterday, in which he especially desired that the House would put out of sight the particular provisions of his Bill. He stated yesterday, although not so fully as he has stated in Ireland, what are the real objects of that Bill. I happen to know the circumstances under which the hon. Gentleman took charge of the Bill, and the conditions which he made with those who requested him to do so. The facts were these. On the 29th of January there was to be a great meeting of the Tenant League in Dublin, in order that they might consider the Bill which was to be brought forward in the present Session. When the day arrived, although Parliament was about to meet, the League had no Bill. The council explained that this was a cause of considerable embarrassment to the gentlemen assembled; and they, therefore, proposed that, as they were in this dilemma, no Bill being ready for the hon. Member for Mayo. [Mr. G. H. MOORE: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.] I have in my hand a Report of the proceedings of the meeting to which I refer. This meeting commenced with the presentation by the council of a report of their proceedings, and of the condition of the League. They stated to the members then assembled, that the energetic action of the League, as they expressed it, was at a standstill for want of funds. They stated that the League was bankrupt; in particular that there was a sum of £6 which the League was unable to pay, but which six members of the League had come forward very handsomely and very unanimously, not to pay, but to bind themselves in writing to be liable to the creditors for it. They also stated that there was a further sum of £23 which was due, £5 of it to one member of the council who had advanced the money, and the remaining £18 to two newspapers for advertisements for two years. This sum, they said, fortunately, was not pressing. The gentlemen deferred their claims and consequently the "energetic action" of the

1025
League was restored. Having got over the first difficulty about funds, they then came to the next. There had been a want of funds; there was then a want of members. They said that although the meetings of the League had, in accordance with the instructions of the meeting in October, been so arranged that parties from the country who might be in town could conveniently attend them, very few such persons had in fact attended. Being then in want of funds and in want of members, the League assembled on the 29th of January, and the council then said with regard to the Bill:—
"The council have not been able to carry into effect the instructions issued by the last general meeting to have a tenant-right Bill prepared and revised by a competent lawyer, and ready for the consideration of this meeting."
The fact was, that the Tenant League had in the plenitude of their power ordered that a Bill should be prepared by a competent lawyer; but there was a preliminary process to be gone through; before the competent lawyer would undertake the task—which was exceedingly embarrassing to an association—six of the most substantial members of which had been obliged to guarantee a debt of £6. The consequence was, they had no Bill prepared, and the council went on to say:—
"Your committee have, therefore, to state, that owing to this cause the Bill has not been considered in council; and finding that the opening of the Session is at hand they venture to suggest that the better, if not the only practicable, course now open for you, is the placing of Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill in the hands of two Members of Parliament:"
who they afterwards desired should be the hon. Members for Mayo (Mr. Moore) and Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire). It was therefore; as I stated in the outset, that there was no Bill prepared, and they were compelled to adopt that of Mr. S. Crawford, which was placed in the hon. Gentleman's hands. I have stated that they were short of funds, lacked members, and had no Bill; at last they have found a Bill—but are they agreed among themselves? Last year the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (MR. Serjeant Shee) was the mouthpiece of the association upon this great question. This year he declined that honour. At the very meeting to which I have referred a letter was read from the hon. and learned Gentleman, in which he says:—
"I am of opinion that any Member of Parliament who acting, or professing to act, on the part
1026
of the Irish tenantry, should, as things now stand, present any Bill to the House of Commons, but the one presented by me during the last Session, would do irreparable mischief to the tenant-right cause."
The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny having declined to take charge of this Bill, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore) was deputed to do so. What were the conditions upon which he undertook it? They were conditions which make it perfectly ridiculous for him to say that he intended the House to go into Committee upon the Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: the right hon. Gentleman is getting rather irregular. The question is that I leave the chair; and it is not regular to discuss the provisions of a Bill which is not before the House.
MR. HORSMAN: I shall be careful, Sir, not to transgress the rule. I do not wish to refer to the provisions of the Bill, but to the views entertained by the hon. Gentleman when he undertook to bring the measure before the House. His words were to the effect that he would be fostering a complete delusion if he allowed those who had done him the honour to place the Bill in his hands to go away with the belief that there was any hope of carrying it, or any other Bill worth anything to the people of Ireland. ["Order, order!"] I will not pursue this matter further, but simply observe that I ground the vote which I gave yesterday on the hon. Members's own statement. That Bill, word for word, and letter for letter. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: Nothing can be more irregular than for discussions to arise, on the question of going into Supply, as to the conduct of an hon. Member in regard to a measure that stands on the order paper fixed for a future day, and is not then before the House.
MR. HORSMAN: I of course bow, Sir, to your decision. I will only say, that the hon. Gentleman having asked me for an explanation, and I having frankly acknowledged that, acting for the Government, I made a mistake in not offering the statement which I should have offered, but that I was prevented by a surprise, I felt bound to give an answer; but, as this discussion is declared to be irregular, I am ready when the Bill goes into Committee fully to vindicate the Course that I took yesterday, and to show that it is quite in accordance with the one which the Government was prepared to adopt.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the chair.
(1.) £2,000, Board of Manufactures (Scotland).
In reply to a question from Mr. WILLIAMS,
MR. WILSONexplained that this payment was made in conformity with a provision in the Act of Union; but the funds now went to support a flourishing school of design in Edinburgh.
Vote agreed to; as was also—

(2.) £5,000, Highland Roads and Bridges.

(3.) £12,000, Bounties on Slaves, &c

SIR F. BARINGsaid, there was only a sum of £4,000 expended out of the Vote of £12,000 last year, and there was a surplus of £1,400 on the Vote of the previous year. The year before that the Vote granted was £13,000. There might be circumstances which required this large Vote after the small amount of the expenditure of last year, but he should wish to have some explanation.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that by the exertions of our cruisers on the African and Brazilian coasts the slave trade, as far as concerned Brazil especially, had for several years been practically extinguished. It had prevailed to a very limited extent in Cuba. The sum expended on captures had, therefore, been very small of late; but last year a heavy mortality occurred in the Brazils, caused by epidemics; and symptoms were visible of a renewal of the Brazilian slave trade. It was well known that several vessels had been fitted out in the United States to carry on this discreditable traffic between the coast of Africa and the Brazils, and one or two of them had been actually detained on the Brazilian coast. The reason why a larger sum was asked for under this head this year was doubtless an apprehension that the slave trade might revive, and that more captures might, therefore, be anticipated.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes—

(4.) £900, Commission for publishing ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland.

(5.) £9,000, Process Servers in Ireland.

(6.) £70,900, Pensions under Merchant Seamen's Fund Act.

(7.) £2,301, Office for Registration of Joint-Stock Companies.

(8.) £1,790, Registration of Designs Office.

1028

(9.) £29,000, Treaties of Reciprocity.

MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the particulars of this Vote had not been furnished to the Committee.
MR. WILSONexplained that regularly every Session there was presented to Parliament a statement, giving all the information that could be required on the subject.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved that many of the claims were not found in law. He had himself known cases where the right to demand these dues had been challenged, but the challenge had never been accepted.
MR. RIDLEYcomplained that the Estimate had not been framed in such a manner as to afford the requisite information on many points of interest. For instance, it would appear on the face of the document as though the Trinity House of Newcastle-upon-Tyne received in its corporate capacity £6,742 a year for pilotage; whereas the fact was that every shilling of that sum was paid to individual pilots.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £3,800, Inspectors of Corn Returns.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, at the time when the corn laws were being discussed, great complaints were made of the machinery by which the returns were collected, and he wished to know what had been done to improve the machinery?
MR. WILSONsaid, that the arrangements were still unsatisfactory, but he could state that a gradual improvement was being made in the system. Formerly persons were appointed inspectors merely because they were engaged in the corn trade, not because they had any peculiar facilities for performing the duties; but as they had died off, their places had been supplied by officers of the Inland Revenue, whose returns had generally been found correct. He hoped that the collection of these returns and of agricultural statistics generally would ultimately be combined, and that one result of that combination would be to secure an accurate return of the corn sold by the farmer as well as that sold by the dealer.
MR. WISEsaid, that so far as corn rents and tithe payments were concerned, the present returns were entirely delusive. The whole system was unsatisfactory, and he trusted that some assurance would be given by Her Majesty's Government that the matter would be carefully considered

1029
with a view to an alteration, including, first, an extension of the number of towns from which the averages were made up; and, secondly, the compelling the seller to record every sale in some form or other. Without obtaining returns of all the corn sold in the country they could never arrive at satisfactory averages.
MR. FREWENthought the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade should have replied to the question. He was satisfied that the present system of corn returns was delusive and unsatisfactory. He was also satisfied that in some places no returns whatever were made. He hoped an assurance would be given that the existing system would be changed for a better one.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESwas of opinion that such a project was impracticable. From the very necessity of the case it continually happened that there were sales which never came to the knowledge of the officers engaged in the preparation of the returns. Perfect accuracy could be attained only by a system of espionage which the gentlemen and farmers of England would not endure for a week. They might mitigate the rudeness of the present returns, but they would never get them altogether perfect.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his attention was first called to this subject some years since, when he was connected with the Board of Trade. The present system was no doubt most inadequate to the obtaining of complete statistical information with regard to the sale of corn; but if they were to make the machinery in any degree efficient for that purpose, in the first place the expenditure would be much larger than it was at present, and in the second place it would interfere with minute transactions in a manner that might lead to considerable difficulty. The practical purpose for which the returns were obtained related to the Tithe Commutation Act, and rude and imperfect as the process was, he did not believe it had produced any important error in the results. The returns were doubtless procured merely from sellers who were willing to give information, and he admitted that that was a loose way of getting them; but, on the other hand, the seller had no interest in misstating prices, and he believed that, rude and imperfect as the machinery was, practically it answered the purpose. As to the collection of agricultural statistics, that was a very large and important question, and it was
1030
certainly not contemplated when the arrangements under consideration were devised.
Vote agreed to; as were also—

(11.) £17,000, Distressed British Seamen abroad; and,

(12.) £3,600, Quarantine expenses.

(13.) £17,850, Revising Barristers.

MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the duties of the revising barristers should be performed by the County Court Judges, who had recently received a very large increase of salaries, which was unaccompanied with any increase of their duties.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREdid not agree with the hon. Member. There were times when the duties of revising barristers were extremely arduous, and it was impossible for County Court Judges to perform them in addition to their great labours. The vacation of a County Court Judge was already extremely short, and it must not be diminished.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, the Committee on the salaries of County Court Judges, of which he was a Member, took this question into consideration, and they were unanimously of opinion that it would be highly objectionable to throw upon such persons the duties now performed by revising barristers.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, on all sides they were in the habit of hearing it stated that it was most important to have the registry properly kept, that proper persons should be on the registry, and improper persons struck off. He did not think that it would be of advantage to have County Court Judges act as revising barristers. If any fault existed in the present system, it was in the appointment of unqualified persons. If more competent persons were appointed to the duties of revising barristers the source of complaint would be done away with.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £7,338, Constabulary Police at Aldershot.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he considered this item a most extraordinary one. He could not understand why taxes should be levied to pay county policemen for keeping 15,000 militia in order. He would be glad to know in what the duties of the police consisted, and why they could not be as well performed by militiamen as by police? Surely it would be easy to put blue coats on the backs of a certain number of soldiers, and leave them to attend to the police of the camp. He had certainly

1031
heard it jokingly said with regard to the regiments of militia that the front rank were obliged to take great care of their pockets lest the rear rank should pick them—but that was a matter of domestic police. Still he thought the Vote required explanation.
MR. WILSONsaid, this Vote involved a great constitutional principle. The hon. Member should bear in mind that three years ago, when a camp was formed at Chobham, a large sum was expended in maintaining a police force there. When the camp at Aldershot was permanently established, the Home Office was asked to consider by what means the peace of the neighbourhood should be preserved, it being obvious that a very large concourse of people of various kinds would be collected round the camp, and that a large additional police force would be required. It was suggested by some persons at the time, as it had been that evening by the hon. Gentleman, that police officers in red coats might be employed; but, considering the jealousy which had always existed between the civil and military authorities in this country, the Government thought no one would like to see the preservation of the peace placed permanently in the hands of the militia. That would, in fact, have been transferring the duty of preserving the peace from the Home Office to the War Office. The Vote under consideration extended over a year and a half, and he certainly did not think it would have been fair to Hampshire and Surrey to impose that burden on them for the maintenance of the peace at the camp, which was formed for national purposes. The cost, too was not £7,338—that sum really represented a year and a half's expense. £4,892 was the cost for twelve months, the balance £2,446 being to repay advances made in anticipation of the present Vote.
LORD LOVAINEobserved, that the Home Office assented to the present arrangement on the application of the Chief Constable of Surrey. The county police force was insufficient, several burglaries had been committed, and an additional police force was essential.
MR. HUTCHINSlived within a short distance of Aldershot, and could state, that the conduct of the militia, as well a of the regular soldiers stationed there, reflected great credit upon them. The fact was that it was not the conduct of the troops which rendered this additional
1032
police force necessary, but the number of disorderly persons who generally accompanied a camp. Under the circumstances he should certainly support the Vote.
In reply to Mr. A. PELLATT,
MR. WILSONstated, that the sum expended last year in this way was £2,400, but that was only for the half year.
MR. HENLEYlooked upon this as a very large question, because the same principle applied to seaport towns, where a large number of seamen were brought together, and extra policemen were required to keep the peace. Now, Aldershot, he supposed, was to be a permanent establishment; barracks had been erected; and he effect of this would be to increase very much the value of the land there. When the Government Created a temporary inconvenience of this kind, no doubt it might very reasonably be asked to defray the expense arising from the increased police force necessary; but if such an establishment was to be a permanent one, a permanently increased value would attach to the neighbourhood, and then it became a question whether that locality should not bear its own police burdens. Though he had no objection to this Vote under the special circumstances of the case, he did not wish to preclude himself from considering at some future time whether, in the case of any permanent establishments of this sort, the inhabitants ought not to take the advantages with the disadvantages.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, it was clearly within the contemplation of the framers of the Police Act that these exceptional cases should be dealt with in the manner now proposed, because there was a clause in that Act by which private persons were enabled to contract with the counties to procure policemen on any special occasion, in addition to the ordinary force. The arrangement now made by the Government in respect to this camp had been acted upon in many other cases. Thus they found railway companies, when constructing a line and introducing into a certain district a large number of persons likely to endanger the property and the peace of the neighbourhood, sometimes contracting with the county for an extra police force.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that such a thing as a camp guarded by policemen was never heard of in foreign countries, where camps were guarded by sentinels. This was a most ridiculous Vote,

1033
and, if published in the French papers, it would bring contempt on the whole English army. The noble Lord said a short time ago that the great object, if we had any force at all, was to maintain an efficient one; but you could not call that an efficient army which required the protection of the police. There were no policemen at Shorncliffe. He should take the sense of the House against the Vote.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his hon. Friend seemed to have mistaken the purpose for which the police were stationed at Aldershot. They were not there to protect the soldiers; if the soldiers were not competent to protect themselves they were certainly hardly competent to protect us. But it was well known that when they got together a large body of troops a very erratic population flocked together around them, and, unless his hon. Friend wished to see adopted the practice of foreign countries, and to have the military preserve order among what he was obliged to call the civil population, but who were really very uncivil characters—but civil because not military—unless his hon. Friend proposed to establish order among such persons by means of martial law, it was quite evident that they must employ a police force. It must be understood, then, that these policemen were not in the least necessary for the protection of the soldiers, but only for the preservation of order in the neighbourhood of the camp, where there was generally found a population of very loose habits and of very disorderly character. His hon. Friend would hardly like to see the police of the country undertaken by detachments of troops. If people were taken up by a corporal's guard, he (Mr. Williams) would be one of the first to complain of the non-employment of the constitutional civil force of the country. Then, again, when it was said that the district ought to defray this expense because it would be improved by the presence of a camp, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) should remember that this was a very barren country, a country chosen, indeed, on account of its barrenness, because a large tract of it could be bought at a much less expense than the same tract of fertile land. It was said that the neighbourhood of the camp would improve the rateable value of the district, but he did not think any one would be very much tempted to fix their residence by preference in a quarter where they were likely to have the sort of neighbours which a camp and
1034
its followers brought to the district they were now discussing.
MR. HENLEYwas quite sure that those who contributed to the wants, luxuries, and amusements of the camp would build houses or huts, however bad the land might be, and those buildings would become rateable if the camp were permanent. He should not object to the Vote if the camps were temporary.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, as a Hampshire ratepayer, he was not likely to quarrel with the Vote, but, if permanently given, it would be an admission that where ever there was a great congregation of troops the Government was bound to contribute to the expenses of a police force. He represented one of the naval ports, where they bitterly complained that Her Majesty's Government sent a good many of what had been termed the erratic population, and where none of the Government establishments paid rates. He hoped this Vote would facilitate the fair consideration of their case.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERShoped the hon. Member would not divide. The Vote might be taken this year, upon the distinct understanding that it was not to be drawn into a precedent. Next year the value of the land might have increased, and the neighbourhood might be able to pay for the police force required.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £7,338, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Constabulary Police at the Military Camp of Aldershot, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 14: Majority 117.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £3,000, Inspection of Burial-grounds.
MR. HADFIELDcomplained that the rights of property had been disregarded by the State in the case of burial-grounds belonging to private parties, and wished to know what were the intentions of Government with respect to the management of the old burial-grounds?
MR. WILSONreplied, that the inspectors held their appointments under two distinct Acts of Parliament. It was their duty to report on what grounds ought to be closed, and what opened, and whether ground intended for cemeteries was suitable to that purpose. In the absence of the Under Secretary of State, he could not give any information as to the intention of Government in the matter referred to.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £21,262, Battersea Park.
MR. WHITESIDEexpressed a hope that, whilst the Government were considering the health of the metropolis, they would not forget the health of the population of the manufacturing districts.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, that the House had voted up to the 31st of March, 1856, towards the expense of forming a park at Battersea, the sum of £287,000, and now they were asked to vote a further sum of £21,262. He supposed the park was in the borough of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), or else that hon. Member, who opposed the small pittance voted to the Dublin hospitals where the lives of persons were at stake, would have opposed the present Vote. It was doubtful whether this park was not formerly more useful as a pigeon ground than it was at present as a park. He wished some official connected with the Government would explain what advantage public of London derived from this Vote.
MR. W. WILLIAMScould assure the hon. Member that not a single inch of Battersea park was situate within the borough which he represented. He was not a Member of the House when the scheme for forming a park at Battersea was proposed, but he remembered hearing the late Sir William Molesworth explain that a portion of the land purchased would be let upon building leases, and would not only repay the sum expended upon it, but would bring in a surplus.
COLONEL DUNNEthought it natural that the people of a country should take a pride in their capital, and he was favourable to the embellishment of the metropolis up to a certain point; but he thought that this limit had now been passed to the neglect of the provinces.
MR. EVELYNmust express his astonishment at the course adopted by the hon. Member for Lambeth. He could not forget how that hon. Gentleman, upon a former occasion, had opposed a grant in aid of the rates of the counties of Hants and Surrey for public purposes. The hon. Member, however, was not so ready to oppose the application of the public money for objects connected with the metropolis, in which his constituents had an interest. It was quite evident, therefore, that if the hon. Member was a rural Reformer, he was a metropolitan Conservative.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the present Vote was rendered necessary by
1036
an Act which had been passed some Sessions back. The park would be open, he thought, next year, and he believed that the present Vote would be sufficient for the purpose. The total amount of ground purchased was 320 acres, of which 125 acres would be let, and would, in all probability, return a large remuneration; but if it should be necessary to take another Vote, a full statement would be laid on the table of the House.
MR. W. WILLIAMSdefended his consistency, and eulogised the public spirit of his constituents, the inhabitants of Lambeth who had of themselves, unassisted by any public money, created one of the very finest parks in the metropolis—["Name!"] Kennington Park.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: It is nothing but stones.
MR. MICHELLdeclared there never was a worse job than that same Kennington Park, of which the hon. Member was so proud. Last year, as they would all remember, a very large sum was voted for putting the park in order. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS: NO!] Yes, there was £1,000 voted for the purpose.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) £35,753, Embankment and public roadway between Vauxhall and Battersea Bridge.
MR.MICHELLdeclared that if the last Vote involved a job, this was ten times worse. They were doing with the public money that which ought to devolve upon private individuals, whose property would be materially benefited by the outlay. The effect of this Vote would be to give value to the property of the Marquess of Westminster. When they wanted roads or bridges in Cornwall they made them at their own expense, and he did not see why the inhabitants of the metropolis should not do the same.
COLONEL DUNNEconcurred in the objection to the Vote, and expressed a hope that next Session something like a combined action would be got up against such proposals.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the Vote was required to carry out the intentions of an Act passed in a former Session. The Marquess of Westminster had bound himself to pay a sum of money for any extent of frontage made on his property by this improvement, commensurate to the increased value, and which would be paid as soon as the works were completed.
MR. SPOONERwished to know whether

1037
the present Vote was the last that would be required for the purpose?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLcould give no such assurance. At the same time he would promise that if any further sum were required a statement of the proposed outlay should be laid on the table previous to being incurred.
MR. HADFIELDalso objected to the Vote. In Manchester, Sheffield, and elsewhere, they get no public money for the formation of parks, and he could see no reason why the metropolis alone should be entitled to such assistance. Those whose property was advantaged by such improvements ought to pay for them, and none others. There was Westminster Bridge, hard by, one of the greatest thoroughfares in the world. That bridge was being rebuilt, and at the public expense, while all the time it was those living in the neighbourhood whose property would be benefited that ought to pay for the expenditure.
MR. LLOYD DAVIESwished to know what sum the Marquess of Westminster would have to pay?
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: Between £8,000 and £9,000, that being considered to represent the improved value of his property. He might add, the bridge would be open before the end of the year.
MR. KENDALLthought the Government might have done this year what they had promised to do in future, and have laid detailed estimates of all the expenses connected with this project before the House.
MR. MICHELLwould unquestionably divide against the Vote. He moved that it be rejected.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEthought they ought to know whether the Government contemplated the redemption of the tolls upon the bridges and roads round London. It seemed to him, otherwise, that it was rather unfair for the Government thus to compete with those who had expended their money in the construction of roads and bridges to the great advantage of the public, and interfere with their legitimate returns.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLthought that any such intention on the part of the Government would be strongly opposed in that House. Two years ago he had sat upon a Committee with reference to that subject, which recommended that a Metropolitan Board of Works should be created as the proper body to consider the question
1038
of the redemption of tolls and other matters. Well, such a Board had been created, and he was happy to perceive by the Report of their proceedings, published in the newspapers, that the subject was under the consideration of the Board, and he hoped would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £35,753, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying, to the 31st day of March, 1857, the Expense of constructing an Embankment and Public Roadway between Battersea and Vauxhall Bridges, and an approach from Sloane Street to Chelsea Bridge."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 66: Majority 43.
Vote agreed to.

(18.) £109,000, Services connected with Improvements at Windsor; agreed to.

(19.) £1,500, Works at Carisbrooke Castle.

SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that Mr. Hardwicke had estimated that the sum was necessary to prevent the Castle from falling into ruin. It belonged to the Crown, and was an object of historical interest.
Vote agreed to; as was the next Vote.
(20.) £9,000, General Repository for Records.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,912, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of Works, Furniture, Fittings, &c. of the British Embassy Houses abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. WHITESIDE MR. WHITESIDE moved to reduce that sum by £2,330. He objected to the sum of £550 which had been laid out in preparing the chapel of the Embassy at Paris for the reception of Her Majesty on the 19th August, 1855. The following sums had been expended for the fees and travelling of the architect in this matter:—In the year 1844, £481; in the year 1845, £946 10 s.; and in the year 1846, £200. Then there were the expenses attending the palace of the British Ambassador at Constantinople. The sum voted this year for ordinary works, including repairs and fittings, was £1,020—Sir Charles Barry receiving a further sum of £183. He strongly objected to this Vote. The following sums had been expended in past years on the British Embassy in Constantinople:—In the year 1849 a sum of £12,000 for building the British Ambassador's house; in the year 1850 a sum of

1039
£14,765 for completing this house; in the year 1851 they were free; but, in 1852, a sum of £4,331 14 s. 1d. was voted for building a chapel; and, in 1853, a sum of £2,054 for reinstating the chapel. In the following year £14,000 was expended upon the consular offices. In the year 1855 they had the moderate Vote of £1,540 for a seaman's hospital; but, in 1856, £4,578 more were voted for lamps and fittings at the Ambassador's residence. He thought these expenses ought to cease, and he moved to reduce the Vote accordingly.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £4,582, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of Works, Furniture, Fittings, &c. of the British Embassy Houses abroad, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. HUTCHINSwould move the additional reduction of the Vote by £231, being personal and travelling expenses of the architect, unless explanation were given.
MR. WISEwas not surprised that the attention of the Committee had been called to the items of this Vote, for he had objected to similar Votes for the last three years. This Vote had, by degrees, crept on, to be an annual charge, and the question was, whether the Committee of Supply would permit money to be constantly expended before it was voted. He should like to know on what principle the Government acted with regard to these embassy houses. We had already paid £250,000 for the erection or purchase of the three embassy houses in Paris, Madrid and Constantinople, and additional expense continued to be incurred year by year. The Palace at Constantinople was estimated at £33,000, but the expenditure had been £90,000, and the Hotel at Paris had cost £87,320, besides an annual outlay of £1,000 for casual repairs, lighting and water rates. But the most extraordinary charge was, the payment to Mr. Albano the architect, who in 1855 had received £2,391 for his remuneration and travelling expenses to Paris and Madrid. In 1854, £l,400 was voted for a cemetery at Madrid, and it was arranged that Mr. Albano should go to Madrid, superintend the work and return for a sum not exceeding £300; but in the next Vote was a charge of £770, so that out of a total expenditure of £2,227 for the cemetery, the architect's share was £770. And what was the sort of work superintended at Paris. He found a sum
1040
of £550 put down for preparing the chapel and anteroom at the Embassy for the Queen; but in considering this charge, he would venture to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in 1853, £400 was voted for making the drawing-room a chapel. The drawingroom was not thought a fitting place for such a purpose, and the diningroom was converted into a chapel at an expense of £300 more in the following year. This was trifling with the public money, and he should be glad to see some better principle of action laid down by the Government, so that travelling architects might not entail upon the nation such expenses as these to gratify their whims and fancies, laid down by the Government. During the last twenty-five years we had expended on embassy and consular chapels £158,535, and since the passing of the 6th Geo. IV. a sum of £203,320 l. for the same purpose, so that at this moment we ought to have £203,000 worth of those chapels on the Continent. He traced a great deal of this expenditure to the system on which the Estimates were made up. There was a want of unity and consolidation in the Estimates, and Votes were to be found scattered over the whole of the Estimates connected with every department. The Secretary to the Treasury deserved thanks for having greatly improved the system of keeping the public accounts, but if the whole of the Estimates could be laid before the House in one view a still greater improvement would be effected. As an illustration of the present system, he might state that there was an estimate of £32,000 for secret service, but elsewhere there was a sum of £10,000 for the same service, making it £42,000 instead of £32,000. The latter sum was the annual Vote for the secret service, but the £10,000 was an annual charge on the Consolidated Fund. Then there was a sum of £148,000 for foreign Ministers charged on the Consolidated Fund; but, in addition to this, there were two other sums, one of £25,000, the other of £30,000. What he wanted to see was, all these various payments brought before them in one sum, so that the House might, at a glance, understand what the expenditure really was.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwas not at all surprised at the objections raised to this Vote, and the large sums proposed to be expended; but he would endeavour to give as good an account as he could of the several

1041
items complained of. In the first place, with regard to the Vote of £1,709, this not only includes repairs, furniture and fittings, and lighting and insurance, but an old account of £664, that ought to have been paid in former years. The sum for this year was therefore £1,100 instead of £1,700. The next item was £566 for taking down the old front wall in the Rue d'Anjou, and building another. This was really necessary, and he apprehended there could be no objection to it. For the next Vote, namely, £626, he was responsible. It was rendered necessary, in consequence of a fire at the Embassy, and it was hoped would prevent the recurrence of such a calamity in future. There was next a sum of £550 for preparing the chapel and anteroom for her Majesty when in Paris in August last. A great deal more, however, was done than was necessary for the reception of her Majesty, because repairs that were absolutely necessary for the chapel, were at the same time executed. The place was in a bad state, and it was thought better to have what was necessary done at once when the repairs were being executed in the chapel. The most material sum was that of £1,627 for professional remuneration to the architect, including personal and travelling expenses for 1854–55, and which were incurred before he entered upon his present office. He must say this was an indefensible Vote, though the charge was a fair one for the time the architect was employed. He thought, however, he should have been called back before he incurred so great an expense. There was in this item a sum of £200 for 1856, but he hoped the whole of this would not be required, and it was not his intention to allow more. With regard to Constantinople, the expenditure was for ordinary works, including repairs, the salary of the clerk in charge, and the payment of permanent workmen, and he did not think £1,000 too much for those purposes. With respect to the remuneration of Sir Charles Barry, that was for revising plans in 1848, and had been brought under the consideration of the House years ago. Nevertheless, he had thought it his duty to submit to the House in the present estimate everything outstanding; but next year no old accounts would be brought forward.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that if he had had any doubt before about the propriety of dividing the Committee on the Vote, it would have been removed by the statement
1042
of the right hon. Baronet. If £200 were too much for the architect's personal and travelling expenses in reference to Paris in 1856, surely £946 must be too much for the same purposes in 1853. With regard to Constantinople, nothing could possibly be said in support of the extravagance there, and he should certainly persist in his Amendment.
MR. PELLATTinquired what was the name of this architect, and how much per cent he received?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLreplied that the architect's name was Albano, and that he was not paid by a percentage, but by allowances.
MR. HENLEYthought the allowance to the architect enormous, and that it ought to bear a more fair proportion to the work done.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSwished to know on what principle these payments were made? Was the architect sent to Paris and allowed to remain there as long as he pleased, or was any check placed upon his proceedings?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that he had already stated that this was a most improper Vote, because the portion of the expense incurred in 1854 ought to have been brought before the House at that time. The same observation applied to the expense incurred in 1855, before he filled his present office. In reply to the question as to what instructions were given to the architect when sent to Paris, he had to state that he directed him to proceed to Paris, to do his work as soon as possible, and to return with all convenient despatch.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGthought that the Committee would be inclined to agree with the right hon. Baronet that this Vote was not a correct one. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman meant merely to express dissatisfaction at the Vote, he should have no hesitation in voting with the hon. and learned Gentleman; but the Committee could not arrive at a correct Vote until they knew precisely what engagements the Government were under to Mr. Albano, and how much ought in justice to be allowed. He therefore suggested that the Vote should be withdrawn and referred to a Select Committee.
MR. HENLEYexpressed his concurrence in the suggestion.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLexplained, that when these accounts were brought to him, he thought them very heavy, and he

1043
therefore placed them in the hands of an officer of the Board of Works, whose duty it was to examine such accounts. That officer assured him that they were proper charges, and it was not before he received that assurance that they were placed on the Estimates.
MR. HUTCHINSinquired whether it was necessary to send an architect all the way to Madrid, when the Ambassador there wanted an outlay on his residence of merely £300?
MR. SPOONERpointed out that in a subsequent Estimate there was a charge of £470 to this same Mr. Albano for professional services rendered by him in connection with the Protestant cemetery at Madrid, the whole expenditure on which only amounted to £357; and this £470, moreover, was stated to be a charge over and above the sum of £300 already received by him.
MR. MUNTZsaid, this Vote was a specimen of the manner in which the public accounts were allowed to run into arrear. Things were just as bad with regard to the building in which they were sitting as with regard to these Ambassadors' houses; indeed, the same mismanagement might be traced in every department. The money was got too easily, and the consequence was it went too easily.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEthought that, as the Government could not give any explanation of this Vote, it was impossible for them to resist its postponement. More than half the money spent in connection with the cemetery at Madrid, to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had called the attention of the Committee, had been spent on a road, and surely the Government had not sent an architect to Madrid to repair a road.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid that his object was to postpone the Vote; but, as he could not make a specific Motion to that effect, he should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it would be quite new to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into a Vote. How could the Committee inquire into the charges of an architect for work done at Paris, Madrid and Constantinople. There was not the slightest doubt that, strictly speaking, each of these charges ought to have been the subject of an Estimate before the expense was actually incurred. The principle of Mr. Albano's
1044
payment was so much a day and an allowance for travelling expenses. He was sent to paris by the Board of Works, and by some inadvertence he was allowed to remain there longer than was necessary for the completion of his duties. Neither he nor his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works nor the Secretary to the Treasury was personally responsible for this expenditure, and they could give, therefore, no explanation from their own personal knowledge of the subject. The President of the Board of Works, it appeared, had referred Mr. Albano's charges to the proper officer in his own department, and had been informed by him that they were just and reasonable. He would leave it, therefore, to the House to say whether inquiry would be of any benefit to the public service; but it seemed to him that the only result would be that, however much this irregularity was to be regretted, Mr. Albano's charges were such as the Committee could scarcely refuse to grant.
MR. DISRAELIobserved, that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not pointed out any remedy in lieu of a Committee, he seemed rather hopeless of any practical benefit arising in this matter from any process whatever. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that it was useless to discuss the question at all; and in that case, therefore, there was a primâ facie case in favour of the proposition of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth. It would appear as though the right hon. Gentleman were attempting to disclaim a responsibility which properly belonged to a Government to which he and his colleagues had succeeded, but, remembering the circumstances under which he who was personally responsible for this item, and who could have given the necessary explanation on the subject, was not present among them, it was hardly gracious of the right hon. Gentleman to disclaim that responsibility which it might have been supposed that he and his colleagues would cheerfully accept. It was perfectly clear that this was an item which the Government, who were responsible for it, could neither vindicate nor explain, and it was not unreasonable, therefore, that the Committee should, under these circumstances, fall back on the proposition of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, and ask for a Select Committee to get that explanation which the Government could not afford.

1045
Unless they did interfere in a very decided manner when items of this sort which the Government could not explain were brought before them, the business of a Committee of Supply would become a mere farce. The least thing that could be expected from a Government was, that it should explain and defend the estimates which it brought forward, and when it could not do that, it was the duty of the Committee of Supply to take the matter out of the hands of the Government, and obtain for itself the information necessary for the public service.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had given the Committee as full an explanation as he was able. He had stated that he did not attempt altogether to vindicate these items. However, if the Committee thought it was desirable that these matters should be made the subject of investigation before a Select Committee, Her Majesty's Government had not any wish to interpose any objection to an inquiry as to the expenditure on account of these objects. In the meantime, therefore, he was prepared to withdraw the Vote, to afford an opportunity for such an inquiry.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he should withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn:—Amendment and Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Vote was then agreed to:

(21.) £2,084, British Seamen's Hospital at Constantinople.

(22.) £6,000, Spurn Point.

LORD HOTHAMsaid, that on a recent occasion an irruption of the river Humber had taken place on the Spurn Point, which might have been very easily repaired, and at a small expense, if any person in authority had been on the spot; but in consequence of the person whose duty it was to attend to this living at a great distance, the injury which would at first have been but trifling, became so great that it ultimately led to an expenditure of an enormous magnitude. He hoped some arrangement would be made to have a responsible person on the spot, who would be able to give the necessary directions.
MR. MACARTNEYasked, whether the sum now proposed to be voted would complete the works necessary to be done?
SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, that it was impossible to state any particular
1046
sum which would be required for that purpose. The utmost economy would be observed.
Vote agreed to, as were also the two following:—

(23.) £627, Menai Straits.

(24.) £1,053, Professors in the University of Cambridge.

(25.) Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding £15,529, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Salaries and Expenses of the Incumbered Estates Commission, Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1867."
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that he should object to the first three items of this Vote—viz., the Chief Commissioner, £1,549 16 s. 10 d.; his examiner, 400 l.; and his clerk, 150 l.—unless he received some satisfactory explanation as to the future constitution of the Court. A Committee was now sitting on the subject of the Incumbered Estates Court—whether they should discontinue it, or make it permanent, or amalgamate it with the Irish Court of Chancery—and he believed that it was not improbable that the result would be that they would recommend that the Court should consist of two Judges only. He believed that Committee had nearly finished its labours and would present its Report in the course of a few days. In the meanwhile he would ask whether the House was prepared to maintain the unconstitutional, mischievous, and indefensible principle of paying a Judge of the Court of the Exchequer for neglecting his duty, in order that he might sit as a Judge in another Court? He did not complain of paying a proper salary to the Chief Commissioner (Baron Richards), but he believed it to be the fact that that gentleman had never gone circuit since he had been appointed a Commissioner of the Incumbered Estates Court. What was the conflict of principle involved in this case? You first appointed a man of great legal ability to be a Judge, and you paid him liberally. In that capacity he was perfectly independent; but you then appointed him a Commissioner of another Court, making him dependent for the continuance of his office on the will of the Government of the day. Now, the position of a Judge ought to be such that he should be independent of everybody; that he should hope for nothing, and fear nothing. It might be said that these appointments were originally made by

1047
gentlemen sitting upon the Opposition benches; but there was a great distinction to be drawn between appointing persons to Commissionerships for two or three years and appointing them for a permanency. The establishment of this Court was a measure of emergency, intended to meet a difficulty, and then to cease. But he thought it was a fair ground of complaint against the present Government that they should have continued so long to abstract, as it were, a Judge from the service of the country, giving him patronage and making him dependent on the Minister of the day. What he wished to know was, whether the Government were prepared to sanction a principle which would wholly subvert the independence of the Judges. It seemed to him that two Judges would be sufficient for the performance of the duties of the Incumbered Estates Court—at least for another year—and he should unquestionably require that the present Chief Commissioner should be restored to his proper functions in the Court of Exchequer. He respected the ability and the knowledge of that learned person; but, if the Government required a Commissioner, let them employ another person. Certainly £1,542 a year was a moderate charge for the Chief Commissioner of the Incumbered Estates Court; but at the same time they paid this gentleman £3,500 a year for being absent from circuit. He requested, therefore, to be informed whether it was intended that Baron Richards should be continued as a working Judge of the Incumbered Estates Court? While acting as a Commissioner it was impossible that he could attend the Court of Exchequer. What he meant to say was, that it was impossible for a man to be in two places at one time, "barring that he was not a bird."
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman knew well that the answer to his question would depend upon the result of the deliberations of their Committee now sitting upstairs. The whole question was before that Committee in the shape of a Bill to regulate the Incumbered Estates Court and reform the Court of Chancery, and it was not for him to predict what might be the result of its inquiries. Until it had arrived at a conclusion, he should not be in a position to say whether the Government would ask the House to continue the Incumbered Estates Court with its present staff, or abolish it and transfer its jurisdiction to
1048
the Court of Chancery. But for the information of the House, he might state what had taken place. The Incumbered Estates Commission was appointed in 1849. At that time three Commissioners were selected—one, an English barrister (Mr. Hargreave); another, Mr. Commissioner Longford, who was certainly not entitled to the appellation of a Whig lawyer; and the third, Mr. Baron Richards, a Judge in the Court of Exchequer, who had discharged the duties assigned to him most faithfully and zealously. It was necessary to have a Judge of experience to preside, and therefore Baron Richards was appointed. His salary as Chief Commissioner in the Incumbered Estates Court was £1,500 per annum, but, after making certain necessary deductions, his whole emoluments for performing the heavy duties of his Court did not amount to more than £700 or £800. In 1852, when Lord Derby was in office, the usual annual Vote was passed for defraying the expenses of the Incumbered Estates Court, including the salary of Baron Richards, and he did not recollect that the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen upon that occasion intimated any intention to dispense with the services of the Chief Commissioner. The Vote, in fact, had been passed every year since the Court was established. He would remind the House that after the Committee had made its Report it would be necessary during the present Session to lay before the House some specific measure either for the continuance or the abolition of the Incumbered Estates Court, and that would be the proper occasion for the Government to state what they intended to do with the Commissioners, including Mr. Baron Richards.
COLONEL DUNNEthought that, after the statement which the Committee had just heard from the Attorney-General for Ireland, it would be expedient to postpone the Vote until some decision had been arrived at with respect to the Incumbered Estates Court.
Motion made and Question proposed "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."
MR. WHITESIDEmaintained that the argument of the Attorney General was by itself insufficient to induce the Committee to defer the Vote. It was true that the Vote was passed in 1852, but with a pledge on the part of the Government to introduce a measure to give a jurisdiction

1049
to the Court of Chancery, which would have prevented the necessity of making a similar charge in future years. He brought in that Bill himself, and the person who resisted it the most was a late colleague of the Attorney General, the present Mr. Justice Keogh. He told that Gentleman that he would live to see the day when he and his friends would support the principle of the measure with the same zeal as he then opposed it, and so it had actually come to pass. What he complained of was that they should keep a Judge from the performance of his duties in the Court of Exchequer to preside in this Court. He hoped the Vote would be withdrawn.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDcalled attention to the fact that the Vote was only an estimate up to the 31st of March next. Whatever might be the result of the deliberations of the Committee upstairs, the Incumbered Estates Court would continue its operations for the greater part, if not the whole of that time.
MR. WHITESIDE, being dissatisfied with the explanations of the Attorney General, moved that the Chairman do report progress.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Committee would agree to the Vote. All it was asked do was to vote a sum not exceeding £15,529 to-words the expenses of the Incumbered Estates Commission as at present constituted. That was a maximum sum. If, in consequence of any change which might be effected, a less sum were required, that less sum would alone be issued by the Treasury; and, although the Government asked for a continuance of the salary of the Chief Commissioner at the rate of £1,549 a year, that specification did not pledge the House by the Appropriation Act to assign that amount of salary to Baron Richards.
LORD NAASthought that the Motion for the postponement of the Vote was very reasonable. The Select Committee would probably make its report in the course of a week or fortnight at farthest, and in the event of any fresh legislation taking place the Vote would have to be materially altered. In fact, the Government would have to come to the House with another Vote to enable them to carry out the new arrangements.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONasked the Committee to consider how the matter really stood. A Select Committee was inquiring into the constitution of the Incumbered
1050
Estates Court. They were told that it might report in the course of a fortnight. That Report, when presented, would have to be considered, and then a Bill founded upon it would have to be prepared and introduced. We were now in the beginning of June, and he asked the Committee if it was likely that in the course of the present Session anything in the way of legislation would be done which would render the Vote unnecessary?
MR. HENLEYthought there was considerable weight in what the noble Lord had said. We were getting fast to the end of the first quarter, and he apprehended that another would elapse before it would be possible to make any change. Moreover, the adoption of the Vote would not interrupt the removal of Baron Richards from his office in the Incumbered Estates Court.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, his only object was to hear from the Government that, if the Vote passed, they would consider fairly the impropriety of having the same gentleman filling the office of Judge in two courts which sat at the same time.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONadmitted that such an arrangement was in principle objectionable. It was only a temporary measure.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to.

(26.) £3,000, Irish Census.

(27.) £3,000, Gallery of Arts in Dublin.

(28.) £29,400, Lighthouses abroad.

(29.) £15,000, Australian Expedition.

MR. WILSONstated, in reply to Mr. W. Williams, that the object of the Vote was to enable the Government, in conjunction with the Geographical Society, to explore the northern and western districts of the important colony of Australia. The Government thought it their duty to do all in their power to promote that object.
Vote agreed to.

(30.) Monument at Scutari.

COLONEL NORTHbelieved an universal desire prevailed among his countrymen that a monument should be erected to the memory of the brave men who fell in the late war, but he thought a testimonial for which a Vote of £17,500 was required might be erected in this country with greater propriety than at Scutari. He would suggest that the proposed monument should be erected in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital, or in some other place

1051
in this country, where it might be seen by many gallant soldiers who had served in the war, and by the relatives of those who had fallen. Some testimonial might be placed at Scutari; but he doubted the propriety of erecting there an expensive monument, because, when the British army was withdrawn, there would be no guarantee for its preservation.
MR. STAFFORDexpressed his earnest hope that the Government would persevere in their determination to erect the monument at Scutari. Many fond though mournful associations were connected with that place, and if there was any danger that the sanctity of its graveyards would be violated, the feelings of those whose friends and relatives were buried there would be deeply wounded; while, if no such danger existed, he thought there was no more appropriate site for the erection of a national tribute to the memory of the brave. He had been informed that a portion of the proposed monument was already on its way to Scutari. If it were thought desirable a similar monument could be erected in this country; but he believed there would be a general feeling of disappointment if the Government hesitated in carrying out the plan upon which they had decided. The design for the Scutari monument was so exceedingly beautiful that he would rejoice to see a similar testimonial in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital.
MR. BOWYERthought that Balaklava, or any of those places at which our troops had maintained the honour of the British arms in the Crimea might more appropriately be selected as the site of the proposed monument than Scutari, where the hospitals of our army had been established, and where, he feared, in consequence of mismanagement, the lives of many brave soldiers had been sacrificed. He was also of opinion that the sum proposed for the monument was excessive. Taking into consideration the difference between the value of money in this country and in Turkey, it was perfectly monstrous to demand a sum of £17,500 for such a purpose. He thought that before the Committee agreed to the Vote, they should know what the monument was to be, what artist was to be employed, and how it happened that so large an amount was required.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bowyer) did not seem to be aware that the monument at Scutari had been designed by a
1052
very distinguished artist, who was now resident in this country, that it had been prepared in this country, and that it was to be sent out to Scutari for erection. The Vote was not asked at random, but it was the amount required for a monument of extreme beauty, which would, he was sure, be an object of admiration to all who saw it, and which would perpetuate the memory of the gallant deeds performed by our brave troops. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) that Scutari was the most appropriate place for the erection of such a testimonial. If Parliament chose they could sanction the erection of another monument in this country; but he thought it would be disgraceful to the British nation, if in that distant quarter of the world, in which the honour of the British arms had been so nobly supported, no record of the valour of our troops remained. Whether or not Parliament might sanction the erection of another monument in this country, he hoped the Committee would not withhold their assent from this Vote; and indeed it was almost too late to do so, for as the hon. Member for Northamptonshire had stated, a portion of the monument was already on its way to Scutari.
MR. BOWYERthought that before the public money was expended upon a monument, the public should have had an opportunity of forming a judgment upon it.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that if the hon. Member had gone to the Crystal Palace he would there have become acquainted with the design of this monument.
Vote agreed to.

(31.) £3,691, Orange River Territory.

MR. LABOUCHEREexplained that there were still some claims unsettled, but he hoped that the next would be the last year in which this Vote would appear upon the Estimates.
MR. ADDERLEYexpressed his regret that this territory had been abandoned at a cost equal to what would have sufficed to preserve it. The people of England ought not to forget that the present Government was the first which had abandoned any territory which had once belonged to this country.
Vote agreed to.

(32.) Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding £30,361, be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Commissioners

1053
for auditing the Public Accounts, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The House resumed.

BLEACHING &c., WORKS (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. I. BUTTexpressed a wish that this Bill should be read a second time, and should afterwards be referred to a Select Committee if the House should approve of that course.
MR. KIRKsaid, as the Bill was one which introduced a new principle, he should oppose the second reading at that hour. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
LORD NAASthought that a Bill of so much importance should not be read a second time without full and fair discussion. He trusted therefore that his hon. and learned Friend would fix the second reading for such a time as to afford an opportunity for such discussion.
SIR GEORGE GREYurged the postponement of the Bill.
MR. I. BUTTappealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, either to support the second reading of the Bill, or to give him an early day for bringing it on.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he should be very happy to give the hon. and learned Gentleman an early day for the purpose, but that Government business was pressing. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Member that he might find the opportunity which he sought upon some Wednesday, or in the course of the morning sittings to which they must soon resort.
MR. I. BUTTconsented to postpone his Bill. Debate adjourned, with a view of naming an early day for its further consideration.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sherburn Hospital; Endowed School at Moulton; Magdalen Hospital (Bath); Stoke Poges Hospital; Judicial Procedure, &c. (Scotland).
2a Hay and Straw Trade.
3a Peace Preservation (Ireland); Reformatory Schools (Scotland); National Gallery.
ROYAL ASSENT—Annuities (No. 2); Bankers' Compositions; Fire Insurances.

RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES —REPORTED DISMISSAL OF THE BRITISH MINISTER.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that their Lordships were aware that a public journal, which was supposed to possess the confidence of Government, had stated that Mr. Crampton, Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, had been summarily dismissed from the country to which he was accredited. He was sure the Government could not for a moment suppose that such an announcement would be heard in this country without affecting the minds of every one. He begged to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would confirm the statement that Mr. Crampton was on his passage home?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I can only say that I have not seen the statement in the papers to which he refers, and I am not
950
aware that any official information to that effect has reached Her Majesty's Government.

THE LIMITED LIABILITY BILL— PETITION.
LORD OVERSTONE presented a petition from the Manchester Commercial Association for the repeal of the Limited Liability Bill, as being a measure which would lead to excessive speculation, which would damage the commercial character of the country, and which contained no provision against reckless trading on the part of the managers of companies which might be formed under the Act.
LORD DENMANsaid, as the noble Lord was in his place, he wished to contradict a statement made by him some time since, that the supporters of the first Limited Liability Bill had been none but Members of this House connected with Her Majesty's Government. He begged to say that he had given an independent vote, and had agreed to some of the Amendments proposed in the Bill, which he had partly supported, because he thought it would be injurious to the country for it to be known that Her Majesty's Government, when engaged in war, were defeated on almost the only measure of internal improvement which they had attempted to carry. He believed that the Bill, with those restrictions, would be a very good Bill; and he regretted that more time had not been taken for it—but that was impossible; and he begged to repeat it, that he would not be the servile adherent of this or any other Administration.

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION (HOUSE OF LORDS) BILL.
Amendment reported, according to order.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had been suggested in Committee that an Amendment should be made to enable persons who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor to be appointed Deputy Speakers under this Act, although they had not held judicial appointments for five years.
LORD REDESDALEobjected to the Amendment. He thought it was important for the House to retain the services of the independent law Lords who now attended the hearing of the appeals. The new Deputy Speakers were intended to assist them, and supply their unavoidable

951
absence, and not as a substitute for them.
The Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MINTOobjected to certain portions of the 6th clause, on the ground that they were calculated to limit unduly the prerogative of the Crown, moved a series of verbal amendments with the view of obviating his objections; and to add the following new proviso:—
"Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting or otherwise affecting the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, such as it existed prior to the passing of this Act."
EARL GRANVILLEdid not believe that the House of Lords had a right by itself, or by any mere Resolution of its; own, to decide the question of prerogative. Nevertheless, practically the House did decide it, because if their Lordships resolved not to admit a life Peer, a life Peer could not be forced upon the House. Such being the anomalous state of affairs, it appeared to him that the best thing to be done was for the three powers of the realm to come to a unanimous decision as to what the practice should be for the future. It could not be denied that the Crown had abandoned a portion of its prerogative in consenting to the introduction of the present Bill. At the same time the House had made a great concession, after declaring that life Peerages were unconstitutional, in admitting that a limited number should sit in that House. Such a mutual arrangement having been arrived at it would be undesirable to disturb it.
LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his satisfaction at what had just fallen from the President of the Council, and observed that it was no more than he had expected from the high an honourable character of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that there were many things which astonished him with regard to this Bill. He had heard, for example, that a compromise had been entered into in regard to it; but by whom, he asked, had that compromise been made? for certainly that House had never entered into any compromise. The effect of the Bill would be to cut down and impair the prerogative of the Crown. The noble Marquess, who was not now present (the Marquess of Lansdowne), had stated on a previous evening that no consideration should induce him to support this Bill if in any manner it infringed the prerogative of the
952
Crown. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had stated upon the same occasion that it would In no way affect the prerogative; but now they were told by the noble Earl the President of the Council that it was intended to limit the prerogative of the Crown. It appeared, therefore, that they were now about to pass a Bill which, though intended, no doubt, for a good and important purpose, contained provisions of great stringency, as to the effect of which different members of the Government held views utterly at variance with one another. He reminded their Lordships that they were about to launch this Bill on the stormy sea of the House of Commons; and it behoved them thoroughly to understand its nature and purport before sending it down to that House. He trusted that the noble Earl would persevere in the Amendments which he had proposed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the arguments of others had been imputed to him as his own in the course of the debates upon that subject. It would be recollected that a proviso had been proposed that nothing should be introduced into the Bill that would affect the prerogative of the Crown. It was then said by certain noble Lords that if there was no prerogative upon that point, the proviso would not affect it. But he (the Lord Chancellor) had never said there was no prerogative; on the contrary, he believed there was until that Bill should have passed. He could not say, therefore, that the proviso would be useless; but he thought that fair dealing required that the Bill should pass in its present form.
LORD DENMANsaid, he must remark that noble Lords spoke of law peerages as if they were to be obtained by lawyers as easily as blackberries from every hedge; but even the late Lord Tenterden was nine years Lord Chief Justice of England before he was made a Peer, and he did not believe that his opinions were less regarded in their Lordships' House during those nine years than in the five subsequent years, in which he was a Peer. With regard to Lord Wensleydale's title, he hoped it would be fully understood that it was the reward for past services and not a gage for future exertions. With regard to his father, he knew how highly he valued the honour of a peerage, and the magnanimity of the Monarch who conferred it upon him, and he should be

953
happy at once to show the correspondence upon the subject to any noble Lord interested in it, though not to read it for general publication at present. His father had considered it the greatest honour which it was in the power of the Crown to bestow. With regard to the present measure, he was so convinced that it would satisfy no one, that he would move it be next considered or read a third time that day three months.
THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that such a Motion could not be made on bringing up the Report.
LORD DENMANsaid, he would move on the debate, as to the third reading—that it be read a third time that day three months and divide the House upon it.
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

BURIAL-GROUND, BLANDFORD—NON-CONSECRATION OF BURIAL GROUNDS.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY presented a petition of Parishioners of Blandford Forum complaining of the non-consecration of the new burial-ground by the Bishop of the Diocese, and praying for the amendment of the 32nd section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85. The noble Earl said that the present case might not in itself be one of great importance, but it became a matter of serious consideration when they bore in mind that there were many more cemeteries which had been erected in the same circumstances and under the authority of the same Act with that of Blandford, and it was therefore necessary some decision should be come to in order to avoid a great deal of inconvenience and public scandal. Their Lordships would recollect some years ago, in consequence of some apprehensions which existed on the subject of intramural interments, an Act was passed with the view of providing a remedy for the evils that prevailed. By that Act power was given to the Government to close, by an Order in Council, existing burying-grounds, and the persons who had the charge of those burying-grounds were required to construct other graveyards and to build chapels within which might be celebrated the burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England, provision also being made for the service being conducted according to the views of the Nonconformists. The petitioners now before their Lordships stated that they had complied with all the requirements of the Act—that they had
954
formed a graveyard and constructed a chapel for the purpose of having performed in it a burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England, the old graveyard of the parish having been closed by an Order in Council. They complained, however, that the diocesan refused to consecrate the new ground because a communion table had not been set up in the chapel for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Now, their Lordships would observe that these cemetery chapels were entirely the creatures of the Act to which he had referred, the 15 & 16 Vict., c. 85, having had no existence before, and were scarcely known to the civil or ecclesiastical law; and therefore they were to be dealt with within the four corners of the statute which created them; and it appeared to him that the refusal of the Bishop to consecrate in this case arose from a complete misapprehension of the law. In the first place, it would be found, on reference to the rubric, that there was no necessity for a chapel at all for the performance of the burial-service; these chapels had been constructed for purposes of decency and convenience and to afford shelter during inclement weather. By the 16th and 17th sections of the Act it was provided—
"It shall be lawful for any burial-board to build on any land to be purchased or appropriated for a burial-ground, under this act, and according to a plan to be approved of by the Bishop of the diocess, a chapel for the performance of the burial-service according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland; and such burial-ground may be consecrated by the bishop of the diocess, when the same shall appear to him to be in a fit and proper condition for the purpose of interment according to the rites of the United Church."
The Act was precise in limiting the purpose of the chapel to the performance of the burial-service according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, and it provided that the ground might be consecrated by the Bishop when such should appear to him to be in a fit condition for the purpose of interment with such rites. It said nothing about consecrating the chapel, but only the burying-ground, when approved by the Bishop. Now, to show the intention of the Legislature, and that this was no haphazard arrangement, but designed to exclude these chapels from consecration, he would shortly state the history of the Act. In 1850 he was a Member of the Board of Health, which presented a very long Report, recommending the construction of

955
cemeteries, and the erection of chapels in these cemeteries for the performance of the funeral service. The Board, however, made one recommendation which the Legislature did not approve. They said,—
"We recommend that in every cemetery there be a part consecrated, … and that in the consecrated part there be erected a church adapted to the purpose, and fitted also for full service according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England."
The intention of the Board was that in each of the new cemeteries a chapel should be erected in which the full and complete service of the Church of England, including the administration of the sacraments, could be performed. The Government of the day adopted the recommendation of the Board on that subject, aud the 8th clause of the Bill which was proposed provided:—
"It shall be lawful for the said Board to build in every such burial-ground a chapel for the performance of service according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland."
The House of Commons took great offence at that proposition, and some hon. Gentlemen declared that it contemplated a system of church extension under the pretence of carrying out the views of the Board. The Bill was committed pro formâ, to receive amendments, and the following clause was introduced:—
"It shall be lawful to build in every such burial-ground a suitable chapel for the performance of burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England and Ireland."
Their Lordships would observe that, although provision was made for the erection of chapels, not a word was said about their consecration; and he thought, therefore, it was evidently the intention of the Legislature that these chapels should be used simply and solely for the performance of the burial-service, and that they should not receive consecration which would fit them for the performance of all the rites and ordinances of the Established Church. If the cemetery chapels were consecrated according to the existing forms of consecration, the provisions of the statute would be directly violated, because by the terms of the statute those chapels were excluded from consecration, which ceremony was to apply simply to the burial-grounds. He thought it was perfectly clear from the consecration service now used, that that service was only intended for buildings in which the full services of the Church of
956
England were to be performed. In 1712 a form of consecration was drawn up by the Upper House of Convocation; it was sent down to the Lower House, and, although it never received the Royal assent, it was, according to Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, the form in general use. That form, however, provided for the administration of the Communion, and it was evidently intended to be used only for the consecration of churches or chapels in which the full services of the Church of England were to be performed. In 1712 a separate service was appointed for the consecration of graveyards, in which no mention of the Lord's Supper occurred, but it was simply said, "The ordinary service for the day shall be read at the church, except when it is otherwise ordered," and then a few additions were prescribed. He was aware it might be said that a Bishop in drawing up a form of consecration could adopt any form he chose; but that discretion applied only to buildings which were intended for the full performance of the rites and ceremonials of the Church of England, and not to the mode of consecrating graveyards. In 1712 the Upper House of Convocation recommended a form for the "consecration of a churchyard singly," apart from the church, and that form, as he had stated, did not contain a word about the administration of the Lord's Supper. The Act of Parliament provided that the graveyards should be consecrated, but excluded the cemetery chapels from consecration; and it was evident that, when the form of consecration of 1712—which was the basis of all forms now used—was drawn up, the administration of the Lord's Supper at the consecration of a graveyard was not contemplated. What, then, could be the use of setting up in cemetery chapels communion tables at which the Lord's Supper could be administered only once? He understood that the burial-board and the parishioners of Blandford were ready to comply with the wish of the Bishop for the erection of a communion table in the cemetery chapel, as a matter of request; but they protested against being called upon to submit to an episcopal mandate for the erection of a communion table for which they saw no necessity:—they said that if they yielded in this matter they did not know to what lengths they might not be asked to go on some future occasion. The petitioners prayed, therefore, that their Lordships would take into consideration

957
the provisions of the Act of Parliament, with the view of relieving them from an episcopal mandate which, in their opinion, was not justified by law.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not rise to address their Lordships for the first time on a matter personal to himself without some embarrassment. He felt deeply concerned that the prayer of the petitioners had been supported by the noble Earl, whom he greatly admired for the interest he took in all good works, and whose sympathy and co-operation—the noble Earl being one of the most influential laymen in his diocese—he was most anxious to obtain. But he (the Bishop of Salisbury) thought he would be able to show the noble Earl and the House, that the petitioners had no cause of complaint against him; but that if there was any ground of complaint it was on his own side. In 1853, an Act of Parliament was passed relating to burials beyond the limits of the metropolis, and with that Act certain provisions of former Acts were incorporated, which gave a power to Bishops with reference to the fitness of burial-grounds for consecration and to the plans of chapels. In this case, no difference whatever had arisen between the burial-board and himself with regard to the burial-ground, although all the arrangements connected with that ground were not precisely what he could have desired; but very great difficulties had occurred with respect to the cemetery chapel. Some persons—and the noble Earl apparently—looked upon such chapels merely as receiving chapels—as buildings intended to afford shelter to the clergymen and mourners during the performance of the burial-service. But he (the Bishop of Salisbury) took a different view of the matter. The words of the Act declared the chapel to be for the celebration of the burial-service of the United Church of England and Ireland; and part of that service had to be performed in the chapel. The question relating to these buildings was undoubtedly a new one, and when he was placed over his diocese he had some difficulty in determining how to deal with them. Lord Coke laid it down distinctly that the law took no cognisance of any church or chapel until it had been consecrated. The edifices in which the burial-service of the Church was performed were therefore not mere shelters from the blast, but places which required consecration. A difficulty, however, arose as to
958
how they were to be consecrated, there being no form prescribed for the purpose, and the Act of Parliament restricting the use of the chapels to the performance of the burial-service alone. Still, in coming to a decision on the matter, he was not left wholly without precedent. He had for his guide the practice of his venerated predecessor, who was in the habit of including the celebration of the Holy Communion in the form of consecration which he adopted. The form drawn up in 1712, to which the noble Earl had alluded, also comprised the Holy Communion; and that eminent man, Bishop Andrewes, invariably treated that rite as an essential part of the ceremonial of consecration. Moreover, according to the canon law, it was a grave question whether the solemnisation of the Lord's Supper was not of the substance of the act of consecration. In the first place, then, he held that these chapels ought to be consecrated, and next, that in their consecration the Holy Communion should be celebrated. In the exercise of the discretion reposed in him as Bishop, he had made this principle the rule in his diocess. That being so, it was obvious that a communion table was indispensable for these buildings. He had had twelve other cases like the present to deal with, in none of which had the slightest unkindly or jarring feeling been excited between him and the burial-boards; and he might therefore appeal to their Lordships, whether he was a likely person to dispose of matters of this kind in an overbearing or dictatorial spirit. Several letters had passed between him and the burial-board of Blandford and the noble Lord (Lord Portman) on the subject, and these letters, he thought, would prove that he had acted in no such spirit in this matter. A communication having been made to his secretary last year, to the effect that the plans of the Blandford burial-board were prepared, he immediately replied that there ought to be a table in the chapel to enable the rite of consecration to be duly performed. The answer sent to this by the secretary of the burial-board was, that there would be no difficulty in meeting the wishes of the Bishop. Subsequently, however, his secretary received from the board the copy of a resolution which it had agreed to. The petitioners had complained of his conduct towards them; yet their own resolution was hardly so courteous, or, he might say, so dutiful towards their Bishop as it ought to have been. They remonstrated with him for

959
imposing heavy additional expenses on the ratepayers by his plan, especially as the chapel was intended for such limited uses, and not for Divine service generally. This was the way in which his simple requisition for the means of duly performing the act of consecration according to the dictates of his judgment and conscience as a Bishop of the Church was met by the burial-board. On the 17th of September he received a letter from a noble Lord (Lord Portman), accusing him of creating disturbance where there had always been harmony, and of pursuing a course calculated to increase the growing tendency to disparage episcopal consecration. The letter also pointed out that a persistance in his plan might interfere with the noble Lord's rights as patron of a neighbouring living, and it concluded by entreating him to reconsider his proposal.
The right rev. Prelate then read extracts from the correspondence between himself and the noble Lord. In his reply, he (the Bishop of Salisbury) defended the view he took of the nature of consecration; maintaining that his recommendation to the burial-board in regard to the fitting of the chapel, was moderate and reasonable; promising to seek advice on certain of the points raised by the noble Lord; and expressing a hope that the noble Lord would, on a fuller consideration of the case, be induced to place his powerful local influence on the side of episcopal authority. The noble Lord had a case drawn up and submitted to legal opinion; and the noble Lord's own legal advisers advised him that, inasmuch as the ceremony of consecration contemplated that the chapel should be limited to burial-service, they were satisfied that the precise form of the consecration could not give to the ceremony a more extended application. This being the case, he had indulged a hope that the controversy would then terminate, and that the whole matter in dispute would be amicably arranged. This expectation was unfortunately falsified by the event. A meeting, at which the noble Lord (Lord Portman) delivered a very irritating speech, was held at Blandford, and resulted in a resolution that a request should again be made to him (the Bishop of Salisbury) to consecrate the ground in another form than that which he believed in his conscience to be the right one, and without the celebration of Holy Communion. To that application he could not assent, and his reasons for declining to do so he explained most fully
960
in a letter which he addressed to the Secretary of the Blandford burial-board. That letter was written in the month of February; and shortly after its receipt another proposal was made to him, to the effect that, cutting off the large portion of the ground in which the building stood, he should consecrate the remainder. To that request, also, he was unable to accede, because the parish church was so far from the cemetery that it Would be impossible to perform that portion of the burial-service which was required to be performed in a church or chapel, and considerable dissatisfaction would not fail to be occasioned by the feeling that the funeral ceremony had been celebrated in an incomplete and defective manner. This unfortunate controversy had caused him deep pain, but he had been influenced throughout by the purest motives, and had acted from first to last under the conscientious conviction, which he still retained, that chapels, even though they should be strictly limited to the uses and purposes of the burial service, ought to be consecrated, and that the proper method of consecrating them was by administering the Holy Communion within their walls. This conviction furnished the main motive of his conduct; but he frankly owned that there was another consideration which, though not a matter of principle, had had some influence in forming his judgment on this subject. All Churchmen, having suffered a great loss by the separation of their church-yards from their parish churches, were naturally desirous that, in committing the bodies of their friends to the earth, the ceremony should be surrounded as much as possible by the circumstances ordinarily characteristic of the burial-service prescribed by their religion, and that the sacred edifice in which such service was performed should not look like a meetinghouse, but rather resemble a chapel of the Church of England. There was another view of the question which ought not to be disregarded. Though by the sentence of consecration these chapels were limited to the uses of the burial-service, it might become desirable that, should they become the centres of large populations (and he had already heard of two such instances), with the consent of the burial-board, and under the licence of the Bishop, a clergyman might hereafter perform in them all the services of the Established Church. Very probably such a circumstance would not arise in Blandford; but he had himself

961
received applications from the clergymen of cemetery chapels elsewhere, praying to be allowed to use the chapels for the accommodation of the populations which were already springing up around the cemeteries. In contemplation of such a contingency, it was manifestly desirable that the architectural arrangements of the chapel should be such as to allow the building to be applied to such purposes without incurring the necessity of making alterations. Since he had entered the House that evening, he had been informed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that if he would only address to the Blandford burial-board a request that they would accede to his views, they would at once do so. This was the first time that he had received any such intimation, and as he was not struggling for any point of personal dignity, but simply for that which he regarded as a question of principle, he would not hesitate to say that he was perfectly ready to make such a request. He had never wished to dictate to the board. He had desired to act towards them with perfect courtesy; and, as a man and a Christian minister, he should have been ashamed if all this discord had been created by the mere tone of his correspondence. He would leave it to their Lordships to say whether that correspondence was at all discourteous. For himself, he could only say that he had intended it to be quite the reverse. He had no objection to write again to the burial-board, as the noble Earl had suggested, asking them to accede to his request; and he hoped this would lead to a satisfactory termination of the matter. With him, this was no question of church ornament, but one affecting a vital principle—the testimony of the whole of Christendom to the right method of a Bishop discharging his duties. He had no objection to be the servant of all men; but he must remember that he had a higher duty to perform. With this assurance he trusted that the controversy would terminate, and that peace and good will would be restored.
LORD PORTMANsaid, he regretted that the right rev. Prelate should have unfortunately introduced a matter of personal, and somewhat local interest into the discussion of the question then under the consideration of the House. The question is one of grave importance, as it is in truth whether the Bishop is to interpret a law in a way that no lawyer can do, and
962
to found on such view, a question of conscience which the law did not contemplate as possible to arise under the enactment. But he must be excused for saying that the statements of the right rev. Prelate had not taken any persons by surprise who had heard or read the charge which he had lately delivered to the clergy of his diocese, in which he had alluded in a very high tone to the duties and prerogatives of the Bishops; and he regretted to find that the right rev. Prelate seemed disposed to carry out the views he had therein expressed by overt acts.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYrequested the noble Lord to point out the views of his to which he referred.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that the question had been regarded by the petitioners, the inhabitants of Blandford, not so much as a question of law and expediency as an attempt to exercise that extreme episcopal authority asserted by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate, in a portion of his charge, said that he was about to take certain means which he would recommend to his clergy for improving the training of the clergy, and of bringing the laity to consider the true bearing of Church questions; in other words, to subject the laity to a tyranny which he would impose through the medium of his Rural Deans. Again, he says "he will not leave the music and spiritual songs in his diocese in their present unauthorised state, but is preparing a Hymnal of his own"—so that even in melody he will interfere with his authority. Again, he says, he hopes the Holy Ghost may give him that inflexibilis obstinatio which characterised the First Christians. He quotes "a great Bishop" who is in the note named, "St. Bernard," who was no Bishop at all, but the celebrated Abbot of Clairvaux, so the accuracy of the right rev. Prelate is not to be depended upon. Another sentence from the charge lately delivered by the right rev. Prelate to the clergy of his diocese had weighed strongly with the inhabitants of Blandford in the course they had taken, and, coupled with other parts of this charge, might, perhaps, justify the laity in regarding the movements of the right rev. Prelate with great and anxious suspicion. After stating that he considered his office to be "Ministratio, non dominatio," he said:—
"Such maxims, indeed, carry me up to our Lord's commission to His Apostles, and make me feel that the blood of the Apostles (so to speak)

963
is in my veins, and that by it I have been ennobled,"
Now, they had heard a good deal about the power and spirit of the Apostles, but as far as he (Lord Portman) knew they had never before heard that any Bishops had the blood of the Apostles; and it seemed so strange to the laity of the diocese of Salisbury that they should at last have in that diocese a Prelate who bore the blood of the Apostles in his veins, that it made them view the acts of the right rev. Prelate with perhaps a little more anxiety than they would have been disposed to view them under other circumstances. They felt, that though it was, perhaps, scarcely worth while to raise any question about such a matter as a communion table, the Bishop might ask something a great deal more objectionable; and, as the discretion of giving or refusing consecration was invested in him, and in no one else, they resolved to petition Parliament against the continuance of that irresponsible power, or at all events, to ask that there should be an appeal to the Archbishop from the Bishop's decision. Now, he believed, that the form of consecration insisted on by the right rev. Prelate, in regard to this place at Blandford was not insisted on by any other Bishop; so that it appeared that this act of consecration was to be enforced as a sort of new Test Act upon the laity; and a new form of service was established, which the right rev. Prelate had thought proper to adopt by his own will, and not to adopt that advised by the old Convocation to which Lord Shaftesbury had referred, for places of this kind. This was not in accordance with the rule of any other Bishop. He (Lord Portman) had been informed, that only a short time ago, at Woolwich, a cemetery chapel had been consecrated by another right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) without any communion table at all. The right rev. Prelate said that he had a strong feeling on this subject, but it seemed to be almost confined to himself. In the dioceses of London and Winchester, the Holy Communion was not administered for the purposes of consecration; and, in point of fact, this was an individual rule of an individual Bishop, and it was a practice contrary to that observed in every other diocese in the kingdom. The expressions of the right rev. Prelate contained in his charge were such as rendered it not remarkable that the laity should look with
964
some jealousy upon a regulation of this kind; and when they found that the authority the right rev. Prelate sought to exercise on this occasion was not founded on law, they very naturally endeavoured to induce him to follow the course of his excellent predecessor, who, when he found that by insisting on the observance of this rule at a place near Blandford he was doing more harm than good, very wisely yielded the point. The right rev. Prelate had himself at no distant period of time consecrated an additional churchyard, near Blandford, attached to the old churchyard, and in that case he said nothing about administering the Holy Communion. The evil complained of, however, rested with Parliament, who gave power to the Bishop to use his discretion with regard to consecration or non-consecration; and, what was wished for was, that Parliament would alter this law—would consider whether they should vest with the Bishop an irresponsible power, without the possibility of appeal from his decision. It would probably be said, "Why can't you go to the Court of Queen's Bench, and get a mandamus?" Now, he held it to be as wrong to try and force the Bishop to do that which, in his conscience, he believed wrong, as it was for the Bishop to attempt to force others to do that which they believed they ought not to do. But a mandamus would not lie, for this reason—that there was no law, except the new Cemetery Act, which required consecration. Consecration was, he believed, a matter of modern invention, certainly since the Reformation. It was a question whether the greater part of the churchyards throughout the kingdom which existed before the Reformation, and which were said to be consecrated, had ever been consecrated at all. Under the Roman Catholic system the churches were dedicated; the ground around the churchyards was never consecrated, the practice being, he was assured on high authority, for the priest, in a few words at the time of burial, to hallow the particular portion of ground in which the corpse was deposited. It was probable, therefore, that the churches and churchyards which they had received from the hands of the Roman Catholics had never been consecrated at all. The judgment of Lord Stowell, in the case of Gilbert v. Buzzard, 3 Phill. 348, is worth a careful study on the point; so is the work of Dr. John Ayliffe, called Parergon Juris Anglicani. The

965
Queen's Bench could not compel the Bishop to do that which the law did not require, neither would the court compel the burial-board to comply with any whims of any Bishop, provided the burial-ground was fit for the interment of the dead, according to the ritual of the United Church of England and Ireland. Until that evening they had been unable to discover why the right rev. Prelate wanted to consecrate this building. The law merely required that there should be a mortuary chapel attached to the cemetery; and the right rev. Prelate required that it should be a Church of England chapel. That was the advantage of bringing these matters before the House, where they could speak out, face to face, in a straightforward manner, and get at the truth. And what was his reason? Why, that he conceived he had the authority to do that which both Houses of Parliament had refused to do—namely, to provide additional churches and chapels in connection with the Church of England. Though this chapel was intended to be limited to the services for the burial of the dead, he thought he could make it a place for the celebration of all the services of the Church, and appoint a clergyman to officiate there. The parties who had opposed the right rev. Prelate strongly suspected that he contemplated such an object; but he had not, until that evening, made any avowal which confirmed that suspicion; on the contrary, he had promised in a letter not to allow any such proceeding to be adopted, lest the rights of the patrons and rectors of the parishes should be injured. That was one of the advantages of the discussion. Another advantage was, that they would be able to guard themselves against any further proceedings in this direction. It was desirable that the general principle should be established, that a Bishop should endeavour to carry out the law, and not that he should go beyond the law, and as, in the present case, refuse to consecrate the burial-ground, with or without a mortuary chapel, and thus deprive the inhabitants of the form of burial to which they had been accustomed. The right rev. Prelate might, under the same power as that enjoyed by other Bishops, have licensed the rector of the parish to perform funerals for such time as he might think fit; but he had refused to grant that licence. Instead of so doing, he had made another innovation, for he had suggested that it might be expedient that the burials should
966
take place in any adjoining parish. Now, if that suggestion were acted upon, the adjoining parishes would soon have to provide themselves with additional burial-grounds, and then the new form of consecration would have the same effect as it had in the other parish, and thus his scheme would be carried out, far and wide, and would end in the so-called sacrament for the dead. One reason why the parties felt so strongly on this subject was, that other Bishops had adopted the very course which the right rev. Prelate was asked, but refused to follow. Bishop Kaye, a most eminent and distinguished man, and one who was looked up to with respect by all, had consecrated a cemetery in Blandford, without any communion table, in the mortuary chapel, or taking the Holy Communion, or saying one word upon the subject; and the people, no doubt might, with great justice, rely upon the opinion of that distinguished man, and might fairly consider it a hardship to be compelled to obey a mandate, not in accordance with the opinion of the whole Bench of Bishops, or, indeed, with that of the majority of them. The complaint, in this case was, the parishioners were called upon to obey an episcopal mandate, which was not in accordance with the feelings of the great majority of the Bench of Bishops. He felt, however, bound to say that no one could accuse the right rev. Prelate of being overbearing in manner upon this question; and now, after so much serious irritation, a hope of peace was held out to them, and he was sure that, if the right rev. Prelate left the House in the same spirit in which he had concluded his speech, he believed that he would allow what had been a mandate to be put in the form of a request; and if that were done, and if the assurance were given by the right rev. Prelate that he had no ulterior objects with regard to those chapels, he believed that, in conjunction with his noble Friend (Lord Shaftesbury), he would be able to persuade the parishioners to act upon the views of the right rev. Prelate. There was at present a Bill upon the subject of burials before the other House of Parliament, and he trusted that his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) would take care that provisions were introduced into it by which the power of interference in these matters would no longer be vested in one man, who might, if he had autocratic notions, act entirely upon his own whims and fancies, and put a stop

967
to an important sanitary object because it did not happen to square with his own particular ecclesiastical views; and he would take that opportunity of giving notice that, if the noble and learned Lord did not introduce such a provision, he should feel it to be his duty to do so when that measure came under their Lordships' consideration. The great evil is the permission to the Bishops to act under the statute without any control or any responsibility. No man man can be trusted with powers without appeal, and, least of all, a Bishop, who can set up his conscience, and by some strange want of regard for the feelings of others, insist upon his opinion, and oblige the community to yield to him, or to revert to burial in unconsecrated ground. The consequences of the course taken by the right rev. Prelate is simply that the laity escape the expense of consecration fees, and must be buried either by a Dissenting minister or by a layman, but the clergy lose their burial fees, and cannot bury the dead in the unconsecrated ground, not, however, because there is any law or canon to prevent them, but because, after so doing, the Bishop may, by his monition, prevent a repetition of what he may call an offence, and so bring the clergyman under the penalty for disobedience to the order of the Bishop. This course does no harm to the laity, though it may hurt the feelings of those who think there is a value in the act of consecration. It does injure the clergy, and disturbs the usual course in the parish. He (Lord Portman) hoped that the law would soon he amended, and the laity be no longer left subject to the whims and fancies of any autocratic, irresponsible Bishop.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYexplained, that, in reference to licensing clergymen to celebrate the usual services of the Church in these cemetery chapels, he had never contemplated any such proceeding in opposition to the wishes of the board intrusted with their management—nor, indeed, could he do so. He could assure the noble Lord that he was animated by an earnest desire to avoid every possible cause of quarrel with the people of his diocese.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was desirable to put an end to disputes of this nature; but he thought that if any distinct legislation took place, it should be in accordance with the views of the right rev. Prelate, and not with those of the
968
noble Lord. Surely nothing could be more natural than that chapels in consecrated burial-grounds should have the look, and be fitted up like chapels belonging to the Church of England, and he could not understand a chapel without a communion table. Chapels even in private houses had communion tables provided. Every one must see the importance of preventing the disputes that occasionally arose between the burial-boards and the Bishops; but as far as he could see, they were more generally owing to the boards than the Bishops; and he had no doubt that if the right rev. Prelate had in this case conceded the communion table, some other concession would have immediately been demanded. He thought that these chapels ought to be made in all respects district chapels, suitable to the performance of the service—whatever that service may be—which was to be performed in them. There was a reason, apart from all considerations of ecclesiastical propriety, which made him (Lord Redesdale) think that cemetery chapels should have the piece of furniture objected to at Blandford. He could imagine the different members of a family ordinarily separated from each other, and some perhaps estranged, assembling together to commit a near relative to the earth. What could be more proper than that the minister should be enabled, if desired, to administer to that family the holy communion on a sad and solemn occasion, which might, perhaps, form the last time on which they would meet on earth?
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwould not have risen but for the pointed allusion which had been made to him by the noble Lord on his right (Lord Portman). The noble Lord would apparently draw a distinction in favour of his (the Bishop of Oxford's) liberality—between his practice and that of his right rev. Friend; but as no such distinction in fact existed he could not consent to accept a commendation to which he was not entitled, or to hear his right rev. Friend blamed at his expense. In point of fact he (the Bishop of Oxford) did insist upon their being a communion table in cemetery chapels. He wished to say a single word upon one or two points of law. In opening the question the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) said, that, inasmuch as all the services of the Church of England were not to be used in these cemetery chapels, but only the burial-service, therefore those chapels were not subjects

969
for consecration. He begged to ask the noble Earl where he found any authority whatever for making such a distinction? Why were any buildings which were set apart for the services of the Church of England consecrated? Simply because they were set apart for the worship of Almighty God, separated from all common and profane uses whatsoever, that prayer might be offered up in them, God's Word read in them, and God honoured in them. Prayer was offered at the burial service, God's Word was read at it, a special part of the service was required to be read in the Church, and not out of it, and what difference there could be, therefore, between these and other chapels he was at a loss to imagine. He could not himself appreciate the slightest distinction between the two; and against the authority of the noble Earl—whatever might be its weight in that House in matters ecclesiastical—he had no hesitation in citing the example of that great master in all ecclesiastical law, Bishop Gibson, who in the great work upon which his fame rested, distinctly laid down that the same service, mutatis mutandis, was to be used in consecrating cemetery chapels as in others. With regard to the importance of a communion table, the canon law laid it down that consecration was not complete until Holy Communion had been celebrated in the church; and the custom was, in all cases and in all dioceses where Communion was not celebrated at the time of consecration, to give notice that it would be celebrated on the following Sunday. That, however, was a modern abuse, and had been resorted to in order to shorten the service; it was, therefore, a "whim," not, as had been represented, to insist on the celebration at the time of the consecration, but to postpone it. The consecration of a chapel, in the sense in which the Church of England used the phrase, was the setting of it apart by a solemn service for the worship of God. Then, why, he asked, was not a cemetery chapel, in which God was to be worshipped, to be consecrated as much as any other chapel? He very much regretted to hear the noble Lord (Lord Portman) insinuate that his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Salisbury) intended to resort to the subtle dishonesty of hereafter converting these cemetery chapels into ordinary chapels for the performing of Divine Service. There was no man whose conduct had less provoked such a comment
970
than his right rev. Brother. But the noble Lord (Lord Portman) had dwelt upon that supposition, knowing well the effect which it was calculated to have upon their Lordships; because, no doubt, if the slightest power were gained by the course taken by his right rev. Friend to divert these chapels from their legitimate use, it would be a strong argument against that course. His right rev. Friend, however, had said nothing to warrant such a supposition. All that his right rev. Friend had said was, that possibly these chapels might hereafter be used as places in which other services might be performed, and he wished to provide for that possibility by having them built in the same fashion as other chapels; but he had not intimated that he would have the slightest power over that chapel when consecrated, more than over any other building in the parish. On the contrary, the Bishop had less power over a chapel than over any other building, inasmuch as he could not license any chapel in a parish against the will of the incumbent or to the injury of his interests; and in this case he would moreover have to obtain the consent of the burial-board. Instead, therefore, of smoothing the way to an act of dishonesty such as that implied against his right rev. Brother, the latter had in reality placed difficulties in the way of perpetrating the dishonesty which had been insinuated against him. And this would show the value of the gross insinuation thrown out by the noble Lord against his right rev. Brother, of whom he would say, that his whole public life was such as ought to have made him the last man to be exposed to so unworthy a suspicion. But what was the result of the whole question? The law laid it down that if a cemetery was constructed the burial-board might build a chapel on the ground, which chapel was to be for the performance of the burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England. Now, if this was to be a chapel for performing the service according to the rites of the Church of England, the question was, what did the Church of England mean by a chapel? [Lord PORTMAN: The words are, "may build" a chapel.] If the burial-board built a chapel. [Lord PORTMAN: "May build" a chapel.] If his noble Friend would have but one grain of that inestimable quality, patience—a quality so peculiarly necessary to the judicial mind and to the just settlement of all controverted

971
questions—he would endeavour to state as briefly and clearly as he could the argument he meant to adduce, and his noble Friend would, perhaps, then be better able to comprehend it. Did a chapel mean a consecrated or an unconsecrated building, a place set apart for the worship of God, or did it not? It would be observed that the Act provided for the ground being consecrated by the Bishop, when it was found by him to be in a proper condition for the purpose of interment, according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland. Then it was to be a chapel in the sense in which the Church of England understood that word, and they knew that as a rule every place in which the rites of the Church of England were performed must be a consecrated place. It was clearly the intention of the Act that this was to be one of those buildings, and his right rev. Friend in standing up for the rite of consecration was only doing that which the Act intended, and which the law of the Church of England required. The speech of his right rev. Brother had been one of conciliation from beginning to end, and he must say that after such a speech, and considering, too, the character of his right rev. Brother, it was not without surprise and indignation he had heard the noble Lord express the hope that in future legislation on this question care would be taken to prevent the "whims and fancies" of any one man being interposed in opposition to the wishes of others. Perhaps the noble Lord might think it matter of vaunting, and might be flattered by its going down to Blandford, that, in his place in the House of Lords, he had charged his right rev. Brother with authoritatively insisting on his "whims and fancies" in opposition to the people of that parish. He was sure, however, that in such a charge the noble Lord did not carry with him the sympathies or support of their Lordships. He had always understood that where an Act of Parliament said a public functionary might do a certain thing he might be called on to appear in the Court of Queen's Bench by a mandamus to answer for not performing the act; and, therefore, when the law in the present instance said the Bishop "may consecrate" the chapel, it was competent to the Court of Queen's Bench to entertain an application for a mandamus should the Bishop decline to do so. If the Bishops
972
of the Church did insist on their own "whims and fancies," contrary to the clear statements of the law, then by all means let future legislation be such as to impose a check on such courses; but it so happened that, in the present case, the course followed by his right rev. Friend was the rule of the Church of England, and therefore the "whim and the fancy" lay in consecrating without a communion table, and not with it. With regard to the alleged absence of a communion table at the consecration of the burial-ground at Woolwich, he begged to inform the noble Lord, as an eye-witness, that when he performed that consecration there was a table in the chapel. He was then not acting for himself, but for his Brother the Bishop of London; and therefore, had there been no table, it would not have been for him, under the circumstances, to object; but he could assure his noble Friend there was a very decent communion-table in use on that occasion. He was bound to say that the noble Earl who introduced this subject had raised fairly and simply the legal question involved in it, and he deeply lamented the tone which the noble Lord (Lord Portman) had imported into the discussion. The noble Lord, not content with the opportunities he had of delivering himself in their Lordships' House, had started up as an orator and employed his great influence to excite upon this question the people of the parish of Blandford. In the speech which he addressed to his fellow-parishioners, however, he seemed to have said little on his own authority. The noble Lord told them that, "if he was rightly informed," so-and-so had happened—that "he believed" and "had heard" that such-and-such was the case; but could any one have credited that on a question of this sort the noble Lord would have proceeded on hearsay information only? He felt confident that if the noble Lord were to apply his powers of peace-making with only half the vigour that he had used in creating division, the difficulties which surrounded this matter would entirely disappear. His right rev. Brother had only asked that the parishioners of Blandford would have regard to his scruples on a matter which, in his eyes, involved a question of duty; but from the first it was regarded by the noble Lord and his friends as a matter of personal offence, a matter of unnecessary suspicion, and the supposition of this was the

973
beginning of a train of evils. If the report of the noble Lord's speech at Blandford, as it appeared in the papers, was correct, the noble Lord must have spoken in a tone of disregard and levity utterly unworthy his high position. He was represented, but probably inaccurately represented, to have said that "they had better take care what they were about, for if they let the communion table in, the next thing demanded would be a picture of St. Peter at the other end." [Lord PORTMAN: Hear, hear!] Then that was a misrepresentation of the noble Lord. He was happy to have this disclaimer; he could not believe such a statement to be correct, especially after the very solemn assurances which the noble Lord had put forth of his desire for peace. The noble Lord was his debtor, therefore, for having been the means of getting this gross misrepresentation corrected in the face of the House. He had put that misrepresentation down as an injury to the feelings of his right rev. Brother, who had only discharged what he thought a sacred duty, and he had been grieved to think what great mischief might be done by a man in the position of the noble Lord sending forth absurd and un-authentic rumours about images of St. Peter. Considering that this question involved such important matters as the interests of peace and harmony, and the unprejudiced administration of the duties of his office by a Bishop, he deeply regretted the sort of scene which had that night been unfolded in the representations made by the noble Lord, and he earnestly trusted that, as his right rev. Brother had shown a spirit of perfect forbearance and straightforwardness in the course he had taken, he would have the sympathy and support—as, indeed, had already been extended to him—of every part of their Lordships' House.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that the right rev. Prelate had gone somewhat too far in assuming that he had intended by his cheer to deny the fact of having made an allusion to the picture of St. Peter. What he did say on that subject was, that he considered the present proceeding of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Salisbury) to be only the beginning of a course which, if suffered to pass unchecked, might lead to greater demands, and that the right rev. Prelate might, by and bye, if he thought proper, ask for liberty to put a picture of St. Peter in his chapel. Why did he say
974
this? His reason for saying so was to be found in the charge of that right rev. Prelate, a passage of which he read to the House—and in which the right rev. Prelate claimed to be a descendant of the Apostles. Having read that extract, the observation he made upon it was, that it was quite natural that any man should wish to have a picture of his ancestors about him.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he had the honour of belonging to the diocese of the right rev. Prelate to whom reference had been made. The noble Baron (Lord Portman) had left their Lordships to infer that there was a strong feeling of opposition to that right rev. Prelate, and that the whole of the laity in his diocese were opposed to him.
LORD PORTMAN: I never said anything of the kind.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHhad heard of no opposition against the right rev. Prelate, nor was he aware of any necessity of any party feeling existing on one side or the other. He knew that the object of the right rev. Prelate had always been to produce peace and quietness in the town with which he (the Marquess of Bath) was more immediately connected.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid, he had given notice of his intention to present a petition of a similar character to the one under discussion, but he wished to postpone doing so for the present. It was highly desirable that something should be done to settle the dispute in this respect. The proceedings in some of these cemeteries were most disgraceful. Funerals by clerks and sextons were not uncommon in the West; and nothing could be more degrading to the Church of England than that such proceedings should be possible.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid he thought the requirements of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Salisbury) were no more than were reasonable, for it was only proper that the chapels in cemeteries should be regarded as sacred edifices; and to that end they should be consecrated. He thought the right rev. Prelate had only done his duty in this case, and that he had throughout pursued a conciliatory and Christian course in strict conformity with the rules of the Church of which he was a minister; and he (Viscount Dungannon) regretted that in the heat of debate some observations which he thought were entirely

975
uncalled for had been applied to the right rev. Prelate by a noble Lord opposite.
LORD PORTMAN, in explanation, was understood to say that after the speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) who had just spoken, nothing would induce him, as a layman, to budge further in the matter.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHexpressed a hope that the noble Lord would act; but that he would think before he acted. He besought the noble Lord, as an old friend, to think well before he refused to take any step in the matter.
LORD PORTMAN: I shall not act at all.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: Oh, but do act.
Petition to lie on the Table.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, it was not necessary to enter into any lengthened discussion of Italian affairs in putting to the Secretary of State (the Earl of Clarendon) the question of which he had given notice, though at an earlier hour of the evening and in a fuller House he might have been tempted to go at some little length into the events that had produced them. The subject of that question was of very considerable importance, for it was notorious that events of great gravity, which had more than once been adverted to in Parliament, had taken place in the north of Italy. Those events did not merely affect the happiness and tranquillity of the States in which they had occurred, but they also touched the honour and interests of this country, inasmuch as they were connected with the general condition of Europe and with treaty engagements to which Great Britain was a party. The circumstances to which he referred had been distinctly brought under the notice of France and England by the Ministers Plenipotentiary who represented Sardinia at the late Congress at Paris. Two notes had been presented by them to the Governments of France and England, as the Ministers of the country, which from its geographical position and its political associations felt itself deeply concerned in the matter, for the purpose of drawing attention to the State of Italy and of pointing out its bearings upon the other European Powers. With these documents their Lordships and the public in
976
general wore already acquainted; for versions of them, no doubt sufficiently accurate, had already been published; but he thought it was right that an authentic copy of such communications should be furnished to Parliament There might have been reasons for delaying their production, but, considering the time which had elapsed since the communication took place, he did not think there could be any reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the table copies of the notes and of the replies which had been given to them. He deemed it most important that Parliament should be acquainted with the tone and attitude of the Government of this country upon a subject of so much gravity, and whether or not a discussion of the question might be desirable in Parliament would depend in a great measure upon the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government and the nature of their replies. He hoped the necessity for any discussion on this subject in Parliament might be avoided, but undoubtedly, unless affairs assumed a more satisfactory aspect, it would be desirable that they should be considered before the close of the Session. He begged to ask if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to lay upon the table the Notes of the 22nd of March and the 16th of April, presented by the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries at Paris to the English and French Plenipotentiaries, together with the answers which may have been given, to those Notes?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships some apology for not having sooner laid upon the table the Notes to which the noble Marquess refers. Perhaps, as they had appeared in the newspapers, I did not attach to them so much importance as my noble Friend seems to do. With respect to answers to those Notes, acting with the French Plenipotentiaries, we came to an agreement that, as we had so fully and entirely discussed the whole question vivâ voce, and at repeated interviews, with the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries at Paris, it was not necessary to send any written answer. The first of the Notes was, in fact, a request, on the part of the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries, that the question of Italy should be brought before the Congress; and the best answer we could give was the answer we did give by doing what the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries asked—as

977
your Lordships are aware the affairs of Italy were brought before the Congress. The second Note intimated that a satisfactory conclusion had not been arrived at by the Congress upon the Italian question, and asked for further discussion. It was of course necessary that the Sirdinian Plenipotentiaries should place on record something which would satisfy the Chambers and the people of Sardinia that they had called attention to the subject; and as Count Cavour understood that certain measures would be adopted for carrying out some of the objects he had in view, it did not appear necessary to send a written answer to this Note. However, after I returned home it came to my knowledge that it would be agreeable to the Sardinian Government to have some written record of the opinions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the foreign occupation of Italy and the desirability of its ceasing. I could not have the least hesitation in complying with that wish, as I could only repeat on paper, and in the name of Her Majesty's Government, what I had said at Paris. I therefore wrote an answer, which I now lay upon your Lordships' table, together with the two Notes. It certainly may be necessary, before Parliament separates, to have a fuller discussion upon Italian affairs; but such a discussion might be injurious at the present moment, for it must be remembered that we are not the principal Powers interested in the question. The armies now occupying the Italian territory do not belong to us. It is only Austria and France who can take measures for withdrawing those troops; and after having so long occupied the territory, and created a state of things which exists under the shelter and protection of foreign troops, those two Powers are bound to take care, before they withdraw their forces, that they can be withdrawn without danger. I believe, I may say without impropriety, that both those Governments are sincerely desirous of withdrawing their armies, and are at this moment actively preparing to adopt that course.
House adjourned till To-morrow.